Taxes!
- Thread starter Moss Factor
- Start date
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
I don't see how you could possibly support the idea that a country that was supposed to be based on principles of freedom can just take things from other countries by brute force. It's a massive contradiction.
Power, maybe. Wealth, no.
Professor_Chris
Active Member
Paying people enough to live on for not working certainly seems like a disinsentive to work to me! Those who are motivated to try and work their way out will work. Of course, like I said, some people just pick up a job that pays cash so they don't have to claim it.Marril said:
Depends which ones you consider "basic" I suppose. Am I against all social programs? Probably not. Public education is a reasonably good idea as it increases human capital which thus creates more capable workers which is generally good for society. Although it is flawed in execution. The biggest problem facing public schools is grade inflation. Many students get grades that they don't earn. The only explanations for this are that either the teachers aren't given incentives to care or that they are given disincentives which cause them not to care.
"Love it or leave it" you say?
There is a difference between changing the country where you reside and quitting a job. Do I really need to point out the drastic differences or are you through attempting to stir up off topic arguements?
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
Okay, so change it. Vote with *gasp* your vote. It's not like the government is just some self-appointed oligarchy imposing its laws upon you without considering your opinion in any way.
And saying that because the current government of the United States only has invariably corrupt people as those eligible to hold office (a huge generalization, but I let it fly for now) does not logically equate to saying all governments can only have invariably corrupt people eligible to hold its offices. Hell, you can blame low voter turnouts if you want.
But if a man such as I described could create that much wealth, why hire him when someone else with better qualifications could create even more wealth!
Remember, capitalism is heartless. It only cares about numbers. If you can't produce numbers, you are worthless to a capitalist.
They're still illegal immigrants.
That's what they said when Germany went after Poland, when America went after Iraq... basically, it's a warmongering statement to say that.
I apologize for the Godwin's Law invocation, but really it was the only thing coming to mind.
That sounds pretty close to the question I asked Moss, "If I mismanaged money, should I be allowed to seek it?"
In other words, should money only be in the hands of those best with it?
Basic necessities of life are something a lot of people can't live with if you're talking about the basics and the basics alone (i.e. they'll want recreation, which costs money). You pretty much literally cannot afford anything else if you're on welfare, other than rent and groceries... at least around here, but around here is a pretty generous welfare situation.
Are you against the idea of a health care system?
I think that's a bit of a simple one though, so here's something a bit deeper...
Are you against things such as safe injection sites for drug addicts?
Not for some people. For some people, quitting their job due to working conditions is simply not an option, just as leaving the country is not an option for you. That is what I was trying to impress upon you.
Moss Factor
New Member
Actually, you have not. You’ve given me some wonderful illustrations of what you say utility isn’t, but not what utility is. You gave the equivalent of a "a square is a parallelogram but a parallelogram is not necessarily a square" analogy; but you haven't not told us what utility is if not happiness. Do me a favor and finish this sentence: “Utility is not happiness; the definition of utility is…”
It is OK to be wrong once in awhile Marril. Just own up and admit it so we can move on.
That is all an opinion. You cannot make that conclusion for everyone. While many people in a company may find it to be worth the tradeoff, it will not be worth the cost to every employee.
I am the one lying?! Tell me, Marril, at what percentage is the portion of your wages taken out “significant?” It is completely relative! How can I possibly be lying? “Significant” to one person isn’t the same as “significant” to another. Frankly, I would never work for a union if I were forced to pay dues, the amount is always too significant for me, no matter how small. Significant is a term relative to the one paying it; significant to you may not be the same as significant to me. So before you again resort to the only method of debate you have any talent in, mudslinging, realize the own gaping holes in your logic. Significant is a relative term, how can you say factually what is significant to someone and what is not? Where is the cutoff? It doesn’t exist.
Again, completely misrepresenting my argument. The way unions have it set up, an employee will earn more for being employed longer regardless of whether or not they are a better and more loyal employee than someone who has been with the company less. Without unions, you are paid according to what value you add to the company, which generally increases with seniority, but is given the flexibility to reward those who add significant value without seniority and to not blindly throw rewards at those who do not add value as significantly as those with comparable seniority. You seem to argue that taking this flexibility away is a good thing, I fail to see why. Why would it be better to pay someone more who produces less? What does that do for morale?
The quote you provided had no source for the figure. Did Mr. Chabbert perform the study himself? If not, I would like a source for the 99% figure. The “lack?” The only thinking lacking is your ability to debate without using ad hominems and personal attacks to cover up your inability to prove me wrong. It really is incredibly immature that you simply have no possible way of communicating with someone you disagree with in a civil manner. Grow up, Marril.
You do not have to formally threaten a strike in order for the company bargaining to know that that option is on the table. A union’s most powerful weapon to get more than their fair share is the strike. An employer does not need to be formally threatened with one to know that they are capable of doing it.
Again, you have a habit of attacking the fringe and complementary points I bring up, while leaving the meat, the real point of what I’m trying to say untouched. In this way you can try to refute what I’m saying without actually providing a counterpoint. Why would someone do something like this? Because they have no counterpoint; I am correct.
Are you implying that people are completely ignorant of the fact that they can lose their jobs? What happened to personal responsibility?
You talk about me lying? An employer has every reason to pay their employees fair wages! For one, people getting paid more are more productive on average. They are less likely to defect to other companies. Are you implying that nobody who isn't a part of a union is paid fairly?
Again, if you read the article (which I’m sure you didn’t as you expect me to read and debate every single one of your articles but have only really criticized one of mine, the GM one, and upon my highlighting the points of how the union is destroying GM simply conceded the point with your lack of response), you’d see that increased funding does not lead to better schools. Obviously, the inverse is true to a point; all schools need funding to operate. I am a supporter of well-funded schools in that they provide a massive positive externality to society. Consequentially, I also support efficient schools that provide maximum educational value for the funding they receive. That is why I am a staunch proponent of vouchers. The Canadian schools may actually already have a voucher-type system; most countries do have some form of them, which is why I can’t believe America is still in the stone age of educational funding.
Trust me, I have. You are consistently vague, ambiguous, undefined, and nonspecific in these posts. Either say something of substance or just be mature and concede the point: you have no idea how to create incentives in government to spend money wisely.
Example: You go to a restaurant and want to buy the most expensive dinner on the menu. You reach in your pocket and realize you don’t have the money! Are you being inefficient with how you’re spending your funds? No, you just don’t have the money to waste on expensive items. Just because you cannot fund something does not mean you are being inefficient with how you spend your money. Being inefficient means you are spending your money, but you’re spending it in ineffective ways. What are the government’s most basic functions, as defined by our founding fathers?
Regardless of your obvious logical flaw, you misrepresented my point entirely. The assertion was that a tax-funded government is inherently inefficient because of the deadweight loss of surplus from taxation. You fail over and over to even address this. Please just say “I concede the point” so I don’t have to keep throwing it in your face.
I repeat: Everyone works with the intentions of maximizing their utility. Including you, including everyone who has ever lived. You have not, and will not, give me your definition of utility. Probably because you don’t know what it means (here is a hint: happiness).
What portion of society works to become less happy? That’s right, its none of it. Everyone from capitalists, communists, pastors, CEOs, union workers, athletes, to even disgruntled female pseudointellectual youths, work to maximize their utility. It is universal.
Nothing can be “nearly infinite.” If it is anything other than infinite then it is infinitely less than infinite. Furthermore, it is impossible to achieve infinite positive or negative utility. You are so uneducated it astounds me.
When did the income percentile of the middle class have a better standard of living than the period of time we’re in right now? One hundred years ago? Fifty years ago? When was it Marril?
But the majority of top income earners still work every day. Hasn’t anyone told them they’ve reached their carrot?! My God, somebody tell these people!
Maybe what the carrot is to one person is not the same as what it is to someone else. My parents are by no means rich; in fact when I was much younger we could probably be considered poor. However, they have achieved a middle-class lifestyle and are very content. Then you have people who are worth millions, but still toil away working long weeks and are constantly striving for more. The point is, “the carrot” is relative. It is not the top 1/5th for everyone, it is not the top 1% for everyone. It can be nearly anything more or less. Priests are perfectly content to live a meager life. Many people run nonprofit organizations and live well below what their talents could earn elsewhere. Capitalism gives you the opportunities and economic mobility to achieve. For some people, “the carrot” is relatively easy to get. For others, there is no amount high enough to earn. You cannot simply put a fixed number on what people desire to achieve financially in life.
Actually it is nonexistent to 100% of people because “maximized utility” is not the reward of capitalism. People work to maximize their utility, but nobody every does because we have unlimited wants. No matter how happy we are, there is always something else we could do to make ourselves happier. What capitalism does offer is a mechanism for society to achieve more utility than any other system.
I argue for government in the state that it actually existed in before it became convoluted, large, corrupt, and massively wasteful (it is inherently wasteful if collecting taxes, however with income taxes is far, far more wasteful). Our government operated just fine for a very long time and did it’s fundamental duties: defended us from foreign invaders, corrected market failures, protected our property and lives from domestic attackers. I do not see how cutting back funds to useless programs like a “bridge to nowhere” or a $1,000,000.00 earmark to build a virtual reality spray paint training program (just a few that were passed this year) will somehow affect government’s ability to protect our lives and property. You don’t come up with a reason why either (because you have none). The fact remains clear: government has basic functions which it provided without social programs and Ponzi schemes like it is funding today. Cutting these back in no way diminishes the ability for government to effectively protect it’s people and correct it’s markets.
You play Pokemon, right? Have you ever traded a card before? How many parties must disagree to make a trade fall through? One. If anyone involved with the trade does not wish to perform it, the trade does not happen. You cannot go into someone’s binder, see a Charizard ex and force them to trade your Dunsparce for it. Both parties must agree to the trade. They cannot force you to trade something you do not wish to trade under the discussed terms, and you cannot force them to trade likewise.
It is the same with labor. You trade your labor for a paycheck, benefits, and whatever the company offers. If you no longer like the trade you can try to get better compensation or you can quit. If a company doesn’t like the trade, it can try and get better terms or fire you. Trades must be agreed upon by both members of the parties trading. What is so difficult to understand, Marril?
The tobacco industry continues to exist today despite giving out incorrect information previously because people now know the dangers of smoking but continue to do it anyway. It maximizes their utility. Smoking makes them happy. People die in car accidents speeding; they know the dangers but do it anyway. People drink themselves do death. People can do things that seem quite irrational, but they do them because it makes them the most happy. While many things people do are not a decision I would make, I will fight to preserve their autonomy and allow them to make that decision. Personal responsibility and all that.
While that is a relatively small portion of our debt load when compared to the social programs, go ahead and get us out of Iraq too!
I think that sounds like Marril conceding a point!
I honestly don’t see myself winning this debate. Why? Because whenever I prove you wrong, you simply change subjects or don’t address it. I am expected to respond to every single one of your questions and prove wrong every single one of your sources, while my own questions, my own points, and my own sources go unread, untouched, unspoken of. It is incredibly unfair. You even said you’d concede the point with the whole GM-union thing, and you didn’t do that. Own up to your losses.
You criticize me for using the “every” qualifier and yet you use it yourself. How would a nontax-funded government be unable to function with regard to every public service? Our government survived without an income tax (aside from the Civil War levy) until 1913. The government provided its people with the security and protection of their lives and property from foreign and domestic intruders. It corrected market failures. How are you to assume that we can no longer do this without an income tax?
If you (or the company, but I’ll address them both as “you”) earned that money, I have no right to influence how you choose to spend your money. It is your property. Perhaps others could manage it better, however it is your right to choose where your money is spent and I will defend that right whenever possible. The premise of government is to defend your life, property, and liberty to do what you want with the first two as long as it doesn’t including acting with force on the life or property of another. This is generally speaking, but government is based primarily off of this notion.
Government, on the other hand, steals our money with force. Then they go on to mismanage our money. This is the distinction.
Marril are you simply just in denial? I swear to God I don’t want to have to say this again, but it really is getting ridiculous. Are you simply choosing not to read what I am saying? Again,
Is there something you don’t understand? Are you going to even try to offer a counterpoint, or just simply disregard what I’m saying? I guess you’re too busy trying to claim you won to actually debate.Moss Factor said:
How much are they making in terms of the buying power of their economy. Remember, in most 3rd-world countries, these people have never earned a wage in their lives. They have been micro-scale farmers or fishers that essentially produce enough to get by. They are not forced to work in these factories. They do so because it gives them better living conditions than the ones the face otherwise.
Question: if working for a factory makes you worse off than you would be otherwise, why would you work for it?
They offered similar goods at lower prices. This allows every member of the community to effectively have more money to spend; they spend less on the things they normally buy, giving them more money to spend elsewhere. The greater good is served because everyone buying the Wal-Mart products effectively now has “more money” (the money that they do have goes further).
What are major connections? Getting money from them? Campaign money, personal money? What about the business just letting you fly their jet around or the business gives you some of their stuff? What if you don’t receive anything monetarily from them, but you happen to own their stock and did own it before you were elected? What if you have a brother that works in private enterprise (most brothers do), are you thrown out of office? What if your husband or wife works for a business? How do you define “major connections” and where is the line drawn? Everyone is in some way connected to private enterprise. At what point does the connection become “major,” and how does this line not blur terribly?
Marril once again is quick to tell us what we can and cannot do with our own lives and property.
This process is not new. I may be pro a specific issue. Let’s say it is ending the Iraq War. In the US currently, I can form a PAC and generate funding for this cause. I will then promote politicians who support ending the Iraq War. Now, I’m not giving the money to any politicians and I’m they will have no say in how the money is spent. I simply have a cause, and promote those that have the same views as me. Is this “corrupt?” Why shouldn’t I be allowed to support and fight for those who feel the same way as myself?
Remind me again how to make plastics without polluting. Does one only pollute if cutting costs? Is there always a practical way of producing something without polluting to where polluting is only done as a way of cutting costs?
What socialist countries have solved the poverty problem? The pollution problem? Socialist countries have not been able to solve these problems. Capitalist countries do improve standards of living over time. Take a look at the US expansion in just the past 80 years.
I don't know about Canada, but nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that you have any rights to a job. You have no right to be employed. The government does not secure this in any way. What are they designed to secure? Your life, property, and liberty so as long as you don't infringe on the lives and property of others. This is why it is so fundamentally backwards that a government would take your property when it is supposed to be protecting it.
One may ask, "but shouldn't there be a price to pay for the protection of our property and life that the government provides?" There is, however it is not monetary. The social contract is an agreement society makes with it's government. The members of society give up their liberty over all things in exchange for protection of their own. In effect, we give up our liberty, our freedom, to do anything we want in exchange for rules over what we can and cannot do that protect us. The protection the government offers is over our lives and our property. If you've read Hobbes' Leviathan or Locke's Second Treatise of Government (as I have), property rights are critical to the fundamental purpose of government.
We already pay a significant price for the protection we receive. That cost is our liberty and the protection is over our property. It is a breach of this social contract for the government to take our property by force when that is what we paid the government with our liberty to protect. It is counter to government's fundamental purpose; it becomes the mechanism of perpetuating the force it was designed to protect from.
