[tock]

America is the richest country in the world. That is the payback. Yet somehow the working class is screwed.

People don't want to admit wealth distribution is the problem because that would make them "communists". It's an emotional response. I'm scared how far they take it.

[sebmellen]

Right, and I think that’s largely true.

Whether or not the “right wing working class” are right in their root cause analysis, the domestic situation in the US is catastrophic enough to demand explanation:

  “If we are the richest country on earth, why can’t I afford a house and healthcare?”

Answer 1: You are being taken advantage of by wealthy elites within your country!

Answer 2: The whole world has made Americans front the bill for a regime of global peace, security, and a trusted reserve currency, at the cost of you, the American worker!

Depending on which answer you choose, and which camp you ally with, your worldview will differ.

[tock]

I know. There is no reason to believe in #2. Its an emotional response. And so you cant change it. Just like you cant use logic with a flat earther. And that's scary for the rest of the world. I just hope no wars happen.

[sebmellen]

There is if you believe the “globalists” are the same people from #1. It doesn’t help that there is some appreciable degree of overlap.

Dona nobis pacem!

[fspeech]

Housing and healthcare are the two things that have little to do with trade. Housing affordability is almost entirely policy driven. In a "free" market (quoted because the definition typically doesn't take into account the necessity of a functional society to maintain property rights and values, just ask Detroit), housing affordability is entirely dependent on one's relative income and propensity to spend, i.e. you can have high absolute income (say in NYC) and still find you desired housing unaffordable. I think people intuitively understand this. Healthcare costs are more complicated but is also almost entirely a domestic issue.

[billy99k]

"People don't want to admit wealth distribution is the problem because that would make them "communists"."

If you are referring to taking wealth by force from people that earned it and giving to people that didn't earn it, yes it's 'communist'. There's nothing emotional about a methodology that has failed over and over again.

[budududuroiu]

Well, we’ve been going through wealth redistribution towards the “elites”, and no one batted an eye.

China popped the real estate bubble, collapsing entire industry giants and making the “elites” swallow the financial downturn. Literally allowing the “poor” to refinance their homes on the back of the “rich”, because they believe housing isn’t for speculation, but for living in.

Tariffs without windfall profits tax will be further wealth redistribution, from the poor to the wealthy

[oblio]

Or, alternatively, it's called "taxes" and "wealth redistribution".

High inequalities is proven to be bad for development, so clearly there is a point where people have too much and it's harmful to society.

Ergo it would be immoral to allow some to hoard wealth infinitely, just because they can.

[Whoppertime]

That is begging the question. The question is not "Why are some people poor" that is the default state of humanity, and has been for the past 100,000 years Homo Sapiens have existed. The question is what are the succesful doing right. It is not because of "hoarding wealth infinitely" that a doctor has more money saved up than someone addicted to drugs and living on the street. It is their decisions that lead to their current circumstances. The doctor spending a decade in medical school and residency has delayed a lot of gratification getting their, while the drug addict likely had some issues with impulse control or delayed gratification.

[tock]

Politicians should just come out and say this to the people. Oh you can't afford a house? Oh you cant afford healthcare? But we are the richest country in the world. And the system is fair. It means you didn't earn it. Duh.

[lunarlull]

Most of those people didn't earn it directly, but via exploiting people working under them and not paying them a fair share for their work.

[cloverich]

Communism is control of the economy via government owning the businesses. What you are describing is taxes in a free market system. They are not the same thing, and being convinced they are is the majority of the problem.

[mumong05]

haha

[AlecSchueler]

> If you are referring to taking wealth by force from people that earned it and giving to people that didn't earn it, yes it's 'communist'.

Like taking money generated by the labourer and giving it to the company owners to share with their idle families? And threatening unemployment and precariousness/homelessness for those who disagree? This seems to have failed again indeed

[mcv]

> If you are referring to taking wealth by force from people that earned it and giving to people that didn't earn it, yes it's 'communist'.

No, that's capitalist. That's literally the core of capitalism.

[cachehit]

>If you are referring to taking wealth by force from people that earned it and giving to people that didn't earn it, yes it's 'communist'

No, it's taxation. A pretty common phenomenon.

[mcv]

Indeed. Taxation is as old as civilization. Civilization is built on taxation. The first writing systems, the first numbers, the first money, it was all invented to enable taxation. People should finally quit being so childish about this. Unless you want to go back to the stone age, taxation is unavoidable.