Ed The Fascism Checklist, Trump 2025

[steenkh]

The difference is that in a democracy everybody is equal,in a republic some people are more equal than others.

I am not sure this is found in the definitions of democracy and republic. Or are you confusing republic and monarchy?

 

[ahhell]

I am not sure this is found in the definitions of democracy and republic. Or are you confusing republic and monarchy?

Technically, rule of the rich is a plutocracy. In modern terms a republic is just anything that isn't a monarchy.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I am not sure this is found in the definitions of democracy and republic. Or are you confusing republic and monarchy?

No I'm not, I'm simply looking at the differences between republican and democratic forms of government down through the centuries. Every republican form of government heavily privileged the rich in society, from Rome having the Patrician class vote first while the Plebians who turned up having to habg around all day, through the property and income voting requirements of the medieval republics right down to the legality of buying votes and politicians in the present day US.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

There is no difference between a republic and a democracy.

Democracy or Republic: What's the difference?

And which is the United States?

www.merriam-webster.com

Gulliver Foyle: can you name some countries that you consider to be democracies but not republics? It would make your point more comprehensible, as we could then make some informed comparisons.

 

[Trausti]

Ah, trickle down thinking. Will we ever be spared of it?

If you view it as trickle down, you will always be poor. One criticism of lefty economic thinking that seems to stick, is that lefties have no notion of how to create wealth. They've got plenty of ideas about how to take from others and "redistribute," but wealth creation is something they have no interest in. Wealth arises when individuals create goods and services that other people want. Government doesn't do that. But government taxes and regulations can certainly stamp out that initiative and keep everyone poor. I mean, when the Soviet Union allowed 2-3% private farm plots, those plots greatly outperformed the collective farms.

 

[Trausti]

No I'm not, I'm simply looking at the differences between republican and democratic forms of government down through the centuries. Every republican form of government heavily privileged the rich in society, from Rome having the Patrician class vote first while the Plebians who turned up having to habg around all day, through the property and income voting requirements of the medieval republics right down to the legality of buying votes and politicians in the present day US.

Every society has hierarchy. That's part of the human condition. Can't be avoided.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

There is no difference between a republic and a democracy.

Democracy or Republic: What's the difference?

And which is the United States?

www.merriam-webster.com

Gulliver Foyle: can you name some countries that you consider to be democracies but not republics? It would make your point more comprehensible, as we could then make some informed comparisons.

The UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, of the top of my head. Not that you asked me.. None of them are republics, all are democracies, notably also monarchies.

 

[Blue Mountain]

One criticism of lefty economic thinking that seems to stick, is that lefties have no notion of how to create wealth.

In your example you've equated “left” with totalitarian Russia. The truth is there is room on the left, just as there is room on the right (the current US right wing is looking uncomfortably fascist these days.)

Canada and a lot of European countries, as well Australia and New Zealand, are politically left of the United States, but they are also creating wealth through capitalistic means. They try to reduce the excesses of capitalism through strong regulation. One can see the result in average vs. median wealth.

For example, in the United States the average individual wealth was $565,000 in 2023, while Canada's was only ⅔ of that at $376,000 ($US.) But the average is pulled up by the great hoarding of wealth by the 1%. If you look at median wealth, the situation is reversed: individual wealth in Canada is $143,000 ($US, 2023) while the US lags behind at $112,000.

Ranked: Top 20 Countries by Average vs. Median Wealth 💰

What we’re showing This graphic shows the top 20 countries according to two rankings: average (mean) wealth and median wealth. This data was sourced from t…

www.voronoiapp.com

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Whenever someone says the US is a Republic and not a democracy, I usually reply "I don't drive a car, I drive an Audi!"

The US is a republic and a democracy.
Norway is a monarchy and a democracy.
russia is a republic and a dictatorship.
Saudi-Arabia is a monarchy and a dictatorship.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, of the top of my head. Not that you asked me.. None of them are republics, all are democracies, notably also monarchies.

Yes, I did consider that. However, GF's claim was that democracies were more egalitarian than republics. A monarchy is, by definition, not egalitarian.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

that depends on how the rest of the wealth and power is distributed - the Gini coefficient of a country with a rich and powerful monarchy, but otherwise rather egalitarian socio-economic society would be quite good.

Intellectually, people will not compare themselves to Monarchs, because they can never be one - unlike with a billionaire, who is only different because he has more money,

 

[thaiboxerken]

If you view it as trickle down, you will always be poor. One criticism of lefty economic thinking that seems to stick, is that lefties have no notion of how to create wealth. They've got plenty of ideas about how to take from others and "redistribute," but wealth creation is something they have no interest in. Wealth arises when individuals create goods and services that other people want. Government doesn't do that. But government taxes and regulations can certainly stamp out that initiative and keep everyone poor. I mean, when the Soviet Union allowed 2-3% private farm plots, those plots greatly outperformed the collective farms.

It's callled trickle down economics because that's how right wingers described it. The belief that making the wealthy even wealthier will over flow the coffers so that money trickles down to the rest of society STUPID, considering we have decades of evidence showing otherwise. You should stop reading Ayn Rand, it's poison for the brain.

 

[Thermal]

If you view it as trickle down, you will always be poor. One criticism of lefty economic thinking that seems to stick, is that lefties have no notion of how to create wealth. They've got plenty of ideas about how to take from others and "redistribute," but wealth creation is something they have no interest in. Wealth arises when individuals create goods and services that other people want. Government doesn't do that. But government taxes and regulations can certainly stamp out that initiative and keep everyone poor. I mean, when the Soviet Union allowed 2-3% private farm plots, those plots greatly outperformed the collective farms.

Wealth also arises from people relentlessly and mercilessly screwing over anyone they can. Not everyone can be the boss. By definition, some have to be the workers, too. And the wealth never trickled down to them. The boss saw to that with low wages.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It's callled trickle down economics because that's how right wingers described it. The belief that making the wealthy even wealthier will over flow the coffers so that money trickles down to the rest of society STUPID, considering we have decades of evidence showing otherwise. You should stop reading Ayn Rand, it's poison for the brain.

It amazes me that someone that's supposedly educated cannot grasp the simple concept that ◊◊◊◊ rolls down hill. When you tax big business the increase is added to consumer pricing and that can only mean the consumer pays for the tax increase in the end. There has never been an economy in the history of the world that was taxed into prosperity.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Yes, I did consider that. However, GF's claim was that democracies were more egalitarian than republics. A monarchy is, by definition, not egalitarian.

Only if the monarchs in said monarchy hold more wealth and power than everyone else, which they typically don't.

e.g. the UK king has no political power and exactly the same voting power as any other citizen. He is the 258th richest person in the UK, so there are 257 richer people than him.

Sounds pretty egalitarian to me.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

It amazes me that someone that's supposedly educated cannot grasp the simple concept that ◊◊◊◊ rolls down hill. When you tax big business the increase is added to consumer pricing and that can only mean the consumer pays for the tax increase in the end. There has never been an economy in the history of the world that was taxed into prosperity.

Well, apart from the USA, of course, in the 1950s, largely considered the boom years for that country, when it became the global superpower.

NCESC - Discovering Employment Paths and Travel Experiences

Explore a diverse knowledge hub offering expert insights on careers, shopping, money-making, lifestyle, and travel. Join our community today.

www.ncesc.com

Tax rates up to 90% for the richest. Seemed to do pretty well, didn't it?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Well, apart from the USA, of course, in the 1950s, largely considered the boom years for that country, when it became the global superpower.

NCESC - Discovering Employment Paths and Travel Experiences

Explore a diverse knowledge hub offering expert insights on careers, shopping, money-making, lifestyle, and travel. Join our community today.

www.ncesc.com

Tax rates up to 90% for the richest. Seemed to do pretty well, didn't it?

Right up until the 1970's when interest rates hit record highs and the economy was brought to a standstill by the failed Democrat economic policies of Jimmy Carter. That's when the "No Gas Today" signs were posted at most filling stations. That ended Jimmy Carter's tour of duty in 1980. The economy recovered under Reagan's trickle down economics and interest rates were lowered. I lived it. That's why Reagan won in a landslide in 1984.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Right up until the 1970's when interest rates hit record highs and the economy was brought to a standstill by the failed Democrat economic policies of Jimmy Carter. That's when the "No Gas Today" signs were posted at most filling stations. That ended Jimmy Carter's tour of duty in 1980. The economy recovered under Reagan's trickle down economics and interest rates were lowered. I lived it. That's why Reagan won in a landslide in 1984.

So the boom years when the US gained its greatest prosperity were during the high tax rates. And, starting in 1964, income tax rates declined, this decline continued until 1987, through the point at which you are complaining about.

So, in fact, the USA during its period of higher taxation was its boom years.

Or do you not consider the 1950s and 60s boom time?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Only if the monarchs in said monarchy hold more wealth and power than everyone else, which they typically don't.

They don't have to be the single richest person in the country. To be a member of a class that rules by right of birth, to be among a whole class of the super-rich, to own all of the land of a country, to enjoy privileges not open to ordinary people- these all indicate inequality.

e.g. the UK king has no political power and exactly the same voting power as any other citizen. He is the 258th richest person in the UK, so there are 257 richer people than him.

Not actually true. The monarch does have significant political power- they just choose not to exercise it. As for voting, whilst the monarch is technically allowed to vote, in practice they don't. Firstly, the royal family is supposed to be above party politics. Secondly, members of the aristocracy are not allowed to vote if they are in the House of Lords. As a part of the aristocracy, there is an assumption/understanding that the royals should not vote. This is nowhere near the same situation as the average man on the Clapham omnibus.

Sounds pretty egalitarian to me.

I assume this is sarcasm?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Right up until the 1970's when interest rates hit record highs and the economy was brought to a standstill by the failed Democrat economic policies of Jimmy Carter. That's when the "No Gas Today" signs were posted at most filling stations. That ended Jimmy Carter's tour of duty in 1980. The economy recovered under Reagan's trickle down economics and interest rates were lowered. I lived it. That's why Reagan won in a landslide in 1984.

There is so much wrong with this. Except maybe the “I lived,” but I’m taking your word for it, so can’t be 100% sure of that.