Exactly my point. Canada produces less, and has less debt. Production is correlated with ability to pay down debt, so a presentation of of it's numbers requires the context of the country's size.
When comparing the financial statements of companies, we never compare companies of significantly different values; what is a "good" number for a small company is different that what is a "good" number for a larger company. You would either compare with similarly-sized company or against past years' numbers, or compare ratios and percentages between differently-sized companies to give relevance and context to the numbers. This is exactly what I have done here. A company with a $5b market cap has a far greater ability to pay a large debt than a $10m market caped company. It is no different with debts of countries.
It does automatically reduce waste and creates a greater surplus in the economy. Automatically.
I have.
We survived without income, capital gains, dividends, and most other taxes for the majority of the United States' history and still provided funding for all o f the things you have listed. There are ways for these programs to fund themselves. Furthermore, there are other forms of funding the government has available to it that do not include theft from its own citizens. Issuing bonds, tarrifs, and penalties for breaking laws. The government was sustainable and provided all of these functions before income taxes. It could still do that today. The majority of the income taxes it does recieve is wasted.
Do you know what is the source of the majority of that debt? Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and War. Get rid of these unnecessary expeditures and you have significantly reduced our current and future debt.
No problem, you can definitely use it.
There are market failures! I have been saying this all along (finally you guys listen). Government can help to correct these market failures. Businesses are only the "best" when they are efficiently using our limited resources. Competition is what causes this to occur. Competition breeds efficiency. If ever there is not competition occurring, there is inefficiency and thus a market failure has occurred. This is where government can improve markets by fixing these market failures and break up the monopoly. Again, I have been saying this all along. It is about time you've listened.
"Human rights" again is a very subjective term. What is tolerant human rights today is not what was tolerant years ago and visa versa. One-hundred fifty years ago it was commonplace for children to work long hours, especially in agriculture (not just because the corporations said so). These days this is not the case. Similarly, having many minorities work certain upper-class jobs was seen as taboo. Times have thankfully changed. It is not government that enacts these changes, but society. If people do not approve of the standards of a business they can choose not to patron them. You can already see this as an effective means of preventing this situation; many companies who have committed our currently-defined human rights violations have gone out of business as a result of consumer boycott. This is an effective means of regulation that changes instantaneously with the times and accurately values the extent of the violation.
If Wal-Mart has been proven to use "sweatshop labor" and continues to operate, it must mean that society doesn't see it as being as big a human rights violation as you do.
This is not true; capitalism does not have a rule that there can be no government intervention. Government is often necessary in capitalism to correct market failures and to enforce rules.
I understand what you're saying. However, if you pollute an area to the point where it is irreversibly destroyed, you cannot "redestroy it." For example, if you pollute a pond by a factory producing some medicine, and you pollute it enough to where it is irreversibly destroyed, each additional amount of pollution has no additional cost of destroying that pond (under my proposed system, the company would keep paying any fines). Therefore, despite that cost being perpetual, the benefit received from the production is perpetual as well.
Another example, suppose you build a bridge and pave over some of the ecosystem doing so. That ecosystem is lost and the cost is incurred over time, however the benefit of that bridge is also incurred over time as well. Thus, the benefit society receives from this is also in the long-term, as well as the cost. As long as the two are balanced, everything works out.
To maximize my utility, of course! Why else would I?
Nobody said you necessarily get paid proportionally to how hard you work. You get paid proportionally to how much you earn. I could work hard every single day for a year at digging a hole and produce less than one person with a backhoe in a day or so. Should I get paid more because I worked harder? Luckily for us, however, there is a high correlation between those that work harder and those than earn more.
Make no mistake, the playing field is even. Maybe some people start at slightly different points, but the race is long, there is enormous opportunity to move up and down the order, and you don't have to finish first in order to win.
What social measures do is to put weights on the shoulders of those people who are faster. Is that leveling the playing field? No, that is limiting the abilities of some. Why should government be able to take property from those who have earned it, even if they may have had some luck to do so. Would it make sense for a casino to take a portion of the winnings from patrons who got lucky to subsidize those who did not?
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. You do not have to take from others to gain for yourself. A large number of those who have achieved wealth have done so through their own labor and voluntary exchange with other parties. Exploitation of labor? Labor is a voluntary exchange.
You forget to discount what technology can buy. The money may only be able to be spent on similarly on the same handful of goods (which high oil prices hurt), but we have increased technology that increases our standards of living in many ways that wage buying power does not reflect. Furthermore, wages do not reflect benefits, a component of compensation that has become more and more important in recent times. People now expect many perks from their businesses, retirement plans, health coverage, some companies even have cars, gyms, meals, any many other perks for their employees. This additional compensation is not included in their wages.
Then why don't baseball players make less per year? Hell, I'll play baseball for $10,000 a year, no benefits! Just let me play!
Wages are proportional to the earning power of those employed.
Supply and demand tells us why there are so many people willing to work jobs that pay more and so few willing to work jobs that pay little. Pay too little, and you run the risk of nobody being willing to work. If someone accepts the wage voluntarily, and it is better than their current situation, then I fail to see what is flawed.
Yes.
My God he's reading my mind!
A market system serves those with both! People with money pay it to labor to produce. Labor then has money and pays it for goods that other people were paid to produce. A market system benefits labor by giving them money in exchange for their labor.
Why should taxes be based on the ability to pay? Should Bill Gates be forced to pay for a bridge in Alaska he'll never drive over because he is more able to pay for it? Should Warren Buffett be forced to pay for a swimming pool in California he'll never swim in because he is more able to pay for it? Look at who should pay the taxes before even considering whether or not those taxes should be paid at all. Does it make sense for someone to pay for services they receive no benefit from? We are already paying a great cost in the liberties we give up for the protection of government. It is a crime to take more via force. Government is supposed to protect our property, not take it to spend how it sees fit.
Buddy, I'm living in the lowest class. A few months ago I was applying for a margin account. Filling out the form I found myself in the lowest asset, income, and basically every other bracket possible. I understand the realities and I also understand the best solutions for solving these problems. Free up the marketplace from its tax burdens and you will see incredible growth in living standards.
"The marginal tax on added earnings matters because it is easier to earn less than to earn more. To increase income, people have to study more, accept added risks and responsibilities, relocate, work late or take work home, tackle the dangers of starting a new business or investing in one, and so on. People earn more by producing more and better goods and services. If the tax system punishes added income, it must also punish added output—that is, economic growth.
Furthermore,
Several economies that seemed on the verge of bankruptcy in the early eighties were suddenly revived once marginal tax rates were reduced. In 1983 to 1984, Turkey's marginal tax rates were slashed: the minimum rate dropped from 40 to 25 percent, the maximum from 75 to 50 percent. Real economic growth jumped to nearly 7 percent in the following four years and to 9 percent in 1990. Like Turkey, South Korea was deep in debt to international banks in 1980, when real output fell 2 percent. Korea subsequently cut tax rates and expanded deductions three times, and economic growth averaged 9.3 percent a year from 1981 to 1989. In the early eighties the African island of Mauritius faced an unemployment rate of 23 percent and massive emigration. Tax rates were cut from 60 percent to 35 percent, and the economy grew by 5.4 percent a year from 1981 through 1987. Egypt, Jamaica, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, and Mexico had similar experiences after slashing marginal tax rates.
As you can see from this report, high marginal tax rates reduces output. This works in theory and in practice. The entire article outlays some great examples of how cutting taxes supercharged the economy.
I think this article really hits the fundamental point of this entire thread. Clearly you can see the link between decreased taxes and increased production.
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
I daresay that even if the debt were to completely freeze right now, it would still be a large obstacle in the future. Unless we just sort of inflate it out of the way.
Also, poor people don't deserve good health. Let's privatize the police since they probably don't deserve protection either.
But why? Why would their be market failures if everything is supposed to naturally move to a state of well-functioning businesses? Could it be because the contradictory role of businesses is to eliminate the competition they need to not suck?
That would definitely be government interfering with business. If you admit that a capitalist system needs the government to help it out of a rut every once in a while, then I've pretty much proven my point that business isn't necessarily going to work perfectly well without the government butting in and imposing some restrictions and whatnot.
*Coughaffirmativeactioncough*?
Okay, but you're ignoring the part I wrote about widely acccepted values being prevented from becoming law because it would regulate business. And that has to be done because society is not entirely single-minded. Ever. In spite of the fact that most people accept values, some people don't and will continue to act accordingly unless the law seeks to stop them. Similarly, people will do things they know are immoral and against their own values for various reasons, and they'll need punishment. That's why we need these laws.
So all thta laissez-faire stuff is meaningless?
Or they just don't know. Or they don't care. Or they don't care enough to give up a good deal. This is why it's a problem that money is all that counts within the system of capitalism; people are forced to make a choice between maintaining human rights (at some far-flung place they've never been near, so they're less likely to comply) or saving a couple of bucks. Such a choice should never exist. Human rights should not be for sale.
No, if you totally pollute a pond, you have to move on to another one. Or let's try some better examples: logging, and greenhouse gas emissions. And don't tell me you can undo logging in a timely manner; saplings are no substitute for full-grown trees, especially en masse.
Last edited:
Well, I'll admit up front that I didn't read all the previous pages, and that hints at the core of the problem here in the USA...
I would favor replacing the income tax with a national sales tax.
Here is another problem that has to do with why the government needs so much money.
Once upon a time, a fence at the White House was in need of repair.
The caretaker, wanting to get the best deal for the taxpayers money, called in three contractors and asked for quotes from each.
The first contractor was from Tennessee. He took careful measurements, got his own quotes for material and labor, and offered to do the job for $1000.
The second contractor was from Arkansas. He too took careful measurements and offiered to do the job for $2000.
The third contractor was from New York. He didn't even look at the old fence but immediately offered to do the job for $3000.
The caretaker was puzzled and asked the New York contractor how he came up with his bid.
"One thousand for you, one thousand for me, and we hire the guy from Tennessee."
Guess who got the job?
I would favor replacing the income tax with a national sales tax.
Here is another problem that has to do with why the government needs so much money.
Once upon a time, a fence at the White House was in need of repair.
The caretaker, wanting to get the best deal for the taxpayers money, called in three contractors and asked for quotes from each.
The first contractor was from Tennessee. He took careful measurements, got his own quotes for material and labor, and offered to do the job for $1000.
The second contractor was from Arkansas. He too took careful measurements and offiered to do the job for $2000.
The third contractor was from New York. He didn't even look at the old fence but immediately offered to do the job for $3000.
The caretaker was puzzled and asked the New York contractor how he came up with his bid.
"One thousand for you, one thousand for me, and we hire the guy from Tennessee."
Guess who got the job?
Moss Factor
New Member
These things were provided for before income and other forced taxes on our citizens. Most of our income taxes go to fund massive social programs and every few years, wars. Essentially the majority of our tax money is simply redistributed to someone else. They don't provide any service, the funds are simply given to someone else.
Wealth is not zero-sum. You do not have to "screw" someone over to attain wealth. One does not have to take wealth from another to create wealth for themselves.
Take nearly any business. A business is almost always worth more than the sum of its assets. Why? Because it is a system. A car assembled is more productive than all of its parts. By taking the parts of a company and putting them together, you are creating value. You don't need to "screw" anyone over to do this.
Furthermore, why is inequality a bad thing? Just because someone achieves some wealth, that you deserve a share of their wealth? That you have a claim to someone else's property? Does that even make sense?
*high-fives*
Stealing from someone for the sole reason of their having good fortunes is fair as well, then? Is theft ever fair? Is robbing someone ever correct? Does it matter if their ability to cushion the loss is greater? The answer to all is "no." Theft against anyone is immoral.
Michigan is not a "right to work" state. Marril would be better off if she spent more time researching than attacking.
It does not help society in gerenal, it only helps those that recieve the funds. Because of how taxes work, the money given out to others is not equal to the surplus lost from collecting taxes. This is called deadweight loss. Society in general loses. Furthermore, the rich give out plenty of money, but on their terms. It isn't the rich being selfish for resisting, but the rich resisting because they're being robbed. You also seem to think it is only "the rich" who pay for these wealth redistribution programs. I'm paying a significant portion of my income in taxes. I'm a college kid, living in the ghetto, and I still have to pay out a very demanding portion of my meager wages to funds these programs. I am not some super rich fat cat who has my wealth accumulated from inheritance, I am a college student working in debt from student loans and still having to pay for these ridiculous social programs.
Even if I were rich, it would still be wrong to steal from me. Theft from the government that is supposed to be protecting you is the worst kind of crime.
There is a difference between making the playing field fair and penalizing the rich to give the poor a better shot.
I can again draw from the sports analogy. Both teams are not always equally-able to win the game. However, they still play by the same rules, and the "better" team is not penalized. Each team has the same ability to win.
The main reason why this analogy isn't perfect is because in sports there is only one winner. In life, "winning" is more abstract. People with lots of money can be dissatisfied and want more and people with less can be satisfied with their position. "Winning" is not as absolute. What is important about capitalism is that like sports, everyone plays by the same set of rules and you are allowed to achieve your maximum potential. Would basketball be a better game if player like Micheal Jordan were forced to wear weights on their ankles? Should shorter baseball players be given longer gloves? Penalizing someone just because they're better at doing something than someone else is ridiculous.
"Poverty" is how you define it. Do you refer to their being people in the lowest % of income earners? If so, there will always be "poverty." Capitalism does create economic inequality. There will never be a time when everyone is equal. The benefit of it, however, is that it creates a society so productive that the standards of living of all people increases dramatically in the long-run. There will still be a "lower class," however that "lower class" will be far better off than otherwise.
It is hard to argue that our poor live worse than the poor in many other countries. The poor in 3rd-world countries live so much worse than the poor in the US. This is because of the economic expansion fueling job growth, technological advances, all of which have lead to long-term increases in standards of living. Free markets fuel this economic expansion. High marginal tax rates hold it back.
There is great economic mobility. As I have shown and sourced in an earlier post, there is almost no correlation between the income of the grandfather and the income of the grandson. There is no long-term consolidation of income.
But the US isn't some schmo. US Treasury Bonds are the safest in the world. The highest quality. The US government has never defaulted on a loan. The same cannot be said for all governments. We have the highest GDP in the world. A country's GDP is highly correlated with its ability to pay its debts. That is why US T-bonds are the highest rated in the world.
Slam-dunk! Schell is on fire! (NBA Jam references ftw).
What is fundamentally wrong with someone having more than someone else? What is fundamentally wrong with an income gap? And why do you feel it a good thing to close this gap by redistributing income?
I have shown that there is great room for economic mobility in America. You are trying to perpetuate the myth that poverty is inescapable. Very few people are in poverty for a long period of time. Your inability to accept this is stunning.
Yes, because the majority of immigrants to the US are upper class and thus aren't exploited. Wrong. They know that there is great economic mobility in America and our brand of capitalism affords great opportunity for attaining wealth. People around the world know America as "the Land of Opportunity." This is for good reason; we provide great amounts of economic mobility and have very high standards of living.
