Aussie, your comments reflect the malaise we’re (mostly) speaking of - you prioritise return on investment. The growing numbers of people living in poverty haven’t the slightest attachment to this and maximising return is what’s led us to where we are with climate change and inequality.
The rules of the game need to change, what’s the poi…
Aussie, your comments reflect the malaise we’re (mostly) speaking of - you prioritise return on investment. The growing numbers of people living in poverty haven’t the slightest attachment to this and maximising return is what’s led us to where we are with climate change and inequality.
The rules of the game need to change, what’s the point of getting 3% return for the wealthy in a dead world? For example that 3% is returned to people who already have wealth when it could subsidise price reductions for those who don’t.
The fact is, as Robert Reich shows in this article, most wealthy people don’t make their fortune through hard work and genius but by exploitation in one form or another. You seem to value this above equality for people who’ve just been unlucky by comparison - maybe accident of where they were born or who their parents are.
Aussie, your comments reflect the malaise we’re (mostly) speaking of - you prioritise return on investment. The growing numbers of people living in poverty haven’t the slightest attachment to this and maximising return is what’s led us to where we are with climate change and inequality.
The rules of the game need to change, what’s the point of getting 3% return for the wealthy in a dead world? For example that 3% is returned to people who already have wealth when it could subsidise price reductions for those who don’t.
The fact is, as Robert Reich shows in this article, most wealthy people don’t make their fortune through hard work and genius but by exploitation in one form or another. You seem to value this above equality for people who’ve just been unlucky by comparison - maybe accident of where they were born or who their parents are.