TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#270576: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:49:28 PM

Why should nobody be as rich as Bezos?

Leviticus 19:34
Oruka Since: Dec, 2018
#270577: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:50:03 PM

"I'm going to be resentful as hell when a guy who got evicted from next door for losing his job gets a better home than mine for free."

A lot of the points you bring up have been addressed and resolved by existing homeless housing programs, and. I'm sure that, for instance, you know that welfare fraud is a marginal phenomenon, and that when charities get scammed, it's usually not by their recipients, and that, if a salaried person can't afford a better house than the tiny minimalistic ones given for free, the problem does not lie with the HHP.

More importantly, I see I've been unclear; I meant to say that Bezos' money could solve the problem, by getting taxed, along with that of others like him, and wielded through the government's mighty coordination and accountability power.

Edited by Oruka on Feb 8th 2019 at 1:59:05 AM

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#270578: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:50:34 PM

Among other things, it's because getting that much money revolves around exploiting other people to a ridiculous degree, and it gives them way too much power.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#270579: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:52:02 PM

The scary thing with Trump running for President is that it's opened the door for all the billionares to try their luck at the Presidency,wouldn't surprise me if Jeff Bezos has contemplated running for office

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#270580: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:52:52 PM

Think less "nobody should be that wealthy or successful" and more "the mechanisms that allowed Bezos to exploit and step on that many people in order to get that money shouldn't be allowed to exist."

Oh really when?
Protagonist506 from Oregon Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#270581: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:54:07 PM

@Le Garcon: That's an argument that's a lot more fair IMO than simply saying "nobody should have more than x dollars".

Leviticus 19:34
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#270582: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:55:31 PM

I meant to say that Bezos' money could solve the problem, by getting taxed, along with that of others like him, and wielded through the government's mighty coordination and accountability power.

Yes, that's accurate. I'm not saying that the problems I listed are insurmountable or not worth addressing, just that governments are much better equipped to take them on than a single person, no matter how rich.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#270583: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:56:08 PM

Yeah, claiming the actual amount of money is inherently unethical or something strikes me as focusing on the wrong thing. Focusing on the things that someone has to do to get that much is better.

Maybe billionaires would still be around with fair wages and working conditions, but that doesn't mostly seem to be the case, if I'm reading the room right.

Edited by LSBK on Feb 8th 2019 at 3:56:30 AM

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#270584: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:57:13 PM

It shouldn't be about "deserving" the money. That's the Randian trap, turning the debate into one of the moral worth of individuals. The focal point should be social utility. Money isn't a thing that is "owned"; it is a means to achieve goals. If the money is not in the ideal place for those goals to be achieved, then it needs to be moved around. Governments do that by taxing (and other means), and the very rich can afford that taxation more than the poor and middle class.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 8th 2019 at 4:58:57 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#270585: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:58:02 PM

The implication is of course that by having that much money you'd had to exploit and destroy a lot of people in order to get it.

There's no ethical way that high up ladder.

Oh really when?
Oruka Since: Dec, 2018
#270586: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:59:30 PM

@ Protagonist: Because that wealth comes from hoarding the plus value of other people's hard work. Because it gives them an unconscionable ability to steer the fates of countless people, without them having a say in it, not just through spending, but through sheer potential. Because it loses all proportion to the utility they provide with their own work. In fact, it promotes rent seeking. Because happiness grows logarithmically with wealth and it's immoral for them to buy a little more happiness for themselves with wealth that could otherwise make a huge increase in the happiness of a huge number of people. I could go on.

[up]Hypothetically there could be, if the product they provide is massively cost-effective at problem-solving.

Edited by Oruka on Feb 8th 2019 at 2:03:12 AM

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#270587: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:59:41 PM

[up][up] Again, you're falling into the trap of ceding the moral context of the argument to the Objectivists. Don't do that.

[up] It is likely, but by no means absolutely certain, that the accumulation of wealth beyond certain levels represents a form of monopoly rent, where people in privileged positions (such as owning an IP or a brand) extract far more than the marginal value of their labor from those positions. To call this immoral is somewhat puerile. It is sub-optimal if your objective is to make as many people as well off as possible.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 8th 2019 at 5:03:30 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#270588: Feb 8th 2019 at 1:59:46 PM

I find that to be an extremely questionable assertion.

If you own the world's largest company that makes artificial organs and solar power and cheap foodstuffs that are nutritious then saying, "you must be evil" is the product of a superficial reading of economics.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Parable Since: Aug, 2009
#270589: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:00:04 PM

If I recall Seattle tried to raise taxes on companies like Amazon specifically to fight homelessness, but Amazon screamed bloody murder and forced the city to back down.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#270590: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:01:06 PM

Mind you, he isn't a good example...

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#270591: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:03:57 PM

The implication is of course that by having that much money you'd had to exploit and destroy a lot of people in order to get it.

There's no ethical way that high up ladder.

This is a better way of stating what I was getting at.

If you have a genius business model, yeah, you may do well. But those profits should result in raises for your employees; careful, responsible expansion of your goods and services; increased focus on ethical business practices and uplifting the communities your business operates in.

Because your consumers and your employees made those profits possible, not just you and your genius idea alone.

Edited by wisewillow on Feb 8th 2019 at 5:04:25 AM

Oruka Since: Dec, 2018
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#270593: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:08:48 PM

The problem with the dialogue surrounding the ethicality of being billionaires is that they're one of the symptoms rather than the etiology of the disease. A society with a lot of billionaires may, depending on the circumstances, actually be the fairer and more egalitarian one, if the wealth is being spread around or if it's just a case of inflation making billions be an "average" income, compared to one where only a handful make it that big.

Edited by AlleyOop on Feb 8th 2019 at 5:31:11 AM

HailMuffins Since: May, 2016 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
#270594: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:10:54 PM

Basically, it takes hundreds if not thousands of people to make any company or product massively successful, but only a small few of those who work truly get to enjoy the benefits of that labor.

And, as someone pointed out up there, big companies will shut down any attempt to make use of their money for positive social change if it so much as make a dent in their earnings.

CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#270595: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:15:52 PM

Which is....not always true.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#270596: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:17:32 PM

One shouldn't equate wealth with moral worth one way or the other. The poor aren't poor because they are necessarily bad people. The rich aren't rich because they are necessarily bad people.

I get it. It's easy to hate billionaires. Really easy.

Disgusted, but not surprised
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#270597: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:20:04 PM

The rich aren't rich because they are necessarily bad people.

I get it. It's easy to hate billionaires. Really easy.

Name a billionaire who didn’t get their wealth via exploitation of others and/or the systemic inequality of our current system.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#270598: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:22:45 PM

[up]First you have to list everything you would consider exploitation and systemic inequalities. Then maybe I could look up everyone on the planet who has a net worth of a billion or more to see if they've been accused and convicted of such.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Disasturbator
#270599: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:23:12 PM

Bill Gates?

have a listen and have a link to my discord server
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#270600: Feb 8th 2019 at 2:26:22 PM

[up][up] Paying wages that aren’t a living wage. Using sweatshops. Cutting jobs rather than executive bonuses. Etc.


Total posts: 417,856
Top