Why would America have such high levels of immigration, specifically from those who are very poor, if those poor people have no opportunity for increasing their living standards? People are not stupid. They do not risk everything they have including their lives if the benefit is not great. We have such amazing opportunity and we have this because of capitalism.
Nobody immigrates to the US for the welfare.
Wow, what backward thinking. So according to Marril we need to reduce our debt while increasing our social programs! Marril, what do you think is causing all of our debt in the first place? Social security was our largest expenditure for the 2007 budget, with Medicare, Unemployment and welfare, and Medicaid not far behind. These four categories comprise 58% of our total budget. We could cut our tax inflow in half and still come out ahead if we cut these programs. It is astonishing. Furthermore, the way Social Security is set up, unlike the way the government forces all businesses to report their debts, the government does not include future promised Social Security payments into their numbers, merely what was actually paid out. If you count what the government has promised, this number becomes astronomical. If anything is a risk to the US government ever in the future having solvency problems, it is these social programs.
That’s just a start, I’m sure I could go through and find thousands of other wasteful programs with little to no effort. You seem to think that debt is a problem; I agree! How is increasing government spending on these ridiculous social programs going to help that?
With all that time and effort, one would think they’d get it right. Unfortunately that is not the case.
It is an example showing how capitalism works to improve living conditions. We’re not saying to those in poverty that “you shouldn’t be upset, at least you’re not them!” The point of the comparison is to show that because of free markets and capitalism, even our “poor” live much better than the “poor” elsewhere. It is an example showing how the invisible hand works to improve all of society’s living conditions over time.
They are incentives to not earn anything additionally. Why would you want to earn more money if, after earning it, you had less than before earning it? How can you not see this as a clear reason why welfare programs make severe distortions of incentives?
He also didn’t say anything about government programs which do not redistribute wealth. As I stated, the largest nonwar government expenditures were for Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment and welfare, and Medicaid. These are all redistributions of wealth.
Stealing: The crime of taking someone else's property without consent. I guess it isn’t a “crime” because the government allows it, but then I suppose anything the government says it can do is never a crime. Regardless, they are taking our property without our consent; how is that not stealing?
Well lucky for us, while there are problems with our system, America is still the best country on Earth. So I’m happy to stay; despite the shortcomings, we’re still by far and away #1. I’d be paying a massive opportunity cost going anywhere else.
Regardless of this, there are things that can be done to improve it. Even the best and most profitable business on Earth can still improve, and that’s exactly what I’d like to do with America.
Capitalism is about defending property rights and maintaining free and efficient markets. When left alone, markets tend to reward merit, although not always. Some people work very hard, but work at the wrong things or simply don’t produce much. Like I said, you can work all day digging a hole with a shovel; should someone with a backhoe who can do it in five minutes be paid less than you because they didn't work as hard? Income is based most causationally on productivity.
Also some people can get lucky. You can land a great job by meeting the right person. You can win the lotto. You can be born into inheritance. Why is it the government’s job to take from those that happened to get lucky in order to subsidize those that did not? Again, it is like a casino taking money from those who won to pay off those who did not. It creates disincentives to even play the game. As explained and shown through the article I discussed at the end of my previous post, creating enough disincentives will seriously distort growth.
Oh baby a great point by Schell! Anyone ever wonder why everything in the US is sweetened by High Fructose Corn Syrup instead of just Sugar? It is because the government subsidizes sugar growers to keep the price artificially high. As a result, it becomes actually cheaper for US companies to covert corn into a sweetener instead of just using sugar due to its inflated prices. As a result, we have to have our food sweetened with something that actually does not taste as good as the real thing because of the government!
Another farm catastrophe? Dumping. It is the processes by which subsidized products are sold at below what it actually costs to produce them (but the sellers don’t have to profit because of subsidies). This causes farmers in countries without these subsidies to go out of business because they cannot compete with the artificially-low prices induced by the governments of those farmers compensating them for their losses.
"Consider a farmer in Ghana who used to be able to make a living growing rice. Several years ago, Ghana was able to feed and export their surplus. Now, it imports rice. From where? Developed countries. Why? Because it's cheaper. Even if it costs the rice producer in the developed world much more to produce the rice, he doesn't have to make a profit from his crop. The government pays him to grow it, so he can sell it more cheaply to Ghana than the farmer in Ghana can. And that farmer in Ghana? He can't feed his family anymore."(Lyle Vanclief, Canadian Minister of Agriculture)
Government’s decisions have huge implications world wide; another one of those unintended consequences.
I’m not here to speak for Chris, but I am against non-voluntary redistributions of money. Social programs are fine. Many nonprofit organizations offer them. Many religious organizations offer them. The idea of the social program is not something I am against, but when it is funded by money taken from people against their will, it is something I oppose.
False dilemma logical fallacy. Marril sets it up the question so you can only pay someone minimum wage or $30/hour. There is no room for an in-between? People get paid based on how productive they are. If someone can produce more for a company than $30/hr, they would receive that compensation. If they did not produce that much per hour for the company, they wouldn’t. Education does not guarantee higher earnings, but there is a very high correlation.
Tell me why you should pay $30/hour to someone who does not make the company $30/hour? Why would you want to even employ them? You’d be losing money every hour they work!
That is perhaps the smartest thing I’ve heard Marril say! Surprising you should feel that way, considering most of the push for giving illegal immigrants more rights is coming from the left. It is a disgrace that we simply allow so many illegal into our country and do so little to get them out. Many are proposing just granting them all citizenship. It is a slap in the face to everyone who became a citizen legally and creates incentives for people to further enter the country illegally. I’m totally with Marril on this one!
Not true. Our bonds are still very strong. No bond, country, business or otherwise, is rated higher than US Treasury Bonds. If it were even reasonable that the country would be insolvent within even 20-30 years, you would see that price reflecting clearly in the bonds of those years. They would be returning far higher yields. Currently, US T-Bonds are the lowest-yielding bonds of every maturity.
Welfare checks do not include in-kind transfers. In-kind transfers are donations of specific goods: food/food stamps, shelter, supplies, etc; anything non-monetary that assists people to live. “According to a study by the Census Bureau, if in-kind transfers were included in income at their market value, the number of families in poverty would be about 10 percent lower.” The numbers included were a poverty rate of 11.3%, meaning a 10% reduction would mean that including in-kind transfers reduces the real number of people in poverty by 88.5%; quite significant. (Quoted source: Mankiw: Principles of Microeconomics. Data source: US Bureau of the Census, 2000 numbers).
Leaving the country is always an option, he just does not want to. Same with changing jobs, that is, too, always an option. It may not always be your best option, which if it isn’t, you should continue the status quo.
You make the implication that if something is not public, then people cannot receive it. We make a contract with government to allow them to rule us in exchange for protection of our lives and property. We very much deserve protection; if the government will not protect our lives and property, why do we allow it to rule us?
They’re a market failure because they create a situation where the company would sell us something at a specific price and someone would buy that item at that specific price, but the transaction does not occur because of the economics of the monopoly. Here is a representation of how the production function of a monopoly works. If you see, there is a triangle (nonhighlighted) created by the Qm, MC, and demand curves. This triangle is where deadweight loss occurs. The Qc line is where a normal, competitive company would produce at. The monopoly produces at Qm. As a result, deadweight loss occurs in the triangle described previously. This is a market failure because every point within the deadweight loss triangle is a price and quantity that a seller could profitably produce at (if there were competition) and a buyer could profitably buy at. However, because of the lack of competition, there is no transaction; a market failure occurs when people who want to sell and want to buy cannot due to economic conditions (in our case, a lack of competition).
Governments can prevent this market failure by either inducing competition or by breaking up the monopoly.
Government doesn’t correct businesses per se, it merely corrects markets. As long as markets are operating correctly, which you would be able to graphically determine if they are or not, government should not interfere if it is the goal of government to provide the most good to society.
Are you implying that companies would not hire minorities without affirmative action? Are you implying that companies didn’t hire minorities before affirmative action?
Buyers and sellers can effectively regulate markets without failures. If people do not like a company’s business practices, they will go out of business. Arthur Anderson was the accounting firm that cooked the books for Enron, World Com and a host of others. AA went out of business like the rest of them, but not because it necessarily broke any laws (the partners may have been convinced, but the business was already gone well before). They went out of business because not a single company wanted those guys auditing their financial statements. They didn’t want to be associated with them. It lost effectively all of its business and discontinued operations shortly thereafter.
The point is, efficient markets regulate themselves. If people are upset about a business practice that they view as a human rights violation, they will not patron that business. If enough people feel the same way, that company goes out of business. It need not be absolute; if Coke comes out in supporting the Ku Klux Klan, they may find plenty of KKK members still drink it, but I’d be surprised if they stayed in business long. You just need enough of the people to boycott and the company quickly becomes insolvent; you don’t even necessarily need a majority. If enough people aren’t upset about it, then apparently they do not really see it as much of a violation, or at least not enough of a violation to warrant them buying another company’s products. It is in this way that markets can effectively determine what is and isn’t a human rights violation and the extent to which it is according to the exact standards of society at the moment on a case-by-case basis.
It is a good rule of thumb, but not written in stone. Generally the best mentality is a laissez-faire one, but free markets can be improved by correcting market failures.
The “don’t know” argument is a poor one. You can get away with any kind of atrocity if nobody knows about it. The don’t care one is perfectly valid! If they don’t care about a human rights violation, then maybe it isn’t a violation after all.
Again, if people are willing to enact human rights violations to save $0.10 on a box of Mac and Cheese, then perhaps the violation isn’t really a violation. Markets will determine what is and is not a violation by boycotting what really counts.
Why?
Logging had to be one of the worst examples you could have used. Trees literally grow on trees. What is wrong with planting two trees for every one you cut? Furthermore, people typically get a very small benefit out of just one tree. But I can use my Oak desk every day to provide me with plenty of utility. The desk, in its produced form, is helping me every day to stay organized, to study, and to hold up my computer so I’m not typing on the ground; while a tree, although helpful in the form of producing oxygen, shade, and the ascetics of them, is not nearly as utility-providing as a tree would be. And that is just one thing produced by the tree. Obviously although a final product wood item is more useful that the tree it came from does not mean we should just cut down every tree. I have one in my front yard. I could cut it down and sell it, but the money provided from the sale would not be worth the benefit I receive from my tree. People can choose for themselves what is worth it and what isn’t.
Although it was just a joke, it is not too far from the truth, sadly enough. It speaks a lot about how wasteful government is with the taxes it has to waste surplus on to get in the first place.
Last edited:
This is turning into the Rich People thread, so let's start over again(BTW, I don't think that people should hire illegal immigrants. I just said that a company can offer lower wage prices.)
I do not believe we should be taxed as much as we are being taxed.
I do not believe the government should take our money and redistribute it without our consent.
I am not against helping the poor.
I do believe people can do what they want with their money.
I do believe in capitalism.
I do not believe we should be taxed as much as we are being taxed.
I do not believe the government should take our money and redistribute it without our consent.
I am not against helping the poor.
I do believe people can do what they want with their money.
I do believe in capitalism.
Last edited:
ryanvergel
New Member
How are those two points not almost exactly the same? That first quote is the theme of your post, and I summarized it in an easily understood manner. Most of your post was simply evaluating, or you trying to prove your point. your point was still very simple, it's basically what I wrote out. How am I being a bad word, as you say I am?
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
I dunno, seems to me like welfare (etc.) helps society in spite of the fact that only some people receive the funds, in the same way that a business helps society ins pite of the fact that only some people buy the products. But the business doesn't cost everyone something, you object? It does if it pollutes.
Not my quote, but I said pretty much the same thing and you didn't respond, so I'll assume you're using this to cover both.
Kind of a pointless argument since I myself used the example of it constantly being pointed out that it's not fair that some people have their money taken away and some have it handed to them. You ask about socialism, which I've never supported here, and in doing so you address the actual point in no way at all. Burn your straw man and try again.
No, I make the implication that if something can't be afforded by some people, they can't have it. Which I think is a very fair assumption. That applies to medical care, as in the example I was referring to. Also the police, a more abstract example.
Why isn't there a transaction? If the product is essential enough, people will cough up extra cash in spite of the fact that ithey're being overcharged. Electricity? Gas? Phone service?
Actually, that was meant mostly in jest. You mentioned hiring of minorities and that society and not law imposes moral values. I couldn't help but point out the inconsistency.
Hold on, now. This doesn't seem right. You yourself pointed out a number of ways a monopoly, a "market failure," can arise in a capitalist system. And capitalist systems are supposed to be regulated only by the buyers and sellers. So can or can't they prevent market failures iwthout the government's help? I guess the answer is pretty obvious, considering monopolies have existed.
But a capitalist system sometimes needs the government to regulate it, you say. So capitalism doesn't produce an efficient market? Sounds like another contradiction.
No, that's just idealism. Most people aren't perfect moral authorities. If they were, we wouldn't need laws to enforce these things. It's easy to be tempted to screw over a bunch of Chinese kids you'll never see for the benefit of your own pocket.
And no corporation is going to write on its labels, "Produced in China through sweatshop labor!" This information is not available to a consumer not willing to do a little research on it, and a consumer that isn't even aware that the sort of thing might be going on certainly isn't going to look into it. If what actually goes into delivering a product is always honestly and clearly presented, then your model might work.
I agree. And also by banning pollution and asserting various workers'/human rights. That would help. Though there could still be problems.
Um,
To spell it out for you, a young tree is nowhere near as good as a mature tree. Simple as that.
A desk made of something else, like stone (crappy example, but whatever), could do all that. And trees are also parts of ecosystems and also hold soil in place with their roots (yes, they're also held in place by the soil; weird, I know). Chopping down a bunch of trees will not only wreck the ecosystem in the area, but also possibly change the very sort of land that the trees used to be growing in. Like, to a big, loose, not-very-useful desert-like area.
Of course, this is all just you attacking the example and not the actual issue. You could have at least mentioned the other example to be thorough, although that one I don't think you have an answer to, so it's sort of tantamount to addressing the issue itself.
"... a theory in economics that links the consumption of commodities to happiness."
I emphasize "theory in economics." Simply because it is used as a theory does not make it fact that happiness is gained from material consumption.
Ignoring that I am indeed not wrong.
It instantly becomes worth the cost to every employee in the union when the union's collective bargaining process secures tangible and beneficial results.
If you'd call 1.2% a "significant percentage" then be my guest, but that means you're making "only" $98.80 for every $100 earned.
Then do not work for a union, and submit yourself to any possible decisions made by the employer with the exact purpose of minimizing your own utility for the gain in utility of the employer. Do not riddle me with lies of 75% union dues.
I'd say you'd have to be at least moderately loyal to put in 15 years' work with a single company.
Not if any kind of employer can help it. Why pay your employees more than they're willing to work for, and all that? There's no incentive to, and as you keep trying to drill into me, people will only respond to incentive.
