Cold War era claims about the Soviet death toll have been debunked for many years now by modern historiography.The Soviets were at it longer, but their body count was about four times higher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
Glad someone's here to speak for the Soviet Union and its system.Cold War era claims about the Soviet death toll have been debunked for many years now by modern historiography.
Timothy Snyder puts Stalin at between six and nine million; Hitler killed significantly more than that.
Unfortunately for you, repeating long debunked propaganda can’t change the fact the Nazis killed significantly more people.Glad someone's here to speak for the Soviet Union and its system.
He's correct. A billionaire existing means the system is broken.We already tax the wealthy and they pay, by far, the lion's share of federal taxes. But Mandani isn't merely saying we should tax the very wealthy. He's saying we should eliminate them.
LOLOL OH NO NOT SOVIET RUSSIA!Unfortunately for you, repeating long debunked propaganda can’t change the fact the Nazis killed significantly more people.
Can you prove those claims have been "debunked?"Unfortunately for you, repeating long debunked propaganda can’t change the fact the Nazis killed significantly more people.
As mentioned, modern historians do not consider said claims even remotely credible.Can you prove those claims have been "debunked?"
I know you mentioned it. The question is whether what you mentioned is accurate and can be proven with an authoritative reference. Can it?As mentioned, modern historians do not consider said claims even remotely credible.
“Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin's regime were 20 million or higher. After the Soviet Uniondissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified and researchers were allowed to study it.”I know you mentioned it. The question is whether what you mentioned is accurate and can be proven with an authoritative reference. Can it?
That's better, but it's not conclusive. Your use of that estimate, however, is reasonable.“Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin's regime were 20 million or higher. After the Soviet Uniondissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified and researchers were allowed to study it.”
“The scholarly consensus affirms that archival materials declassified in 1991 contain irrefutable data far superior to sources used prior to 1991, such as statements from emigres and other informants.”
“Historians such as J. Arch Getty, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and others, insist that the opening of the Soviet archives has vindicated the lower estimates put forth by the revisionistschool.
“In 2011, after assessing twenty years of historical research in Eastern European archives, American historian Timothy D. Snyder stated that Stalin deliberately killed about 6 million, which rise to 9 million if foreseeable deaths arising from policies are taken into account.”
No amount of blind denial can change the facts.
The twenty million claim was as much propaganda as any sort of serious scholarly estimate, and and much, much lower estimates produced by historical work over the last few decades demonstrates that very clearly.That's better, but it's not conclusive. Your use of that estimate, however, is reasonable.
What social benefit does massive wealth inequality provide?Obviously, newbie Mamdani doesn't believe that individuals should have great wealth. Mamdani and others who are like him should be kicked to the curb. They are flies in the ointment, and they are dangerous. Let's not be taken in, and believe that men like Mamdani do not really know about the tenets of personal, individual freedom as espoused by John Locke and our founding fathers. They know, but in order for them to gain steam they are going to bullshit the people who have little wealth. PT Barnum warned us about snake oil salesmen like Mamdani and so did our Founding Fathers, particularly figures like Madison and Jefferson who warned us about the liberty-robbing charlatans like Mamdani.
Happy 4th everyone! We might disagree with one another's politics, and that's okay, but let's all agree that freedom rings when we remember we all basically agree, love freedom, but disagree with the way to keep it real.
No. The point is not, as you claim, to tax billionaires to get rid of them. It's to help meet the needs of the many. There's nothing inherently wrong with some people having more and some having less. There's a natural bell curve in society. The issue is a matter of a degree. When a handful of people have wealth so vast they couldn't spend it in 100 lifetimes - and they continue to get richer - while many people have not enough to get by on, then that wealth concentration becomes a problem. There's no good reason not to flatten that bell curve a little, especially since it's a relatively recent phenomenon.A redistributionist wealth tax on billionaires for the simple fact that they are billionaires with the goal to eliminate them isn't sinister?
Err, I rather think that it is.
This would appear to be a differing interpretation of what the Mamdani actually said, as quoted in the OP:No. The point is not, as you claim, to tax billionaires to get rid of them.
Kristen Welker: "Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?"
Mamdani: [laughs] "I don't think that we should have billionaires."
. . .
OK.It's to help meet the needs of the many. There's nothing inherently wrong with some people having more and some having less. There's a natural bell curve in society.
Can you show where anything which billionaires have done which prevents anyone else from earning more or building their wealth?The issue is a matter of a degree. When a handful of people have wealth so vast they couldn't spend it in 100 lifetimes - and they continue to get richer - while many people have not enough to get by on, then that wealth concentration becomes a problem. There's no good reason not to flatten that bell curve a little, especially since it's a relatively recent phenomenon.
