“Top-Heavy Capitalism Will Collapse Under Its Own Weight”: Woman Online Devotedly Explains The Dark Side Of The Free Market Theory
The economy plays a crucial role in our everyday life. Our whole existence is essentially a business because everything runs on money and money only. The economy exists for the sake of understanding humans and our motivations so that society can promise us a wealthy and comfortable life – however, sometimes, the upper bosses tend to ignore that the main goal is to create a secure and poverty-free life and focus on the strict and most of the time unfair business only.
This Twitter user decided to call out the conservative economists, who still believe in the free market system and a few other theories. The thread received almost 3K likes and gave us a straightforward yet very educating take on the current economic state.
It’s beneficial to educate ourselves about current issues, even if deep down we know that our voices probably won’t be heard for the next couple of centuries. Yet constantly raising awareness about any type of social issue will bring us, simple people, closer together, and we’ll be able to fight the injustice in our materialistic world.
More info: Twitter
The free market is dead, but some economists continue believing in its “wonders”
Image credits: Mike Schmid
This Twitter user educated people about how this theory is just a bunch of nonsense
Image credits: AlexandraErin
The Twitter user Alexandra Erin voiced her concerns about the current state of the economy. Specifically speaking, about those conservative economists that still believe in the good side of the free market, when there’s no way it could possibly work and be beneficial for all of us.
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
The woman proceeds to explain how the economy should actually work. For instance, if one is thinking about giving a dollar to a billionaire, in the reality, the dollar should always be given to a minimum wage worker, as that way the dollar will get spend straight away and will generate an economic activity. Whereas giving a dollar to a billionaire will do nothing, as they already have a hefty amount of money in their pocket.
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Alexandra also points out that the money that was given to a minimum wage worker or even a homeless person will continue being spent and eventually will end up in the wallets of those billionaire investors that the economists wanted to give to in the first place.
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
For the sake of the argument, the Twitter user supposes that giving the money to those wealthy investors would actually do wonderful things for our society – but she explains how it would still make more sense to administer money to those who are at the bottom of the economy, as it will end up at the top, either way – but in this case, it will work all the way through.
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
As well as that, the woman expressed her confusion about how administrating money to the wealthy was ever a good idea, as giving the economic relief to minimum-wage people will start a whole cycle of enrichment. For example, the people will immediately spend that money, supporting the businesses that support those exact investors.
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Alexandra believes that the secret to keeping the capitalism running for a great amount of time would lay in constantly circulating the money. As when the money circulates, there’s more wealth and prosperity. Customers need to have money in order to do business, and businesses need those customers.
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
Image credits: AlexandraErin
It’s not a secret that money has overtaken the whole world and the main focus is more often than not aimed towards that, rather than towards any social concerns and the overall interest of humans. Which is why it’s a good idea to raise awareness whenever it’s possible. Just like Alexandra did.
What do you think about this thread? Do you agree with Alexandra’s take on the current economic beliefs and issues?
Fellow online users also expressed their opinions
Image credits: anarchytabletop
Image credits: KngKnta2
Image credits: Activoid
Image credits: grayan12
19Kviews
Share on Facebook
Wealthy people don't spend but a fraction of their wealth. Mainly, they're money hoarders, taking money OUT of the economy, thus stagnating said economy. Give that money to the poor and working class, and you'll have a robust, healthy economy.
Or they spend it by literally blowing it up, i.e. shooting a rocket into space with a bunch of tourists in it. That money would have been better spent in the hands of any of the world's space agencies that actually use it for research that will benefit all of us.
Load More Replies...
OP didn't mention the huge amount of taxpayer money that goes into preventing poor people from escaping poverty. I work with homeless people and they are trapped. Certainly, every one of them made decisions that contributed to their situation, but the system is set up to make it impossible for them to get out of poverty. And we are paying for that system with our taxes.
I read something the other day that said "X didn't MAKE good choices, they HAD good choices" I don't buy this idea that poor people made poor choices. Far too many of them only HAD poor choices. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, between the devil and the deep blue sea kind of choices
Load More Replies...
Summed up very simply: Give the poor a dollar and they will spend it on needs. After that the money keeps on working enriching the lives of many. Give the rich a dollar and they add it to their Scrooge Mc Duck style vaults helping no one. Because they are so insanely rich money is just an olde timey high score table to check if they are richer than all of the other insanely rich bastards.
