I'll post a longer response tomorrow or the day after, since I don't have time today, but for now:

Where is the audience supposed to make the link with capitalism? — JohnRB

What do you expect? A character to turn to the audience and say "this is a movie about Capitalism"? This isn't a Marvel movie.

The director has stated “Okja, Snowpiercer, Parasite, they’re all stories about capitalism," so that's probably a good indication to start with.

Also, if Bong Joon Ho isn't trying to say that the poor are parasites then what is the parasite? — JohnRB

The movie shows that under Capitalism, both the rich and the poor are parasites to one another, and that class distinctions are arbitrary. The Kim family are intelligent (they beguile the Park family), and skilled (they quickly become skilled at the jobs they do), despite being poor. The Park family, despite being rich, are easily duped and portrayed as naive and stupid. They are parasites to the Kim family as they rely on them for basic tasks that they are unable to do themselves. The movie ends with Ki-Woo dreaming of becoming rich and successful and saving his father, but this ideal of social mobility is quickly revealed to be a delusion.

Yes, Clinton also sucks ass

Outside of entering the race and running a campaign exlusively with his own money, Bloomberg spoke at the RNC in 2004 to praise George Bush and the Iraq war and gave money to Republican candidates in 2016.

Yeah maybe don't take life advice from a guy so addicted to benzos he nearly died multiple times and had to be placed in a medically induced coma.

I don't care about Jordan Peterson

Telling that you are very excited about Bernie and concentrate on his campaign — ssu

What's telling about it, I'm an outspoken socialist

I just wanted to hear what people think of Buttigieg as there hadn't been many mentions — ssu

Uh, no. You said it was "telling", in light of his performance in Iowa. You didn't just want our 2 cents on him. What was "telling" about not mentioning him?

Lol I think Bernie is about to win it

So boring can't believe anyone could watch this.

The Bernie lovers here haven't said a word about Buttigieg. (At least haven't noticed)

Telling. — ssu

What are we supposed to say when up until tonight the results were either completely up in the air or still 40% unavailable? What is telling about it? Iowa only sends 49 delegates to the DNC. The value of Iowa for candidates isn't in the actual number of delegates a candidate can obtain but in the media narrative constructed around who is actually a viable candidate vs. who is non-viable, beyond the abstraction of simple polling.

Currently, at 92% precincts reporting in, Sanders leads the raw vote by about 1,200 and shares the same pledged delegate count, 11, with Buttigieg. Buttigieg had a better than anticipated turnout for sure, but he's far less of a viable candidate in upcoming states and doesn't have a very clear path forward given that he's polling single digits in nearly all of the next six states to vote.

Biggest story is the collapse of Biden, who came in a distant 4th, and was viewed as the biggest obstacle in Sander's path of victory. He will most likely not get a single delegate! Not a big fan of Nate Silver's political polling, but their latest odds model reflects Biden's poor performance as a huge positive for Sanders.

EDIT: Now 96% precincts reporting in, Sanders leads Buttigieg with 1,500 raw votes, 300 up from previous. No change in delegate count :roll:

I believe it's weighted by population

But that wasn't my point. My point (even if a bit off the topic) is that the labor unions are small midget size oddities in the US. And when there isn't large union representation (and they don't have to be leftist, thank God) to take on the employers, then the employers have the field day to do whatever they want...and have just done that. Then people complain that wages are stagnant and managers earn so much more than the average employee. — ssu

Yeah union and worker power isn't strong in America, that's why it's important to build a mass movement to organize, support, and strengthen worker power (among other things), which is precisely why it's notable that one of the largest unions in the country is backing the most pro-worker candidate.

Wow. 200 000 in an 300 million country.

Btw, American Postal Service has 644 000 employees, so if even in a government organization you have only 31% belonging to a union, things aren't well for organized labor. But it isn't even so: in the 200,000 members there are also retirees. — ssu

Imagine thinking that receiving the endorsement of the union representing the third largest employer in the country isn't important or noteworthy.

It’s looking more and more like Trump is going to be acquitted by the senate, and another anti-Trump witch-hunt and conspiracy theory revealed to be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So how many times can one be duped by these failures before finding another avenue through which to participate in politics?