I defined an ad hominem earlier in this debate, and indeed I have not brought up irrelevant information about my opponent as a means of weakening his arguments. I have brought up relevant information, such as your somehow trying to get me to believe in a 75% union due. You simply cower behind false accusations, fluffing yourself up and hoping that nobody sees that you're doing little more than grasping at straws, as you couldn't possibly be doing anything else with arguments such as those.
Quite the contrary, I give people exactly the respect they deserve. You, who debate with hypocrisy, lies, and other logical fallacies, earn little to no respect. Take a look at how I respond to others—there's a pattern to follow, you just lack the ability to see it.
Aha, so take away the option of a strike, and collective bargaining itself dies off, is that what you're trying to tell me?
If you say so, but that doesn't change the fact that you're arrogant and hypocritical. Restate, in no uncertain terms, what it is you think to be so irrefutable, and why it can never be refuted for all time, as long as man walks the earth and the stars shine in the sky.
Are you implying that it's a wise decision to start firing employees once they near retirement age just for the purposes of annulling their pensions?
I highly doubt any employee can walk up to his employer and with any credulity say, "I am earning less than I should be, and here is why." Odds are they'd meet the Moss response, "You are being paid what we have gauged your worth to be, if you don't like it then vote with your feet." They'd be quite powerless to even initiate this conversation, as well, as it could easily lead to their termination and replacement by a person who will not argue. How does an employee gauge their contributions to the company? Does a sheet metal worker factor it as the price of the metal he produces per day? Does a McDonald's employee gauge it based on how many orders they take per day? How can they, as they simply do not have the information to be making this assessment.
No, the only statement was that without the presence of a union or other balancing factor, the employer has no reason to pay the employee more than the bare minimum he can get away with paying out. I'm sorry if you lack the reading comprehension to understand that.
Careful, Moss, or I'll rack up all the points you've simply swept under the rug and point out to you that you've "conceded" far more than I.
Follow your own advice. Do not meet me with hypocrisy, false premises, misleading arguments, or sheer reading incomprehension.
As for the latter point, I refer you to the arguments I have made about incentives for the government to spend money wisely, the points which you simply have not read or cared about, as they did not fit within your own very limited world views.
This is such an obvious strawman that it baffles me. It's more analogous to a man whose primary job is to, say, buy broken things, fix them, and resell them not being allowed the money to first buy them.
Not what I said, but if you truly believe it, then whatever.
I assure you that given your very limited paradigm and flawed world views, I am far more of an intellectual than you are, the reverse of which was the obvious implication here.
Then why am I in this debate? It does not provide me with money or material gain.
I guess I shouldn't be using figures of speach around you, but you keep on using phrases like "greed is good" or "all of society benefits," so you're not one to speak of being uneducated.
Straight from Greg Palast, "Today America is regressing. Middle-class income has stopped growing. The net worth of those who earn less than $150,000 per year (which includes everybody from the working poor to the highest end of the most well-off of the middle class) is down by 0.6 percent."
A good number of them work because they aren't satisfied with the carrot. I'm talking of billionaires who could afford to never work a single day more in their lives, and yet still accumulate more and more money. They are at a point where greater and greater utility means little, but they still want more. Why? Because they're greedy.
However, the vast majority of people never reach this point. They'll work and work but have no hope of maximizing their utility. You argue that "anyone" can maximize their utility, but ignore than not everyone can, nor do some people ever have a hope of it.
Basically, even if you had, say, fifty billion dollars in wealth in stocks and whatnot, another few hundred million in material wealth including land, and not a single worry for the rest of your days, you'd still want more. At that point, you've passed the threshold of greed because you have failed to realize that you want to excess. You at one point said that the word isn't "greed," but it quite obviously is.
I assure you though, that at least one person on earth does not have "unlimited" wants.
Basically, you want a government that does not lead the people.
Again, you simply want a government that does not lead the people. You want private enterprise to take over every other aspect? Your precious anarcho-capitalism would degenerate into plutocracy. Furthermore, private enterprise cannot replace what the government does. Reducing the government to nothing more than a military and correction for "market failures" effectively kills society.
I fail to understand how you could possibly miss the point after I explained it in terms a child could understand. I will repeat it one more time, and should you fail to comprehend I will assume you do not care enough to refute it, and thus will take it as a concession:
You do not have to agree to being fired from your job. Thus, the company can force you to do something against your will, in this case they can force you to cease working. Your entire argument, that the government can force people against their will and companies can't, is nothing more than a load of crap.
Provide for me an argument why, then, marijuana shouldn't be legally sold. Or cocaine, or heroin, or basically any illegal drug. Personal responsibility and all that, thus they are increasing their utility by buying it!
I personally know someone who's both a drug addict and an alcoholic. There is a reason why such things should not be sold, because it directly harms people. All it takes is one look at how a life can be destroyed in the name of profit. But I won't pretend that you care about that, about a person whose only goals in life are to get more money for drugs or beer. All you care about is your own utility.
Whoosh, noun. The sound of a point flying clear over someone's head.
ex. Moss Factor just heard a whoosh.
You've got that first part right, but not for the right reasons. The reason you won't win is because of your hypocrisy and very limited paradigms.
I do... it's just a fact that I very rarely lose.
Are you trying to tell me conditions are the same in 1913 and 2006?
They printed it, they distribute it, but they still control it. Money is nothing more than some kind of paper and cheap metal coins; money has no intrinsic value. It has value because the government says it does, and because people accept it. Their control, their money. They're simply allowing you to use it.
You left out that businesses also convince people to want things they don't need, solely for their own profit. It can do this in a number of ways, from imposing an image onto their product (e.g. diamonds), making their product habit-forming (e.g. alcohol), simple inundation (e.g. the ads that seem to run every commercial break on TV), or any number of tactics. People want it because the businesses tell them they want it. This is a basis of capitalism.
If "they" means "people" here (and you were dreadfully unclear), then see above. People only need food, water, and shelter. Literally everything else is a want in some way or another, as they do not directly contribute to the continuation of physical life. People buy diversions, better shelter, convenience of transportation, better food, many goods and services which are convenient or may increase their social or economic standing, but they are not truly needs. Learn the difference between a need and a want. If people only bought what they need in capitalism, the system would collapse!
Society doesn't "want" things until they're convinced they want them, more often than not. Remove advertisement from businesses and you'd remove a good deal of income.
Or hurts you in the long run, e.g. tobacco or fast food. In the case of the latter, people simply want cheap food they don't have to do work to make, regardless of the health. They're paying a secondary cost, with their health, for the sake of convenience. They're doing this because they think it will aid their utility to do so. However, health and utility cannot be excluded from one another, and such "standard of living" costs are paid in capitalism. Those that can exploit this make money off of those being exploited.
There are no checks to prevent taking advantage of others, because taking advantage of others helps one's own utility greatly as long as it is done skilfully. Capitalism is merely the art of exploiting others by giving them wants they wouldn't otherwise have, or preying upon human nature without regard to their detriment for one's own benefit.
I highly doubt you'd consider the above to be "a counterpoint," but it looks like you've just been counterpointed regardless.
I didn't say it made them worse off; I merely said it does not benefit them. Desperation motivates these people to work, regardless of conditions or pay. They receive no benefit. It is nothing more than an exploitive capitalist writeoff to say that you are benefitting people who still cannot afford to feed their families even with a few American pennies a day.
How do you have more money when you're out of a job?
It's a really simple concept, Moss. More jobs were lost than created, thus unemployment was raised, thus there was less money to be spent because fewer people were earning it. The equilibrium of economy in such a situation is not being reached, because while the price of goods was lowered, the amount of money to be spent was lowered dramatically, thus raising the effective price of these goods. If you don't have as much money, it doesn't matter much whether something costs $50 or $45, as you can't afford either.
The way politics seems to work nowadays, a politician would have quite a lot of stock indeed in the company. This is a form of corruption and should be prevented.
The line is drawn when decisions would be affected in any way by a certain business. It's one thing to correct a market failure, it's another to have one or a few companies' interests in mind when making decisions.
You cannot drive a hundred kilometers an hour in the middle of a city. The law is telling us what to do with our own lives and property!
Simply dumping off refuse with little regard for location, or practicing improper procedure simply as a way of saving money, is certainly a way of cutting costs.
America has gone from black slaves to black ghettos, historically. (Yes, I know there are poor white people just as there are poor black people.) America has not solved the poverty problem, as poverty still exists in America. America has not solved the pollution problem, as Americans generate vast amounts of pollution, far more than other countries.
What has America done? Has it developed ways to reduce or even eliminate pollution? Has it given aid to those below the poverty line such that they may get out of their situation? Or are we leaving pollution to Captain Planet, and the poor to starve?
When did I say it did? Oh wait... I didn't. You're simply putting words into my mouth.
So, if I read you right... you're paying your liberty and property protection for the "protection [you] receive"?
If I earn, say, $5 over a portion of time, and I owe someone $10, that's the same ratio as someone who earns $5,000,000 over a potion of time, and owes $10,000,000, but who is in a worse state of debt if you actually stop to think about it? It's certainly not a fun thing to owe ten million, but America takes it to unprecedented levels by owing in the trillions, and doing nothing to fix it.
"Intentionality is irrelevant," you may cry, but remember, when it comes time to pay up, America will simply be unable to. And if it never has to pay up, what's the point of keeping track of the debt?
Though this is a point Zak answered well, I should point out that sweatshop labour is illegal in America as a human rights violation, and as such overseas sweatshop labour should be seen as the same.
What commodities are you consuming in this thread? What gains are you having? You're simply arguing for no point other than to fluff your own ego... that doesn't seem like consumption to me! Perhaps you shouldn't be using the word "utility."
Cut war before social programs, I'd say, but then again, "war is good for business."
You may not be actively taking their money, but you seem to have a limited and highly flawed view of how the word "screw" is used in this context. If someone's hours are increased with no overtime pay, he is being screwed. If someone's union is broken and a forced collective agreement passed, the workforce has just been screwed. If someone's benefits are cut back, he has just been screwed. None of those involve taking wealth from another, but they create wealth for someone else all the same, and the person being screwed is probably worse off for it.
Why should someone with one skillset earn more than someone else with a comparable skillset, assuming they work just as hard as each other and produce comparable wealth? Why should skilled employees be paid less than the deserve? Why should benefits be cut back? The answer, of course, is that those higher up want a larger piece of the pie. It's not as simple a non-zero sum game as, "People can earn more without affecting anyone else."
If it was, why would employers wish to keep employees at the minimum possible wages and benefits? Because these things cost money. Money does not come from nowhere, and paying benefits to your employees costs money. Why not save money for yourself, then? This is another tenant of capitalism.
I remember a debate which must be about a year or two old by now, that even Robin Hood would be condemned even though he is regarded as a hero for children.
I don't know about you, but as one of the points I posted that you didn't even respond to, which then I guess means you agree with, pointed out, "The more you work, the less you get. It used to be that as the economic pie got bigger, everyone’s slice got bigger too. No more." I'd call not paying someone for more work as "theft" of what they truly earned. Thus capitalism promotes its own version of thievery.
Thievery is, after all, apparently always wrong, no matter is form or circumstance, and as such capitalists are thieves who convince themselves that they are not.
I even said that I may be mistaken, and indeed I was.
Considering that I myself have admitted to paying taxes, this is a completely ignorant thing of you to say. Shame on you.
You live in the ghetto, and would do nothing for your neighbours? You'd just work to increase your utility and get out of there, out of selfishness?
In your world, all poor people are poor because they choose to be, I assume.
And then there is penalizing people for greed and material gluttony.
In capitalism, it is not a balanced game! The lower class working itself is not the same as the upper class working itself. From the sports analogy, it is a case of a high school team versus the pros. From the Pokémon analogy, it is the case of a Worlds winner versus a random scrub. The upper class has options, tools, and opportunities ("better players" or "better cards") than the lower class, which lacks these things.
Would basketball be a better game if the NBA set a team of players to Michael Jordan's calibre against nonprofessionals?
I simply don't like the idea of there being billionaires in a country where some people are forced to live on the streets with no hope of pulling themselves out of that situation. Maybe you'd be fine with shrugging off those without the chance to increase their utility, but you're also apparently fine with sweatshop labour, so I won't try to hold you to having any moral standard that doesn't extend beyond your own self.
I've met people who could never hope to escape it. For some people, poverty is indeed inescapable.
Because they know they can undercut American workers. Their living standards increase, at the cost of taking away the opportunity for an American's living standards to do the same.
No, the welfare merely helps those whose utility is negatively affected by illegal immigrants.
Simply because America's social programs create debt does not mean that all social programs create debt.
War can be reduced, the military can be cut back. There are many ways to reduce spending without cutting back social programs.
It also serves as an excuse to keep them poor, as they're better off than other poor people in the world. This is a completely appalling thing to do, to simply write them off like that.
If you can find a job that pays more than welfare, I'd say the taxes on welfare are enough to mean that you'd take that job. Rather, the taxes are to prevent people from doing things like collecting cans (or whatever) for more money than they otherwise get. If you let them keep extra money, they have no incentive to get off welfare.
On the contrary, the government should be if nothing else held to a higher standard than the people are held to. This does not mean taxes are stealing, as the government is the one that is in charge of the actual legal tender.
That is merely your opinion, and yet you state it like a fact. I shall do the same as you: "You are wrong; Canada is the best country on earth."
It was an example, and thus not a logical fallacy. The same argument holds up whether the cost is $50/hour, or $15 an hour, or basically any number significantly higher than minimum wage.
This is the exact issue! Why hire some people for any price when they have no skills? They'd be a drain no matter what job they take, and so they shouldn't be working! Anyone could do their job better!
This is capitalism at work, and some people simply do not have the opportunities or education to get ahead. Not everyone can simply work hard and be rewarded (despite that in Rich People, Moss said in no uncertain terms that "hard work is always rewarded"). Why punish these people?
I simply feel that a country should look after its own people before it looks after people not its own. Illegal immigrants enter the country because they know they can exploit the system, at the cost of the people already living there. Simply reduce incentive to utilize these people, and you reduce the problem.
Force employers to pay equal wages to everyone, such that even if they are paying illegal immigrants but it cannot be proven somehow, there is no incentive to do so anyways. Then impose penalties upon those who do hire illegal immigrants when it can be proven. You simply need a rational head to work out problems, even if solving these problems reduces profits.
Explain in clearer terms how the country itself can (to use an imprecise simplifcation) go bankrupt, and yet its bonds would ensure its economic survival even after its money becomes worthless.
Ah, so in other words, at any given point, he could simply walk up into Canada and get a job here with full citizenship, at no cost to himself outside of the physical moving, just fine and dandy?
Being able to offer lower wages to them is the same as encouraging them to, as you're giving them incentive. Remove that incentive by forcing them to pay the same minimum wage as everyone else, and the number of illegal immigrants decreases.
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
And as I've pointed out, it's fallacious to look simply at direct family ties. Friends in high places are as good or even better. Is there a "economic standing of friends of friends" study?
