We live in a capitalist dystopia

[Steevy Maximus]

Interesting. I didn't know Apple was getting into the AI thing. I mean I guess I'm not surprised, but they haven't been plastering ads for it all of their computer screens like Microsoft does.

Apple has been doing things that fall into that category for years, be it Siri or image enhancement, among other features.

Back then, they just called it "machine learning" instead of adopting the current "hot tech buzz word" of AI

 

[Paladin]

Americans are spending the biggest share of their income on food in 3 decades

The high cost of food both at home and in restaurants continues to be a sore spot for millions of U.S. households.

www.cbsnews.com

but all the graphs say the economy is fine.

 

[Pale Rider]

FB friend:

If billionaires were using their money to create jobs, they wouldn't complain so much about taxes. Employee salaries are 100% tax deductible. Any billionaire could easily reduce his tax burden to zero without any special loopholes or tax shelters, by simply paying his profits to his employees.

But that's not what they do. Instead, they try to pay their employees the absolute minimum they can get away with, so that they can pocket as much profit as they can get away with.

 

[wonko the sane?]

And it's so much worse than you think, because the rich then use that money they stole from the workers to buy politicians and propaganda to drive down wages, safety requirements, and oversight. Make no mistake: they would own you as slaves if they could get away with it.

 

[Pale Rider]

But that just upsets me more!

 

[wonko the sane?]

It's supposed to.

 

[Pale Rider]

 

[Pale Rider]

FB friend:

"You should not resent the gains of the wealthy because capitalism is not a zero-sum game. A rising tide lifts all boats."

This argument relies on metaphor rather than math for a reason: the math sucks. Let's look at it objectively: according to Business Insider, as of March 2024, the wealthiest 1% of Americans have seen their wealth increase by 49% since 2020.

Based on GDP, the size of the American economy has increased by 28% over that same time. Therefore, while the economy is not a zero-sum game, it is not growing quickly enough to explain the spectacular wealth gains of the top 1%. Clearly, much of their gains have come at the expense of everyone else. That's just math.

This is why math is better than metaphor. But if we're going to stick with that damned rising-tide metaphor, then consider this: if your boat is rising much faster than the tide while someone else's boat is rising much slower than the tide, then something weird is going on, and you are LYING when you say it's just the tide.

 

[Pale Rider]

FB friend:

Why can't you deduct the depreciation on your car, since businesses can deduct the depreciation on company cars?

F**k you, that's why.

Why can't you deduct the insurance on your car and home, since businesses can deduct their auto/premises insurance?

F**k you, that's why.

Why can't you deduct fuel and maintenance costs on your car, since businesses can deduct both of those things on company cars, trucks, even private jets?

F**k you, that's why.

Why can't you deduct upkeep and maintenance costs on your home, since businesses can deduct both of those things for their premises?

F**k you, that's why.

When people say that the tax code is unfair to "small and medium-sized businesses", just know that they are absolutely positively full of shit. The tax code is unfair to working people.

PS. When they say "small and medium-sized business", they mean "any business with up to 500 employees".

 

[Pale Rider]

FB friend:

Economists (real ones, not the guys on FOX Business News) keep saying that it's better to give money to poor people than rich people because poor people consume while rich people hoard. But the Internet's proud defenders of rich people will retort that rich people don't hoard: they invest, which spurs innovation and job creation blah blah blah.

Here's the thing though: if you bought shares in a publicly traded company, your investment only goes to that company if it's a virgin share, ie- a share being offered to the public by the company, which is the FIRST time it was ever traded. From that point on, the share is being passed around between Wall Street investors. If a company went public in 1990 and sold shares for $10 and they're now worth $800, the company didn't see any of that $790 gain. It only got the $10 per share, 34 years ago.

The vast majority of stock market investing is not investors buying shares from companies: it's investors buying shares from each other. That vast flood of trading money isn't being used by companies for "innovation and job creation": it's being used as chips in a giant casino.