User Tag List

First 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 303

  1. #131
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    The concept that money has no limit is ludicrous. Of course there is a finite source or the individual unit is devalued. Based on that, where else do you think it comes from?
    I just finished watching the season finale of Gold Rush. It's more accurate to describe wealth creation in terms of capital, not money. Capital grows whenever someone digs gold out of the ground, pumps oil out of the ground, bakes a cake, or shoots an alligator for their hide. When something of value is created or uncovered, that's wealth creation. In 1980, the net worth of all US households and businesses was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, the net worth was around $57 trillion; that's $32 trillion in new capital that's created in that 27 year span.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    If you could kindly show where this free market capitalism has brought us these modern "conveniences" (I use quotations because it is easy to sell an item with no real need as a convenience simply to sell the idea that it is better).
    The automobile, the light bulb, and electricity are all examples of innovations and inventions that were brought to market because Edison and Ford wanted to make money.

    Would you rather live in a world of corporations rather than governments?
    In general, corporations are far less dangerous than governments. My ideal society would be one where the government plays a very limited role (keeping out foreign invaders and fighting epidemics/diseases).

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    You see this is the problem with your thinking in general. You only value that which can be counted.
    Not sure what you are talking about. Many companies like Google pamper their employees and go so far as to drive them to work. The free market forces companies to compete for labor. Companies that mistreat employees aren't going to compete as successfully.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    The most free market going, as I think I stated before elsewhere, is the drugs trade.
    Bad example because there are plenty of laws against the drug trade.

    If it were then everyone would see the genius you extol. Surely you must realise that if so many object so readily then there is a high chance that you're missing something.
    Actually, lots of countries have followed the principles of lower taxes and reduced regulations to attract business because they recognize the success of Reaganomics. For example: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK have all dramatically reduced income tax rates since 1980.

    Australia reduced the top income rate by 13%, Austria by 12%, Belgium by 26%, and the UK by 43%.

    In addition, 21 nations have also reduced the corporate tax rate since 1980. Australia reduced the corporate tax rate by 16%, Denmark by 15%, New Zealand by 12%, Sweden by 12%, and the UK by 22%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    Additionally, Vanek states that workers in a socialist economy based on cooperative and self-managed enterprises would have stronger incentives to maximize productivity because they would receive a share of the profits (based on the overall performance of their enterprise) in addition to receiving a fixed wage or salary.
    Wait a second. At least I've given tons of evidence in support of free market principles. You're willing to accept some wiki article on nothing but faith. That claim ("stronger incentives to maximize productivity") is entirely theoretical. Why don't you require the same burden of proof on that guy, lol?
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  2. #132
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour
    So you are aware that the wealthy give away money at about the same rate as poor people? In fact, the charity rate has tended to remain between 2% and 4% (usually closer to 2%). Do you really think we're going to manage take care of all our poor (some of which don't have surviving families) on 2%-ish?
    You forgot to point out that the top 1% of income earners pays 31.1% of the income tax. The bottom 60% only pays 28.4% of the income tax. If you make the income tax less progressive, then the rich will give more to charity. The rich are already giving to the poor by paying for social welfare programs like Medicaid and food stamps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour
    For example, here's a chart from The Spirit Level (that correlates income inequality with measure of various ills, including life span):
    The chart is rather vague. What health and social problems are they referring to? I also noticed that this chart ignores leftist run countries like Cuba and Venezuela. There is more equality in Cuba because everyone is poor; is that a good thing? I don't think so.

    Why shouldn't those who have benefitted the most from roads, a (semi-)educated populace, a stable economy, and a stable trade system pay back into the system that benefited them the most.
    They already do by producing things that make our lives easier, such as cars, computers, tablets, and robots. They give back by creating job opportunities, without which, most people would be poor. Bill Gates is credited with creating over 10,000 millionaires. They also give back by paying the lion's share of income taxes.

    And guess what happened before social security and medicare?
    We were fiscally much better off without Social Security and Medicare. Google the news about Japan's debt problem. Japan now spends 43% of it's tax revenue just to pay the interest on the debt. The US spends over $400 billion just to pay the interest on the debt. That's $400 billion taken out of the productive private sector to subsidize the spending addictions of irresponsible and mathematically challenged people. We need to cut stupid spending programs like Medicare asap.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  3. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I just finished watching the season finale of Gold Rush. It's more accurate to describe wealth creation in terms of capital, not money. Capital grows whenever someone digs gold out of the ground, pumps oil out of the ground, bakes a cake, or shoots an alligator for their hide. When something of value is created or uncovered, that's wealth creation. In 1980, the net worth of all US households and businesses was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, the net worth was around $57 trillion; that's $32 trillion in new capital that's created in that 27 year span.
    Well said. I think you're brilliant and I agree with most of what you say. Not only did I watch the season finale of Gold Rush, I'd also like to see Obama on Mt. Rushmore as the donkey on which Teddy Roosevelt rides.
    Likes Tellenbach liked this post

