The Great Reset

[WESTman]

Criticizes corporations...

"Inject yourself with this corporate product with no liability shield and have paid billions for criminal misconduct in the past or you can't have access to public services."

[Ka-El]

Thanks for participating.
I'm sure you tried your best.

[nucksRnum1]

It’s a struggle to understand why Leftists are anxious to tear down existing wealth producing corporations but are willing to take part in wealth redistribution from said corporations.

It's a struggle for you because your perspective is one that sees any change from the status quo as "socialism", and that is effectively blinding you to the true nature of the problems we are facing. In my opinion, environmental decline and inequality in all its forms are two of our biggest challenges currently, and both are manifestations of a concentration of wealth in the hands of a very, very few who are intent on hanging on that that wealth and the power and control it gives them. Until we can get past petty partisan squabbling and start looking at the real problems and their solutions we will continue on our current course.

THIS!!!!! ^^^^^^

[tantor]

Ah yes that terrible capitalism! The system that lifted more humans on the planet out of poverty then all others. The system under which anyone with the determination and hard work can become wealthy. The system that has advanced inventions are fostered the entrepreneurial spirit. The system that has allowed the public and private sector to find solutions to problems that governments could never find.

I am dead against crony capitalism but capitalism in it's intended form is a beautiful thing and very self regulating. You start a business and you offer a service or a product and how well it does depends on the consumer. If your product is of low quality, or your service is poor the next company that can do it better wins the business! This is how quality is improved, prices are more competitive and a company is held to account for there product and practices.This idea of equality is nonsense! Why should the people with little ambition or lack of work ethic get equal wealth to those who are ambitious, who put in the mountains of extra work, who take the risks and create the jobs?

If you want a certain level of wealth then work for it! No one should get a free ride or be rewarded with the same level of benefit as those who put their blood and sweat into creating their own wealth. This is literally what drives invention and creation and moves us forward. Who is going to bother to invest, create and invent if there is no greater benefit than the neighborhood garbage collector or the gas station attendant? We will never all be equal! There will always be someone smarter, better looking, stronger or healthier that is just a fact of life. This notion that the employees of a company should receive as much reward as the owner is ridiculous. The employees don't have to put up the capital to start the company, they don't have to pay the bills, insurance or legal costs. They don't have to take any of the risk and they didn't have to imagine or come up with any of the intellectual work that allowed the company to bloom into existence.

The Obamas and Trudeaus of the world lol, what have they done other than create mountains of red tape and regulations driving inflation and spending like drunken sailors creating programs that suck the wealth out of the country and rarely inspiring the recipients to become financially independent citizens who put back into the wealth of the country. Ya Biden sure has turned around the economy since Trump lololol, he's turned it straight into the ground. People that can't get ahead in North America are not in that position because Walmart makes billions and the only reason they make that much is because the people go there! Everyone could stop shopping there tomorrow and they would be crushed inside a week.

Under socialist and progressive governments instead of powerful corporations you have a filthy rich powerful and corrupt government which as history has shown time and time again ends horrifically for the people. They get equality alright, they get equally poor or equally dead. Government should be small and local and held fully accountable to the people not given the power to put it's population under it's thumb while it enriches itself all the while inciting division among it's citizens so that there is little likely hood of them joining together to push back against government over reach.

Never should the likes of Pelosi, Shumer and others have been able to hold office for 40 plus years and become multi millionaires while their cities and districts turn into festering dumps of poverty and disrepair.The people should not have to give up half of their earnings in taxes for a greedy self serving government who hands out some free scraps (that we paid for) and then wants us to praise them for it. I wonder how much better off everyone would be if they got to keep their hard earned money instead of being robbed for the supposed infrastructure that barely materializes or for funding a study on how the Woolly wood grub became woolly or other such ridiculous nonsense. Yes there are some that have stupid unnecessary amounts of money and perhaps there should be a mechanism for having some of that excess absorbed into healthcare, infrastructure and education among other things.

I would like to see something like "Ok you have made your first billion so now you need to build a school before you generate more wealth" It would be much more transparent than just more taxation where money goes into the ether and we don't really know where it is spent. Our tax dollars should be utilized in a similar manner where we get the receipts none of this we tax you and trust us we are doing the right thing with it BS. Society as a whole has become a big group of children that now allow daddy government to smack them around and put them on a timeout at their whim. We are supposed to be in control and government is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. If it were this way then we could eliminate crony capitalism and bring an end to the super mergers and to big to fail companies that monopolize everything and get to use the title of being capitalist. There is no capitalism when giant super companies have total control of a market so that no competition can enter said market. It is no small wonder that capitalism get a bad rap when these kinds of corporations get to fly under it's banner and people think that this is what is endorsed by conservatives. Rhinos yes actual conservatives no, only true and free markets deserve the flag of capitalism.

There should be an immediate end to lobbyists as well, they only funding during an election cycle that should be allowed is say an election fund collected during a parties stay in office and it should have a cap so that all parties involved have exactly the same amount of funds for their campaign not a penny more. That way a party can only get elected on their platform and by their own merits. No more favoritism for certain groups and corporations, no more kickbacks, insider trading tips or legislation written for special consideration! The system is set up to run on corruption the way it is now. Every government official from a judge on the bench, to the chief of police, to the premier to the prime minister should be held accountable to the people and the people should have the power to remove them from their position if the public agrees to the need for said action. Only then will we have a functioning and honest government and not a moment before otherwise you are all fighting over whose criminal is the is the most palpable and illicit s the smallest gag reflex.

[nucksRnum1]

I felt like I was sitting through a propaganda lecture. What we have now is not capitalism. At all. And what we have in its place is corrupt. Everyone sees that besides the egomaniacs that think they will achieve a pipe dream. Doing whatever it takes to do so. Because "its just business - not personal".

[fluffy]

@ tantor:

I can tell you put some thought into your post and I thank you for that, nice to see some real discussion instead of name calling and buzzwords.

As much as your post tended to ramble a bit, you did come back to the meat of the matter a few times, too much power and control in the hands of too few. While I believe that our system is good in theory, a blend of free market capitalism and social programs, it has gone off the deep end in terms not being a thing of benefit for all of our society's members. In a capitalist economy there will always be a need for a working class, the factory workers and hospitality workers and agricultural workers, basically lower wage earners in jobs that do not require a high level of education. I readily cast aside the attitude that "If you're not rich you're either stupid or lazy" as prejudicial and outdated, as I can see that without our working class we would live in a different world. The basis of social equality is a recognition that, in theory, everyone plays an essential part and should be recognized for that. (I say "in theory" as there are many coasting on the efforts of others, parasites that are by no means restricted to any one wealth class) The basis of social equality is that as society progresses, so should all its members. We just don't have that right now. We have a system that rewards the rich with more money, and is intent on pushing the lower economic classes further back down the scale through wage stagnation, reduced benefits and precarious employment. Research has found that income inequality is responsible for higher rates of health and social problems, a diminishing social safety net for those in need, and a general reduction in satisfaction and happiness that in turn lowers economic growth. Ours is a system run by a very few for the benefit of that same very few. And don't even get me started on environmental neglect, our plundering of the very thing that keeps us alive for the sake of a thicker bottom line.

We don't need to get rid of capitalism, we just need better capitalism.

[Ka-El]

Exactly. This is not an argument against capitalism, and it is definitely not an argument for socialism (contrary to the efforts of the fearmongers). It is not even an argument against "wealth producing" corporations. It is an argument for balance, for a system where all get to participate, and where we keep up with our infrastructure and environmental needs required for our continued existence. The costs of not investing in these issues continues to grow (demands on health care, policing, infrastructure repair and replacement). Who is going to pay for this?

