#201  
Old 11-19-2012, 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
The news media is capitalist or do they promote capitalist ideals? Most of them appeal to the leftist ideals than right.
No. The left is essentially anti-capitalist. ABC, NYT, Time all jumped on board quite enthusiastically for the war in Iraq, have promoted neoliberal economics and writers, etc. Obama wants to slash the social safety net in a grand bargain. None of this is anti-capitalist, left, or even center-left. These are capitalist institutions, even neoliberal capitalist.

Quote:
Yes I did but you're right Social Security has a far bigger impact. A huge negative one. If there was a private charity like social security it would have been shut down out of business years ago and replaced by a multitude of others.
Oh yes! So negative, we went from having the elderly as the poorest age bracket in our country to the richest.
  #202  
Old 11-19-2012, 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
That's a loaded question. Does a poor man make money off his own labor or the labor of others?
Is he a laborer? Then he makes money off his own labor...except he is not given the full value of his labor. That's the nature of the wage system.
  #203  
Old 11-19-2012, 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Explain to me how Marxism values ideas outside of the idea of Marxism itself.
Huh? I'm not talking about Marxism. Marx wasn't a Marxist. Marx was simply Marx, and he died with his work incomplete. This is part of why there's so many schisms in Marxism, other than the natural fractitious nature of the left. Also, Marx valued capitalism as a historical progression and as an initial wealth accumulator. Marx even praised the repeal of the Corn Laws because of this. Marx was deeply influenced by Hegel and classical political economists...none of which were Marxist. I don't even know if this is a good answer, but I tried. It's a weird proposition.
  #204  
Old 11-19-2012, 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Is he a laborer? Then he makes money off his own labor...except he is not given the full value of his labor. That's the nature of the wage system.
Well is the rich man a laborer? Then he makes money off his own labor...except he is not given the full value of his labor. That's the nature of the socialist system.
  #205  
Old 11-19-2012, 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Well is the rich man a laborer? Then he makes money off his own labor...except he is not given the full value of his labor. That's the nature of the socialist system.
Ha. No. Clever, but no. I don't think you understand how the wage system works. Laborers create value, their employers take a varying degree of that value independent of their own labor. This is further exacerbated by the nature of the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate).
  #206  
Old 11-19-2012, 01:51 AM
There is, after all, as explained above, a very good reason the laboring and middle class of the 19th century considered the wage system degrading and unfair. Most people back then were self-employed. This of course isn't the case anymore. But people don't give it a second thought.
  #207  
Old 11-19-2012, 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
No. The left is essentially anti-capitalist. ABC, NYT, Time all jumped on board quite enthusiastically for the war in Iraq, have promoted neoliberal economics and writers, etc. Obama wants to slash the social safety net in a grand bargain. None of this is anti-capitalist, left, or even center-left. These are capitalist institutions, even neoliberal capitalist.
The majority of their columnists/hosts are still left leaning. And jumping on the war in Iraq? Perhaps they were so eager to cover the horrors of war in order to make the president look bad and if it makes them a buck what difference does that make? Obama is playing a shell game, trading one social safety net program for another. Its still anything but capitalist. What makes it terrible is that government always takes IOUs, rations them to other areas then those IOUs then eventually those will get rationed for some other 'safety net'.

Quote:
Oh yes! So negative, we went from having the elderly as the poorest age bracket in our country to the richest.
And back to the poorest again while still placing an ever increasing burden upon the younger generation. Shared poverty. Plus being considered elderly before social security isn't the same age as elderly is today or there were a lot fewer elderly people back then and only consisted of a tiny portion of the population. I'm never interested in anything that raises Social Security taxes. They started off at 2% when SS was founded. Today, it's 12.4%. Raising taxes (even if only one part of a multiple-pronged solution) does little else but help stave off the inevitable. It does not fix a fundamentally flawed system.

Like all my left-wing friends talk about not wanting to leave a polluted Earth for their grandkidss, I don't want to leave my grandkids with an even bigger financial problem to fix. Some people pay 4 times as much into the system as the average person and get the same amount as someone who payed only a tiny fraction yet the get the same amount. Even those who plan ahead with certain pensions are punished and receive a hell of a lot less Social Security than those who didn't bother to plan ahead.

