You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
18

[–] SparklingWiggle 1 point 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

The math in the tweet doesn't work. That's the point. Each person would get about a buck fifty.

1
15

[–] bb22 1 point 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

Kind of actually disproves their entire idea of wealth redistribution. It would wipe out both the wealthy and not actually help the poor at all.

0
6

[–] Acerphoon 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

No one actually thinks that socialists know anything about the economy.

Imagine one day you are like: "Hey, maybe I should invest in an index fund and some stocks. Which ones are the best... hmm. Let me ask a socialist." - said absolutely no one ever.

You would of course ask a libertarian or maybe a conservative at best. But you wouldn't ever ask a fucking socialist. Let's be real.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] prairie 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Even if it were it wouldn't make everyone rich. See; helicopter money. Money is just a way of allocating limited resources. There isn't enough of everything that people would buy if they had $1M.

0
2

[–] AgentHitler 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You’re talking about inflation.

What stupid people don’t understand is that if everyone had $1M, then bread suddenly would cost $100/loaf. Purchasing power is the true measure of wealth.

The crux, and the reason why govts love to print money, is that it takes a while for inflation to hit goods and services. So the people that print the money are the ones who get to immediately take advantage of it, at the current prices. Average people wouldn’t get that luxury. It’s designed that way.

0
4

[–] Civil_Warrior 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Math be raysis!!!

0
4

[–] 1anddone 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Giving everyone a buck fifty would have been a better campaign move than the garbage he spent it on