Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
Ei seu caralhudo!
Use the original meme of Nazaré Tedesco (Senhora do Destino)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7QA0ogagEc
Or else we will make you come to Brazil and have 100% free healthcare and free public school/grad school!
Also we will make you watch "novelas" (brazilian drama) like Kubanacan and O Beijo do Vampiro!
They say that because when they get more money they can invest it, grow it for later. They ridicule spending it because if you're able, investment IS the smarter decision, but that assumes all your needs are already met. The Capital class can't even imagine their needs not being met, only wants that they can afford to wait for.
The rich are so fucking stingy with their money that they have a private island and private city with no septic system and instead want to pump it into the nearby community at the other community's expense.
Like what the hell is the point of all that money if they are so utterly unwilling to spend any of it?
Next on Ask a Dragon!
How do you think they get rich?
You don't get rich from being stingy. You get rich by abusing workers.
The ultra wealthy have a tendency to just hoard it, accumulating far more than they will even use, and act like that is normal and the purpose of it.
Good time to remind there exist two "models" of economy:
Commodity- Money- Commodity (where money is used for the sole purpose of getting commodities like house, food, clothes, healthcare, ...)
Money-Commodity-Money (Where the purpose of money is to turn commodities in more money, so the end goal is getting more money).
The first one is okay. Humans always did it.
The second one is a disease that starter with what we call "nowadays" Capitalism.
I'm saying that because I see on real life a lot of people conflating the two and thinking that "ending capitalism"=="ending comerce/trade/barter" when the truth is that "ending capitalism"=="ending hoarding wealth like a dragon"
They accumulate wealth because it gives them power. Power is what drives their greed. Greed is what is killing our society.
Wealth gives everyone power. The difference is that when most people want to excersise the power their wealth gives them, they do so by exchanging money for goods or services. For instance, I can influence a plumber to fix my toilet by paying them.
Rich people do that too, but with a proportionally tiny amount of money. Most of their influence comes from the fact that they simply own stuff. They don't need to spend money to pay for entities they own to do what they want. If you own a voting stake in a company, you do not need to spend that stake to influence the company.
you’re supposed to put it into shady cryptocurrencies. that’s your money making money for you, homeless people haven’t unlocked nft strats yet
The current situation is one I've been wracking my brain over for more than a decade.
What happens when there's no more money to firehose from the poor to the rich. When all the blood is squeezed out of the stone.
That's when we strike with pitchforks.
Well they got tanks :/
By the definition of money, that cannot happen. If all the money is owned by one person, then it is not money. If all of the money is owned by one group of people and another group of people have no access to it, then that will bifurcate the economy between those two groups and the second group will use something else as a substitute. No matter how little people have, there will always be some form of trade and commerce between them. Even North Koreans today (where private trade is largely forbidden) and enslaved Africans in the pre-Civil War US (who for the most part were not legally allowed to own anything) had some form of trade amongst themselves.
Each successive dollar (or euro, pound, yen...) gets successively more difficult to extract because as people have less and less to spend they get tighter and tighter with their spending. Without state intervention, there will always be a floor to how poor you can possibly make someone, because at some point they will realise that breaking the rules and risking the punishment is a better idea than continuing to play by them. And when enough people think this way, well... just ask Louis XVI or Nicholas II how that went.
Even if a communist revolution does not occur, this happens already to a lesser extent in the impoverished areas of cities worldwide, where people would rather turn to crime than work for starvation wages. So if you are someone on the side of the political spectrum which likes to talk against crime and socialism, the policies you should champion are those which prevent the poor from needing to resort to those things (not that any such people are likely to exist on Lemmy).
Neo-feudalism. People who don't live off of investments (i.e., most of us) need to sell our labor to buy the necessities of life. Once the rich own everything and everyone else is poor, we will continue to sell our labor to pay off debts and make the lives of the wealthy comfortable in new and innovative ways.
You give billions of credit to rich people companies and create inflation. Companies go bankrupt, they create new companies and the process repeats. You stand no chance.
Conservatives are mad at poor people for uuuh... (checks notes): Using government aid to increase the GDP.
GDP isn't inherently a useful measure for this though. If I pay you 100$ to eat a dog turd, then you pay me 100$ to eat the next dog turd we see. We created 200$ worth of GDP and ate two dog turds. Yet neither of us profited in any way.
If you're into watching someone eat a turd and are willing to pay 100$ for it, then a service worth 100$ was provided in each instance.
But on a more serious note, this argument applies to the GDP in general – it's not a measure of how happy, how wealthy, or how productive the people of a given nation are. Yet, continuous growth (measured by GDP) seems to have the highest priority among so-called conservatives and neoliberals. At the same time, they're mad at poor people for increasing the GDP with government aid and don't see the irony.
Cool, so be super responsible on their part instead. If they can't be trusted to save up themselves, do the saving up of all the money yourself, o wise conservative. And let's put all that money in a trust fund for them and just give them the dividends. Let's call those dividends a "Universal Basic Dividend".
Among economists, this is actually a solid consensus and why many of them are in favor of policies that benefit the less wealthy parts of society. Politicians who oppose these policies often do so against scientific consensus.
They explicitly don't want it but the right thing to do would be to spend some money on the means of production.
Create a cooperative and start accumulating capital for the proletarians.
How dare those communist scum create a small business, and become independent of welfare! Steaming
"they'll just spend it on drugs and drinking"
That's all I was going to spend it on...
(Paraphrased from Steve Hughes)
My favorite story was when a Karen told someone to not give money to the homeless man because he was going to use it to buy drugs and the man just that, "That's what i was going to spend it on anyway."
Stimulating the economy baby
We're in one of the richest countries in the world and the minimum wage is lower now than it was thirty-five years ago.
There are homeless people everywhere...
This homeless guy asked me for money the other day.
I was about to give it to him and then I thought he's just going to use it on drugs or alcohol.
And then I thought: "That's what I'm going to use it on!"
"Why am I judging this poor bastard?"
People love to judge homeless guys.
Like if you give him the money he's just going to waste it. He's going to waste the money.
Well, he lives in a box, what do you want him to do? Save it up and buy a wall unit?
Take a little run to the store for a throw rug and a CD rack?
He's homeless!
I walked behind this guy the other day. A homeless guy asked him for money.
He looks right at the homeless guy and goes: "Why don't you go get a job, you bum?"
People always say that to homeless guys, "Get a job", like it's always that easy.
This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants.
I'm guessing his resume ain't all up to date.
I'm predicting some problems during the interview process.
I'm pretty sure even McDonald's has a "Underwear Go Inside The Pants" policy.
Not that they enforce it really strictly, but technically, I'm sure it is on the books.
My friend's dad once told me that studies have shown that if you give $1,000,000 to someone without money and the same to a rich person that almost all the money will be gone from the poor person and will have increased when left with the rich person, because poor people don't know how to manage money and that's why they're poor.
My reaction was shock followed by, "it costs more than half a million dollars to pull someone out of poverty??? And won't putting a million dollars in the bank almost always gain interest? I wonder why people without money don't know how to put their money in the bank instead of starving!!"
Because your dad is wrong.
Many of the UBI-type (universal basic income) studies show that most people continue to work and in many cases they are able to increase their income from work in short order.
Turns out relief from chronic money stress liberates mental resources that increase personal resilience and that translates into better employment for many.
It's also been known by economists for time immemorial that the best way to improve the economy is to give money to poor people, nothing else required. Literally just giving poor people money to spend skyrockets the velocity of money, whereas the hoarders just put it in an account to do nothing but gain interest.