Oh, and another contradiction I am ashamed at only now noticing. Moss has provided sources which he uses to assert now and then that there is great economic mobility in the US. Moss also claims that welfare programs discourage people from improving their economic standing. These welfare programs definitely exist in the US. Therefore, the poor should largely remain poor. Moss's arguments are inconsistent, as demonstrated. Marril, if you've already pointed this inconsistency out, I must have overlooked it because I haven't read the entirety of your volleys with Moss.
Moss Factor
New Member
There is a fundamental difference between these two. If I want to take advantage of any of these social programs, I can’t, because they won’t let me (I don’t qualify for any). However, businesses don’t pick and choose who can buy their products. Anyone who is willing to pay what they’re charging can buy their products. The government won’t let me “buy into” all of theirs.
Some people get lucky. I don’t think I need to go over this again. What is your proposed solution to some getting lucky and others unlucky? Try your best and eliminate luck? Is it even possible to do this? What conclusions are you trying to make here?
We do have laws that force people to be treated in ERs regardless of insurance. A long-term solution to health insurance needs is HSAs or Health Savings Accounts.
There isn’t a transaction because there is no competition, that causes a market failure. Allow me to explain:
This is what the production frontier graph looks like for a competitive business. The graph is in terms of price and quantity; price is the dollar value of the good, quantity is the amount of the good. The MR line represents marginal revenue. It is the amount of revenue that a business makes from selling a good. It is downward-sloping because a business profits less from each additional unit it produces as a result of diminishing marginal return. The line labeled MC represents the business’ marginal costs. It is the amount it costs the business to produce one additional unit. This line is upward-sloping as each additional unit of production costs the business more than the previous unit. The demand curve is the amount that the consumer demands of a good given a certain price. The demand curve is downward-sloping as the more something costs, the less people are willing to buy of it, and the less something costs the more willing people are to buy it. The quantity of a good that a business will produce is where demand meets marginal costs. It is at this point that the business can sell the most of a good; any amount more and it costs the business too much to produce as there is less demanded than the costs. This is the most a business can produce of a good without losing money marginally on the next unit produced. The quantity where the MC and demand curves meet is Qc, and the price that is charged per good is Pc. Qc and Pc represent the equilibrium point, a point determined by the marketplace which represents the maximum surplus able to be produced.
This is what the production frontier graph looks like for a monopoly. The monopoly does not have competition, therefore it can produce at it’s most profitable point, not just the point where it is at the most minimal profit where one additional unit results in a loss as with the competitive business. The point where a business can produce the most profitably is where it’s marginal revenue curve and marginal cost curve meet. It is at this point that every additional unit produced makes less money for the company than the unit produced before it, as it is at this point that the MC curve moves higher than the MR curve. As a result, a monopoly produces at Qm, the level of production at the MC and MR cross, and charges the price of Pm, which is where the line meets the demand curve.
At every single point below the demand curve is a point where the consumer would be willing to buy that good. At every single point above the MC curve (the cost of producing each marginal unit) is a point where a business would be able to profitably or break-even (the points on the curve itself) produce that good.
The reason why a monopoly is a market failure is because of deadweight loss. Every point within the red triangle labeled deadweight loss is a point where a business could produce the good profitably and a consumer would be willing to buy that good. You have a situation where there could be willing sellers and there are willing buyers, but no transaction occurs because of the monopoly. If there were competition, a company could produce profitably at every point in the deadweight loss triangle and a consumer would be willing to buy these goods. However, because the monopoly doesn’t have to produce just because someone is willing to buy (they aren’t forced to and won’t be driven out of business by competition, as there is none with a monopoly), you have a situation where there would be willing sellers in a competitive marketplace and there are willing buyers, but no transaction occurs. This is a loss of surplus. This is a drain on the economy. This is what deadweight loss is.
I’m sorry, I phrased that poorly. Read as “Buyers and sellers can effectively regulate markets that do not have market failures.” If a market doesn’t have a failure, it will be regulated by the buyers and sellers. The existence of a market failure means that the market is not operating properly. It means that deadweight loss is occurring or that all costs and benefits are not being factored in properly. If the markets are working properly, everything is correctly valued.
A contradiction of what? If a market is efficient, it has no failures. These markets regulate themselves. If a market has a failure, it instantaneously ceases to be an efficient market. Therefore, it needs correction by the government to become an efficient market. Once it becomes one, it no longer needs regulation.
For example, take the market for telephone services. It was a monopoly in American Telephone and Telegraph. This created a market failure. The government corrected this failure by breaking it up into the “baby bells” and then left its hands off of it again. It did not need to “regulate” the industry by telling the baby bells how to run their businesses; it simply corrected the market failure and left the now efficient market to run on its own.
However, somehow government officials are exempt from this criticism?
I don’t think there are many illusions as to how some goods are produced. Usually it is widely publicized when a company uses potentially questionable business practices to produce its goods. You have to then assert if people know about these things and still buy them, then it must mean that they do not view it has a human rights violation after-all.
Give me a break, it’s not a sapling for long. Are you telling me that we cannot perform any logging whatsoever because newly planted trees are not a good as a mature one for a relatively short period of time? You could have used nearly any other example: a river, a large lake, something, anything that doesn’t literally grow back. Trees are the perfect example of a renewable natural resource.
Utility is not a term limited to economics. It is used in ethics (see Utilitarianism) and other fields of study to define happiness. Economics deals with consumption of goods and services, and therefore utility in that context refers to the happiness derived from the consumption of goods and services. Ethics deals with the analysis and employments of things being right and wrong; in this instance utility means happiness gained as a result of an action.
The main point is utility is a measure of happiness regardless of what field you’re studying. It need not necessarily be as the result of consumption. It simply is a measure of happiness.
Individuals determine whether the cost of something is worth the benefit of it, not you Marril.
Can you please provide a source for the 1.2% figure? Earlier you said “the figure "1.2%" is in my head, but I forget who I know had this figure,” so I’m worried as to its validity. Please no blogs, thanks!
Never have, and I’ve consistently made more per hour than most of my peers, have received regular pay increases, I have full benefits and a 401k, and have never been fired. Just me personally, I’m sure you’ve worked for plenty of unions, though.
Good to know! Do you have any more figures to pull right out of you-know-where for us?
There is plenty of incentive to pay an employee proportional to what they produce. If you do not pay them fairly, you run the risk of competition offering them a better deal and you’ve now lost an employee that would have been profitable to employ even at higher wages. You also have lower productivity and decreased morale from paying someone significantly less than what they produce. It is in a company’s best interests to pay its employees proportionally to what value they add to the company.
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.” (see Wikipedia). I don’t think I need to say much on this, because it is quite obvious you use personal attacks quite regularly. Who are you trying to convince that you don’t? The members of this board, or yourself? Is anyone willing to come to Marril’s defense on this one?
The “75%” figure hasn’t even been proven incorrect! Your counter to it? “It's never higher than a few percent, and usually lower than that (the figure "1.2%" is in my head, but I forget who I know had this figure).” If you’re going to keep on me for bad numbers given to me by a friend, how about you show me how the source is actually wrong. Talk about hypocrisy.
No, that is not what I’m trying to tell you. You had a line that said “99% of labour contracts are renewed or renegotiated without even the threat of a strike action or other kind of dispute.” I simply said that it is unnecessary for a union to even have to threaten to strike, because the employers already know that the strike is an option if the renegotiations go sour. As an example, if you’re robbing someone at gunpoint you don’t have to tell them that if they don’t give up their wallet you’re going to shoot them; that is what robbers with guns do, they shoot people. As a result, a statistic saying “99% of armed robberies are resolved without even the threat of personal injury” would be similarly ineffective.
That efficient free markets with limited government intrusion are the surest and best paths to promoting prosperity and higher standards of living for all members of society in the long run.
Again, there are always consequences to actions. If a company starts firing people as they reach retirement age to annul a pension, think of what that will do to every other member of said company. Will they stay for long? I know I wouldn’t. Will they get many others willing to put in a lifetime’s worth of work? How long will this strategy work before the business simply loses every single once loyal employee? Do you see this strategy enacted in businesses without unions on an even remotely regular basis?
People do it all the time! I’ve actually received two raises doing exactly that.
There are many ways to gauge this. The best is by comparison. If workers in another company in the same industry are making more than workers at your company, you can use this as an argument to be paid more. You don’t need to be a financial wizard to determine how much the value you add to a company is worth, just to be able to compare salaries.
Again, if this were the case, then why do nonunion companies pay more than the minimum wage?
You have given no reason for anyone to believe these “arguments” you’ve given are plausible in the least! “Mismanagement can't occur if you change the rules such that it can't occur,” great! I can really see how that would be something that works. Now, the most important question, how? How are you going to change these rules? "Restructure such that they have incentive." Again, how? You’ve given some things that can make politicians have more accountability than they have now (adding transparency, which steps are actually being taken to have that occur now), however you’ve given no reasons for how government restructuring will have incentives to spend money wisely or effectively and what this restructuring will be.
Did Mr. Palast do that study himself? If not, where did those numbers come from? Furthermore, they’re down 0.6% over what period of time? The quarter? The year? The decade? The century? Where is the context?
Isn’t it a premise of “the carrot” that one is satisfied once one reaches it? If someone reaches “the carrot” and they aren’t satisfied, then isn’t “the carrot” really some other level? As far as I see it, “the carrot” means many different things. If it means “being able to afford to never work a single day more in their lives,” then someone will stop working once they reach this level. Obviously, if you don’t define your “carrot” as this, you will continue working until you reach that goal. Maybe to some people “the carrot” is simply giving their family a better standard than the generation before it. Maybe to some “the carrot” is getting your kids through college. Maybe to some “the carrot” is to be able to afford to do what you love. “The carrot,” as far as I see it, means different things to different people. What do you define “the carrot” as? The top 20% of income earners? The top 1%? Someone better tell my professors and my priest that they need to stop doing what they love and start earning more if they’re going to be satisfied with their lives!
Anyone can achieve the maximum amount of happiness from their limited resources. People, of course, have unlimited wants. Just because you maximize the happiness possible from the limited resources you have, does not mean you cannot become more happy. As we all know, people have unlimited wants; we can always do something to gain more utility (to become more happy). However, we can always maximize our utility by becoming as happy as possible with the resources we have available.
I would still want more utility, not necessarily more wealth. Again utility is happiness, and money cannot always buy you happiness. No matter how happy you are, you can always become more happy.
Tell me, what is the point you can reach where there is nothing you can do to make yourself more happy? How is this a possible situation to reach?
What’s the word I’m searching for here…
Exactly! People can handle leading themselves full well.
Governments will protect our lives and our property, while maintaining markets. Markets will provide for the rest. They do so more efficiently and effectively than any other mechanism.
Plutocracy is a form of government, anarcho-capitalism is not. Again, you do not fully understand what you’re talking about. Furthermore, you’re misdefining me as an anarcho-capitalist despite my correcting you. Please do not do this again.
How so? That is what the US government was when it was initially set up. Society managed to do quite well here in America.
The primary difference is that working for a company is an agreement between you can the company. You don’t have to work there, they don’t have to employ you; you do so because both parties want to. However, if I am to live in the property I, not the government, owns, I must pay them. I must pay them for services many of which I do not receive. I must do this just to keep the things I already own or even more of my property will be taken from me. This is not a trade. I am not receiving anything that I voluntarily exchange for. The exchange I already made for the government’s services was with my exchange for my liberty for the protection the government offers.
In the case of a business, you simply have an agreement that either party can breach at any time. If you don’t want to work for a business anymore, you can quit. They may want you to keep working, but because the exchange is voluntary, they cannot force you to do anything. The agreement for labor services between a business and the employee is voluntary and both parties must agree to it; the agreement for government services is not voluntary, they take a portion of what you own by force, and if you do not comply, they take more of your liberty, property, or both. You do not own your job; it is merely an agreement between yourself and your employer. Thus neither party can force the other to continue the agreement, but either party can end it at any time they choose. Your control over your property is not an agreement between you and the government. It is simply your property. You own it. It is yours and nobody else's. However, the government uses force to take it from you with the threat of taking even more of your property and liberty if you do not comply. This is an act of force over what you own.
Businesses and labor form a mutual agreement that either party is free to end. Government forces it's citizens to pay up or else it will enact force upon them. This is a fundamental difference in your analogy, and is the reason why it is false.
I am of the opinion that if your actions do not result in inducing force against someone else’s lives and property, that you should be allowed to do it. In other words, as long as you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, you should be allowed to do it. If you’re driving your car that fast through the city, you have a very high likelihood of hurting or killing someone, or at least causing some damage to their property. As a result this behavior is restricted.
I actually don’t have strong opinions with regards to the legalization of drugs. I started to touch on it last post, and that is when it got locked so I don’t want to change the subject enough to where this one gets locked as well. On the one hand, much of the damage from drugs is in part due to their high price; people are willing to steal and kill for them because their prices are so high that the incentive is there. Legalizing them would cause the prices to fall (increased supply) dramatically and thus would alleviate the organized crime and gang element of them. On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that highly-addictive drugs follow the laws of supply and demand. If you were addicted to a drug, there would reach a point where your demand for it would be perfectly inelastic; there is no price too high that you wouldn’t pay for them. My final opinion: I’m not sure. However, I don’t feel that I have to be. This isn’t a post about the legalization of drugs.
No, our government, despite having far more income, has far more debt. Looks like when government gets a taste for spending, no amount is good enough. Who spends more lavishly: the man with $10 or the man with $1000?
It wasn’t always that way. Unfortunately, our government got off the gold standard and introduced fiat money. The money does not have value, however, because the government says it does. The money has value because the market says it does. It doesn’t matter much what the government says, if merchants stop accepting US dollars for payments, the dollar isn’t worth anything. The government has no rule that you must accept US currency for payments.
Furthermore, we pay taxes on transactions that do not involve money. If I buy some real estate with stock, I still pay taxes on that transaction. We our not paying the government taxes solely because we use their money.
Wow, you really talk a lot about “the basis of capitalism.” Tell me, since you keep on adding more and more premises and fundamental ideals of capitalism in your posts, do you mind giving us all a list of what capitalism stands for?
Furthermore, people need things to live; this is obvious. These things are food, water, shelter, space. However, you cannot buy “food,” you have to buy a type of food. You must buy wheat bread, white bread, angus beef, etc. You cannot just buy some ambiguous sustenance. Businesses identify these “needs” and provide the consumer with a specific product that they can “want” to have. Another example: you are thirsty and you need to have water. There are many ways to achieve this. You can “want” water in its pure form, and get it from the tap. Or you can buy it bottled. Or you can buy it with sugars and other ions in it as an energy drink. Or you can buy it carbonated as pop. You have a “need,” to have water. There are many things you can “want” to have to satisfy this need. Businesses provide your need with a product that you can “want” to have to satisfy that particular “need.”