I'm going to round this off to make it easier. Lets first say that you live up it to 67 years old. Lets then say you make $60K for 45 years which should allow for lower salaries at a younger age and higher salaries at an older age. A person pays in 12.4% of $60,000 for 45 years. That amounts to $334,800. Now suppose the guy takes it at 67 and lives to 74 years old which is the life expectancy for males in the US. That person collects $2,053 a month or $172,000 before the average guy kicks the bucket. That person lost 50% on their investment over their lifetime and that is at $60,000. At the SS max for taxes at a salary of $106,000, the person lost $420,000 over their lifetime. Like buying a huge house in most of America. That person could invest his money in other places and see that $334,800 original investment become a million dollars in those 45 years. Social Security is a horrible system for everyone involved.

Now, the second issue is this....Black men live about 70 years. So you would only be giving them SS for 3 years after them paying in for 45. Women would get the most out of the system because they live to about 80. So raising the age would not be fair at all and could be considered not only be sexist but racist.

It's been a flawed program from Day 1. Again when it was first created, it was funded by a 1% tax on an employee and a matching 1% tax on an employer (2% total). Every retired person was supported by 40 workers (and most of the first recipients barely played into it if at all). Today, it costs 6.2% each (12.4% total) and every retired person is supported by less than 3 workers. People live longer and longer and it's near politically impossible to raise the "retirement age" accordingly. It's not sustainable and never has been. Period.

Keep in mind there is going to be no ideal or easy solution to this problem. The one that bothers me least is to allow people to opt out into private retirement accounts. Under one of the more workable proposals I have heard, those who choose to opt out would get to place half of their SS taxes into a private, interest earning account and would be ineligible for any future SS benefits. The other half of their SS taxes would still go to support those on SS. The appeal to opt out would mostly be from younger people who will likely never see their SS money anyway so under this arrangement, they still get to keep half (and even earn interest on it) while supporting those who remain in the system. I hate it but its so royally fucked it will have to take generations to slowly dissolve away if possible.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-19-2012 at 03:16 AM..
  #208  
Old 11-19-2012, 02:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Ha. No. Clever, but no. I don't think you understand how the wage system works. Laborers create value, their employers take a varying degree of that value independent of their own labor. This is further exacerbated by the nature of the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate).
No laborers are not the only ones who create value unless you believe no workers have a right to negotiate their salaries or wages. Not all wages are set except in the times when its forced by entities like the minimum wage that distort the market value for that labor. And you left the term labor undefined. There's literally billions of different kinds of labor and labor yet to be invented.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-19-2012 at 02:56 AM..
  #209  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
No laborers are not the only ones who create value unless you believe no workers have a right to negotiate their salaries or wages.
Labor value does not equal salary/wages.

Quote:
Not all wages are set except in the times when its forced by entities like the minimum wage that distort the market value for that labor. And you left the term labor undefined. There's literally billions of different kinds of labor and labor yet to be invented.
Yes, and yes. So what's your point?
  #210  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:05 AM
Also, the whole SS thing strikes me as dishonest. Why can't we just remove the wage cap? You do realize that in the 80s Greenspan turned FICA taxes into treasury bonds and forcing them to be turned into investment, effectively turning SS into a $2 trillion loan for the capitalist class? The idea was that when the baby boomers cash them in in thirty years it'll be paid by higher taxes on the wealthy...which haven't happened. Why don't we do that and remove the wage cap, if not the entirety of the Greenspan reforms? The SS "crisis" is largely a farce. And the idea that the old are the "poorest again" is even a bigger farce.

