User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 107

  1. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Agreed. While I'm far from anti-corporation or anti-capitalism, the current situation is frightening.

    Consider:
    There's an entire generation of relatively well educated young people who can't find jobs or suitable jobs, with substantial debt from student loans. The reason for this glut, I lay at the doorstep of global conglomerates who've not only outsourced manufacturing jobs but also have outsourced white collar jobs.

    To add insult to injury, global conglomerates have failed to pay domestic labour relatively fair wages since they're aware they can get labour cheaper elsewhere. So now, the top 1% have sucked up more of even the shareholders profits, nevermind the employees profit.

    Also, the global conglomerates have become too big to fail so they're buffered by governments in multiple jurisdictions who are afraid to bring the hammer down on them, since their countries rely on jobs and income provided by these conglomerates.

    And finally, these global conglomerates span so many jurisdictions, no one government can bring the hammer down on them or even create legislation to corral them.
    Given what you have said what is your pro-corporate, pro-capitalist solution or trajectory for dealing with the problems you cite here.

  2. #72
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freeeekyyy View Post
    I wasn't asking who went down a rabbit hole. I was asking who says that INTJs don't go down rabbit holes. What I'm saying is that I think INTJs are the ultimate "rabbit-hole crawlers," along with maybe INFJs.


    I guess the perception of what is a rabbit-hole might differ from one type to another, leading some to see it differently...
    This made me laugh, especially considering the ENTP shadow of INTJs. One creates, the other crawls painfully into and through them!

  3. #73

    Default

    The only justification for inequality is that made by Rawls, inequality is fine if the least well off benefit from inequality and are more prosperous than the least well off in comparable egalitarian societies.

    However, there has been radical uncoupling of the least well off from any improvements in the prosperity enjoyed by the uber classes. The trajectory of neo-liberal economic and social policy will only result in the shrinking of the middle classes, directly or indirectly benefiting from the redistribution of wealth through tax and public spending, and the swelling of the underclass and working poor.

    The percentages of GDP accounted for by financial transactions mean that banks will dictate public policy, regardless of who is in office, they will only be fufilling a PR role. Those institutions and individuals are all neo-liberal from simple selfish and strategic motivations alone.

  4. #74
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    @Jenaphor , you've got that right...
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  5. #75
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Idealist View Post
    It's no surprise that the division between the super wealthy and everyone else in the U.S. is tremendous. I've seen reports saying how the top 1% earn 17-25% of the nation's total income. My question is: is such a large division of wealth beneficial or harmful to the country as a whole? Do the super rich help the economy of the U.S. by giving back to it? Or is their accumulated riches a detriment to the common people?
    The answer is in the papers.
    I read yesterday:
    The huge profits of Carema's nursing homes in Sweden end in Cayman Islands.
    A famous tax haven.
    Who funds for the care of the old in Carema's nursing homes? The Swedish tax payers.

    Carema's nursing homes are instructed to weigh old pensioner's diapers to assess if they are full or could be used longer.
    A nurse says: We are not allowed to change the diaper until it has reached its full capacity. The aim is to save money.

    Whose money? Not the taxpayer's money.

    Another piece of news.
    There is a report about a couple in Sweden whose child was forcibly removed from their care because they changed the diaper too often.
    The implication is this couple is on welfare. So the child was removed from the care of his parents to save the taxpayer's money.

    How much money is eventually saved?

    Another piece of news.
    Children who are removed of the care of their parents, rarely find employment as adults. They generally become chronically unemployed, due to post-traumatic condition.

    Sweden has embraced Capitalism. It has not abandoned Socialism. It has solved all the problems.
    The rich become richer.
    The poor do not become poorer. Moneywise.

  6. #76
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Disparity of wealth demonstrably contributes to discontent, to a degree, but the motivation for that discontent is not well-considered. Wealth distribution often follows a power law, which means that within a given society, disparity in wealth is lower when the economy is bad, and higher when the economy is good. (Because the disparity is measured linearly, but the wealth is distributed exponentially.)

    Quantitatively, "the rich" were hit hardest by the current recession in the US, making the disparity much less than it was in 2007 and prior. Qualitatively, the poor are hit hardest, because when an economy goes bad, the poor are the ones who lose the jobs, the wealthy merely lose assets.

