>>512378911>>512378551Imho, hard to exactly define. Usually it is how fine your people group is doing.
However a lot of our current crop of leadership circles, especially in the west have distilled that into "number go up".
For they truly believe that as long as "number go up" than the rising tide lifted all boats and only a minority got sunk.
Unfortunately reduction to the absurd is not a viable way to run a civilization.
Then there is also the sad fact that quite a lot of normies frankly deserve it, and the young generations in the west are a minority.
You Americans especially have the issue of being culturally or spiritually puritans, as in having some kind of need to be zealots for something, and disdaining most nuance. In that kind of environment, for the rest of the world most of your positions will be extreme and too far gone by default. And I do not think the current generation of young Americans will be the ones to learn that perhaps nuances approaches might be worthwhile instead of extremist demands they know won't happen and satisfied with something closer to their position, regardless of the form it takes while they keep pushing.
So, I do not think most people outside of the us can give you a what is too far gone, since most US takes as a rule tend to be of that nature, and the implementation is always left up to those who managed to weasel their way to the top.
It is for that reason why for example you pay she most in healthcare and majority of that money goes into more salespeople to get more of the market capacity, instead of taking a little bit of nuance and forcing a percentage of that, if it is a tax to ensure state run free ERs at x/ 1000 citizens. Since it is already a tax, the population should get something out of it, instead of being grifted entirely. However that is unamerican.
You either have to get rid of it completely, or make it all de facto state run, so both arguments are extreme ideological positions, not practical.