Last edited by Jon Lyrik; 11-19-2012 at 11:07 AM..
  #211  
Old 11-19-2012, 11:23 AM
Quote:
The majority of their columnists/hosts are still left leaning. And jumping on the war in Iraq? Perhaps they were so eager to cover the horrors of war in order to make the president look bad and if it makes them a buck what difference does that make?
No, the majority may be liberal-leaning. This is not left. Liberals are inherently centrist, maybe some are center-left. Also...the idea that they promoted a war to later make the president look bad? What the hell? Were you actually paying attention during the Iraq War and the follow-up to it? Do you understand what "manufactured consent" is? Do you know why it's irrelevant even if the majority of columnists and journalists are left-leaning, because they have editors and corporate/financial bosses and shareholders? Do you know this how, for example, tobacco companies muzzled exposes? This is *VERY* capitalist. And so would "making a buck" off a war.

Quote:
Obama is playing a shell game, trading one social safety net program for another. Its still anything but capitalist. What makes it terrible is that government always takes IOUs, rations them to other areas then those IOUs then eventually those will get rationed for some other 'safety net'.
Uh...ACA is still very capitalist. It preserves the insurance industry, it is promoted and beloved by the insurance industry. And it still won't cover the safety net cuts the 'grand bargain" will be part of.

Last edited by Jon Lyrik; 11-19-2012 at 11:25 AM..
  #212  
Old 11-19-2012, 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Because libertarianism is beautiful and elegant is why it's bullshit. http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/milton-friedman
Jon Lyrik, I'm quite sympathetic to your positions but I find your dismissal of the Libertarian position to be overzealous. The blog post you provided was, for example, I think quite silly. First of all, to equate the mainstream neoliberal thinkers to the Libertarians is to simply misunderstand the important differences between the two. To this extent I can't stand mainstream neoliberal thought, but neither can my Libertarian friends. The Libertarians I know (I would assume Creekin as well) are all quite unhappy that these guys cause fantastic distortions in the functioning of the price mechanism, disrupt the proper allocation of capital, and cause a system of malinvestment that inevitably leads to depression. You can find this position to be incorrect -- I do not believe it -- but to claim it is either not highly sophisticated or, even worse I think, to claim it's a bunch of bullshit manufactured by the capitalist class, is to be blinded by your own ideological visor. Sure capitalists are sympathetic to this position because it helps them, but this is more of an epiphenomenal fact than a causal relation. In the end capitalists tend to be more in favor of mainstream neoliberal thought because it is the difference between simply being involved in the free market, and being involved in the free market while being provided with free money and direct government maintenance of their existence. While the mainstream neoliberal would keep the financial companies afloat, the Libertarian would let them all collapse, and entrepreneurs know that. Second, the politics of Libertarianism are also I think quite clever in the sense I outlined earlier and you didn't really dispute. I tend to think the onus is on liberals to refute libertarians and not the other way around. This is because libertarians tend to say: we want each person to have free and equal basic liberties and the domain of the government to be the protection of property rights and upholding contracts. Liberals tend to say "Yes we want that, and we want free equality of opportunity, and we want income distribution to be xyz (minimax, egalitarian, etc.)" The argument then I believe becomes an explanation of why the first proposition wasn't entirely satisfactory, and how adding on the next two propositions isn't self-defeating given the first.
  #213  
Old 11-19-2012, 01:28 PM
Are you an Austrian Schooler or a left-libertarian mutualist? I tend to think mutualism is the only way one could legitimately have a free market, but I question the mechanics of it (how is everyone going to have a means of production, for example).
  #214  
Old 11-19-2012, 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
II think the long, extensive history of human charity in all its forms bears me out to be correct. There's AIDS walks, cancer charities, Jerry's Kids. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Altruism is not achieved through government force. As noted above many companies give free drugs to poor nations around the world. In many ways, government has taken over the role that various charities used to handle. I would ease government off and allow private charities (be they monetary handouts, food and shelter, job training, general education, home help, and so forth) to begin to come back into the fold.

Again for charities

1) There have been soup kitchens and other food charities for generations. And our country is now flush with more food than ever before. Heck, our own federal government even still subsidizes farmers to NOT grow shit in order to keep prices artificially high (thanks oh wise and benevolent Franklin Roosevelt). I'm quite certain that no single person in this country would die of starvation even if every single federal food stamp were eliminated.