During this show trial Trump was able to continue working, for instance killing a top-ranking Iranian terrorist, presenting an ambitious Middle East peace plan, signing into law massive trade deals. The anti-Trumpists, on the other hand, have given us division, a distracted house and senate, and a massive waste of time and money. How much of this failure can the anti-Trump mind withstand before it cracks? — NOS4A2

This dude doesn't just love licking the boot, he enjoys eating the whole damn thing

Iowa can't get here fast enough

Bernie is ahead of Biden in Iowa, but slightly behind him nationally

In your opening post you asked:

Now it's interesting that the idea of wealth tax is floated even in the US. I haven't followed it closely, but at least Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed it. If somebody knows more about this, it would be interesting to hear your comments. — ssu

Yeah, clearly you haven't been following it closely, but it's obvious now you're only interested in hearing comments about it insofar as it's viewed negatively.

I answered how their proposals aren't at all similar to the example you provided in the opening post. It's not similar to Benkei's example. It's has nothing to do with just owning an expensive ranch, or farm, or a Van Gogh painting. Your only counterargument was just an asinine slippery slope, and when I pointed the fallacy out, all you could do was once again complain that such a tax is just "populism", refer to wealth taxes from other countries that are completely dissimilar to Warren and Sanders' proposals, and that increasing wages and strengthening unions would suffice (as if the USA can't do both). All while ignoring the broader issue of profound wealth inequality in the USA and how it's engendered.

So since you've decided to come full circle I think I'll just see myself out of this little circle jerk you're having with yourself.

The American Postal Workers Union, which represents 200,000 members, has endorsed Bernie Sanders

So if you own a van Gogh painting worth 100 million USD, you'll have to pay annually half a million dollars to the US government just for fun of owning it, by Warren's example.

If you get an annual return on investment of 5% to your 100m wealth (whatever it would be), which is an OK return, the tax pushes up your capital gains taxes (somewhere like 23,8% I presume) on your income +10% I guess.

With the Bernie model owning a 100m van Gogh will cost you 1,18 million annually.

And if you later decide to sell the goddam painting and van Gogh is out of vogue (perhaps because he's a white male or something) and get only 31,99 million or it is shown to be a forgery, tough luck! You won't get your tax money back (without having a great lawyer). — ssu

This is so goddamn dumb, no one has just a $100M Van Gogh painting as their only asset. What an exceptionally embarrassing argument, for a long list of reasons.

I've stated multiple reason just why a wealth tax is stupid populism. The fact that the the tax has numerous structural problems and that many countries have tried it and abolished it (yet NOT abolished progressive taxation, value-added tax, inheritance taxes etc) tells it simply sucks.

One thing I left out, but should be added is the detrimental effect on savings. The important role of what savings have is usually left out in the populist rhetoric where perpetually "the rich just get richer and the poor poorer". A wealth tax curbs savings. — ssu

Wealth taxes have been implemented in different countries in various ways, at varying wealth levels and with differing limitations, etc. Hand waving it because some countries have abolished it (while others have retained it), is...silly to say the least. And regarding savings, I'm afraid I don't have that much concern over people who will still have multi-millions if not billions of dollars in assets after tax. The wealth tax proposed by Sanders and Warren are not "detrimental" to the savings of anyone it effects.

You are just attacking an abstract of the wealth tax of your own conception. That's fairly ridiculous concerning there are numerous ways the policy can be proposed and formed.

Wealth tax is simple populism that doesn't work and leaves the real problem, the lagging real wages, unresolved. The US has had real wages not going up for a long time. This is the real problem, not that some Americans own the most successfull corporations in the World. — ssu

Increasing wages can only get so far when 1% of the US population own over 40% of the wealth, while the bottom 80% own less than 10%. Fortunately, we can do both. You can continue to attack a wealth tax as "populist", but none of the types of taxation you mentioned are able to adequately address the growing inequality due because of asymmetric asset ownership, which is why a wealth tax is the only tax that properly addresses American inequality and can curb extreme wealth accumulation. 1% of Americans own 50% of all US stocks, and the richest 10% own 84%.

I saw this in the Atlantic and actually laughed out loud. They're fucking terrified, and it's hilarious. The article itself is mind-bending too: it compares Warren to Sanders on transgender issues, and disfavourably knocks Sanders for emphasising healthcare over - wait for it - Warren's promise to read out names in a fucking rose garden. Bsvakdvzjclcgsusks. Words actually fail — StreetlightX

This is the one that had me laughing out loud:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html — Xtrix

Yea, David Frum, who was a speechwriter from George Bush, was a big War on Terror cheerleader, and coined the term 'Axis of Evil' wrote The Atlantic article. Jonathan Chait, who wrote the New York Magazine article, argued that liberals should support Donald Trump for GOP nominee because Clinton would have easily beaten him. He also supported the War in Iraq.

These are just people paid to tell certain groups what they want to hear. I mean anyone who cheerlead the Iraq War or a Trump nomination should have quit their jobs in shame and found a new line of work.

Okay, that’s an answer, which is different from what VagabondSpectre gave which was more about how he spent it. I don’t know what the work conditions are like. What are they that’s brutal? — Brett

I provided several links to articles in the last few words there.

Why do you think it’s unethical? — Brett

Probably because Amazon's "innovative" two day delivery service, with which it used in part to capture a nearly 50% market share in e-commerce, was build on brutal working conditions.

So tax people highly on their unearned income (rent, interest, etc) and you should be covered on accounting for people gaining wealth by having wealth, without any of the problems of taxing people just for having wealth. — Pfhorrest

As I understand it, the ultra-wealthy (top 0.1% and beyond) don't necessarily have or generate income, earned or not, that can be taxed at high levels to reflect their exorbitant wealth, and that a wealth tax is a more useful tool to in taxing the ultra-wealthy. It's not about "just having wealth", a wealth tax can be implemented for different groups. Sanders' wealth tax begins at $32M and Warren's at $50M with just a 1% and 2% tax to start.

That's how any new tax is introduced. — ssu

Well that's simply not true.

It's first small and doesn't apply to the commoner. And especially with the wealth tax every time it is marketed that it doesn't matter for the commoner.So above you were talking about 0,001% of the population, that's 3 280 people (if I count correctly), you are talking about about really a small group of people. Let's just think that the tax was only for them. How do you think that the next wealthiest person, the American 3281st richest guy (likely), would feel? Would the 30 000th richest guy feel secured also? How about the 3 millionth rich guy or girl? Or the 30th millionth rich guy or girl? Top decile wealth is on average still 1,1 million USD, so you are still talking about millionaires. The 30 million are still a small minority. — ssu

lol is this slippy slope slop really going to be your argument against a wealth tax?

How is it that “making money” doesn’t count as “income”? Proceeds from rent, lending, etc, are income (unearned income, but still). Proceed from sales are income. What “money made” is not “income”? — Pfhorrest

It does, but I was referring to labor income vs. capital wealth.

Now it's interesting that the idea of wealth tax is floated even in the US. I haven't followed it closely, but at least Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed it. If somebody knows more about this, it would be interesting to hear your comments. All I can say is that if a wealth tax is implemented in the US, the only winners are the tax advisors and the wealth managers, who will have a great new market for their services! — ssu

Both Bernie and Warren's Wealth Tax don't really start hitting meaningful numbers until you get into the .01% wealth bracket, whose assets obviously shadow than $200K. Their proposed wealth tax increases sharply as you travel further down the funnel of the ultra-wealthy (i.e. .001% through the top 400 wealthiest Americans). The top 1% of wealth owners also make the majority of their money through owned assets [i.e. wealth], not through [labor] income, so yes, that should be taxed.

Private citizens, rich and poor, would not purchase power or advantage if there wasn’t first someone selling it. — NOS4A2

If you have out of control lobbying and inherent structural corruption, don't blame it people that are rich. — ssu

Can't sell political access, favors, extortion, and other forms of corruption and misuses of Government power if there isn't a wealthy group who can afford to buy (and do so for their own material benefit/interest).

Right, historically younger generations are less active voters compared to older generations, however your second graph ends in 2012, when nearly all of Gen Z were unable to vote. Looking at more contemporary data, you can see in the graph below that youth participation enjoyed a larger percentage jump than older generations, compared to 4 years earlier. What young voters require is motivation and they won't get that with Biden.

More to the point, the issue isn't voter rate between generations. Given the population differences between generations, as per your graph, the crux of the matter is the absolute numbers of voters. This was substantiated by research from PEW (although they bucketed Gen X with Millennials and Gen Z), which shows that younger generations outvoted older generations in the 2018 election. And a majority of Gen Z, the largest population out of any generation, are still are not old enough to vote, and so will have an even greater impact in the 2020 election (and beyond) and they enter voting age.

oh ok

There is one person in the Democratic Party campaign contingent who obviously scares Trump...Joe Biden. He is the one Trump most fears as an opponent. — Frank Apisa

If I were Trump I would love nothing better than to have Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee thanks to his 40 year career as a non-progressive establishment Democrat, his deteriorating brain which disallows him to speak for more than several minutes without digressing in an incoherent blob.

Further, Joe Biden's support among the youth is abysmal and his nomination would lay bare the disdain the Democratic party's establishment has for the concerns of its Millennial/Gen Z constituents who are inheriting the mistakes made by their parents and older generations.

And according to a Lev Parnas leaked audio, Trump claimed, "If Bernie would have been VP it would have been tougher...I got 20% of Bernie vote [note, this is not true, it was ~12%] because of trade. He's a big trade guy...Had she picked Bernie Sanders it would have been tougher. He is the only one I didn't want her to pick."