[fluffy]

My take on the World Economic Forum and the "Great Reset" is that it is totally undeserving of the way it is being played up as a "threat" to our way of life. Well it is in a way, but not the way many will have us believe. They are not passing laws, they are not a government or a "conspiracy of elites", it's a think tank with suggestions on how we can move forward with a more inclusive and environmentally responsible perspective. In that aspect it is a threat to those who would seek to maintain the status quo of rule by financial privilege, but in my view they are the problem that needs correcting. Nothing wrong with a free market as long as that freedom is used responsibly. The WEF seeks the support of governments and captains of industry because realistically, these are the people with the power to invoke change. If I may be so bold as to suggest that the organized and not-so-organized efforts to villainize the WEF are simply being manipulated by those same financial elites who would see their power usurped. There's nothing wrong with being rich, exceptional achievements should be rewarded, but when you begin to see yourself as "better than" measured only by the thickness of your wallet then something is missing, especially if those who helped you amass that fortune are not sharing in that success, and especially if you are exacting a price on the environment with no plan or even any intent to repay that bill.

[rustled]

Exactly. This is not an argument against capitalism, and it is definitely not an argument for socialism (contrary to the efforts of the fearmongers). It is not even an argument against "wealth producing" corporations. It is an argument for balance, for a system where all get to participate, and where we keep up with our infrastructure and environmental needs required for our continued existence.

It's just an argument against "the wrong kind of capitalism" - to which the antidote is "more government involvement in the redistribution of wealth". (Just don't, for heaven's sake, refer to this sort of government-directed redistribution as "socialism", i.e. "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" (per Oxford) - even though what's being suggested IS regulation and, often, ownership "by the community as a whole". No, no, no! We're not countering "the wrong kind of capitalism" with "the right kind of socialism", we're definitely not arguing for that, nudge nudge, wink wink! Let us refer to what we are promoting to counter this "wrong kind of capitalism" as "balance". Yeah, that colour of lipstick should disguise the pig. People don't read Animal Farm anymore, so maybe no one will notice how human those lipsticked pigs are becoming.)

The costs of not investing in these issues continues to grow (demands on health care, policing, infrastructure repair and replacement). Who is going to pay for this?

Never mind how the "progressive" policy prescriptions for "investing in these issues" to achieve "balance" have always, first and most drastically, impacted those who can least afford the "cure", though! Eyes on the ball, ignore how these policies to achieve "balance" have contributed to the increase in negative outcomes. Sacrifices from those we're "helping" are always necessary "for the greater good". [/sarcasm]

[fluffy]

It's just an argument against "the wrong kind of capitalism" - to which the antidote is "more government involvement in the redistribution of wealth".

Yes, unless the pipe dream that the market can be "self regulating" can bear some actual fruit other than the rich getting richer. You consistently tug the discussion back towards the "impending evil of socialism" when the simple fact remains that our current system of capitalism to benefit the few is not working for anyone but those few. We don't need socialism in the form you keep threatening, we need a form of capitalism that doesn't leave the vast majority in a state of economic regression.

[Ka-El]

Rigid adherence to hyperbole and black or white thinking reveals just how extremist some people are in their partisan viewpoints. No room for give and take and no interest in reaching consensus (I do wonder how these extremists suggest we actually pay the bills now coming due under the failed neoliberal paradigm). This type of extremist thinking only serves to further polarize and divide us playing right into the hands of the current right disinformation campaign. Interesting times ahead.

[liisgo]

I struggle to understand why it became acceptable for GOVERNMENTS to use any and all means to find "infinity and beyond" TAXES on the backs of taxpayers

Taxes get high because of conservative incompetence. They give breaks to the elite and slash taxes creating a revenue shortage. Then another Government has to fix everything again. Just like Carter had to. And Obama had to. And now Biden has to. And also what Trudeau has faced and has to clean up. The old conservative ways of shooting yourself in the foot and bringing as many stupid people down with you never works.

Do you actually believe your own words?
4 of the richest man in the world, stated they actually supported Biden in the last election. Supported with their votes, their money, and their influence over the weak of society that they now own. The direct gain from that support made them the largest increase in their net worth we have ever seen. And you need to push the idea that all is being fixed up now?
Holy crap man, talk about living in an illusion of some fairy tale where sheep and wolves play freely.
Most of us do not see any of this being a one single political party thing, but more an actual failure of all of them all at the cost to all us regular folk. The rich own these loser politicians, direct them to do what they want. But the sad part is that so many are OK with letting it happen.
Like the weakest politician north america has ever seen, (Mrs. Jt) is going to actually stand up and fight against the power that owns him. Please post all the proof that our loser leader is making such a big stance against the super rich. Im interested.

[rustled]

It's just an argument against "the wrong kind of capitalism" - to which the antidote is "more government involvement in the redistribution of wealth".

Yes, unless the pipe dream that the market can be "self regulating" can bear some actual fruit other than the rich getting richer.

I don't share your belief in dreams - best we deal with reality square on.

IMO, there are plenty of pipe dreams people here don't want to let go of. One of those pipe dreams is that greater reliance on the government as the entity best able to improve opportunities for people to better themselves will somehow succeed better than it has previously - apparently on faith alone.

You consistently tug the discussion back towards the "impending evil of socialism"

Yet I've never used that term. You consistently read that into what I write, so you can avoid acknowledging the obvious risks in what you propose as a "solution" or an "alternative", and the obvious negative consequences of public policies you've tacitly supported - as with the example of ethanol. The rich got richer because of the opportunity provided by gullible idealists, who enabled capitalists to capitalize at the expense of the poor and the environment. Ignoring how government policy promoted by gullible idealists set those wheels in motion is pointless.

when the simple fact remains that our current system of capitalism to benefit the few is not working for anyone but those few.

It is working for most of us. You'd have us believe all but a few of us are living hand-to-mouth poverty - one of the classic hallmarks of socialist propaganda - and that only government intervention can "fix" this.

We don't need socialism in the form you keep threatening, we need a form of capitalism that doesn't leave the vast majority in a state of economic regression.

You seem to me to want desperately to believe I'm "threatening" something other than you're proposing. What you're proposing is socialism - i.e. "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" (per Oxford).

If that's not what you are proposing, not what you support, perhaps use your own words to explain what you envision without relying on slogans and hyperbole (e.g. "leave the vast majority in a state of economic regression"), and without pretending government interventions and progressive policies have played no significant part in building the current socio-economic reality.

[Ka-El]

The current socioeconomic reality is that we have a crisis in homelessness and addiction that is requiring ever increasing funding for health care, first responders, enforcement and policing. Who pays for this reactionary spending? The current socioeconomic reality is that we have large groups of people who are marginalized, not participating in our economy and reliant on social assistance. Who pays for this reactionary spending under the "hey, I'm doing all right" mantra. The current socioeconomic reality is that we have long neglected and failing infrastructure that is going to cost billions to repair. Who is going to pay for this reactionary spending? All we get from the extremists is that every idea outside of their own rigid partisan viewpoint is "a move closer to socialism" while being unable or unwilling to provide any possible courses of action of their own. They try to say that they are not arguing for the status quo but they have nothing else to offer other than preaching "first do no harm" while the costs of denialism and inaction continue to grow. Who's going to pay for all this reactionary spending? The bills are coming due. Is their plan to keep kicking the can down the road and leave this mess to the next generation? Not much of a plan in my opinion.

[Ka-El]

Most of us do not see any of this being a one single political party thing, but more an actual failure of all of them all at the cost to all us regular folk. The rich own these loser politicians, direct them to do what they want. But the sad part is that so many are OK with letting it happen.

Exactly, and they see the argument of making government accountable to the needs of society as a whole as "a move closer to socialism". This is nothing more than a deflection based on an unwillingness to recognize there are any failings inherent in their own preferred ideology.