Although I would argue there is a point where there should be a ceiling. Let's start with a billion and work down.
Although I would argue there is a point where there should be a ceiling. Let's start with a billion and work down.
@RealGene @mstarace ehh, I mean… it really *should* put a ceiling on wealth if it wants to continue functioning. But it doesn’t intrinsically do that, that’s true.
Norway is a shithole afaik, and the only reason people are fairly wealthy on average over there is because of oil money. terrible example for a social democracy
Indeed. At some point, the simple fact some people are much richer than others is what *creates* poverty by simply allowing them to outbid everyone else.
In housing: say you have a plot of land in a sought after city centre. You could either build ten small houses or a big luxury one on it. If the rich guy can pay 700k and normal folks can pay 100k, you're better off making 10 houses. If the rich guy can pay 2M though...
@RealGene @mstarace I suspect it does lower the ceiling (are the richest in Norway as rich as those in the states) and there's no problem with lowering the ceiling, I don't like how it implies we shouldn't lower the ceiling.
Lowering the ceiling to raise the floor mean rich people get less power in exchange for lots of people being able to live.
Still capitalism, however. And still planetwrecking colonial imperialism.
Which is why all of those very nice social democracies are seeing accelerating inequality and rising fascism, because they've always been on the same trajectory to corporate technofeudalism with all the rest of us. Their socialized safety nets are being dismantled by neoliberal-supercharged privatization and corruption.
Just takes a bit longer for the cracks to show.
@mstarace I think of social democracy as "hard to be poor, hard to be rich, easy to be middle-class". And I kinda like it.
to be fair, that should apply to any socialist country, but social democracies seems to be the most successful example rn