There is more to life, however, than just living. Everyone works to maximize their utility, not just to live. This isn’t as a result of capitalism; in any type of society every person is constantly trying to become as happy as possible. Thus businesses provide people with things they can consume to achieve this goal as well. Nearly any thing someone could want to have in order to maximize their utility is provided by some business. This is a great thing! Why would it be better to have a system where people who wanted something would not have a producer to give them this want? Free markets find wants people have and provide them with the goods to satisfy these wants.
Advertisement is generally a good thing. It provides a consumer with information about what goods and services they can consumer with their limited resources, ie, what types of products are available in the marketplace. It would be a bad thing if someone would be more happy if they could consume good A over good B, but didn’t because they didn’t know about good A.
Advertising also fosters competition. The information advertising provides about pricing allows consumers to take advantage of price differences more effectively. This reduces the market power of each individual company.
There are wide examples of situations where a lack of advertising caused higher average prices than otherwise. In 1963 there was a ban in the state of Florida (and others) over advertising for eyeglasses and eye examinations. The average price for a pair of eyeglasses in the restricted states was $33 (not inflation adjusted). The average price for a pair of eyeglasses in states which did not restrict advertising was $26. Thus, advertising reduced the average prices by more than 20%. This is simply one example of how advertising fosters competition.
As long as people know the risks of what they’re doing, and their actions don’t enact force upon other’s lives or property, there is no reason government should intervene with paternalistic policies as to how other’s should live their lives.
As long as the exchange is voluntary, people can take responsibility for their own actions. Caveat Emptor.
Regardless, if you’re going to call that a “counterpoint,” you absolutely failed to address how businesses produce technologies which help to push our production frontiers out further.
Why would you do something that doesn’t provide you with a benefit? I don’t understand: if I’m not going to be benefited by doing something, I simply don’t do it. Shouldn’t someone tell these people that they should stop going to work because they receive no benefit from doing so?
I did not say that the income of those who lost their jobs is greater because they lost their jobs. What I said was everyone in society effectively has more money than they otherwise would have, because they can buy the goods they would normally buy at grocery stores for a cheaper price.
When a Wal-Mart enters a new market and drives a smaller grocery store out of business, you say there is a loss of jobs. What you’re forgetting is that there are jobs created by all of the people who are now working at Wal-Mart. In fact, Wal-Mart is the largest employer of any company in America, by far. You, again, are looking in the micro. You see only that someone came in and now these guys are out of jobs. You’re forgetting the big picture: there is now a large employer that can give far more robust career opportunities to people in the community (how many mom and pop groceries have a human resources department?). Also, everyone in the community can now buy their goods at a lower price. Basically, you seem to be of the opinion that companies should be free from competition. That companies shouldn’t have to worry about someone else selling the same thing for a better price and putting them out of business. Do you really think competition is bad?
"Would have quite a lot of stock" in what company? In any company? In a company who’s policies would be affected by your voting? What about a foreign company, could you own stock in any foreign companies? What if you agree not to buy or sell your shares while you’re in office?
Are you saying politicians should not be allowed to own any stock in any corporations? What about debt securities? Can politicians own bonds in a company? What about short term debt securities? What about broad stock ownership like in a mutual fund? Can politicians own S&P futures? Can politicians own SPDRs for specific sectors? Interest rate swaps? What about options as a market hedge? Could they perform market-neutral arbitrage deals? What about savings accounts!? Is it even possible to fully eliminate a politician from benefiting economically from companies?
Not all companies do that. Many do have regard for location and practice proper procedure. Still, they are polluting. Is pollution then alright if you have regard for location and procedure?
I never said it did solve these problems, however it is quite naïve to say that we aren’t far better off in terms of living conditions than we were even just eighty years ago. When in history have there been such compelling increases in living standards as there has been today?
I pay my liberty in exchange for protection over my life and property.
As long as the members have the same earnings potential, they have the same ability to pay back their debts.
America does have a problem with its debt. I’ll be the first one to tell you that. It is even worse for most of the premier socialist countries in the world like Japan, France, Canada, and Germany. All of these countries are having their debt load balloon due to social programs which they simply cannot afford to pay what is promised. We need to cut these back before we have any hope of covering our debts.
How exactly are you guys defining sweatshop labor? Is it based on hours worked? Is it based on price paid? Is that price paid based in US purchasing power, or purchasing power in the native country? “Sweatshop” labor can mean a lot of different things, just as what some people view as a human rights violation is different than what others would. Marril has already had a debate about what is and is not morally corrupt in this post; as you can see when it comes to personal value standards, things vary widely from person to person and culture to culture.
Utility in the context of an economics problem is happiness derived from consumption. However, this thread is not an economics problem. I am not making a trade. I am, however, performing an action with consequences. Therefore, in this situation my utility is in terms of happiness derived as a consequence of my actions.
Why not just cut both!
So if you don’t get what you want, you’re “screwed?” Are there other ways to get screwed? Also, in order to be “screwed” does someone else always have to benefit? “Screwed” sounds to be like a sour grapes euphemism for someone who doesn’t get things to go their way.
Because they, on average, produce more wealth.
Than they “deserve?” The marketplace is the ultimate determiner for what someone “deserves.” The market price for someone’s labor is the sum total of every single person’s opinions about what someone should make. It is the sum opinion of every employer and every employee about what someone of that productivity for that company should make.
You have dodged this question over and over again: if employers have no reason to pay someone more than the minimum, why doesn’t everyone who works for a nonunion employer make the minimum wage?
In that story Robin Hood is a hero of the people. The Sheriff of Nottingham levied massive taxes and appropriated land. He took the property of the people of Hottinghamshire, and Robin Hood fought against this. He did not steal from the Sheriff, because what the Sheriff appropriated was not rightfully his property. Robin Hood fought to only reclaim the property that was rightfully the people’s and to stop the Sheriff from claiming more. Kinda sounds like me! (Except I look good in tights!)
While I don’t see how working more means that you get less (Would the inverse be true then? Would I get more if I worked less? Somehow that doesn’t add up…) , there comes a point where working harder must be replaced with working smarter. Again, I brought up the shovel vs. backhoe example in my previous thread. The person digging a hole with a shovel will work all day to dig what the person with the backhoe does in a few minutes. You cannot simply work your tail off and expect compensation. This does not mean, however, that hard work isn’t a direct causation of higher earnings. Working hard does earn you more than not working hard, but this alone isn’t enough. One needs to improve their skills and education as well as other facets. These, combined with hard work (and it takes hard work to become educated and more skilled as well), have a very positive impact on one’s productivity. More productivity allows you to produce more for a company, which is a direct component of what you are compensated. Hard work has a high correlation to higher compensation, but it does not always have a causational relationship with higher compensation. However, if one could choose to either work hard or not, on average, the one that works hard would overwhelmingly earn more than the one that does not. Make no mistakes about that.
The market determines what you should be compensated, and just because you feel that you are not paid enough does not mean that theft took place. The only time a “theft” takes place in labor compensation is where markets are not allowed to function freely and efficiently. A union is an example of this situation.
Why do I honestly think there are poor people in this world? I think it is because nobody tells them how to not be poor. In school, what do they teach you? Mathematics, reading, sciences, social studies; lots of great things to know about this world. However, who teaches children about finances, savings, accounting, etc? All that is taught at the dinner table. Rich parents teach their kids what they learned to become rich. Poor parents teach their children generally nothing about finances, because they don’t know much. I feel that if we really made a push in our schools to teach personal finance, we’d have people really knowing what to do with their money. They’d learn the power of compound interest and see the benefits of savings. It would open up many new doors.
Maybe I’m just a dreamer, but I felt like all through high school and even early college I was not exposed to anything business or economy related. I excelled in sciences and went into a pre-med curriculum to become a doctor. I was well on my way when I got introduced to the business world by a good friend of mine. I added a finance minor to get my feet wet, and the next semester I was so enamored with it that I made it my major. I know you guys probably don’t care about this little history lesson into my life, but I think it adds some context onto my perspective on this matter. I feel like there was a whole world that was foreign to me, but when I finally experienced it I realized how robust and integral it is to the lives of everyone. I think that if we made more of a push in K-12 schools to have the students learn finance and economics, that we would have people more apt to manage their own finances and be better off monetarily in the long run.
Who are you to assert that you should be able to exert an act of force on someone’s property? Do they have the right to perform an act of force on yours? It is theft, plain and simple. You keep on trying to justify stealing someone’s property. All the rationalization in the world can’t deny the fact that you are condoning theft.
The analogy isn’t exact; in those situations only one team or player can win. In life, winning is more ambiguous, and clearly isn’t limited to just one person. You can think of it as a marathon (and exclude the few people who are actually trying to win it to avoid the false analogy that there can be only one winner). For most people, you’re just trying to finish. Some people are lighter than others. Some people are better conditioned. Some people are even in wheel-chairs. In the end though, one person having an advantage doesn’t decrease your ability to finish the race. The only person who can determine whether or not you finish is you. Just because there is a Kenyan guy in the race who runs 50kms every day since he was 12 does not mean you can’t finish the race.
The point is, just because someone has better tools starting off the race than you do does not mean you cannot still finish the race. And just because someone may get lucky in life and have more tools to become rich does not mean you cannot. We don’t shackle the feet of the pro marathon runner to give everyone else a better shot at winning, and we shouldn’t penalize others for having more tools necessary to achieve wealth. As long as the rules are fair and everyone has the opportunity to achieve wealth, which, as shown by the evidence provided detailing the significant amount of economic mobility we have, is the case, then the system should not be tampered with.
Again, this is a myth. There is significant economic mobility. A very small percentage of Americans are below the poverty line for more than ten years. This also does not include in-kind transfers in determining who is and is not below the poverty line. There are many opportunities to receive assistance from nonprofit organizations. There are many opportunities to further educate oneself and develop skills necessary to reach higher levels of earning power. I don’t see how you could simply be inescapably impoverished.
A very significant number of immigrants do not work wage-based jobs, however. Many own and operate their own businesses; restaurants, convenience stores, gas stations, newsstands, mall islands, are frequently owned and operated by immigrant entrepreneurs. They come here because they know that America has great opportunity for business success.
What is the cause of Canada’s debt, which is at a higher percentage of GDP than America? Do Canada’s social programs not cause debt. I find it very hard to believe that any government can fund social programs in the long term without incurring massive debt.
Defense spending was 16.7% of the total US federal budget for 2007. The four major social programs (Social security, unemployment and welfare, Medicaid and Medicare) constituted 58% of the total budget. There are ways, yes, to reduce spending. However, none of them are as compelling and effective as cutting out social programs.
I have never used it as an excuse and I have never claimed to want to keep anyone poor. What I have stated is that you can use comparison of living standards to see that capitalism is working in America. Our poor live better than the poor nearly anywhere else in the world. Things are only getting better. Capitalism is fueling the growth in GDP which directly correlates with increases in living standards for all members of the economy. It isn’t saying that the problem is solved, it is saying that things are getting better. That living standards are increasing. That you can see where we’ve come from, and where people still are, and use that to gauge the progress that has been made.
Obviously just because you’re on welfare does not mean you are permanently trapped in poverty. However, what it does do is limit your opportunities for other forms of income due to the disincentives it creates from high marginal tax rates. You have to find an income stream that pays you enough over what you’re making now to make up for the high marginal tax rates. This means that there are situations where you will have to pass up some other forms of income because the tax rates will be so high. It can mean people staying in poverty longer than they otherwise would have.
Government taxes noncash transactions. It even taxes transactions involving other country’s currency. Regardless, the whole premise that “it is government’s tender so it can take it back if it wants” is ridiculous! That is like saying a farmer can just come into your house and take a slice of bread, because they were the ones that grew your wheat. Just because the government printed money does not make all money the government’s property. The property is yours; you earned it with your labor or through trading your property for it. The government has no claim over it. Taking your money through forced taxation is theft.
And I’m sure that’s your opinion and that is why you haven’t immigrated anywhere else!
How can you simply have “no skills?” Even paraplegics and people with mental handicaps are employed. I don’t see how you can simply have no skills unless you’re in a coma or something.
Oh its relatively easy to prove if someone is an illegal immigrant. You simply ask them for a piece of ID like their social security card and it is pretty easy to spot. Simply put, they’re called illegal immigrants for a reason. Do not let employers hire them and the problem is solved. If you can’t get work as an illegal immigrant, you eventually have to leave the country.
They wouldn’t, and that’s the point. The bonds having the high rating that they do means that basically nobody in the world thinks America is going bankrupt any time soon. And if they do, they’re not willing to put their money where their mouth is. US Treasury bonds are the safest investments of any maturity level. They are safer than any corporation and any other government. They are this way because investors around the world view them to be in consensus. If the US went bankrupt, they would not be able to pay for these bonds. Thus, the high rating of the bonds is evidence that nobody can find a reason why the US Treasury will go bankrupt anytime soon, and that even if there is reason, it is still less likely to go bankrupt than any other bond issuing entity.
It isn’t entirely analogous, but to a point it is possible to change countries if you are dissatisfied enough with your current country. Obviously the market for labor has greater liquidity than the market for citizenship.
As I stated above, welfare does not mean that people earning it are unable to have economic mobility, merely that there are disincentives that limit their mobility from what they would have otherwise if not earning welfare. It even works with unemployment. If I am earning unemployment and getting $x per month, and I can get a job that pays $x-200 per month, it is not in my best interests to take that job as I have to give up $200/month to do so. This is what I mean by high marginal tax rate. Now that person earning the unemployment will not be prevented from getting another job, they just have to wait for one that pays them enough to make it worth losing their unemployment check for. The same is with welfare. In both situations, it is not impossible to escape the trap of high marginal tax rates, but it makes escaping it more difficult.
Regardless of the traps that welfare and unemployment create, there still prevails significant economic mobility.
I saved this one for last. As I recall in our last debate, I posed a set of questions to you and practically begged you to answer them over the course of a few posts. You claimed this was an ultimatum and that debates don’t involve ultimatums as a way of hiding the fact that you simply could not answer the questions. That’s fair, I shouldn’t have presented it in the way I did, however I was frustrated that you simply refused to answer a question so fundamental to the debate we were having. So this time I’ll make it a little more professional, by setting up a trade (this is a post that deals with markets, so I find this fitting).
If you agree, you can post up every single point I’ve “swept under the rug” and I’ll give an answer to every single one; then, I’ll post up every single point that you have simply not responded to and I’ll ask that you answer every single one. No ultimatums, just a fair trade. If you don’t want to do it, then that is fine. However, if you agree, each of us must address every point presented from the other person (and all points must be drawn from direct quotes from this thread, clarification allowed) thoroughly and completely. If the other party requests clarification or a source, one must provide it.
Deal, or no deal?
Last edited:
According to your theories. It does not mean it is fact. There is a difference between a theory and a law/fact.
Let's say you pay a dollar to the union for, oh, fifty paychecks. That's fifty dollars spent. Now, if the company wants to cut back benefits worth more than fifty dollars, and the union prevents it, then yes, it is by the simple numbers worth it.
I actually managed to find out where I got that figure after I initially posted it. It's the union due for someone I know (it was simply a matter of asking her what it is). Real-life example of a union due (instead of this 75% crap) and all that.