Absolutely. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, particularly inter-generationally, locks that wealth out of the hands of everyone else.This would appear to be a differing interpretation of what the Mamdani actually said, as quoted in the OP:
OK.
Can you show where anything which billionaires have done which prevents anyone else from earning more or building their wealth?
Why is it specious? By definition, if a capitalism lives off the work of others, s/he is appopriating a good share of the value of the workers' labor. How can someone build wealth if a good portion of the value of their labor is retained by others?This boils down to zero sum economy argument, where it is asserted that by simply existing, billionaires block or prevent someone else from earning more or building their own wealth.
I think that zero sum economy is a specious argument.
And there it is, false and flawed the zero sum economic argument.Absolutely. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, particularly inter-generationally, locks that wealth out of the hands of everyone else.
Yeah, there's no other way your frame of reference can view this.Sam Walton built an incredible business and became fantastically wealthy as a result. His kids, and their kids did not. Yet they control a huge % of the national wealth. That is to no one's benefit but their own.
Capitalism doesn't 'live' off the work of others.Why is it specious? By definition, if a capitalism lives off the work of others, s/he is appopriating a good share of the value of the workers' labor.
Not only. Free markets and the capitalistic economic system have elevated the standard of living across the entire planet.
Reduction in Global Extreme Poverty
Global Income Growth and GDP Per Capita
- Data: The World Bank reports that the global extreme poverty rate (living on less than $2.15/day, 2017 PPP) fell from 38% in 1990 to 8.9% in 2020, lifting over 1.2 billion people out of poverty. This decline accelerated after market reforms in countries like China (post-1978 Deng Xiaoping reforms) and India (1991 liberalization).
- Link to Capitalism: The Cato Institute (2020) notes that free market policies, including trade liberalization, property rights, and reduced state intervention, drove economic growth in these nations. China’s GDP per capita rose from $194 in 1980 to $10,434 by 2020, and India’s from $266 to $1,947, per World Bank data, largely due to market-oriented reforms.
Improvements in Health and Life Expectancy
- Data: According to Our World in Data, global GDP per capita (adjusted for inflation) increased from $1,500 in 1820 to $17,300 in 2018, with the most rapid growth occurring after 1950 as free market economies expanded. The Industrial Revolution, fueled by capitalist innovation, initiated this trend, and post-World War II globalization amplified it.
- Link to Capitalism: Free markets incentivized innovation, competition, and trade, driving economic output. The Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index (2023) shows a strong correlation (r=0.78) between economic freedom (e.g., low taxes, open trade) and GDP per capita across 184 countries. Nations with higher economic freedom, like Singapore and Switzerland, have GDP per capita exceeding $80,000, compared to $10,000 in less free economies like Venezuela.
Increased Access to Education and Literacy
- Data: The World Health Organization (WHO) reports global life expectancy rose from 31 years in 1800 to 73 years in 2019, with infant mortality dropping from 43% to 2.9% over the same period. Access to healthcare, vaccines, and sanitation improved dramatically in market-driven economies.
- Link to Capitalism: Free markets facilitated medical innovation and distribution. Pharmaceutical companies, operating under profit motives, developed vaccines and treatments, while trade enabled their global spread. The Fraser Institute (2022) notes that economically free countries have 7–10 years higher life expectancy than less free ones, correlating with better healthcare access.
Technological Innovation and Consumer Goods Access
- Data: UNESCO data shows global literacy rates rose from 12% in 1800 to 87% in 2020, with primary school enrollment reaching 90% by 2015. Economic growth in capitalist countries funded public education and private schooling options.
- Link to Capitalism: Market-driven prosperity increased government revenues for education and enabled families to afford schooling. The World Bank (2018) highlights that countries with open markets, like Vietnam, achieved near-universal primary education by leveraging economic growth (7% annual GDP growth post-1986 reforms).
Global Trade and Economic Integration
- Data: The proliferation of consumer goods—e.g., mobile phones (80% global penetration by 2020, per ITU) and electricity (90% access by 2019, per World Bank)—reflects capitalism’s role in innovation and distribution. The cost of goods like TVs and refrigerators fell 90% since 1950 due to market competition, per Forbes (2019).
- Link to Capitalism: Free markets incentivize firms to innovate and reduce costs, making goods accessible globally. The Manhattan Institute (2021) credits capitalist competition for Moore’s Law, which halved computing costs every 18 months, enabling widespread smartphone adoption, even in low-income countries.
It is by far the best combination of running an economy ever seen.