2) There are many private charities that regularly offer vitamins to people (especially children). In fact we have so much of that shit that we just send it to children overseas.

3) There has LONG been a western tradition amongst doctors to treat people in emergency life-threatening situations regardless of their ability to pay. Ron Paul himself has been doing this his entire life. Like many doctors, he also offers payment plans for poorer patients and will frequently offer free care for those that truly cannot pay at all.

Unfortunately, we've been conditioned for so long in this country by the left-wing mainstream press and socialist professors to believe that more and more and more and more and more government is the one and only answer.

there isn't a single number or real data point in this atrocity you just tried to pass off as an argument.

but even if i take this shitfucking catastrophe as real, and accept its premises, it's still an awful argument

do you realize how ludicrous it is to compare doctors *maybe* treating you for free in case of an emergency with an actual healthcare system for everyone

or how ludicrous it is to compare having a debit card that allows you to buy monthly food supplies at a supermarket with having to go to a goddamned soup kitchen for every meal

these things arent comparable at all. the former allow you to have some semblance of a decent life. the latter dooms you to crippling uncertainty, disaster lurking at every corner. the disparity between quality of life would be so dramatic.





do you not understand that this is the reason that leftists and compassionate people dislike libertarians and conservatives

because of the clear implication that poor people must grovel for food and help

like poor people don't have enough shit to put up with already

god dammit

Last edited by The Heart Collector; 11-19-2012 at 03:14 PM..
  #215  
Old 11-19-2012, 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Heart Collector View Post
there isn't a single number or real data point in this atrocity you just tried to pass off as an argument.
Ah yes the typical talking point of it should never be tried or encouraged until it has already been tried. Be a pragmatist avoid theory in favor of what "works." When all else fails, claim that a government intervention is justified because it promotes some unquestionable goal.

Quote:
but even if i take this shitfucking catastrophe as real, and accept its premises, it's still an awful argument
Catastrophe? What catastrophe? You mean the one created by an intrusive government that you force upon others?

Quote:
do you realize how ludicrous it is to compare doctors *maybe* treating you for free in case of an emergency with an actual healthcare system for everyone
Fact: Dr. Paul has done it as well as many others.

Quote:
or how ludicrous it is to compare having a debit card that allows you to buy monthly food supplies at a supermarket with having to go to a goddamned soup kitchen for every meal
Oh gosh yes how unthinkable. So its not about starvation its about convenience.

Quote:
these things arent comparable at all. the former allow you to have some semblance of a decent life. the latter dooms you to crippling uncertainty, disaster lurking at every corner. the disparity between quality of life would be so dramatic.
Ah yes the doom and gloom scenarios. Criticize capitalism by its worst cases. But do not ever compare these to the worst cases of statism. But you're right your way is completely certain, certain for a much worse life for everyone. You're the one promoting disparity but its sad you don't even know it. People like you always interpret any criticism of government programs as a demand for perfection and attack such a demand as unrealistic.

Quote:
do you not understand that this is the reason that leftists and compassionate people dislike libertarians and conservatives

because of the clear implication that poor people must grovel for food and help

like poor people don't have enough shit to put up with already

god dammit
In what fantasy world do you see no poor people? You can not legislate compassion. You can't take the monopoly of force at the whims of collective wisdom to achieve altruism. You want shared poverty. You want others to share in the same misery that others do. Government operates by violence and the threat of violence. When you push away all the flowery rhetoric and lofty ideals, that's all it really is. I'm amazed that I would have to explain this basic, basic, concept.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington

Liberals don't hold a monopoly on compassion or wisdom. If anything they have shown the opposite like you did in your previous post. Being compassionate isn't calling others retards (which is a derogatory term against the truly mentally handicapped). What compassion!

Hey at least you didn't call me a retard but hey rules don't matter to people like you. I'm sorry but I won't waste any more time on people who calls others retards because they don't fall in lock step with their ideology. Any neutral person would look at your post and be turned off by your behavior and lack of tact.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-19-2012 at 06:48 PM..
  #216  
Old 11-19-2012, 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Labor value does not equal salary/wages.
According to who?