    Envy in good times makes it rather difficult to convince people that the disparity is a non-problem. One finds it easy to forget that if the wealthy lose 20% of their assets, the result will be about 10-20% unemployment (depending on how one measures it), mostly among the poor. That marginal extra wealth, so lamented as going only to the rich, is proportional to how quickly the economy grows.
    There's a positive correlation between unemployment rates and the GINI coefficient. That would seem to contradict some important parts of your argument, here.
    If we look at GDP Per Capita instead of employment, then we might look to the Kuznets curve to get an idea that high inequality does not constantly lead to greater inequality. And I think it's fairly clear that reducing inequality can go a long way in reducing poverty, even absolute poverty.

    Aside all of that, taking what you say at face value, it does not exclude the possibility that this trend could be artificially combated without much harm. For comparison, I think a hyperbolic redistribution of wealth is something that happens pretty much by default in any economy. However, it is possible to pro-actively counteract it without much cost. Since I think there are inherently undesirable results of hyperbolic wealth distribution, fighting the default trend would then be the way to go.

    On that note, I do want to respond directly to the OP but I'm not sure when I will.

    NOTE: I wrote this up a while ago, and between then and now I decided to do some investigation myself. I took the CIA's data on GINI and unemployment rates and threw them into an Excel file to hammer out a correlation. I did indeed find a positive correlation of about 0.16. Perhaps not big, but certainly not a negative correlation. Maybe I'll do stuff for GDP PC and poverty in the future.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #77
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I suspect that modern metrics would measure a much lower disparity for fuedal lords and their serfs than between our own rich and poor. Never mind that our poor are immeasurably better off than ancient feudal lords.
    And? This doesn't refute my statement. Do you have a point?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #78
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    One of my ideas is that the US corporate tax rate needs to be slammed to zero...
    And what happens when a country like China reduces their tax rates to compensate? Do we start subsidizing corporations? Do we get out our knee pads?

    I prefer tariffs, at least as long as we're the #1 consumer economy in the world.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #79
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Idealist View Post
    It's no surprise that the division between the super wealthy and everyone else in the U.S. is tremendous. I've seen reports saying how the top 1% earn 17-25% of the nation's total income. My question is: is such a large division of wealth beneficial or harmful to the country as a whole? Do the super rich help the economy of the U.S. by giving back to it? Or is their accumulated riches a detriment to the common people?
    in our current system: bad, they got it through bureaucratic loop holes, creating monopolies and destroying markets via lobbyists, and taking money directly from the taxpayers via bailouts. if that isn't obscene corruption and thievery, I don't know what is.

    in a truly capitalist system: good. that means those top 1 percent of people are friggin productive and produced a lot of value to accumulate that much money. every dollar they made provided value to someone, so I don't think they need to give anything back, though most will want to. a business providing legitimate value is a win/win deal with every purchase, so accumulating wealth means you've generated huge amounts of win/win deals. this means that you've improved the net economic value, comfort, safety or healthy of a large group of people which makes the world a better place.
    PS: the latter also includes members of the 1 percent in our current system who made their money via honest productivity
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  10. #80
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    And what happens when a country like China reduces their tax rates to compensate? Do we start subsidizing corporations? Do we get out our knee pads?

    I prefer tariffs, at least as long as we're the #1 consumer economy in the world.
    I would prefer deregulating the manufacturing industry so that the people could actually create jobs here without paying insanely high tariffs and seizing to be a consumer based economy to begin with, but of course this is not going to happen unless by some miracle Ron Paul wins the presidency.
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

Similar Threads

  1. Multiculturalism : Good or Bad ?
    By redScorpion in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 02-13-2011, 10:05 PM
  2. Quantitative Easing : Good or Bad idea?
    By William K in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-22-2010, 07:03 PM
  3. Talking "blind" - good or bad?
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-09-2009, 11:09 AM
  4. Overall, are drugs good, or bad, for people?
    By Brendan in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 07-15-2009, 03:49 AM
  5. [ENFP] ENFP's: Good or Bad Listeners?
    By SillySapienne in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 04:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO