>Why is it critically important to maintain a particular culture at a cost that is not sustainable?
Don't you like cultural diversity? Would you prefer the whole world to be culturally the same? It will not be a mishmash as you think, the new culture would be the culture of people with most kids. I doubt you would like it.
>Why not? Deficits can be healthy and safe when they’re managed. Literally most persons, businesses, and governments use debt.
It probably greatly depends on what debt is spent. If it's used for investment to spur further growth, it's entirely different if it's used for consumption. Is government using depth for future growth?
You made a mistake, an order of magnitude. It's over 135k per year taxed at 45%. Of course none of the rich people pay this tax, because they don't receive salaries.
I think you are exactly right. This is the product of society which has more empathy towards the bullies, because they are the real victims, ignored and left behind by the society. On the other hand there is very little empathy towards actual victims themselves. And to go further probably the majority of teachers believe, support and vote for people holding such ideas.
I don't think society has sympathy for the bullies, in specific instances. It has sympathy for the bullies in aggregate, to the extent they represent societal social problems (especially in today's US).
That sympathy towards the aggregate seems to be a byproduct from apathy about fixing the underlying issue -- government ensuring positive social outcomes broadly across the population.
Post-90s US conservatism made it verboten to talk about the government's responsibility to create healthy social environments, especially for poor children, so there's no response portion of the conversation.
And because we can't talk about the home situation of the child who assaulted this teacher, in the sense of policy towards fixing that, the two political parties are left debating whether or not we feel sympathy for the assaulter.
... with true sympathy for teachers, front line medical professionals, and other social first responders lost in the shuffle.
If there was an inkling of a plan to strengthen the social safety net (e.g. funding mental healthcare for kids, recapitalizing shared public spaces, strengthening SNAP, universal kindergarten, mandating more parental leave), then we could face the problem honestly instead of treating teacher assaults as an awkward inconvenience of dysfunctional social policy.
Ironically you are making his point. Countries that have stronger respect for property rights dump way less or no garbage in the oceans as the countries where there is no such respect.
Who is "us"? Because in capitalism, only people with capital get to decide what has value.
The values of the poor are not reflected. The values of the indigenous are not reflected. The values of the non-capitalist are not reflected. The value of the unborn is not reflected. The value of nature is not reflected.
The glacier doesn't participate in the market and neither does the river. Are they without value?
> As if this never happened before capitalism?
That's correct. Look at the graph I posted above, you'll notice that things weren't always this hot. Before capitalism they sure weren't.
No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most, because the capitalist first and foremost need to provide value to us. I'm not sure what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? Isn't it evident people assign great value to natural resources. The world is a bit older then 120 years in your graph. There were a lot of natural disasters that wiped quite a lot of living beings from the planet.
> No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most
That is just straight up not true. The tribal elder in the Amazon, who's forest capitalists are burning down never got asked how he defines value. The child not yet born was never asked if it's atmosphere should be heated up for data centers. Neither was the fish in the river or the river itself for that matter.
> what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market?
I'm not sure what's unclear. The glacier melts as a result of somebody who's not the glacier deciding "value" on a market. In reality, the market doesn't decide value. Value is not price. The market decides power structures and violence distribution. The glacier has a value completely separate from the market, and not derived from it.
How exactly can you ask an unborn child, a river or a glacier what it wants? Did the Yugoslav dictator ask Kosovars what they want before violently oppressing them?
So which economical system enables us to talk to inanimate objects or unborn babies, since you think this is a fault of capitalism?
You have a deep misunderstanding of markets and capitalism!
Don't you like cultural diversity? Would you prefer the whole world to be culturally the same? It will not be a mishmash as you think, the new culture would be the culture of people with most kids. I doubt you would like it.
reply