They think happiness and living well is a zero sum game, meaning that for one person to be happy another has to be miserable.
if they see that someone’s getting something they’re not getting: “that’s not faaaaaaiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrr”
if they get something other people aren’t getting: “i earned it!!!”
I agree but that’s not limited to conservatism at all. Many liberals feel the same way in third person, outraged that anyone is wealthy if anyone else isn’t.
Literally just want them to pay taxes but okay.
A small amount of people are upset some people make a lot of money. A larger amount of people are upset others make 10,000x more than that.
Many liberals feel the same way in third person, outraged that anyone is wealthy if anyone else isn’t.
sure. link us some examples of this
My in-laws, but I’m afraid they don’t make tiktok videos or memes, sorry.
I am just outraged that some people are starving because they can’t afford food while other people have so much money that they don’t even know how they could spend it all.
I agree that’s a bad thing, but people’s standard for too much money is always more than their own wealth. Shouldn’t all of us who consistently have a roof over our heads and aren’t hungry feel like part of the problem too? It seems to me that anyone enjoying a DoorDash meal, when the delivery charge and tip could feed a whole family somewhere, should feel at least some guilt and not just point the finger.
They’re also incredibly terrified at all times and so if they see someone being happier than before their monkey brain says “it’s probably you who’s about to get got!” and they lose their minds.
To be fair that’s kind of true under capitalism.
Not really, and especially on a macroeconomic level it’s the opposite of the truth.
The happiness described here is not monetary. It’s stuff like gay people existing. Your economic status and your queerness shouldn’t correlate. So queer people being happy with their lives doesn’t take away anything from anyone else.
And on a macroeconomic level, more equal societies produce more growth and thus more wealth for everyone.
My bad, didn’t appreciate it was referring to happiness in terms of social freedoms.
I meant for someone to have a good life without monetary worries on one side of the world it almost necessitates worse conditions elsewhere.
American corporatism does not equal capitalism, it’s a defunct subset. European social democracies are capitalist countries, too.
I agree but I don’t understand what your point is?
Capitalism necessitates inequality in order for profit to be made.
Why does it necessitate inequality? Don’t you “believe” in added value? Inequality may be an outcome (complete equality is hardly possible in reality anyway) but it certainly isn’t a prerequisite.
Because workers don’t receive what they put into the system in terms of effort. Profit must be made, which makes the workers unequal compared to capitalists that make the profit. Name one billionaire where their pay-to-effort ratio is worth that of say, a cleaner.
I think most “added value” is not worth as much as is made out when contrasted the amount of profit earned by shareholders.
I agree, complete equality is hardly possible but we’re talking about vast wealth discrepancies which prop up the global capitalist system.
Genuinely surprised so many seemed to have missed my point here. Not sure if it’s because it came across like I was supporting a conservative (I wasn’t, just saying that their ideologies will always require some degree of inequality in wealth/happiness) or that there are more neolibrals on this sub than I assumed.
Don’t be afraid to learn about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
Don’t be afraid to learn what a euphemism is.
No, that’s what I just described above.
Ok well I guess I disagree then. Look up countries that have experienced the most economic growth recently and they’ll generally have fewer workers’ rights, longer hours and worse working conditions.
Western countries that have the highest economic growth are either tax havens or have high quantities of fossil fuels. Both of these negatively impact others indirectly.
And that is backwards thinking. The undeveloped countries catch up to more developed countries, but not more. If they get too expensive, another exploited country is needed.
The West had it fastest growth during a time when inequality was relatively low and taxes high - 50s to 70s.
In case you want sources: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-021-02152-x
Just search “inequality gdp growth” you can find a lot of sources disagreeing with you.
If they get too expensive, another exploited country is needed.
That’s my point.
Western countries had the fastest growth during those two decades due to a post-war boom. ie. Workers were glad they were no longer being sent to die and the future looked bright.
The study you linked isn’t conclusive and even mentions in the abstract that different measures could yield different results.
The results it found might not hold true everywhere because it uses data from places where poverty is very high, meaning that the conclusions may not be as broadly applicable as they might seem at first glance.
This source, which I found searching for “inequality gdp growth”, explores that further: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-59858-6_19
There are other issues with it surrounding data quality as there often are with economic studies and as such they shouldn’t be held in the same regard as scientific ones.
But more fundamentally, capitalism works by paying workers less than the value of what they produce, thus extracting surplus value from their labour. That is what I was getting at with my original point.
Explain to me how two women kissing causes an unrelated person’s purchasing power to be reduced.
That’s a social issue and lies on a separate axis from economic issues. Unfortunately in the US the capitalists refuse to give the voters an economic left option, so we have to settle for a capitalist party that panders to bigots, and a capitalist party that pretends to not be bigoted.
Because they’ll spend their free time enjoying each other’s company instead of buying things they don’t need?!
Apologies, no context was provided so it seems I wrongly assumed it was related to quality of life in general, not social freedoms.
She’s trying to sell pictures of her kissing another woman and I’m out there giving it away for free /s
Don’t buy into the lie. Most happiness grows when shared. It’s important to have enough, but no material goods bring nearly as much happiness as the joys of other people
The key word is “enough”. Most people in the world spend the majority of their lives working to make money for someone else in order to put food on the table.
More money means more time available to spend with their loved ones, from which happiness is derived as you say.
deleted by creator
Because they’ve been conditioned to think that any type of good governance that prioritizes society is some type of evil, crafted by monsters that must be defeated. And they currently believe that such evil must be defeated by giving dictator powers to a criminal, rapist, treasonous, idiot, demented conman.
I would amend this slightly. There are certainly some that subscribe to what you wrote, but I think a larger percentage of them don’t go that extreme, but they do subscribe to the idea of “zero sum” for policy. So if they see any policy that benefits someone that is not themselves, the assume that that policy is taking something from themselves to make that policy happen. The net effect is that unless they see a direct tangible benefit to themselves then whatever policy in question must be defeated or discarded.
It’s a little more complicated than that. I think conservatism is driven by many existential fears that are so strong, denying reality feels safer than facing it.
The scariest thing about Conservatives is they are getting pressed against reality and the false narrative they cling to as the only possible explanation of reality.
Their lie is so ridiculous and so obviously ‘coming from inside the house’ that they will now protect it with everything they are.
The only hope is that they accept a conclusion of ‘I was right about everything, just the small detail of who was actually responsible needed a single puzzle piece to confirm’.
A lot of Christians are in an abusive relationship with one god that most humans don’t even believe exists. Do, say, children with cancer or natural disasters shake their faith? It seems to strengthen it. Idk.
was the original about beavers?
I wanna know what the original said
Not sure if it was the original but I’ve seen one where instead of conservatives it said “beavers” and instead of “people trying to be happy” it said “flowing water”.
I’ve seen that one as well.
Just a google search of the username and “know what they’re doing” got me this
do beavers even know what they’re doing or do they just see water flowing down a river and think “absolutely not”
Source: https://x.com/socomplikatied/status/1380660959807733762
The way the font keeps changing sizes is terrible and yet I’m sure they went through extra effort to make that happen.
The original was about beavers and flowing water.
They absolutely know what they’re doing.
Let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction.
Yes. Just watch Lindsay Graham talk
Do you think well if I’m not doing this I should be in charge of this… And No one should be doing it
And no one should regulate anything except me
Coming to a republic near you if you waste your vote ðis year.
Make your plan and see it þrough.
Misery loves company
