Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
I never mentioned either of them, because i am not talking about the literal specifics of how the wealth is distributed. You have no point here.
No. You are getting hung up on the actual methods of how the wealth is distributed, cherrypicking the ways in which it is not as a means to say that the rich aren't extracting wealth.
Your argument relies on fallacies the whole way through.
I’m not hung up on anything but facts. I’m just shocked out how wrong you are, yet are confident you are correct. Since your whole premise is false, you end up with false conclusions. You think everything is magic and unicorn's.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/05/14/no-the-rich-didnt-get-rich-at-the-expense-of-the-poor/?sh=db336d338ca5
Quoting Forbes for this is hilarious.