Clueless idiot, "Democratizing the economy" is a political slogan, not an economic model. Markets are not democracies. They are decentralized systems of voluntary exchange where prices emerge from millions of independent decisions, not majority vote. Free markets are not designed to guarantee equal outcomes or universal satisfaction. They're designed to discover information, allocate scarce resources, and reward those who create value under uncertainty. Confusing economics with democracy is how you end up with politicians like @CAgovernor believing prosperity can be legislated into existence. That's fascism or communism.
You don't get it because you imagine wealth as one person pulling a lever and instantly solving society's problems. Money by itself solves very little.
What solves problems is skin in the game. Entrepreneurs risking bankruptcy. Investors risking capital. Engineers risking failure. Scientists risking decades on uncertain discoveries. Builders, inventors, and creators whose incentives are aligned with the consequences of their decisions.
Writing a check is easy. Bearing the downside is hard. Civilizations advance not because money exists, but because millions of people have something to lose if they fail and something to gain if they succeed. Incentives, accountability, and risk create progress. Money merely records the outcome.
Oh i see, i misunderstood. LOL Mamdhani is an elite aspirant who cannot compete with real world distributions. He leads the elite class of credentialed idiots who want wealth distributed from the producer to the non-producer with degrees in African studies. This has nothing to do with the needy or poor, it has to do with elite aspirants who think they're entitled to equal distributions.
Right, Mamdhani is just another credentialed idiot thinking in moralistic words. He's not a socialist, he's a symbolic capitalist who represents a class of elite aspirants armed with credentials and moral rhetoric, but unable to achieve the economic status they expected. Instead of competing in the unforgiving tail distributions of the real world, they compete for symbolic status by promising to redistribute someone else's success.
The politics isn't about class struggle. It's status struggle.
You completely missed the point. Nobody said he lacked credentials. The joke was aimed at the credentialist mentality that sneers at plumbers and blue-collar workers as if manual labor disqualifies someone from leadership.
Ironically, your response proves the point. Instead of defending his ideas or competence, you immediately appealed to his elite education and privileged upbringing, as though those are what confer legitimacy.
That's the pathology of the credentialed class. They judge arguments by resumes instead of results and skin in the game.
The most effective rent-seekers today aren't producing tangible goods. They're manufacturing narratives. Journalism was once built on investigation, skepticism, and holding power accountable. Too much of today's media ecosystem is driven by clicks, outrage, and ideological branding, where attention is monetized and conformity is rewarded.
The result is a class of professional narrators like @JohnJHarwood who often profit not by discovering truth, but by amplifying spectacle. Their currency isn't accuracy. It's engagement. Their product isn't information. It's emotion.
When a society rewards performance over substance, the journalist risks becoming less a reporter and more an influencer with a press badge. That's not a crisis of intelligence. It's a crisis of authenticity.
The irony is almost too perfect. The moment someone labels you a "Nazi" or "fascist," they're usually ending the very debate they claim to defend. The label isn't an argument. It's a ritual of exclusion. A symbolic act that places the other outside the boundaries of legitimate discourse.
@barbarismcrit Societal? What the hell do you think happens after decades of cheap money, cheap credit, and endless supplies of money? This a state cronyism problem, not societal problem.
Moron, the modern habit is to find a SINGLE emotionally compelling story and use it as proof of a universal law. That's not analysis. That's storytelling.
The irony is that millions of retirees live comfortably, millions struggle, and millions fall somewhere in between. Real life is messy, path-dependent, and driven by thousands of variables.
A photograph of a 93-year-old cleaning a theater tells us something about her. It tells us nothing about an entire economic system. Why don't you go pay her bills if you care so much?