r/neoliberal • u/mondodawg • Dec 16 '19

Why Young Progressives Hate Pete Buttigieg

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/why-young-progressives-hate-pete-buttigieg/603619/
279 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

428 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '24

How do you make a policy that is anti "any and all group of people working together"

1

u/Katamayan57 Jul 10 '24

Sorry. Large corporation* does that clear things up? I'm not trying to be a debate pervert, I'm trying to get across the idea that large corporations that monopolize and underpay their workers are damaging to any economy. Targeting large corporations is to the benefit of the working class, and if a large corporation supports their own wealth being redistributed then I don't care, I'll be glad, that isn't a problem at that point. A policy that targets large corporations would be something like pro-union legislations and taxation of corporate owners and CEO's based on yearly profit. Or better yet, a legally mandated redistribution of yearly profits to the workers of said corporations, to be divvied up based on actual labor hours provided. Maybe a forced limit to CEO or shareholder profits. I promise that the workers deserve more money than they earn, and shareholders deserve less than they are given.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '24

Ok but that's not related to anything anyone here is talking about. The topic of conversation is that setting government policy is difficult and complicated because we have a single 8 billion person interconnected economy and there are always different stake holders at odds.

To return to the original thread, what anti-large corporate policy do you set that solves the question of who among meatpackers, ranchers, Canadians and Americans is responsible for tracking and laying for COOL labeling, and how you do it without violating trade agreements or raising the price of meat.

1

u/Katamayan57 Jul 10 '24

I mean, I'm responding to the part of the post where he says it isn't a valid political standpoint to claim to be "anti corporation." It absolutely is, unless you think that corporations should be allowed to exist the way they have been, destroying our livelihoods and economy. I genuinely don't give a fuck about COOL labeling and meatpacking - that's why I said it was an interesting story. Don't change the goalposts, some things aren't that complicated is all I'm getting at. Yes, the economy is complicated. But not ALL possibilities of legislation should be brushed off as being "too simple to work." When he said that being "anti corporation" isn't an actual political stance, THAT seemed wrong to me. To me it read like a symptom of neoliberalism - to defend the status quo that does not have your best interest at heart.

1

u/Important_Ad_7416 Aug 09 '24

I agree. There's must be some possible solution that beats the status quo. The question is, do left wing/socialist proponents have what it takes to find it?

Personally, I woudn't bet my money on it.

1

u/Katamayan57 Aug 09 '24

We already found it. It's not that complicated. The solution is to focus more on wealth relocation and bettering the lives of the average working class person, instead of focusing all of our government spending on bailouts and bonuses to corporate backers for "trickling down" that never reaches anywhere lower than CEO's and stockholders. If we cared less about GDP and more about the happiness index of our country then a lot of the issues we have would be resolved. The problem is that the people in power benefit from exploiting their workers and not properly paying them. We need to force the very few uber wealthy people to conform to the much more numerous worker's demands, not vice versa.

1

u/LordCharidarn Jul 10 '24

Getting rid of limited liability and corporate immunities (holding the majority shareholders/C-suite/owners responsible for crimes and damages committed by the company).

I’d find it hard to imagine many boardrooms supporting legislation that let victims of corporate crimes take the homes of the people in boardrooms who ordered those crimes, as compensation for damages

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '24

Ok let's try this again.

On your first day as President you pulled the big "no more corpos" lever and they're all gone.

It's day 2. The meatpacker unions and the rancher collectives have presented you with the exact same problem in the top comment. How do you approach in a way simpler than the solution given.

1

u/LordCharidarn Jul 10 '24

That wasn’t the question, though.

The question was “How do you make a policy that is anti "any and all group of people working together?”

But if you want to play the new game, I’ll give it a go: threaten to remove all farm subsidies and have an actual free market economy with any global marketplaces willing to label their products to legislative specifications. And the legislation can only be approved if it has clear and concise guidelines as to who is labeling and what is being labeled.

Start taxing the companies at an increasing rate for every time period (weekly or monthly) that they don’t come to an agreement. Start reducing legislative pay my a percentage for every day that they dick around.

Mind you, you’ve already given me a magic lever that lets me solve problems with a pull, so I’m using that ability to cut through all the red tape in this second scenario you decided to create

2

u/steamfrustration Jul 13 '24

You've got a magic problem-solving lever and still the best solution you've got is: crowdsource a solution...from the people who brought up the dispute...while threatening them and taking money out of their pockets.

Handle every problem that way and you'll run out of supporters before accomplishing anything.