SSU tries his best, and for some people that's all we can ask of them

I simply can't imagine being so obsessed over this complete nothingburger

yeah that image is dope as hell, but the GOP gleefully calls everyone and everything they don't like a socialist, and they've been doing it for nearly a century so if they are going to call anything the Democrats do "socialist" might as well elect a socialist, or at least a self-described one.

hmmm?

Her alleged abusiveness isn't disqualifying. It's apparently contributed to her problem keeping staff, but if she were President, it probably wouldn't have THAT result - there's prestige and power associated with serving a President, so I think most people would just buck up under the petty complaints she might make. A positive spin on her behavior is that she is singularly focused on getting the work done, and doesn't waste energy fretting about the feelings of her staff. — Relativist

Hahaha "buck up". That's victim-blaming nonsense. The problem isn't that Amy doesn't currently have staff that are tough enough to have a phone thrown at them, it's that Amy is throwing phones at staff.

I think the point of the NYT's dual endorsement is

(a) the Democratic Party establishment - the DNC, Slick & Shillary, "O'Biden", Senator "Wall Street" Schumer + donors, etc (which also includes much of the NYT editorial board) - oppose Sanders again ... no surprise;

(b) to (demand? i.e. plant the flag) that the country vote (again) for a woman for president, which is especially timely with the tRUMP era ascendency of so many women politicians, anti-GOP/tRUMP mobilization of suburban woman, the master-class, political bravura of Speaker Pelosi, the #me too movement, and recent ratification of the ERA in Virginia;

(c) and to propose a "balanced" Northeast-Midwest ticket before the primaries (NB: I like the chances of Klobuchar & Warren coming out of the Iowa Caucus on top) that's strong enough, smart enough & ideologically broad enough to steamroll over tRUMP in the fall.

IMHO, not "incoherent" at all — 180 Proof

If this was the case it would make more sense for the NYT to exclusively endorse Klobachar, since she more or less encompasses (a) & (b), while (c) is superfluous given the Northeast will be voting blue en bloc. What's "incoherent" about endorsing two candidates at once is that voters can only vote for one, and only one candidate can win. But more to the point, how the NYT came to this decision isn't collectively calibrated to the extent that you're formulating. The process for making an endorsement was that the 15 members of the Editorial Board voted for their two top candidates and the top choice wins the endorsement. In this case, Warren received 8 votes and Klobuchar 7. (Booker, who dropped out after the voting was already conducted, came in 3rd with 6 votes, which just goes to show how these people might simply be clueless.)

Ultimately, Warren won, but despite that they decided to add Klobuchar to the endorsement and I think the more discernible explanation for this rather haphazard decision is best elucidated via James Bennet, the Editorial Page Editor and member of the Editorial Board, who stated in 2018:

I think we are pro-capitalism. The New York Times is in favor of capitalism because it has been the greatest engine of, it’s been the greatest anti-poverty program and engine of progress that we’ve seen.

Warren, tout court, is a bit too radical for the "pro-capitalism" liberal Grey Lady, and the addition of Klobochur was simply used to dilute the otherwise subversive selection while simultaneously being presented to the public under the facade of feminism. America's Paper of Record can't alarm Capital, and instead opted for banal Liberal Indecisiveness.

But also, who cares? Bernie, who has the strongest donor base and grassroots support received a single vote from the Editorial Board. What does that say about them? I'm much more interested in the fact that several young politicians (of color) who will take up the mantel of Left politics in America, such as Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar endorsed Bernie, as did Pramila Jayapal (et. al.) I'm much more interested that Labor Organizations such as National Nurses United (representing 150K nurses), or the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (representing 36K blue collar workers) and others, endorsed Bernie.

The Age of Revolution 1789 - 1848 by Eric Hobsbawm
Health Justice Now: Single Payer and What Comes Next by Timothy Faust

Most competent people can figure out what words mean on their own accord. — NOS4A2

The report itself says that the political correctness is "hard to define" and then goes on to not provide a definition for respondents. If there's no standard definition provided to all respondents then it's open to interpretation per participant because it's an indeterminate phrase.

Being anti-P.C. spans the entire political spectrum, at least in America.

Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture
Warning To Democrats: Most Americans Against U.S. Getting More Politically Correct

The far-right is a greater threat than the PC crowd, but they both employ the same censorial tactics, and so we can oppose them for the same reasons. — NOS4A2

Notice how neither of these polls actually define Political Correctness, rendering the analysis meaningless.