  4. #134
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I just finished watching the season finale of Gold Rush. It's more accurate to describe wealth creation in terms of capital, not money. Capital grows whenever someone digs gold out of the ground, pumps oil out of the ground, bakes a cake, or shoots an alligator for their hide. When something of value is created or uncovered, that's wealth creation. In 1980, the net worth of all US households and businesses was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, the net worth was around $57 trillion; that's $32 trillion in new capital that's created in that 27 year span.
    That's a very very simplistic view of what constitutes a countries value in terms of assets.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    The automobile, the light bulb, and electricity are all examples of innovations and inventions that were brought to market because Edison and Ford wanted to make money.
    Sorry, nil pois. You were asked to prove it was free market capitalism. I note you've gone back to a time when most market were free because no one else was in them or so few it wasn't worthwhile, which kind of invalidates your observations completely but just to undulge you...you're saying that none of these things would exist without a free market? So without your self interested parties the production car wouldn't exist. Wow this is just like the science thread...everyone I've ever heard of is a free market capitalist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    In general, corporations are far less dangerous than governments. My ideal society would be one where the government plays a very limited role (keeping out foreign invaders and fighting epidemics/diseases).
    And how do they fund this? More of that generous charity? Do you understand the framework needed to do that and how much a free healthcare can help in the prevention of epidemics?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Not sure what you are talking about. Many companies like Google pamper their employees and go so far as to drive them to work. The free market forces companies to compete for labor. Companies that mistreat employees aren't going to compete as successfully.
    Google does....reckon that Starbucks does? Oh, of course. You don't value these people. I hope you like spit in your coffee.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Bad example because there are plenty of laws against the drug trade.
    They're not operating in a market which pays attention to the law so that's a pretty lame argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Actually, lots of countries have followed the principles of lower taxes and reduced regulations to attract business because they recognize the success of Reaganomics. For example: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK have all dramatically reduced income tax rates since 1980.

    Australia reduced the top income rate by 13%, Austria by 12%, Belgium by 26%, and the UK by 43%.

    In addition, 21 nations have also reduced the corporate tax rate since 1980. Australia reduced the corporate tax rate by 16%, Denmark by 15%, New Zealand by 12%, Sweden by 12%, and the UK by 22%.
    You mean all these "socialist" countries you rage against?

    Now you're showing moderate tones. Starting to see that no theory is "right" including free market capitalism, only that each has part of the solution to give?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Wait a second. At least I've given tons of evidence in support of free market principles. You're willing to accept some wiki article on nothing but faith. That claim ("stronger incentives to maximize productivity") is entirely theoretical. Why don't you require the same burden of proof on that guy, lol?
    It's a statement that causes thought not a dogmatic theory being expounded like someone offering Jesus on a street corner. It hangs better with everything I understand about business and have observed to be true thus far. The theories you're bringing to discussion are more like the theories that are used as excuses by big business when they're asking the customer to kindly bend over and grab hold of their ankles.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #135
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    If you make the income tax less progressive, then the rich will give more to charity.
    You seriously don't see how assumptive that statement is?

    Your thinking....it's making Spock cry!
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #136
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    In general, corporations are far less dangerous than governments.
    That's because in general, corporations are less powerful than the governments. However, when they wield the same power as governments, they are just as dangerous (see: United Fruit Company).

    This is the reason why a certain level of control needs to be exercised over corporations, in the same way checks and balances are exercised in the US government.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  7. #137
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,663

    Default

    I've looked back over a couple of pages here and I dont think this is a real thread, I'm not sure if its a troll though, it could just be a true believer or a struggle to appear smarter than other posters with over simplified answers to complex questions. That doesnt end well usually.

    I'm not sure there's much reason in sincerely challenging this sort of thinking in debate, I agree with JS Mill that the worst case scenario is ignorant change confronting ignorant opposition and discussion and debate is one solution, also with Burke that an antagonist is a helper compelling an examination of beliefs and arguments and their improvement but I dont believe that's what's happening here at all.

    Most of the content could have been created by a bot, with the occasional troll post slagging anyone participating in the thread.

  8. #138
    Senior Member riva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    In general, corporations are far less dangerous than governments.
    Dude governments are elected by the PEOPLE to make 'their' living conditions or that of others better. So if they get their shit wrong over and over again they would get voted out of power; unless you are living under a dictatorship. Now don't generalize and call large governments (or governments that don't allow free markets) dictatorships or totalitarian.

    Corporations are NOT elected by the PEOPLE. They cannot be voted out by the people if they abuse their power/influence (at worst case monopolies) or don't treat their employees fairly.

    So even if we compare a large corporate which isn't run by a satan worshiping evil cult trying to take over the world to a government which is corrupt, totalitarian, technically/by the book the government still has to responsibility to take care of its people's needs more than the large corporate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I've looked back over a couple of pages here and I dont think this is a real thread, I'm not sure if its a troll though, it could just be a true believer or a struggle to appear smarter than other posters with over simplified answers to complex questions. That doesnt end well usually.

    I'm not sure there's much reason in sincerely challenging this sort of thinking in debate, I agree with JS Mill that the worst case scenario is ignorant change confronting ignorant opposition and discussion and debate is one solution, also with Burke that an antagonist is a helper compelling an examination of beliefs and arguments and their improvement but I dont believe that's what's happening here at all.