Quote:
Yes, and yes. So what's your point?
A buisiness is going to pay for whatever skills and labor they require. It shouldn't be set by some third party.
  #217  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
No, the majority may be liberal-leaning. This is not left. Liberals are inherently centrist, maybe some are center-left. Also...the idea that they promoted a war to later make the president look bad? What the hell? Were you actually paying attention during the Iraq War and the follow-up to it? Do you understand what "manufactured consent" is? Do you know why it's irrelevant even if the majority of columnists and journalists are left-leaning, because they have editors and corporate/financial bosses and shareholders? Do you know this how, for example, tobacco companies muzzled exposes? This is *VERY* capitalist. And so would "making a buck" off a war.
What do you mean by promoted? I thought you said jumped like they jumped at the chance to cover the war. If they promoted the war then so what? War is one of many many issues surrounding our government. And if they supported the war in the beginning they certainly don't now. What difference does it make to the shareholders if they're all Communist as long as it makes them a buck? And that's what I mean that the majority of the columists and journalists are left leaning. Editors do not bend to the whims of the shareholder's political beliefs they bend to the whims of their readers and advertisers. You're telling me they don't all feel that appealing to a left leaning consumer group won't make them more money? In fact in most cases if a media outlet appeals only to a certain demographic or political group it will make more money.

Quote:
Uh...ACA is still very capitalist. It preserves the insurance industry, it is promoted and beloved by the insurance industry. And it still won't cover the safety net cuts the 'grand bargain" will be part of.
Corporations financially promote or support leftist ideals all the time. Capitalism supports leftist thinking in the media.

Anyway if you haven't heard conservatives or Republicans complaining about CNN, the Times, etc. all the time then you're not paying attention.
  #218  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
And how how did that statement make your side the angel in this scenario? 8 years of Bush and 4 years of Obama and still no one notices they both do this.
That was my comment of this quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111
I've seen it way too many times on other political message boards. The left gets frustrated starts resorting to name calling and it all falls apart from there. I've seen it all before. No offense just not worth my time.
Had nothing to do with economics at all.
  #219  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Can you make a list of some of this "liberal crap" so we can actually address it? Or instead of using a politicized blanket statement, just give some examples so we can get to the point, instead of wasting time chopping through the political kudzu first?

Off the top of my head I would say all the progressive densness of the laws regarding children is a factor. And I'm not talking about protecting children from from perverts or basic safegaurds, I'm talking about the law being lobbed at teachers and preventing them from doing their jobs effectively. Being threatened with a lawsuit because a parent feels their child's gradepoint average was lowered thanks to a C the teacher gave them on a test. Then having the school give in because they don't need something something so minor to go to court, but in the parameters of education and responsibility the issue is far from minor. Liability laws catering to individual issues while paying no mind as to how they broadly effect society.
Start a new topic and I will try to address it. OK?
  #220  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
(Yea he might not be illegal but he is the reason I think we need a wall between us and Canada)
In the words of the great Lewis Black "That is where the cold air comes from"
  #221  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
Seriously pull your head out of your ass. The canadian thing was an obvious joke, hence the pic AND what I said underneath. Seriously out of all of the things I have said in this thread you could argue, you pick the fucking Bieber joke? Fucking liberals can't argue a real point so they go after asinine bullshit.
true that.
  #222  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Also, the whole SS thing strikes me as dishonest. Why can't we just remove the wage cap?
"Raising taxes (even if only one part of a multiple-pronged solution) does little else but help stave off the inevitable. It does not fix a fundamentally flawed system." Its just another temporary band aid. Yet again like I said it was 2% 70 years ago and now its over 6 times that amount. Where do you stop? What makes you think it won't stop at 20% or 25% or 30%... Its also not being used for what it was originally intended for (thanks LB Johnson) and will find other new unintended ways to use it.

