[feoren]

> That's not a luxury car

So an "old classic" (I was thinking a Mercedes) stops being a luxury car as soon as a poor person inherits it? Do you see how nebulous these categories are? How easy it is to just move the line whenever it suits your argument?

> Whether there is or isn't a class war is debatable, but the one you've concocted that is led by economists is certainly not happening.

I'll give you an economist who led the charge: Donald Regan, Ronald Reagan's secretary of the treasury and chief of staff. This was back in a time when people felt they needed to come up with a plausible-sounding excuse to strip poor people of their rights and keep them stuck in a cycle poverty. The banner was "Reaganomics", or "Trickle-Down Economics". You're so incredulous that the discipline of economics has anything to do with a class war that was largely started and still fought under the name "Trickle-Down Economics"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Regan

[bpt3]

> So an "old classic" (I was thinking a Mercedes) stops being a luxury car as soon as a poor person inherits it? Do you see how nebulous these categories are? How easy it is to just move the line whenever it suits your argument?

No, it stops being a luxury car when it's old and no longer luxurious. Luxury cars are very expensive to maintain, and the poor person in question should absolutely sell a historic luxury car and buy a Honda Civic (or similar) and use the remaining funds for other essentials.

> I'll give you an economist who led the charge: Donald Regan, Ronald Reagan's secretary of the treasury and chief of staff. This was back in a time when people felt they needed to come up with a plausible-sounding excuse to strip poor people of their rights and keep them stuck in a cycle poverty. The banner was "Reaganomics", or "Trickle-Down Economics". You're so incredulous that the discipline of economics has anything to do with a class war that was largely started and still fought under the name "Trickle-Down Economics"?

So one guy (who wasn't an economist BTW) who died over 20 years ago and whose ideas have been long abandoned is your big example? Come on.

Your entire premise is ridiculous and your hyperfocus on blaming the rich for every ill in the world completely negates any shred of a valid argument you might have.

[feoren]

> the poor person in question should

So you are telling poor people how they should live their lives after all. The core point I made that set this whole thing off. It turns out this whole thing actually is an excuse to decide how poor people should live. Thank you for proving my point for me.

> So one guy (who wasn't an economist BTW) who died over 20 years ago and whose ideas have been long abandoned is your big example?

Are you kidding about being abandoned? Reaganomics has not been abandoned, it has been enshrined as the idol of American capitalism. Almost every element of the ongoing and ever-accelerating enrichening of the rich and the disenfranchisement of the disenfranchised can be traced to ideas put in place during the Reagan administration. And the guy who invents "supply side economics" and the economic policy of the United States for the next 50 decades is an economist, regardless of what his piece of paper says. There are plenty of Chairmen of the Fed that you could look at under a similar light, and they are mostly "official" economists.

[bpt3]

> So you are telling poor people how they should live their lives after all. The core point I made that set this whole thing off. It turns out this whole thing actually is an excuse to decide how poor people should live. Thank you for proving my point for me.

I'm not telling anyone how they should live their lives. I'm explaining why the person in your example is making an objectively dumb decision, though it's one I think they should be allowed to make.

Your point only exists in your mind, where you are obsessed with "the rich" telling "the poor" what to do no matter what is actually being discussed.

> Are you kidding about being abandoned? Reaganomics has not been abandoned, it has been enshrined as the idol of American capitalism. Almost every element of the ongoing and ever-accelerating enrichening of the rich and the disenfranchisement of the disenfranchised can be traced to ideas put in place during the Reagan administration. And the guy who invents "supply side economics" and the economic policy of the United States for the next 50 decades is an economist, regardless of what his piece of paper says. There are plenty of Chairmen of the Fed that you could look at under a similar light, and they are mostly "official" economists.

I know it's cool in progressive circles to blame every problem in modern society on Reagan, but the MAGA crowd doesn't care about supply side economics so no one is advocating for it any longer.

And no, the guy was not an economist. He had no training as one nor ever acted as one in a professional capacity. He worked in finance and as an executive in industry and government.