Idk; I think a policy expert is allowed to discuss their early results. I agree it's a cause for further research, but I don't really want my polling professionals mixing speculation and information.
I'd love them to have the funding, time, and good luck to know an effective intervention. But if they don't, I think the article is doing the right thing. Not all news needs to claim to have all the answers.
The last two paragraphs place a large share of the blame at the feet of those democratically neutral voters, but provides no course to counter the ideas.
While the research did not dig into why those voters felt compromising democratic values in favor of other values was acceptable, Simply telling people 'that's bad' is a rather anemic approach to the problem.
... "Will democracy last another 250?"
What annoys me is the lack of historical perspective people have in the us with the consitution. These things were talked about in class. redcoat go into a town and say they are looking for criminals and toss all the homesteads. ice go into a building and say they are looking for criminals and toss all the residences. there is a whole tale on why warrants are required to search a residence.
...Days?
CRY! CRY! CRY!
SPREAD IT! SPREAD IT FAR AND WIDE!
I think broad success is going to come from finding people outside the "leftist" label that embody leftist ideals. I think there's too much online atheist energy for our own good, Christians can be a valuable asset if we can learn to leverage the teachings of Jesus. Red state voters have that dog in them, if you learn how to engage it. I think the main problem is that we let vocabulary get in the way of the message.
I like the idea of using tax money to create a series of corporations that run strategic industries like power, water, transportation, and critical industry.
Every citizen gets 1 share. Shares are not transferable. The corporations are run democratically by shareholder vote, and profit share is paid out. UBI.
It works within the current legal frameworks, no one is the loser because we aren't taking from one to give to the other, everyone has an interest in the success of the companies, and the company is not weaponise for political purposes or mismanaged to justify selling to the private sector.
Actually directly owning the means of production.
Maybe, hopefully, still not a great situation. The problem with accelerationism is that it tends to overestimate how sensitive the proverbial frog is to the water temperature rising. Bread and circuses are a powerful thing, even when they're just relatively cheap instead of free. "Creating more socialists than socialists have in years" isn't a particularly high bar. I have my doubts that the quantity is statistically significant, being exposed to the average American on a daily basis.
Sure.
I'm just open to novel mechanisms.
You have too much faith the integrity of this system can be maintained.
Then it gets sold to....whoever the fund manager decides,
No, it gets sold gradually onto the open market.
Wouldn't that bite people when housing prices go up? I mean someone having a 600k house isn't really having access to that money.
Tax the rich though!
I did read it, did you? It takes 1.5% of all companies in the form of stock or ownership, that are big enough, and gives it the citizenry every year. Seizes assets and give it to citizens. Then it gets sold to....whoever the fund manager decides, and it is all easily corruptible and that is exactly what would happen if it ever managed to pass, which it won't.
"Worth" Dec 31 - "Worth Jan 1" = Total Annual Income.
Tax that.
Easy, done.
All these billionaires like to throw around their worth, fine, but if Elon Musk (for example) is worth 1 Trillion at the end of the year, and he was worth 300 Billon at the start, tax that 700 Billion difference as income.
No wrote off bull shit either at that level.
You really should read the article. This isn't that.
When has seizing assets ever been tried? Constantly.
When has this kind of direct taxation through stock dilution been tried historically? I don't see any history to recognize here. The article explains how it couldn't be dodged like other taxes, so historical wealth taxation isn't relevant.
No its not like a read a ton of his books. Just thing like youtube vidoes and wikipedia but it appears to be common enough knowledge that im not worried about it being appreciably wrong. I mean im sure I don't grasp some finer details.
I'd read this, but I don't trust myself to find the source. Do you have a link?
It isn't effective enough to be worth doing. I'm not chasing perfection, as you keep insisting, just recognizing history.
