Deregulation hasn't ever incrementally improved society. Especially in housing we need more regulation that prevents corporate ownership of homes, among other reforms. In this case I don't think Schumer is anti deregulation because of money.
196
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
Deregulation hasn’t ever incrementally improved society. Especially in housing we need more regulation that prevents corporate ownership of homes, among other reforms.
Yes.
In this case I don’t think Schumer is anti deregulation because of money.
Schumer is beholden to billionaire donors that make up the owner class and will act in their interest whatever that interest is.
So if deregulation is against the interests of the owner class then Schumer will be against deregulation. If regulation is against the interests of owner class then Schumer will be against regulation.
Incremental changes like what neoliberals are calling for with abundance liberalism are all doomed to fail. There is an oppositional force, billionaires, that will seek to obstruct or twist any incremental change that is a detrimental to their shared class interests.
“Or, hear me out, we tax that billionaire 100 million dollars, you get to keep a million of that as public campaign finance, and the other 99% goes to building public housing and rent subsidies.”
“But that will make the billionaire angry!”
“Fuck ‘em, were the government, they’ve violated the social contract and thrown in with fascism, they’re lucky we’re not throwing them in jail for all the laws they’ve broken. “
This meme is about Abundance Liberalism. Unlike the article that I'll link, I would argue that the center-left Democrats are actual leaning right of center neoliberals who are desperately trying to rebrand themselves so they can keep implementing their failed policies.
The new book Abundance by New York Times and Atlantic writers Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson has taken the center-left intelligentsia by storm this week, as it has received backing from outlets ranging from The Economist to Vox while America’s football coach Tim Walz has even endorsed it to a degree. I have not read the book yet, so I will refrain from entering the weeds of the many policy debates it raises, and if you want to read a critique of those weeds, there are thoughtful ones in The Baffler about how “the Abundance authors ask too little of themselves and their readers” and in The American Prospect about the litany of abundance liberalism’s corporate connections that may be informing its market-based policy recommendations.
These cultists will never accept that capitalism isn't the only solution. You can't use capitalism to fix problems created by capitalism. Claiming you can is a neoliberal delusion that only paves the road for neo-feudalism; a world where the only option for reform is extralegal violence.