Thought experiment: if you're in a situation like Zimbabwe ~2010, or Argentina recently, who do you trust more with your currency? Facebook, or your own government?
Relatedly, with ~3B users, this is why I think the regulators shut this down before it started.
Yeah, otherwise it would be impossible to print on-demand to fund hostile, militarized occuptations of other countries OR punish people for saving rather than spending by diluting the value of existing units of the currency. What a horrible world we'd live in without granting governments such abilities. /s
How does a deflationary currency not simply divide the haves and the have-nots even more? As a world we need to move towards greater equality, not lesser.
Equality of opportunity leads to unequal outcomes because people are not equally productive, equally competent, equally motivated, or equally skilled.
To ask for equality of outcome is to ask for equity, which is a dangerous and disgusting ideology as it requires totalitarianism to enforce. It goes against the deeply western values of freedom and individualism.
If you want equality of outcome, you're welcome to leave and move to a society that shares your values. Just know that your destination society may not allow you to change your mind and come back, because again, enforcing the objective of equality of outcome requires totalitarianism.
To put this into more SWE friendly terms, imagine human beings as different inputs. Some are large, some are small. The socioeconomic system is the function the inputs are being fed into. A equality of opportunity function acts as an exponential multiplier - the 2's become 8's, the 10's become 1000's, and the 100's become 1,000,000's. This is why even those struggling to stay above the poverty line in the USA are often in the top 10% of income globally. Even schoolteachers here making a measly $30,000/y are unfathomably rich by the standards of the 700,000,000+ people living on less than $2/day.
It is true that the 1,000,000s and the 8's have a larger gap than they did when they were 2's and 100's, but even the 2 is substantially better off.
An equality of outcome function takes the floor of the inputs, and simply reduces the value of every other input to match (plus a little added corruption for those at the top). 2's remain 2's. 10's are reduced to 2's. 100's are reduced to 10's ("some animals are more equal than others"). This is fundamentally why the Soviet Union failed - the socioeconomic system kneecapped human potential.
Got it, so your response is "it doesn't, and that's good because <word salad>".
The equality of opportunity vs outcome dichotomy conservatives like you present is nonsense. Individualism and freedom (values I care about) are made better with greater redistribution, not worse.
I'm not remotely close to a conservative, I'm pro-abortion (not pro-choice), anti-war, am staunchy opposed to the existence of social security and medicare altogether, think the DoD should be defunded, don't hold any religious / spiritual views and don't think they have any place in public life, am dating a trans woman, I believe Reagan, Bush, and Trump were all among the top 10 worst presidents we ever had, etc.
It's clear to me that you're engaged in partisan ad-hominem rather than a rational, reason-based debate, and therefore are not arguing in good faith. Have a nice day.
>pro-abortion
>anti-war
>think the DoD should be defunded
>don't hold any religious / spiritual views
>dating a trans woman
>hate Reagan, Bush, and Trump
It is cognitive dissonance to classify these positions and views as right-wing, plain and simple. You're projecting a binary worldview onto a nuanced world.
You are (economically) right-wing because of your views about equality of opportunity vs outcome, which is an incredibly right-wing framing of the debate. You dating a trans woman or hating Reagan doesn't make you not right-wing; plenty of trans women are themselves right-wing.
Relatedly, with ~3B users, this is why I think the regulators shut this down before it started.