Quote:
You do realize that in the 80s Greenspan turned FICA taxes into treasury bonds and forcing them to be turned into investment, effectively turning SS into a $2 trillion loan for the capitalist class? The idea was that when the baby boomers cash them in in thirty years it'll be paid by higher taxes on the wealthy...which haven't happened. Why don't we do that and remove the wage cap, if not the entirety of the Greenspan reforms? The SS "crisis" is largely a farce. And the idea that the old are the "poorest again" is even a bigger farce.
You’re making it like i'm a big greenspan supporter or something. The fed (greenspan) are the main reason i don’t consider it free market. There are multiple variants of capitalism, including laissez-faire, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. The capitalism I support is laissez-faire which is free from government regulation.

Again comparing the old (or whatever age you're gonna make up) is completely different now than it was 70+ years ago. Today many people have retired due to money back on their investments, private pensions etc. to supplement their social security. But now after years and years of government creating these huge bubbles the elderly (or at least the elderly in the near future) are going to be worse off. And the responsible one (they wouldn't even have to be even as close to as responsible as they would need to be today) would have more of their money and property as they see fit. Yes private investments are uncertain but that's life. Its not completely certain that a lot people will live past 60 or 65.

I could certainly see both from an 'earned' income or 'entitlement' perspective. You have to pay into the system your whole life and are promised money when you retire. In that respect, it can be considered "earned income." However, when Social Security was first created by Franklin Roosevelt, the first payouts went to people who paid nothing in. Those era's workers supported the old folks. When those workers became old, the newer generation supported them. So on and so forth. The Social Security money you collect is not your money. It was not saved and invested for you. Instead, it's simply money taken from younger workers and handed off directly to the beneficiary. In that respect, it can be considered an "entitlement."

Either way, it's a severely flawed retirement program at best and blatant Ponzi or pyramid scheme at worst. Bernie Madoff went to prison for this sort of shit. Yet, when the government does it, I guess it's OK. And its actually worse than Madoff because it forces an entire population to participate in it.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-19-2012 at 06:54 PM..
  #223  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
I think that this is still doable. There would need to be oversight if it were to become policy to prevent corruption. This could also be paid for by the funds prisoners create by working, it would need to be a 3rd party organization. .

I also think this could be a benefit to many of the prisoners. Many will learn job skills that could help them in finding some work once out. They could even use their time spent working while in prison as a positive spin while seeking employment, showing they were responsible enough to work and earn their way. Many people still won't hire them just because they are felons but many may see this as some proof that this person can do the job and might be willing to stick it out.
I don't know if I agree with what you said, but I like that there is an idea to do something with these people. The system we have not just does not work. I am open to trying new ideas. Try it in one prison and go from there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
And somehow people say I am the one who needs to get banned........
.
I thought he was banned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Heart Collector View Post
the reply is that a system in which a profit is made from prisoners, whether it's due to their labor or due to their existence, unavoidably results in more prisoners in order to make more of a profit. this is economics 101.
.
I would like you to come up with a better system than the failed one now. Why always be negative about things you do not agree with. What is wrong with trying it small scale and test the theory?
  #224  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
You're obviously trolling. They do.
Look in the mirror please. He has not said anything wrong. He has made logical points to his opinion. Just because you do not agree does not make him a troll. If you do not agree rather than call him a name (something that has been mentioned 2 or 3 times in this thread) debate him on your points of opinion.
  #225  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
So it is ok, instead of providing a counterpoint, to just insult a member? Should I just start a thread where we all take turns just insulting each other, no topic, just insults?


I highly doubt anything I say is going to spark some light on for the liberal members of this board causing them to go conservative, just as they should not expect me to somehow change my way of thinking because they reply explaining their way of thinking. Just as they think I am nuts for saying the things I say, I think they are equally nuts for saying what they say. Doesn't mean I do not like to discuss it though.
Well said.
  #226  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
In what fantasy land does poverty not exist with everyone in perfect health?
LOL True
I am so happy to see more logical people in the politics board. THank you
  #227  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:54 PM
Okay l thought you might want to look at this link

It states about all the spending Obama is doing and also states that he doesnt know how to handle the ecomony since he has put America into so much debt

