Stop thinking about the numbers. Think about what money functionally is.
Money, once you’re rich enough to get/give serious loans not having to do with your immediate needs (food, shelter, etc), is planning points. Its voting shares in how we organize the world. Explicitly, by design, our production and use of resources. Implicitly, and more recently in some places explicitly, our culture.
Do you want a system in which this man has that? Do you want a system in which a mentally I’ll ketamine addicted Nazi with an IQ that wouldn’t crack room temp in Celsius could ever be given such an outsized say in how the world works?
Do you think the next hundred richest assholes are better?
Do you think this is worth the promise, already broken, that if you work hard and save youll be able to sleep inside and have an otherwise nice life?
The promise that there will be men with guns to protect whatever table scraps you’ve managed to snap up from less able scavengers who might envy your station in life?
Do you think any part of these systems, this market fetishism, is rational, or has connection with reality? Is there a single place ‘market’ solutions have been applied that didn’t make everything it touched shitty, surreal, or both?
I do agreed with your point, but I find your rhetoric a bit perplexing. If you want to invoke rationalism, maybe don’t prelude that with egregious exaggerations like ‘room temperature in Celsius IQ’ (20-25)? Also, all of that working up just to land on “Vote blue no matter who” - which basically amounts to harm reduction - and then acting like that’ll solve the problem? You argue like a revolutionary just to advocate for the most moderate action. Or did I miss the part where the Democrats are committed to actually quitting, or at least substantially reigning in, capitalism? Or even stopping people from being trillionaires?
Stop thinking about the numbers. Think about what money functionally is.
Money, once you’re rich enough to get/give serious loans not having to do with your immediate needs (food, shelter, etc), is planning points. Its voting shares in how we organize the world. Explicitly, by design, our production and use of resources. Implicitly, and more recently in some places explicitly, our culture.
Do you want a system in which this man has that? Do you want a system in which a mentally I’ll ketamine addicted Nazi with an IQ that wouldn’t crack room temp in Celsius could ever be given such an outsized say in how the world works?
Do you think the next hundred richest assholes are better?
Do you think this is worth the promise, already broken, that if you work hard and save youll be able to sleep inside and have an otherwise nice life?
The promise that there will be men with guns to protect whatever table scraps you’ve managed to snap up from less able scavengers who might envy your station in life?
Do you think any part of these systems, this market fetishism, is rational, or has connection with reality? Is there a single place ‘market’ solutions have been applied that didn’t make everything it touched shitty, surreal, or both?
Vote blue no matter who, or this happens again.
I do agreed with your point, but I find your rhetoric a bit perplexing. If you want to invoke rationalism, maybe don’t prelude that with egregious exaggerations like ‘room temperature in Celsius IQ’ (20-25)? Also, all of that working up just to land on “Vote blue no matter who” - which basically amounts to harm reduction - and then acting like that’ll solve the problem? You argue like a revolutionary just to advocate for the most moderate action. Or did I miss the part where the Democrats are committed to actually quitting, or at least substantially reigning in, capitalism? Or even stopping people from being trillionaires?