- Data: The World Trade Organization (WTO) reports global merchandise trade grew from $2 trillion in 1980 to $19 trillion in 2022, correlating with poverty reduction and income growth. Free trade agreements, like NAFTA, increased North American GDP by 0.5% annually, per CBO (2016).
- Link to Capitalism: Free markets and trade liberalization enabled countries to specialize, boosting efficiency and incomes. The Peterson Institute for International Economics (2017) estimates trade lifted 1 billion people out of poverty by integrating developing nations into global markets.
It is a specious argument because its foundation is that wealth is a fixed pie, so the rich having more means others have less—oversimplifies how economies function = a simpleton's view of economics.How can someone build wealth if a good portion of the value of their labor is retained by others?
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am not against successful capitalists; you somehow ignored that I praised Walton. I'm talking about intergenerational concentrations of wealth, that grow and grow. Financial wealth - money and land - are a zero sum resource. How is that flawed?And there it is, false and flawed the zero sum economic argument.
Yeah, there's no other way your frame of reference can view this.
Your frame of reference is forced to ignore:
- The consumer benefits from goods and services offered at a low and competitive price
- Opportunities for gainful employment at Walmart
- The success of Walmart further stimulates the success of others - who is supplying Walmart with all the goods they sell?
Not capitalism. Capitalists. Def: a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.Capitalism doesn't 'live' off the work of others.
I think I understand capitalism just fine. The interesting thing about it is that it has built-in paradoxes. Companies strive for market dominance - monopoly. They deploy innovation and competitive markets to do so. That's great. However, as a society, we don't ever want a company to succeed in this pursuit. And history shows that they do, if left unchecked. This is why we had trust-busting in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's why the FTC and SEC monitor public businesses and regulate M&A.The value of the work the worker provides is compensated by the fair market value of that work - at will being a key feature, the ability to change jobs for whatever reason, even higher compensation, keeps the compensation at fair market value, and keeps the fair market value being the fair market value.
You seem to have a leftist skewed view of what capitalism is. Perhaps this will help:
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am not against successful capitalists; you somehow ignored that I praised Walton.
I've already demonstrated to you that money isn't a zero sum resource. It isn't like land.I'm talking about intergenerational concentrations of wealth, that grow and grow. Financial wealth - money and land - are a zero sum resource. How is that flawed?
Another view is one of service. For this, I direct you to the following:Not capitalism. Capitalists. Def: a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
Without both it doesn't work. One without the other, the first is worthless. Also, you are missing innovation, this also a key part of all this. So rather than 2, you really have 3. You need capital, labor and innovation for the capitalism to work.Capitalists invest money. Labor invests time. Which of those resources is more valuable?
And the invested money can generate no returns without someone actually working to produce those returns. So, yeah, capitalists absolutely live off the work of others. Arguments between capital and labor hinge on who gets what percentage of the surplus value of labor. The old adage says that you will never get rich working for someone else. Now, you may prosper, and that may be enough, but you won't get rich.
Monopoly, which blocks innovations and innovators, is most certainly not in society's best interests. The AT&T monopoly was just fine, as they were the only game in town, until they couldn't keep up, I'm thinking of how Motorola broke AT&T's monopoly on telecommunications with their mobile phone innovation.I think I understand capitalism just fine. The interesting thing about it is that it has built-in paradoxes. Companies strive for market dominance - monopoly. They deploy innovation and competitive markets to do so. That's great. However, as a society, we don't ever want a company to succeed in this pursuit. And history shows that they do, if left unchecked. This is why we had trust-busting in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's why the FTC and SEC monitor public businesses and regulate M&A.
If Amazon behaves badly enough for long enough, the FTC is going to get involved and address it. If the merchants on Amazon weren't making any money, they wouldn't even be on Amazon, now would they?Consider Amazon. There was a time when Amazon competed with other on line sites. Now they dominate the e-commerce market with about 37%. Walmart comes second with a measly 6%. And Amazon's policies actually make things more expensive for everyone. One condition of being a vendor on Amazon is that you are not allowed to offer your wares anywhere else for less than the Amazon price. And Amazon pockets 40% or more of that sales price. Given Amazon's market dominance it makes it essentially impossible for another online shopping site to get off the ground. So the costs of goods are jacked up, everywhere, whether you buy on Amazon or not.
No, the government regulating of concentrations of wealth is far worse than its regulation of monopolies, and that you consider concentrations of wealth equal to monopolies is an outcome of your flawed zero sum view of wealth.Regulating concentrations of wealth for the benefit of society as a whole is no different than regulating monopolies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?