[mihaic]

Only very few people are asking for a completely different system, they usually demand fine-tuning the system so that it improves median life quality.

It used to be that the philosophy before was to have the least amount of intervention on the free market, and it's now that there should be no interventions whatsoever. Isn't that an extreme position?

[trashtester]

There is probably no country in the world with no intervention, or even close. In fact, there are massive intervention in pretty much every country.

Actual lassez-faire economies was mostly a thing in the 19th century.

Since then, regulatations have been accumulating constantly, and total government spending increased to GDP increased from about 10% to 35-75% in most if not all western countries.

[mihaic]

Yes, but many of these have one form or another of "take from the middle class and give to everyone else".

I wasn't arguing that governments don't do anything, it's that they don't do enough to limit the size if the parasitic rich class, while the original post was saying that this is the best system we've got.

[trashtester]

> limit the size if the parasitic rich class

Do you consider it ok to dehumanize your fellow humans by comparing them to parasites?

Also, how can you be so sure that the metaphor even works? Do you truely believe that everyone else would be better off if the top 0.1% richest people in the world had never been born, and never started all those big companies they own?

Because that's what it means to be a "parasite". To consume resources you have no part in creating.

Or is the word "parasictic" ONLY used as a means to dehumanize a group you detest, without even being meant to be seen as a metaphor?

I don't mind having a discussion about how to best distribute the economic output of the economy, but calling one group or another parasites is not a good start.