You are an outlier case. Outliers do not define the norm.
Certainly. "I'd say you'd have to be at least moderately loyal to put in 20 years' work with a single company." "I'd say you'd have to be at least moderately loyal to put in 25 years' work with a single company." "I'd say you'd have to be at least moderately loyal to put in 30 years' work with a single company."
Good enough for you?
I didn't say anything about proportionality to production. This is nothing more than a strawman.
From the Fallacy Files, "A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate." What you're accusing me of is an abusive ad hominem, which is defined as, "An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend herself, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate."
I may have performed a circumstantial ad hominem, but I refrain from downright abusive ad hominem, and I certainly have not provided any irrelevant premises about you, Moss. Any arguments against you personally come from within the debate itself, and thus are highly relevant. Ironically, the second to last sentence of your paragraph, "or yourself?", contains a circumstantial ad hominem.
Neither have flying saucers, but you don't see anyone rushing to their defense either.
I see what you're trying to say. I'll point out that you aren't interpreting the line correctly. What it mentions is that no strike threats were formally tabled, despite that the option was still there for the unions. What that's more analogous to would be a robber not having to bring out his gun in the first place.
Why?
If that's the stated reason, certainly it would affect them negatively... but as long as you fire them for other, "unrelated" reasons, you're more or less in the clear.
Outlier, norm, etc.
How much did you add to the company you last worked at on average per day? Without even looking at your paycheck or your salary, gauge it for me, to an uncertainty of, say, fifty cents.
Strawman, and a feeble one at that. I never said anything like that; all I said was that companies without unions have no obligation to pay employees more than what they're willing to work for. This comes into play when you consider that some people aren't "financial wizards" and are willing to be paid less than they add to the company (sometimes because the company misleads them on that figure). Unions protect that.
I'll implement numbers into this. Say someone adds, oh, ten dollars to the company per hour through their work. They don't know this exact figure, but the company pays them, say, five dollars an hour. A union would be the people saying, "Hey, wait a minute, this guy's getting underpaid."
I've changed Moss' argument to reflect his debating attitude more accurately, by adding in only six words.
I'll take a shot in the dark and say the article you refuse to read. I am not the article.
Whatever happened to these "infinite wants"?
They should! It would increase their utility, and therefore their happiness!
So now it's a game of managing peoples' resources. Or rather, some people cannot increase their resources, nor do they have any hope of ever doing so, thus their maximum utility is far less than others'.
"Inequality is good," you say, but tell that to the people without the resources to achieve this greater utility of yours.
Biologically impossible, Moss.
The problem is that they handle themselves so well, they start to handle others as well. Why should an employer not trust that people can lead themselves, and allow a union to form? Why combat this?
You want a market that can't even keep itself afloat without the government to correct its failures. You want a system that doesn't take responsibility for its own mistakes.
One is an effect of the other. In other words, a system which starts in anarcho-capitalism may over time descend into plutocracy simply by its own workings.
I'll class you as your arguments dictate.
If you want things to be as they were back then, including its aspects of society which you would find distasteful, then yes. You cannot simply take a single aspect of one society and bandy it about mindlessly while ignoring its other aspects. When the US government was "initially" set up, for instance, all men were created equal, except for black people, indians, and women.
I read your two paragraphs, read this, then went and reread the previous two paragraphs, unable to find such a difference as to prove what I said wrong. The reason for this is that such a difference was nonexistant.
You're misrepresenting it grossly. It was locked because you declared victory against me after having been proven a hypocrite and a fool, changing the entire subject of debate to an unrelated issue. The message given on locking was quite accurate, "We're done with Rich People now." We were. Had you started another thread on it, you would not have been locked as readily.
You were the one saying corporations do nothing that does not benefit society. Tobacco contains a highly addictive drug, which does nothing but harm the people taking it. In return for this, it provides a temporary measure of relaxation. You defended this with what I am sure to you is good reason, and yet you weasel out of why even something like marijuana (a softer drug in some aspects) should not be legalized and taken over by private enterprise.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Given only their current sums of money, it is impossible to say. The entire question is pointless. Don't ask pointless questions.
I did not say it was "solely" because we use their money. I merely used the fact that it was their money (a fact to which you agreed!) as a case for pointing out that the government's taxation is not theft.
In two words? "Human greed." Everything else, every other basis, every other tenant, every other slogan, every other child saying he believes in capitalism, is a runoff of some effect of base, uncontrolled human greed.
You are being highly inconsistent with this statement. On the one hand, you say that welfare offers no incentive to get out of it. On the other hand, you say that there is more to life than just living. Welfare, at least in our overly-generous system up here (a point I have to keep hammering in to you; our welfare system trumps yours in generosity), provides nothing more than "just living" (a fact sourced earlier in this thread, including exact numbers). Which is it to be, Moss? If you are "just living," how can you not want to maximize your utility by finding a way to do more than "just live"?
This was the closest you ever came in that tirade to saying something about the point I brought up. My point being that free markets also find wants people don't have, and then supply them with those wants, and in turn supply them with the goods to satisfy these artificial wants.
I'd say that this is a strawman, but it's so far off of what I said that it're more just blatantly off topic. You had a lot to say about advertisement, when advertisement was merely an example of my point: People are given artificial wants, which companies supply and then take peoples' money to feed.
Corporations are not obligated to point out any non-major health risk in their products. "Side effects include liver damage" is one thing. "Eat this snack food every day for a year and develop clogged arteries" is another. Indeed, as tobacco companies prove, there is profit to be had in downplaying the risks in the name of uninformed people making uninformed decisions. It's simply more business that way.
I'll take this as agreement of my saying, "Capitalism is merely the art of exploiting others ... without regard to their detriment for one's own benefit."
I dunno, why are you arguing here? What benefit do you gain from this?
Cases vary... it's anything from imagined benefits to simply making unlivable conditions only slightly less unlivable.
There's that word "everyone" again, and Moss is still using it incorrectly! "Everyone" includes the people who have less money than the otherwise would have because they aren't getting paid. Thus, they do not have more money than they otherwise would have.
I'm getting pretty damn tired of your constant misuse of the word/prefix "every", the word "all", and similar aspects of language applied so grossly inappropriately.
Find me a study saying that Wal-Mart offers as many or more jobs than the companies it drives out of business combined.
How many "mom and pop" grocery companies actively drive others out of business, therefore resource, therefore utility?
"Competition" in this case is not as simple as one company offering goods and services at a better price than another. It is, again, to use the sports analogy, a case of a minor league player up against a pro.
In a word, yes.
If you're referring to capitalist politicians like America is used to seeing, then no. But that's not what you asked.
No, but it is less harmful to nature. It still harms it, of course, which means it is not a perfect solution nor should it be construed as an acceptable solution, but damned if simply dumping off refuse indiscriminately is the same thing like you're trying to say it is.
My favourite part of this paragraph was your actually using the umlaut.
In any case, I've given sources that say standards are regressing, which seems to run counter to your argument. Better than a hundred years ago, sure. But it's not simply getting better and better without stop.
You pay with your immunity from arbitrary exercises of authority for protection of life and property... and then complain at arbitrary exercises of authority? I detect hypocrisy! This is a pretty debate-shattering case, as well, Moss. For shame.
Look at the growth in America's debt compared to the growth in Canada's debt. America definitely seems to be worse with its money.
I'll throw you a bone and point out that in a RIAA debate of yore, I was the person defending piracy. Thus, if anything, I would know about subjectivity of ethics better than you.
I would also know, however, what a double standard is. Deeming certain things to be wrong within American borders should mean that Americans take it as wrong regardless of where it is in the world. Thus an American should not be willing to do to a non-American as he is wont or able to do to an American. Case in point, if you're doing something like paying outsourced coffee bean growers Depression-era rates, this is, safe to say, a violation of ethics.
Arguing with hypocrisy and double standards makes you happy, in other words. Gotcha.
Provide me the numbers to show that you cannot cut any expenditure but social programs and have a significantly beneficial effect, and I'll consider it.
No, "screwed" in every instance I provided has been a case where someone has had something taken from them without their willing (i.e. non-coerced) consent. Work overtime with no extra pay, and you're having time taken from you which could have gone to maximizing your utility. If a collective agreement is forced upon you, you are having your agreed terms of working taken from you. If your benefits are cut back, well, that one's pretty obvious as to what was taken from you.
... That doesn't even make any sense. I was (since you so blatantly missed it) saying that if employee A is equal to employee B, then A should be paid equally to B. Who is this "they" of yours that produces "more wealth," and who is it that "they" are producing more wealth than?
This is analogous to your answering a "who" question with an imperative back in Rich People. Please stop the nonsensical answers.
Funny, don't you also say that it's proportional to what wealth they produce for the company? Therefore, if the sum opinion is grossly different, should that mean that the price is right at that, even if, say, someone produces $10 but the sum opinion says $50? You're not making sense, Moss.
... I didn't say "minimum wage," Mr. Moss, I said "minimum possible." As in the minimum possible wage to not have your employees leaving on you. Learn to read. I didn't "dodge" it, I simply ignore it as completely off-topic and utterly pointless.
Similarly, taxes are not theft as the money taken is rightfully the government's.
The fact remains, though, that theft is theft (according to you), and you cannot allow for a bit of folk heroics to blind you to that. Don't be a hypocrite.
I've seen the unfortunate pictures. You don't.
Sounds like the Pointy-Haired Boss from Dilbert.
You don't work very "hard" when you're simply sitting at a desk all day, compared to the construction worker building an entire building with his crew. This refers to of course physical work. Mental work, the same may indeed hold up, as that same desk worker may be doing less mental work than the professor working through an intricate and difficult problem, but still earning more than him. Capitalism is built such that how hard your work is matters less than what you choose to do.
You've gotten raises because of it. If you did not truly earn these raises (i.e. if you weren't truly deserving of them, and in no way am I saying you were or not), then yes, it would be theft.
A union prevents the theoretical theft by insufficient compensation. I don't see what's so hard to understand. Just because you don't understand the basic workings of a union doesn't mean you can't understand their beneficial function.
Just say it, "Poor parents teach their children to be poor."
It was a mandatory course at my high school. It taught not only finance, but general business education, ranging from how to do something as simple as write a resumé to the generalities of actually engaging in business. American high schools must truly be inadequate!
Sounds like you wasted the money spent on whatever courses were requisite for your med courses.
If you're referring to taxes (the debate subject at hand), I've already established that it's not theft. Your entire point here vanishes.
Yet you still use the analogy of shackling the feet of the pro marathon runner. For the love of your god, Moss, stop being a hypocrite.
So I've met mythical people?
At the cost of Americans. If you were fired because of an illegal immigrant who would do your work for half of your price, would you be happy for it because of not only the economic mobility of the person replacing you, but because of the better-managed money of your employer?
We are, however, better at managing our debt. America is simply going broke (this one sources America's head auditor). Canada's economy has indeed been growing, and our debt has indeed been going down (this one sources Statistics Canada itself).
Canada's working its debt lower, and you're saying out social programs are unsupportable? Perhaps it's only America's own economic nightmare that's the cause of it. You've got proof in the form of two basically irrefutable sources of the fact that social programs do not cause "massive debt."
It isn't "working" if the poor still exist.
Not hard. Let's take a look at welfare, at least around here. The rates are about $510 a month, which comes to on average $127.50 a week (four weeks to a month). Minimum wage around here is $8/hour, so if you find full-time work (a 40-hour week), that's 8*40, or $320 a week. That seems like a lot of work, but you only need 16 hours a week to earn as much as welfare. Basically, work more than three hours a day and you're earning more than welfare gives you. This is not something anywhere near impossible. It's also not a lot of money gotten from welfare when you realize that cheap shared accomodation runs figures of $400 a month or so, leaving $110 for basically a month's groceries and anything else you need.
They're the ones giving it value. A farmer doesn't give value to his wheat after he grows it. He can't change the quality of the bread after it's in the hands of the baker. Not true of the legal tender provided by the government. Sure, even if the government were to take some kind of drastic action regarding its own legal tender, you could still use that $20 bill with whoever would accept it, but for a lot of things you'd be SOL.
Furthermore, you agreed that money is the government's to control in the first place, by calling it "their" money. It's never a good sign when my pointing out your inconsistencies and hypocrisy takes up more space than my actual arguments.
Indeed.
No useful skills is the implication. And indeed there can be people who cannot find stable employment because they can't find anyone willing to hire them. Again, not rocket science.
An employer would be a lot harder pressed to correctly falsify his records stating that he paid less than minimum wage to someone than that Carlos out there with a sandwich board doesn't have a social security card when the people who care about such things aren't knocking at the door. The double rule means it's doubly hard to circumvent the system, and harms nobody it should not be harming.
Except their comptroller general. Go ahead, call up Mr. David Walker, head auditor of the US government, and tell him he's wrong. I'm sure he'll appreciate hearing it from you.
"The issue is even more pressing given the fact that the U.S. dollar has been falling for more than a year, decimating returns for those foreigners who invest in U.S. bonds." Your bonds aren't doing so hot, either. Just thought I'd point it out.
Your exact words were, "If you reply with anything other than agreeing to my challenge of a friendly debate, I will not respond to it and simply assume you are incapable of having one." The exact definition of an ultimatum is, "a final, uncompromising demand or set of terms issued by a party to a dispute, the rejection of which may lead to a severance of relations or to the use of force." I did not "claim" it was an ultimatum so much as point out that it fits the exact dictionary definition of one. Again, Moss tries to misrepresent the facts.
Enough that, when you weren't satisfied with my response, you changed the subject of debate. At every turn, Moss, you show your double standards and hypocrisy.
Do whatever you feel is necessary, however, do not expect me to follow your format. The idea was a musing of mine, but if you feel the need to run with it, go ahead.
I feel it worthy to point out, though, that in this one post of Moss', he makes a debate-crushing hypocritical comment, and displays a complete lack of understanding of the economic situations of two countries.
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
You can't buy a product you can't afford. It's sort of the opposite of how welfaresque programs work... they benefit the poorer end of society, while corps are more for the richer end. Sometimes that "richer end" extends all the way to and even into the "poorer end," though. There are varying cases.
Then I guess my argument is that it's too easy to live a fine life just by being born into it, by being lucky.
So capitalism works until the market fails, an action the system is both powerless to prevent and powerless to remedy. Sounds like the ideas need a bit of work, then, no?
Especially since the general goal of any major business can be said to be to do better than the competition, driving them out of business, creating a monopoly, creating a "failure."
Government officials aren't arbitrarily handed authority over the society they create laws over. They're elected by the people, meaning that in general, their moral views that could be made law would align with those of most voters. so when the laws are made, most people should agree with them.
Besides, money and markets are no constant either. You act like it's more likely society will accept the idea that people can be subjected to harsh, health-destroying conditions for long amounts of time than it is that it'll lose its sense of materialism.
Actually, I believe you should do that. You're arguing with a fairly vague notion, so you could just pull a point you've never mentioned before and say, "Yeah, that's part of what I've been defending the whole time." In other words, state your position, please. Specifically.
