Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2014-07-25 07:08 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2014-07-25 07:08 pm
[ SECRET POST #2761 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2761 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05. [SPOILERS for Radio Free Roscoe]
__________________________________________________
06. [SPOILERS for Yu-Gi-Oh 5D's]
__________________________________________________
07. [SPOILERS for Puella Magi Madoka Magica]
__________________________________________________
08. [SPOILERS for The Burbs]
__________________________________________________
09. [SPOILERS for Maleficent]
__________________________________________________
10. [SPOILERS for Game of Thrones]
__________________________________________________
11. [SPOILERS for Legend of Korra]
12. [WARNING for incest]
__________________________________________________
13. [WARNING for rape]
http://i.imgur.com/JX1fY7K.jpg
[linked for porn/rape(?), live-action]
__________________________________________________
14. [WARNING for abuse, rape, etc]
__________________________________________________
15. [WARNING for dub-con, underage (?)]
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - ships it ], [ 1 - more random image spam ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: unpopular opinions thread
And you put your name on that? Oh, bb....
I just read your explanation, and I'm trying to figure out how to respond. I've heard of people believing that, but it's interesting to meet someone who actually thinks that.
OK, it's possible that GOP politicians (and DLC politicians like Bill Clinton, who have been kind of the same deal economically) think that they are encouraging wealth creation. The problem is that real median wealth doesn't go up very much when you have those in power trying to push wages down. And if real median wealth isn't actually growing, the wealth of the cronies and insiders at the top means almost nothing to the masses.
On the other hand, the USA had enormous economic growth in the post-WWII period, and that was with New Deal, social liberal policies that incentivized spending by the rich, encouraged labor organization, and led to relatively high wages for the working class. There were resource reasons the level of growth couldn't be sustained (most especially, domestic petroleum consumption outgrew what Texas could extract with well technology c. 1970), but the USA had better economic growth with policies more to the left than is mainstream now. High marginal tax rates encouraged the wealthiest capitalists to spend more and save less, which increased consumer demand; things like that.
At the extremes, (present) GOP rhetoric added to (present) GOP policies pretty much sounds like that woman in Australia with all the mineral rights who wanted to pay her employees less so they would supposedly work harder and get richer. Unless she's expecting them to steal their way to wealth, it doesn't make sense.
tl;dr: People can't grow rich if they don't have the employers or customers spending money to make them rich. Keeping wages low (very GOP these days) is part of this: a way to keep the rich from spending money on the middle.
Please read a little Twentieth Century economic history, and learn something about economic demand. I like Joseph Stiglitz, some of Paul Krugman's stuff is very accessible to laymen, Robert Reich is doing a lot of populist economic outreach now, Milton Friedman was a mostly sane right-winger in his day--I feel like I should name a Gentile in here somewhere--Brad DeLong is very well-regarded but very technical.
What you're saying, it's not economics.