I feel he is doing the same as the Australian goverment and spending and not knowing when to stop

Also we have had so many taxes to cover things and l have to agree that this money just goes into the pockets of the goverment tahn helping people in general

But we have to remember that it is not only Obama running the country but other people in congress too

Anyway l noticed my name being mentioned a few times in this thread and l feel proud that l am trying to learn all about American poitics maybe sometimes l am wrong but at least l always have a go at things
  #228  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
So you don't dispute libertarianism is a bullshit laboratory concoction by the capitalist class as a response to the New Deal Coalition?
Like most things, I am sure their ideals have changed over the years. It is not your dad's oldsmobile.
  #229  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Look in the mirror please. He has not said anything wrong. He has made logical points to his opinion. Just because you do not agree does not make him a troll. If you do not agree rather than call him a name (something that has been mentioned 2 or 3 times in this thread) debate him on your points of opinion.
Well that is true Erroneous alot of members do have alot of opinions and it is good to see what others think

That is called debating and sometimes debates get heated if everyone does not agree everyone starts fighting

It is a shame that we have to go through this to get a point across
  #230  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Does a rich man make money through his own labor or the labor of others?
Three ways to get rich
1. Work for yourself and make your own money for yourself.
2. Have others make money for you
3. Have you money work for you.


You act as if it is wrong for a rich man to have others work for him making him richer (or her). Most people work for someone in this world.
  #231  
Old 11-19-2012, 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik View Post
Also, yes, it basically does in late capitalism, as the rate of profit falls, they have to squeeze the wealth from somewhere. That's why 93% of the wealth gained since the end of the recession has gone to the top 1% in this country. It's why despite productivity gains the real median wage has declined since 1973.
One statement has nothing to do with the other. When profits fall as they have for the last 20 years, the middle class takes the brunt of that effect. Followed by the low income. The rich are often not effected. Profit is not a four letter word. I do not believe you have spent much time in the business world.

I would like to point out that most of the recent billionaires of the last 20 years are from the computer generation and they all started out in the 99%.
  #232  
Old 11-19-2012, 07:04 PM
  #233  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
In what fantasy land does poverty not exist with everyone in perfect health?
Gibraltar. I hear its the fillet of the neighbourhood (Mediterranean).
  #234  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
According to who?
Basic law of economics. How are the capitalist class going to get profit unless they siphon off the labor value laborers create?

Quote:
A buisiness is going to pay for whatever skills and labor they require. It shouldn't be set by some third party.
Says who? A business only exists at the behest of a) consumers, b) laborers. Labor is the superior of capital because capital only exists with labor.
  #235  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
One statement has nothing to do with the other. When profits fall as they have for the last 20 years, the middle class takes the brunt of that effect. Followed by the low income. The rich are often not effected. Profit is not a four letter word. I do not believe you have spent much time in the business world.
I don't think you understand economics, or why I was mentioning profit. Here are two facts: the rate of profit is what drives capitalism. The rate of profit tends to decline over time, by about 0.3% per annum. This means capitalism that has a strong middle class is inherently unstable. The middle class only became a majority in this country through the aberration of WWII and the post-war years. Since the rate of profit in the post-war world peaked in 1963, and since Japanese, British and German capital became competitive again, what are they going to do?

Quote:
I would like to point out that most of the recent billionaires of the last 20 years are from the computer generation and they all started out in the 99%.
Source? Bill Gates, for example, is from a wealthy family. Not as sure about Zuckerberg, though I know his family is at least upper-middle class. America still has lower social mobility than any other developed country.
  #236  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Three ways to get rich
1. Work for yourself and make your own money for yourself.
2. Have others make money for you
3. Have you money work for you.