I didn't know that those companies used sweatshop labor. I knew some did, I didn't know which specifically. Did you? Ask some people you know, while I try to dig up some numbers. And do remember that this is information the corps would be wise to try and keep from the public. Rich, rich corps.
Fine, I see what you mean, although logging has probably outstripped possible regrowth for a long time now. And, more to the point, you're still just picking on the example and not the issue. To help you once again, the representative example: greenhouse gas emissions.
I thought it was fairly clear "sweatshop labor" was just used as a shorter version of "low wages, long hours, poor conditions, child labor." Sweatshops imply most of those classically, and in modern usage the word has pretty much taken on that very meaning.
Last edited:
Moss Factor
New Member
Not true. There is something called the time value of money. Basically, money is worth more now than it is later. If you have money now, you have greater liquidity. You can invest it. You can spend it! Money is much better in your pocket than anywhere else. If I am to loan it or give it to someone, I need compensation. This compensation is what interest is. So actually, it is not always worth it to pay union dues if they prevent me from having >$50 in benefits cut back for a variety of reasons. For example, I'm a healthy young man. If the union is taking $50 in dues to save me $51 in health benefits, frankly I'd rather have the $50 cash. Why? I'm not likely to receive these benefits any time soon, but I can spend the cash right away. Furthermore, the same can be said for most non-cash increases in benefits; if I am not necessarily taking advantage of them, I am better off having the cash that I can spend on things to improve my situation.
So for a variety of reasons, the time value of money, liquidity, and opportunity to claim benefits, having cash and having it now is preferred over otherwise, without additional compensation.
So my asking a friend is not ok, but your asking a friend is? How about you site a real source so we can squash this issue?
If you really think you haven't been abusive, Marril, then you are simply in denial.
I actually disagree with you on that one...
Here we go!
Capitalism is a system which defends property rights. This gives incentive for people to, following rational self-interest, increase their property, knowing it will be defended. To do this, people can create systems of production, protected from liability called businesses. These businesses are profit-minded. As a result, they only produce things people want (if people didn’t want it, why would they sell it?). They also maximize their resources only buying what they need. Therefore because they’re only producing what society wants and using their resources efficiently, we have a mechanism for taking all of society’s limited resources and turning them into only the things that people want. This system creates a great number of goods and services that increases our standard of living. This also creates numerous and diverse entities for us to apply our labor to. It allows for specialization and division of labor which leads to more and more efficiency.
All of this compounds. Businesses produce more and better technologies which help us push our production frontiers out further and further. More surplus is created. Wealth is created. It is not a zero-sum game.
This excess surplus can be observed in the fact that our GDP has grown tremendously in the past century. When GDP growth outpaces population growth, which it has on average, that extra surplus increases our standards of living. This is true for all members of society. The wealth creation available because of capitalism has given the US the world's highest GDP and one of the top GNI per capita (the largest of a country with a similar population by far).
The evidence showing that limited government interaction fuels this expansion of surplus is also diverse and compelling. As stated:
Several economies that seemed on the verge of bankruptcy in the early eighties were suddenly revived once marginal tax rates were reduced. In 1983 to 1984, Turkey's marginal tax rates were slashed: the minimum rate dropped from 40 to 25 percent, the maximum from 75 to 50 percent. Real economic growth jumped to nearly 7 percent in the following four years and to 9 percent in 1990. Like Turkey, South Korea was deep in debt to international banks in 1980, when real output fell 2 percent. Korea subsequently cut tax rates and expanded deductions three times, and economic growth averaged 9.3 percent a year from 1981 to 1989. In the early eighties the African island of Mauritius faced an unemployment rate of 23 percent and massive emigration. Tax rates were cut from 60 percent to 35 percent, and the economy grew by 5.4 percent a year from 1981 through 1987. Egypt, Jamaica, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, and Mexico had similar experiences after slashing marginal tax rates.
Taxes are a form of government intervention. As you can clearly see, reducing government interventions lead to massive increases in GDP and employment. Free markets with limited government intervention are the path to long-term prosperity.
People are much smarter than you give them credit for, and much more paranoid. People in a company generally know those who have been with it for many years better than ones that have not. When they see the obvious correlation of employees getting fired when they are close to their pensions, it will be quite obvious what the company is up to.
Am I an outlier? I find it very hard to believe, but if you can provide a source that says the majority of people who request a raise are turned down, I'll concede the point.
Isn't the whole point of investment that you can get more money later by putting in a smaller amount of money now? You're not making sense. Alternatively, consider a union due to be an investment, if it makes it easier to stomach. You invest, and it pays off.
I have nothing to say to the sheer stupidity of trying to impress upon your opponent in a debate that any union would demand 75% of a member's wages. I need to "site" nothing against a claim with all the legitimacy of Bigfoot, or the Roswell aliens, or any number of other crackpot conspiracy theories.
How not?
You defined capitalism, but not defended it against the points which I bring up.
Under your capitalistic system of labour, which denies rights such as unions, they would be powerless to do anything about it. The worst they could do is quit, but the market would be readily able to hire other workers.
It may be a childlike turnaround, but I would ask you to provide a source that the majority of people who walk up to their bosses and say, "I want more money," actually get it.
Quantify how you arrived at this sum.
Or the mean price for your job is too low. I have a hard time imagining such a scenario as impossible.
And if the competition has no space available for anyone else?
You make it sound like such a simple matter. Five minutes out of your day, and you're in a better-paying job. Obviously, you're not going to be the only one applying for any positions the higher-paying competitors can offer. Assuming you can make it in amongst the stack of applicants, great. Otherwise you're stuck with your lower-paying job, at best. Furthermore, you may not be able to get this job in the first place. There may not be any establishments in your town, and you lack the resources to move. Any number of human factors influence it, but Moss commits the fallacy here of assuming no factors aside from pay variables. I, on the other hand, argue using the big picture.
Then how is your particular brand of capitalism the only thing that can work, assuming this basic level of human infinite want, and happiness from things other than increasing utility?
Talk to some of the people I've met. No "real" education to speak of, no job skills that increase their chances of employment, no work experience to speak of... hell, go below that level, even, and to the people who could never get a job. People with no education, no address, no phone number, and no financial identity. Who would hire these people? If not, what chance do they have?
"You’re making the assumption that we all agree inequality is a bad thing. Inequality is a very good thing!"
Stop ****ing contradicting yourself.
Your brain can only process a certain amount of stimulus at once. Too much happiness... well, there's a drug that does something similar, called ecstasy. And loading yourself up on euphoria isn't the most healthy thing to do, so I'll go out on a limb and say there comes a point where you physically cannot be happier.
I think Frank Lloyd Wright said it best, "If capitalism is fair, then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and the resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labour."
Also, in addition to a response to the above, I'd like a response to this: "Labour is prior to, and independant of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labour, and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. Labour is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Then it can correct these failures itself. Do not be so immature as to preach that there should be some external party to correct the failings of your system. Don't rely on "the government" to solve problems for your so-implied perfect little system.
Out of their own self-interests for their own gain in utility. You should be supporting this, Moss.
To impede people from working fully to their own benefit? According to you, it would benefit all of society if businesses were allowed to maximize their utility and bend the rules to their favour. Yet you say that this would require a government to keep balanced. This sounds like hypocrisy on your part!
A government that does nothing but fight your wars, police you, and keep your markets from favouring one business. The first one it would have no money for. The second could be privatized and written off as less money for this government to have to spend. The third is just an idealistic dream of yours.
I defined it as I saw it written in a source which you yourself also utilize.
A "state" in your form isn't much of a "state" at all. The government would have no power, it would simply fight for you and clean up the errors you admit by inclusion of government duty would occur.
You cannot compare that society to our current one. It doesn't work as a comparison.
Your government. Take a look at other governments' atrocities in the past, oh, 50 years. You're not arguing against government, you're arguing against the American mindset. This same mindset that produces such atrocities would certainly not consider a monopoly a "market failure" if such a monopoly was under that mindset's control. Your breed of anarcho-capitalism does not work.
I still do not find so much as one word that says anything to the point I raised.
You know what? I accept your concession on that particular issue. It's obvious you don't care enough about it to read what I have to say, even when it's in nice, friendly bold letters. Moving on...
Your asking which of two men would spend more, knowing only their sums of money, is indeed pointless. As it is also pointless without considering which government you're referring to. American Republicans? Then say so. Canadian Bloc? Then say so. Middle ages British monarchy? Then say so.
You called it "their" money. Don't weasel out of this one. You said, verbatim, "We our not paying the government taxes solely because we use their money." I cannot misquote your verbatim wording, Moss.
Noam Chomsky: "Just because you have changed the format of what you are saying does not mean you have anything interesting to say."
Who the hell buys light-up sneakers without first having the want given to them by a company that makes it? You should get the idea with that example, let alone some of the more ludicrous things on the market.
As the joke goes when I'm buying Magic cards, when I exchange my bits of money for bits of carboard, I'm really coming out ahead when the recession hits and money becomes worthless.
Similarly, I quite enjoy debating when it involves thoughtful, original arguments and not hypocrisy and inattention to detail such as you literally spew at me.
"Slightly less unlivable" is still "unlivable." You earn no true benefit from being paid zero cents a day as compared to three cents a day. You gain nothing in the long run except for a sense of desperation brought on not from having nothing, but having nowhere near enough.
So, no, it's only benefit when you're not the one being paid slave wages, and thus not a benefit to the worker. Moss, in his haste for picking apart semantics, fails to consider the larger picture.
But it also affects their resources in general, as any financial decisions made will probably not include anything buyable at Wal-Mart, because odds are they won't have as much disposable money as they would if they still had a job. The argument fails on considering that such people simply can't shop as freely as they did. It affects the direct present as well as the future.
It creates unemployment simply by existing if it creates less jobs than it destroys. Simple, irrefutable logic. Thus "society" is not benefitted as unemployment is raised.
You're the one with the leagues in sports analogies, and you suddenly abandon it? Why?
Note: You only asked if it was possible as an absolute, not out of plausibility. Thus a politician without the resources to get involved with business in the first place receives no benefit from them.
At what point does data simply become acceptable on its own? When it benefits you personally?
"Greg Palast is a New York Times-bestselling author and a journalist for the British Broadcasting Corporation as well as the British newspaper The Observer." This satisfies in part many of the source types you requested: newspapers, broadcasting, etc. Furthermore, if you'd bothered to read the article at all, you'd see that the particular article was using exerpts from, “Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class — And What We Can Do About It."
Don't write off sources simply because you don't like them. Find out their own flaws and work from there.
No. It is not. Be mindful, Moss, of the word "denotation." When you say something, if it does not mean what it literally means, then make a point of saying it. You say, "We pay our ability to take from others," but to whom do you pay? To the government. The government does not pay these abilities. The people under the government do.
I "got" the definition of liberty from your much-sourced Wikipedia: "Liberty is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority."
Read what the **** I said, Moss. I'm getting sick and tired of you doing nothing but spouting off an off-topic response to whatever I say. I was not kidding when I said you were going down the same road as Rich People. It is not a good thing in a debate when one's opponent must point out such things as, "I love how you answered, "Who exactly are these someone elses?" with, "Use a different part from a rival company."" You're repeating these same mistakes. It shall be your downfall if you do not cease.
Paying less than a dollar per pound of coffee beans harvested is not adjusting for purchasing power, no matter how much you think it may be.
Given that I've proven Canada can support its social problems, I should be asking you why you feel America can't.
Learn the distinctions I use. Taxes are a constant. The examples I listed involved a change, as in something present either tangibly or intangibly was taken from them.
Then why is it that this in practice does not work? Raise wages so employees will defect to your company... you're not gaining any benefit whether employee A or employee B works for you (assuming the position was always vacant to begin with). They are worth the same, so why overpay them? They'd be getting paid more than they're worth, and that upsets your equilibrium.
Unions, for example.
"Many" is of course relative. Sometimes, yes, you have 10 people willing to hire you, but depending on your skillset and education, you may be lucky to have 1 person willing to hire you.
Competition can only do so much. As I stated above, more factors than simple pay affect whether an employee will work for you or not.
I certainly wish I hadn't.
Not to start up Rich People again, but the actions of one man cannot be compared to the actions of his entire company. "It's not an apples-to-apples comparison." You may be making decisions sitting at a desk, but sometimes it's just plain workers that are creating all the wealth.
Unions' primary goals are the benefits of the workers. The company's primary doals are its own profits regardless of the workers. For the latter, if the workers' benefits add to creating wealth, then they will be favoured. If removing such benefits would create wealth, they will be removed. A union, by contrast, must always benefit the workers, and thus why the system works for them and not for businesses.
Part of the course was "running" a business, from marketing to watching the market itself, so it's not as minor as you're painting it.
Product recall?
Moss, they make the rules! Of course they can play by whatever rules they want!
I can prove the use of it wrong, which has the same effect.
If we're to use this marathon, the people without those opportunities are the ones who will be finishing seventh or eighth and have no hope of finishing first.
Canada seems to be making a positive effort in its debt removal. America is only going further down the hole. That was my point.
Likewise, the living conditions of the rich are only getting better, and the gap is widening. By comparison, then, the living conditions of the poor are if nothing getting lower.
I did not pull my numbers out of thin air. I pulled them from someone with personal experience with the welfare system, who would know exactly how the money and aid you receive is budgeted (you must be getting sick of Mr. Green, but he is a good source in this regard).
They could cause it to cease being legal tender, at which point all the money in the world wouldn't matter to them. The market could keep using it, but the people who makes the rules wouldn't be obligated to.
There is such a thing called "space." You cannot have fifteen different people taking orders at the local McDonald's at one time, regardless of how low the wages go.
Not my fault businesses will only follow the rules if it's in their best interests to.
I'm waiting for your explanation as to why you (a student) know better than the chief auditor for the US government (a man who can be called nothing less than an expert in the field). Read the article; he sees what's coming, he knows the causes, and I'm fairly sure it even mentions that people thinking otherwise is a good contributor to the problem.
I'll note you didn't even touch on my source.
Unlike you, I have nothing to prove in a petty, flashy end to this debate. I know where I stand, I know where you stand, and rattling off questions for each other to answer will not change that. My pride is not as fragile as yours.
The proven hypocrite is talking about "gaping holes" in my logic?
Besides, as Wilhelm Stekel was quoted in Catcher in the Rye, "The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one."
Because I'm tired of your hypocrisy and inability to make on-topic comments. You make few to no "compelling points," and very many headache-inducing hypocritical and/or off-topic comments. Your double standards don't help, either. Simply pointing to any perceived double standards on my part doesn't help your position either, as two wrongs don't make a right... thus even if I'm wrong, it doesn't help you if you make the same mistakes you accuse me of.
This is nothing more than childish goading.
Again, childish goading. I wonder if Moss is getting desperate or something. He certainly seems to be, as I've systematically brought down his logic from its very centre, and he can now resort to little but posturing and trying desperately to change what he's been saying, resulting in some spectacular hypocrisy.