wait-a-minute

Some people have nothing interesting or valuable to say, they just always talk about race. Somehow everything becomes about race, even things which have nothing to do with race.

You can definitely do bad things to earn money. But a doctor, an engineer, etc, would've already contributed to the common good even if they buy a tenth car that sits in their garage. So simply buying a tenth car that sits in your garage (and employs the people building the car) isn't in itself a bad thing or an indication that you're not contributing to the common good.

In a free society, someone can spend their money on an extra toy if they want. Nothing wrong with that. It's a strange expectation to impose on others this notion of "spending only on the common good." It's not black and white what the common good is, and that is why an educated free market is a good proxy or mechanism for figuring that out.

Rather than top-down centralized planning.

With the insane property taxes the left wants to levy on personal dwellings, you never really own anything anyway. It's not a problem with just the elites - it's a problem with the leftists pretending to be on the side of the worker but then implementing 2% to 4% yearly property tax bills. See: Illinois.

Seize the means of production comrade!!!

The problem with reddit is that you get downvoted simply for going against the hivemind, even if you supply evidence that you are right. It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation on the more popular subreddits, especially on politics.

Silly question, but how will your product survive if Google decides to just implement that type of view on the calendar?

Note that as savings pile up in banks and brokerages, they supply the world with more loans for starting new businesses or new ventures. The money in a bank doesn't just sit there. It is a basis for economic activity throughout the country and even the rest of the world.

A more appropriate example is not an island that constrains population, but a population where new people are born and make investments into new businesses and new ideas. You can certainly have people transition more towards savings over time as they enter their prime career earning potential, without it impacting the rest. This is because there will always be other people who are willing to start businesses.

This manifesto's website takes longer than 64 milliseconds to respond though.

The argument you made is that "it's hard to solve poverty due to wealth hoarding" and the response I provided is to show you that clearly that is not the case, given the rate at which poverty is being solved across the entire planet.

So either you've overstated the difficulty of solving poverty or overestimated the amount of hoarding or overestimated the impact of hoarding on the rate of solving poverty. Perhaps the amount of wealth someone has isn't entirely relevant to the amount of poverty, since wealth is not a zero-sum game.

Resource allocation being equal is not a prerequisite for eliminating poverty. Kings used to have all the wealth but the poorest American today still has a much better standard of living than the wealthiest kings from just a 200 years ago.

To be fair the post also says, correctly, that what's better for the environment is also using the phone that you already have. IE keeping it longer.

You are very confused. A mortgage is definitely a cost. It's only meaningful equity if you ever sell it and get any of the money back, which is not guaranteed at all.

And only public housing would collapse the entire economy. Plenty of countries tried this, most notably the commies in Russia and in eastern Europe.

It's almost as if it hasn't even been 50 years since people were last dying because of the evil extremist ideologies from the 1900s! Tens of millions dead in the last hundred years.