You act as if it is wrong for a rich man to have others work for him making him richer (or her). Most people work for someone in this world.
Yes, I would say having others make money for you is wrong, but in a systematic sense. And of course, investment is not productive labor. The only realistic way you can just live off shuffling around money is by taking other people's labor value. And yes, most people thought the wage system was degrading in the 19th century because they are NOT getting the full value of their labor. Systematic changes and the second industrial revolution made choice pretty difficult for most though.
  #237  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Like most things, I am sure their ideals have changed over the years. It is not your dad's oldsmobile.
Not really. There's a reason the Kochs and Thiel fund them.
  #238  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
What do you mean by promoted? I thought you said jumped like they jumped at the chance to cover the war. If they promoted the war then so what? War is one of many many issues surrounding our government. And if they supported the war in the beginning they certainly don't now. What difference does it make to the shareholders if they're all Communist as long as it makes them a buck? And that's what I mean that the majority of the columists and journalists are left leaning. Editors do not bend to the whims of the shareholder's political beliefs they bend to the whims of their readers and advertisers. You're telling me they don't all feel that appealing to a left leaning consumer group won't make them more money? In fact in most cases if a media outlet appeals only to a certain demographic or political group it will make more money.
Yes, they promoted the war, they practically cheerleaded it. Only once things turned sour and it was clear it was going to be a long, ugly insurgency did they realize, "Hey, wait a minute...". Of course they bend to their shareholders' beliefs. Take a look at CBS in the 90s and get back to me. You don't see why promoting an imperialist war is contradictory to left-wing, anti-capitalist principle?

Quote:
Corporations financially promote or support leftist ideals all the time. Capitalism supports leftist thinking in the media.
Only for the means of capitalism. And even then, it's not like right-wing ideals aren't supported just as much. You're right, what sells is what is published. That is capitalist.

Quote:
Anyway if you haven't heard conservatives or Republicans complaining about CNN, the Times, etc. all the time then you're not paying attention.
I don't consider most Republicans or self-described conservatives "conservative". They are more like reactionaries. The right-wing of the Democratic Party and the shrinking moderate wing of the Republican Party are conservative. Conservative is status quo. Reactionary is wanting to erode the status quo for a glorious return to the past.

I mean, good god, guys like Friedman and Brooks always promote the free market as a "golden straitjacket". Remember "Give War A Chance"? Hell, notice that Democrats promote charter schools and privatization now? Wasn't Matt Yglesias bootlicking Paul Ryan as some delightful wonk?

Last edited by Jon Lyrik; 11-19-2012 at 08:39 PM..
  #239  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
"Raising taxes (even if only one part of a multiple-pronged solution) does little else but help stave off the inevitable. It does not fix a fundamentally flawed system." Its just another temporary band aid. Yet again like I said it was 2% 70 years ago and now its over 6 times that amount. Where do you stop? What makes you think it won't stop at 20% or 25% or 30%... Its also not being used for what it was originally intended for (thanks LB Johnson) and will find other new unintended ways to use it.
Stave off what inevitable? The removal of the wage cap would eliminate any issues with retirement.

Quote:
Youíre making it like i'm a big greenspan supporter or something. The fed (greenspan) are the main reason i donít consider it free market. There are multiple variants of capitalism, including laissez-faire, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. The capitalism I support is laissez-faire which is free from government regulation.
There is no capitalism without government regulation. It doesn't exist.

Quote:
Either way, it's a severely flawed retirement program at best and blatant Ponzi or pyramid scheme at worst. Bernie Madoff went to prison for this sort of shit. Yet, when the government does it, I guess it's OK. And its actually worse than Madoff because it forces an entire population to participate in it.
Except no. Once again. Look at how FICA taxes actually operate. Raise the cap. The privatized system in Chile hasn't worked in the slightest.
  #240  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Look in the mirror please. He has not said anything wrong. He has made logical points to his opinion. Just because you do not agree does not make him a troll. If you do not agree rather than call him a name (something that has been mentioned 2 or 3 times in this thread) debate him on your points of opinion.
No, he's wrong. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. There's nothing that stops private prison industries from contributing to campaign finance, or from being associated with think tanks that craft local, state and federal laws to prison more people (and they do both of these things). There's nothing to stop the private prison industry from being linked to the military-industrial complex libertarians claim to hate so much (but still voted for Gary Johnson, who supported private prisons in NM that did just this).
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump