Deregulate the market and you get the oligopoly US of today (not the "great" version of the 1950s that had regulation which distributed the wealth much more equally).
That the EU doesn't have unicorns is not an accident of whatever rules you like or dislike, it's entirely by design.
The second thing that I wanted to say is that even though there are examples of originally not ultra-rich people becoming ultra-rich in the US (e.g. Zuckerberg and Besos), the likelihood of this happening is almost zero. Why is it that people keep hoping that it may happen to them? We should not build a system for a handful to become ultra-rich, but for most to live as well as possible.
Some regulations spit in the face of logic. It's as if the legislators said, "let's make being sick illegal! Checkmate, modern medicine, now everyone is healthy!" Such style of thinking is erosive of trust towards the political establishment and government.
Quite a singular case and it sparked a huge controversy on free speech in Germany, with most scholars and officials siding with the sentiment that what David Bendels did was disguisting, but probably covered by free speech to some degree.
Compared to the free speech violations (and the seemingly inconsequencial nature of the discussions after they happened) this is still just a singular case.
Also, purely from a conceptual standpoint I do not think that a free society has to tolerate every opinion of people who objctively seek to abolish it. If you have a significant fascist movement in your country your speech will have become less free, so limiting their speech before they do is an act of defending democracy and everybody who believes in it.
Just replace Nazis/fascists with radical islamists and check how free your speech really is.
Similarly, we should not tolerate the "free speech" of those that seek to silence others (e.g. fascists).
In general intolerance just breeds more intolerance, people are much less tolerant today than 10 years ago due to the massive amount of intolerance towards intolerance that proliferated the past 10 years.
I think all the above are, although the trade-off line is somewhere above mockery.
> Is publicly mocking people for having a different culture violence? no
> Is calling for harm upon them? maybe
> Is, through policy, causing harm to them violence? maybe
> Is it violence if it's through willful inaction? no
Nowadays, there's a lot of violence that is predicated upon misinformation in social media platforms.
e.g. The Southport riots (UK) were fuelled by entirely fabricated and false information: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zshjs82
40 police officers were injured and 27 taken to hospital, so I would certainly classify that as violence. I don't think we should tolerate that level of misinformation designed to stir up racist hatred.
Maybe your translator confused background with background story.
The CCP is providing absurd amounts of funding for commercial innovation. Not just money either. Everything from monetary stimulus, tax exemptions (and strategically forgiving outright tax evasion) even "honey traps" (hiring prostitutes to entrap foreigners, even long term), even kidnapping foreigners.
The same way you make sure your planes fly, your code is updated, and you improve your product - you pay attention to your regulators.
The SEC was defanged for years. The pendulum swung to low regulation, and lower taxes, leading to greater wealth concentration via asset purchases.
These are all rectifiable. At all levels. It just not going to happen if we are listening to zero information news sources and disengage with everything but rage.