Lol, my dumbass of an Alabaman ex-husband spouted Free Market ideology for years, all of which was wrong. He's argue that everything is so expensive in america so "companies can reinvest that money back into the country's infrastructure". He would spout the ideals of Northern Europe as if that's what happened in America, whereas in America it's really the opposite, then he would demonize those Northern European countries for being 'communist' (after he'd traveled to Scotland to visit me and couldn't believe how fairly priced and free stuff was). The gaslighting and misinformation was strong with that one, and he still doesn't know how economies work, but he'll give you a fuc*ing Boomhower Ted Talk on it.
Its no coincidence that Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk will decry Texas' abortion laws but still announce they are moving most of their company there for tax status. We know the story of Musk's personal assistant paying more taxes in 2020 than Tesla. Trickle down doesn't work because the billionaire will always move to somewhere they don't have to trickle.
I believe that this argument was originally put forward by St Thomas Aquinas. Hoarding is wicked because money only does good when it moves.
I got that only from "Hello Dolly!" Money is like fertilizer. you have to spread it around and help things grow.
Load More Replies...
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-political-party/ - create a new political party which is not vested in feeding the elites. IE a socialist party.
Load More Replies...
Also why it’s more beneficial for the wealthy to pay more taxes, because ultimately they’ll use more resources than a typical person and use their influence to block services that would be efficient for the greatest amount of people so best to get the money outta them the better way rather then letting them privatize a whole industry and deliberately make it worst.
and once they've sucked out the last drops of blood and everyone is homeless except them, they'll wonder where all the consumers went and how to realise value for their shares.
Load More Replies...
Trickle down economics is absolute tosh. This being said, it's not that black and white. Business owners need to be able to take risks and for that, you need cash. Billionaires don't need that cash anymore, but either way, they'll escape all attempts for supplementary taxation, just because they have the means and the incentives tonset up complex evasion structures that won't even be illegal. As a society, we neef to make sure that anyone who works earns enough to sustain a family. Starting business owners need to be supported in their first years so they van take the risks and create economic activity for everyone. Billionaires... well, forget about them. They've becone untouchable
But they don't WANT to wait for that money to come up to them. They want It NOW!!! /Veruca
Even I get it, and I usually am pretty bored and pissed about economists treating manmade rules like they were laws of nature. They aren't. The entire economy, the whole system, exists because it is made existing, not because it just is there. Same applies for the rules in it - maybe competition is a result of circumstances, but the boundaries within which different participants are to compete - we can make them the way we want them. We should make them in a way that is proven to benefit everyone, in a way that allows to expect wealth to be created AND distributed. But, ever tried to talk about these things with your coworkers? Surprisingly many don't care, and also a lot just suffer in silence instead of taking a risk by founding a workers' representation, even in countries like germany, people fear repercussions - imagine how much worse this must be in the USA or so. We, damned, need to speak up, to be reasonable when doing so, and, generally, act in favor of our own class!
"Don't trust those silly experts! The fact that I don't have any basic conceptual understanding of this topic in the real world means you know I'm right!" And I thought only anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers could logic that badly.
She really isn't saying anything that everyone on the planet except Republicans doesn't already know.
I really think we should consider just capping a persons finances , you got 100 Million ? Grats you win no more money for you. Becuase otherwise all that happens is someone just invests it and makes more and more to the point they cannot spend it faste enough to beat their own returns from interest. So you end up getting paid to have money ? Madness.
Selectively giving a tax break to only the wealthy has nothing to do free markets. There did used to exist, however, a 91% tax bracket. Arthur Laffer argued that this tax bracket was so high that people simply hid their income in non-taxable income streams, and that if you lowered the rate below 91%, you would make more tax revenue, not less. At 0% taxation, the government made 0. At 100% taxation, the government made 0. At some point in between, tax yields were maximized. This is the "Laffer curve". He was unquestionable correct. It's very possible, however, that the top tax bracket is below the maximum tax yields.
Wow! You simplified a flawed idea so well that you made it seem like it made sense. You do realize the Laffer curve is one of the main tenants of supply side economics (trickle down) with the main problem being that it makes sense at the extremes but doesn't when it comes to actual tax rates.
