>> Rich people lose more often then we think, we just usually use different words for it: insurrection, revolution rebellion...and people in power would call it 'a perversion of the natural order,' as in Macbeth. <<
Those big shifts are rare, though, which is not a bad thing since they also tend to be very destructive. When rich people lose, they tend to lose big.
Smaller defeats are more often changes in law. It's uncommon for a truly grass-roots movement to upend them -- although it can happen, as in some historic strikes and civil rights movements.
>> Odd thought I had this morning: Not only do buisinesses get bailouts, <<
That is only justified for essential businesses, and even then, should never be applied to foolish ones. The latter should be replaced with something more competent.
>> but every dang economic downturn I've lived thru has official folks encouraging ordinary folks to spend $. Buy at restaurants, make those down payments for your wedding venue, etc etc. Its not just the /government/ that bails out the economy; the common (hu)man is expected and encouraged to do their part as well .<<
It's largely pointless. People can't spend money they don't have. This advice is only valid if the citizens get a stimulus check or other fresh resource. Even then, when the budget is tight, people should only spend money on necessities, not frivolities. Spend your stimulus check on food or car maintenance, not on a movie.
>> ...aaaand come to think of it, we're expected to bail /each other/ out too: loaning cars and phones and time and money... <<
Interdependence is a natural and necessary part of a healthy society. However, there is a limit to what it can accomplish on a personal scale. There is supposed to be a range from individual to family, neighborhood, municipal, state, national, and global scope. Each level should handle problems that are too big for the lower level but with its own reach that don't require a higher level. Problems happen when each level doesn't do its proper share of the work but tries to fob off the responsibilities on someone else. It is especially bad when things that should be paid at a lower level inflate to the point they are no longer affordable and have to get bumped upward. Frex, medical expenses should be paid by the client, because as soon as you separate the sick person from the paying customer, it creates a clear conflict of interest between people who want health care and people who don't want to pay for it.
>> yet somehow big business doing this is 'an infringement of civil liberties' and the government doing this is 'socialism, evil!' <<
Tch. Civilization is all about doing things collectively that we couldn't do individually. People who whine about that are just greedy. And that's an inherent flaw of capitalism: it promotes greed. A gift economy reverses the definitions: rich people are defined by how much they give away, not how much they hoard. No system is perfect, but that one sure quashed unequal wealth distribution.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Thoughts
Date: 2021-01-30 11:27 pm (UTC)Those big shifts are rare, though, which is not a bad thing since they also tend to be very destructive. When rich people lose, they tend to lose big.
Smaller defeats are more often changes in law. It's uncommon for a truly grass-roots movement to upend them -- although it can happen, as in some historic strikes and civil rights movements.
>> Odd thought I had this morning: Not only do buisinesses get bailouts, <<
That is only justified for essential businesses, and even then, should never be applied to foolish ones. The latter should be replaced with something more competent.
>> but every dang economic downturn I've lived thru has official folks encouraging ordinary folks to spend $. Buy at restaurants, make those down payments for your wedding venue, etc etc. Its not just the /government/ that bails out the economy; the common (hu)man is expected and encouraged to do their part as well .<<
It's largely pointless. People can't spend money they don't have. This advice is only valid if the citizens get a stimulus check or other fresh resource. Even then, when the budget is tight, people should only spend money on necessities, not frivolities. Spend your stimulus check on food or car maintenance, not on a movie.
>> ...aaaand come to think of it, we're expected to bail /each other/ out too: loaning cars and phones and time and money... <<
Interdependence is a natural and necessary part of a healthy society. However, there is a limit to what it can accomplish on a personal scale. There is supposed to be a range from individual to family, neighborhood, municipal, state, national, and global scope. Each level should handle problems that are too big for the lower level but with its own reach that don't require a higher level. Problems happen when each level doesn't do its proper share of the work but tries to fob off the responsibilities on someone else. It is especially bad when things that should be paid at a lower level inflate to the point they are no longer affordable and have to get bumped upward. Frex, medical expenses should be paid by the client, because as soon as you separate the sick person from the paying customer, it creates a clear conflict of interest between people who want health care and people who don't want to pay for it.
>> yet somehow big business doing this is 'an infringement of civil liberties' and the government doing this is 'socialism, evil!' <<
Tch. Civilization is all about doing things collectively that we couldn't do individually. People who whine about that are just greedy. And that's an inherent flaw of capitalism: it promotes greed. A gift economy reverses the definitions: rich people are defined by how much they give away, not how much they hoard. No system is perfect, but that one sure quashed unequal wealth distribution.