    Most of the content could have been created by a bot, with the occasional troll post slagging anyone participating in the thread.
    This is exactly what I feel when I am reading most of your posts.
    .

  9. #139
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riva View Post
    Dude governments are elected by the PEOPLE to make 'their' living conditions or that of others better. So if they get their shit wrong over and over again they would get voted out of power; unless you are living under a dictatorship. Now don't generalize and call large governments (or governments that don't allow free markets) dictatorships or totalitarian.

    Corporations are NOT elected by the PEOPLE. They cannot be voted out by the people if they abuse their power/influence (at worst case monopolies) or don't treat their employees fairly.

    So even if we compare a large corporate which isn't run by a satan worshiping evil cult trying to take over the world to a government which is corrupt, totalitarian, technically/by the book the government still has to responsibility to take care of its people's needs more than the large corporate.



    This is exactly what I feel when I am reading most of your posts.
    You're not the only one, perhaps you can all form a support group, in time maybe the inferiority complexes wont prove to be as much of a problem as they apparently are now.

  10. #140
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    That's a very very simplistic view of what constitutes a countries value in terms of assets.
    Not really. People in the 1950s had 1 crappy tv set per household and it was a luxury item. Today, most households have 3 or more TVs that are a much higher quality. That's prosperity right in your face.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    I note you've gone back to a time when most market were free because no one else was in them or so few it wasn't worthwhile, which kind of invalidates your observations completely but just to undulge you...you're saying that none of these things would exist without a free market?
    I've gone back in time because the US has slipped significantly down the economic freedom index. We have a less free economy today. We are ranked #12 today behind Ireland and Estonia (that's embarrassing).

    Country Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    you're saying that none of these things would exist without a free market?
    There is a big difference between existing and being available on the market for the masses. Edison didn't invent the light bulb but he optimized it and created a public utility that enables people to use it. Without the free market, most of Europe would still be in the dark, lighting candles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    And how do they fund this? More of that generous charity? Do you understand the framework needed to do that and how much a free healthcare can help in the prevention of epidemics?
    Corporations create jobs and jobs provide the salaries that enable the masses to pay taxes. Free healthcare isn't free. You're taking money from the productive segment and (to borrow from Daniel Hannan's rebuke of Gordon Brown) "engorging the unproductive" segment. All of the wealth comes from the private sector. Government bureaucracies don't create capital; they consume it. It makes sense to limit government because more people will be employed in the productive segment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    You mean all these "socialist" countries you rage against?
    Some nations have slipped of late. France's election of Hollande has been disastrous and Gordon Brown was an unmitigated disaster for the UK.

    The theories you're bringing to discussion are more like the theories that are used as excuses by big business when they're asking the customer to kindly bend over and grab hold of their ankles.
    The theories I'm presenting aren't new, but they are the most influential economic principles in the 2nd half of the 20th Century and they are the most vindicated theories. Look at the list of nations that have cut corporate and income taxes since 1980. That's all the proof you need.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander
    You seriously don't see how assumptive that statement is?
    Charity giving is inversely proportional to the tax rates. It's not assumptive; it's factual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar
    That's because in general, corporations are less powerful than the governments. However, when they wield the same power as governments, they are just as dangerous (see: United Fruit Company).
    I agree, but corporations don't ever achieve the type of power that governments wield. Few have heard of United Fruit Company, but everyone has heard of Pol Pot's killing fields, Stalin's gulags, and Hitler's concentration camps.

    Quote Originally Posted by riva
    Now don't generalize and call large governments (or governments that don't allow free markets) dictatorships or totalitarian.
    As government grows, individual liberty decreases. We've seen this time and time again. We are less free today because of Obamacare since millions of people have lost their doctors and insurance plans. We are less free because of Social Security taxes, because the government is deciding how to spend or invest that chunk of money. In Los Angeles, markets can't even use plastic bags anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    it could just be a true believer or a struggle to appear smarter than other posters with over simplified answers to complex questions.
    I'm not smarter; I'm just correct and I'm the only one with the evidence to back it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by riva
    Corporations are NOT elected by the PEOPLE. They cannot be voted out by the people if they abuse their power/influence (at worst case monopolies) or don't treat their employees fairly.
    There is nothing preventing an employee from leaving. Bad business models do survive (Amtrak) because of government interference. After the 2008 financial crises, all of those Wall Street banks and AIG should've been allowed to go under like Lehman Brothers.

    Quote Originally Posted by riva
    So even if we compare a large corporate which isn't run by a satan worshiping evil cult trying to take over the world to a government which is corrupt, totalitarian, technically/by the book the government still has to responsibility to take care of its people's needs more than the large corporate.
    Not really. North Korea doesn't care about its people and neither do the Castro brothers in Cuba. A corporation which doesn't care about its customer base doesn't survive unless it's propped up by the government.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Similar Threads

  1. Slavery, child labor, organized religion and a free-market economy
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-22-2013, 11:21 PM
  2. Define capitalism, socialism, free market fundamentalism, communism, etc.
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-14-2012, 06:34 PM
  3. Why your diet may not be working like you want...
    By sdalek in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 08:01 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