Load More Replies... Wow its always the deluded who have the most to say. She proves that 100% If you really want to try to change it stop voting like a sheep. BUT it will take far longer than your lifespan and be aware that you are trying to change the base instincts of the human race....good luck
Here's some extraeconomic reality: A dollar just "given" to poor will most likely end up in the shadow/illegal market through buying drugs, illegal boose, fake cheap products. It will be invested in the shadow "economy" which also does not pay any taxes. It will serve to develop the shadow economy even further to find more ways to get that dollar. A dollar should be earned, not just be given. A hard-earned dollar will most likely circulate in the legal markets spent on food and healthy life. Hence, the most useful "free" dollar should be invested in the infrastructure to raise overall living quality standard where people would live normal lives, improve their capabilities, competence, qualification... but that's becoming very socialistic now...
Devils advocate here but the business tax in the US is very high comparatively. They get tax breaks because they threaten to go offshore. Not saying it's right...
Whine, cry, complain… rise above it. It's called pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Course none of you have any answers if you're just full of complaints. My father was a high school dropout. What I learned was a work ethic. I'm 64 years old I have never been without a job I've never been on unemployment. Get over yourself and grow a pair. Only thing holding you back is your own lack of a spine.
You're welcome not to read it if you can't understand what was written.
Load More Replies...
Yes, it does sound good. What's your point? Or are you being pseudosarcastic?
Load More Replies...
nothing like a middle class apologist barking to support the super wealthy. The definition of stupid.
Load More Replies...
What a detailed, eloquent refutation! The depth, my god!
Load More Replies... Wealthy people don't spend but a fraction of their wealth. Mainly, they're money hoarders, taking money OUT of the economy, thus stagnating said economy. Give that money to the poor and working class, and you'll have a robust, healthy economy.
Or they spend it by literally blowing it up, i.e. shooting a rocket into space with a bunch of tourists in it. That money would have been better spent in the hands of any of the world's space agencies that actually use it for research that will benefit all of us.
Load More Replies... OP didn't mention the huge amount of taxpayer money that goes into preventing poor people from escaping poverty. I work with homeless people and they are trapped. Certainly, every one of them made decisions that contributed to their situation, but the system is set up to make it impossible for them to get out of poverty. And we are paying for that system with our taxes.
I read something the other day that said "X didn't MAKE good choices, they HAD good choices" I don't buy this idea that poor people made poor choices. Far too many of them only HAD poor choices. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, between the devil and the deep blue sea kind of choices
Load More Replies... Summed up very simply: Give the poor a dollar and they will spend it on needs. After that the money keeps on working enriching the lives of many. Give the rich a dollar and they add it to their Scrooge Mc Duck style vaults helping no one. Because they are so insanely rich money is just an olde timey high score table to check if they are richer than all of the other insanely rich bastards.
Lol, my dumbass of an Alabaman ex-husband spouted Free Market ideology for years, all of which was wrong. He's argue that everything is so expensive in america so "companies can reinvest that money back into the country's infrastructure". He would spout the ideals of Northern Europe as if that's what happened in America, whereas in America it's really the opposite, then he would demonize those Northern European countries for being 'communist' (after he'd traveled to Scotland to visit me and couldn't believe how fairly priced and free stuff was). The gaslighting and misinformation was strong with that one, and he still doesn't know how economies work, but he'll give you a fuc*ing Boomhower Ted Talk on it.
Its no coincidence that Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk will decry Texas' abortion laws but still announce they are moving most of their company there for tax status. We know the story of Musk's personal assistant paying more taxes in 2020 than Tesla. Trickle down doesn't work because the billionaire will always move to somewhere they don't have to trickle.
I believe that this argument was originally put forward by St Thomas Aquinas. Hoarding is wicked because money only does good when it moves.
I got that only from "Hello Dolly!" Money is like fertilizer. you have to spread it around and help things grow.
Load More Replies... https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-political-party/ - create a new political party which is not vested in feeding the elites. IE a socialist party.
Load More Replies... Also why it’s more beneficial for the wealthy to pay more taxes, because ultimately they’ll use more resources than a typical person and use their influence to block services that would be efficient for the greatest amount of people so best to get the money outta them the better way rather then letting them privatize a whole industry and deliberately make it worst.
and once they've sucked out the last drops of blood and everyone is homeless except them, they'll wonder where all the consumers went and how to realise value for their shares.
Load More Replies... Trickle down economics is absolute tosh. This being said, it's not that black and white. Business owners need to be able to take risks and for that, you need cash. Billionaires don't need that cash anymore, but either way, they'll escape all attempts for supplementary taxation, just because they have the means and the incentives tonset up complex evasion structures that won't even be illegal. As a society, we neef to make sure that anyone who works earns enough to sustain a family. Starting business owners need to be supported in their first years so they van take the risks and create economic activity for everyone. Billionaires... well, forget about them. They've becone untouchable
But they don't WANT to wait for that money to come up to them. They want It NOW!!! /Veruca
Even I get it, and I usually am pretty bored and pissed about economists treating manmade rules like they were laws of nature. They aren't. The entire economy, the whole system, exists because it is made existing, not because it just is there. Same applies for the rules in it - maybe competition is a result of circumstances, but the boundaries within which different participants are to compete - we can make them the way we want them. We should make them in a way that is proven to benefit everyone, in a way that allows to expect wealth to be created AND distributed. But, ever tried to talk about these things with your coworkers? Surprisingly many don't care, and also a lot just suffer in silence instead of taking a risk by founding a workers' representation, even in countries like germany, people fear repercussions - imagine how much worse this must be in the USA or so. We, damned, need to speak up, to be reasonable when doing so, and, generally, act in favor of our own class!
"Don't trust those silly experts! The fact that I don't have any basic conceptual understanding of this topic in the real world means you know I'm right!" And I thought only anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers could logic that badly.
She really isn't saying anything that everyone on the planet except Republicans doesn't already know.
I really think we should consider just capping a persons finances , you got 100 Million ? Grats you win no more money for you. Becuase otherwise all that happens is someone just invests it and makes more and more to the point they cannot spend it faste enough to beat their own returns from interest. So you end up getting paid to have money ? Madness.
Selectively giving a tax break to only the wealthy has nothing to do free markets. There did used to exist, however, a 91% tax bracket. Arthur Laffer argued that this tax bracket was so high that people simply hid their income in non-taxable income streams, and that if you lowered the rate below 91%, you would make more tax revenue, not less. At 0% taxation, the government made 0. At 100% taxation, the government made 0. At some point in between, tax yields were maximized. This is the "Laffer curve". He was unquestionable correct. It's very possible, however, that the top tax bracket is below the maximum tax yields.
Wow! You simplified a flawed idea so well that you made it seem like it made sense. You do realize the Laffer curve is one of the main tenants of supply side economics (trickle down) with the main problem being that it makes sense at the extremes but doesn't when it comes to actual tax rates.
Load More Replies... Wow its always the deluded who have the most to say. She proves that 100% If you really want to try to change it stop voting like a sheep. BUT it will take far longer than your lifespan and be aware that you are trying to change the base instincts of the human race....good luck
Here's some extraeconomic reality: A dollar just "given" to poor will most likely end up in the shadow/illegal market through buying drugs, illegal boose, fake cheap products. It will be invested in the shadow "economy" which also does not pay any taxes. It will serve to develop the shadow economy even further to find more ways to get that dollar. A dollar should be earned, not just be given. A hard-earned dollar will most likely circulate in the legal markets spent on food and healthy life. Hence, the most useful "free" dollar should be invested in the infrastructure to raise overall living quality standard where people would live normal lives, improve their capabilities, competence, qualification... but that's becoming very socialistic now...
Devils advocate here but the business tax in the US is very high comparatively. They get tax breaks because they threaten to go offshore. Not saying it's right...
Whine, cry, complain… rise above it. It's called pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Course none of you have any answers if you're just full of complaints. My father was a high school dropout. What I learned was a work ethic. I'm 64 years old I have never been without a job I've never been on unemployment. Get over yourself and grow a pair. Only thing holding you back is your own lack of a spine.
You're welcome not to read it if you can't understand what was written.
Load More Replies... Yes, it does sound good. What's your point? Or are you being pseudosarcastic?
Load More Replies... nothing like a middle class apologist barking to support the super wealthy. The definition of stupid.
Load More Replies... What a detailed, eloquent refutation! The depth, my god!
Load More Replies... 
109
108