Baker, pt. 2

SO, the "framing" is that it is going from the losers to the winners. (Q: what? A: tax money; alt: assets, wealth) To wit:   "cnservatives like the market" ; "puts liberals in the position of..."
http://jacksgreatblog.blogspot.com/
wanting to requisition money from, or tax, in one specific direction: from the winners to the losers. The assertion is that they want to have money flow from losers to winners. Why do we call them "liberals"? The words "liberal" and "conservative" have good provenance. That (pro-venahns I mean) is a French word, meaning history or legitimacy. And these two words have been jumbled around the mulberry bush many times, but it is still better than throwing the words out altogether.

This framing the conservatives are being accused of is only a correct framing. Liberals do want to move assets from winners to losers. It is basically correct. And one more thing: I am not sure this is always a bad idea.

Just as an aside: the idea of human rights is that "losers" (another diablical "framing") are also HUMAN and HUMAN trumps LOSER.

So, the liberals want (alternatively: are accused of wanting) ----- they want or ought to want or are said to want to reward the losers. This is the problem here maybe.

So, where are we in all this? There are many actors in society, especially a big, democratic not to even mention "globalized" society. There are persons in the world, whose countries have been entered, penetrated by global trade, but whose populations have suffered from this rather than benefited. Or their crime was to have black skin, or to have a culture that was more slow to assimilate into global capitalism. Big deal. That doesn't make them bad people. (Or a "bad" ethnicity, like the Amazonian Indians, who get nothing at all out of international high finance.)

So move some wealth to the losers already. NOW~!!!!!!