| > Or Japan stripping its oligarchs of their wealth I seriously recommend cracking open a history book, because you are confusing political lustration of the old regime with downward redistribution. But a good hallmark of the envy-based religion is to cheer when someone richer is made poorer, irrespective of whether any downward redistribution occurs. This is because the anger is pointed towards those who have something you don't, and so that anger is appeased when they are hurt. It doesn't matter whether you do not benefit, or even are hurt yourself, in the process. > top American tax rates of 98% that ceilinged income, presaging the strongest economic growth Like 10 families paid those rates, they lasted about a decade before JFK repealed them, and the lowering of those rates led to a revenue increase. Top rates had little to do with the economic boom. > Alas, as is often the case in nature, the parasite manages to convince the host that it is not only benign, but necessary. Absolutely. And when the politics of envy leads to bad outcomes, that is taken as proof that even more must be done. Among the infected, envy is always the key to better living standards, regardless of your current situation. |
It wouldn't contradict me. From what I can surmise from your illustrious prose you... didnt either?
>But a good hallmark of the envy-based religion
It is odd that you are seemingly assigning an envy based religious motivation to American post war economic policy (e.g. 98% income tax rates).
>Like 10 families paid those rates
Hence my use of the term "ceilinged" - an indulgent metaphor that I would hope an erudite student of history would interpret as "that which one can not go above".
>Absolutely. And when the politics of envy
....post war economic policy?
>leads to bad outcomes
Like... the creation of the middle class? Exceptional growth? What were the Bad Outcomes of the 1950s with its 98% income tax rates you are warning us of? Help me understand.
I guess what you're saying is that this "politics of envy" risks destroying that which is not only benign, but necessary?