this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
405 points (100.0% liked)

Degrowth

3 readers
2 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also what no one ever wants to admit is that this kind of system can only be carried out for so long before it collapses on its own.

If you start filling a million gallon wine glass on top of a bunch of small glasses, eventually you'll just crush and destroy everything at the bottom.

I like to imagine it as constructing a building. We keep building higher and higher, trying our best to place the richest at the very top and ever higher floor. To make it work, we keep taking building material from the foundation to build the penthouse. As the penthouse becomes higher and higher, heavier and more lavish, the foundation becomes thinner, smaller and weaker.

At one point we'll have an absolutely beautiful penthouse for a handful of people, resting on a very thin foundation that will eventually fail, fall and destroy everything and everyone.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That is part of the problem, when it collapses it hurts everybody. At least until something new can be set up. So much better to stop making it worse.

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Hurts everyone except for the people at the top. The world is so globalized that they can easily fuck off with their digital money bank and not have to worry about the collapsed house of cards they left.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's the great equalizer of imaginary money ... it requires a global system to manage it and make it possible and an entire population of people who believe in it and have faith it, much like a religion of sorts .... if the system falters, their money dies with it ... if the people lose faith, their wealth disappears as well.

That and global nuclear war that just sends every digital system no matter how robust back a hundred years and virtually vapourizing a lot of imaginary wealth for a lot of wealthy people.

In my personal opinion, its the only thing that keeps us from destroying ourselves ... they know if they try to take all wealth, theirs will disappear ... they also know that if we lose faith in the system, nothing is worth anything any more ... they also know that if we all gain a bit of wealth, they lose power over us

So leaders and wealthy elites have to walk a fine line between fleecing us on a regular basis and giving us just enough to keep holding faith in the system.

It's funny when you think about it .... imaginary wealth is what caused all these problems .. but its also imaginary wealth that is preventing us from destroying ourselves

It's like what Homer Simpson famously said about alcohol .... "Alcohol the cause of and solution to ... all of life's problems"

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago

That would be the absolute worst case scenario which I don't think would happen. Barring world nuclear holocaust they're pretty immune. Look at the Russian oligarchs, for the most part even with their assets frozen in multiple countries they're still living in opulence as they have money stored in plenty of countries that don't hate them. That's the trick, they're so rich they cna afford to have multi million dollar piggy banks all over the place.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 months ago

enough bootstrapsing, and one day you too could be the top wine glass! now get back to work, peasant

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 7 points 3 months ago

It does work, but by trickle, we mean only a trickle. Like a not worthwhile trickle. Not even a roof leak, like condensation on one window

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Now now let's not pretend that the cup never overflows, it absolutely does. It overflows directly into OTHER disgustingly wealthy individuals pockets too.

Johnny billionaires might not buy enough for that to spill over to us schmucks, but they buy enormously expensive real estate and furniture, accessories, planes, etc.... they keep that money circulating amongst themselves and their ilk.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 5 points 3 months ago

And their lawyers and politicians who benefit greatly of their masters success.

[–] smb@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

so whenever they want teamwork from you, say they'ld just have to wait until the 'teamwork' starts dropping down from where the extra surplus if previous teamwork flowed to. without teamwork from above, there's no teamwork below, exactly as the leaders showed how they want it to be.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

If we want to give Money to the Working Class we should give Money to the Billionaires! That's MUCH better then quite literally just giving the Money to the People we said we want to give Money to!

[–] warlaan@feddit.org 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

OF COURSE trickle down works! I just don't understand what's going on in people's minds that they believe the rich people (i.e. all the water) were at the top of the image.

There are lots of reasons why money trickles down from the poor to the rich. Expecting money to trickle from the rich to the poor is like pouring water into an ocean and expecting the mountains to get wet.

[–] Jordans_Vision@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

...I'm not quite sure what you're trying to express here. You say it works, and then you immediately refute it?

[–] Wereduck@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think they are saying that the model is flawed on a more basic level, since workers are the source of all value, and thus workers are the wine bottle. Of course trickle down economics is accurate if you view it as value trickling (or rather being siphoned) from the poor to the rich. Essentially refuting the ideology that views jobs as a resource that is provided for society by the rich, when the reality is that jobs under capitalism are workers creating value and the rich siphoning more than their fair share from the workers' output and returning a pitance.

[–] Jordans_Vision@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks.

[–] warlaan@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago

Pretty much, but that explanation is way more complicated than it needs to be.

The image of "trickle down" compares money to water. If you drop water somewhere it will move downwards. But for some reason when people talk about trickle down economics they think that money will trickle down from the people will lots of money to those with no money.

If you go back to the image then water will trickle down to the place where all the water has ended up before, i.e. the ocean. Expecting money to trickle "down" from the rich to the poor is like expecting water to trickle "down" from the ocean to the mountains.

And there are lots of obvious reasons for that. A poor person will have to take a loan from time to time which means that they have to pay for no lasting value in return. They will also have less opportunity to save money by buying things in bulk or waiting for discounts. A rich person on the other hand has little reason to pay workers for something that does not end up making them more money.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 3 months ago

Trickle down economics works on paper but because it assumes that A there's only one country in the world in which anybody would spend any money, and it's the country in which they generated that money, and B that people pay taxes proportionate to the amount of money they possess and therefore are incentivized to spend it when they get it, which of course doesn't work because either they are not paying taxes proportionate to their earnings, or they are finding some other way to not pay the taxes other than spending the money.

[–] _bcron@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

And then the big glass grabs a straw and tries to slurp out more defined benefits from the smaller glasses, but they've been dry for a while