Atheistforums.com

Humanities Section => Political/Government General Discussion => Topic started by: Xerographica on September 11, 2013, 06:12:17 AM

Title: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Xerographica on September 11, 2013, 06:12:17 AM
[youtube:323xkidn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFq05Z7_Dyk[/youtube:323xkidn]

Xero: [usual argument]

Liberal: Your problem is that you don't understand the crucial importance of redistribution of wealth.

Xero: Is every bakery going to be a success? Obviously not...right? If that were the case then poverty would be eliminated because everybody who lacked money would be guaranteed money simply by starting a bakery. No need for redistribution.

So what factors determine whether a bakery will be successful or not? Maybe it simply boils down to luck? That can't be right. The fact of the matter is that it's a given that some bakers are going to make less mistakes than other bakers. As a result, some bakeries are going to be more successful than others.

It boils down to insight and foresight. A successful baker sees more accurately than an unsuccessful baker. And it's up to consumers to determine which baker sees more accurately.

You want to redistribute wealth from a wealthy baker to a poor baker? You want to give more influence to people who see less accurately? You want to take flour from a successful baker and give it to an unsuccessful baker?

Your intentions are good, but unfortunately, because you're failing to think things through you're simply increasing the severity of the problem you're trying to solve.

If you truly want the poor to have better options in life...then you have to think things through. Better options depend on people doing better things with society's limited resources. Consumers determine who exactly are the people who are doing better things with society's limited resources. The people they give their positive feedback (money) to are the people with the most insight/foresight. Therefore, we all will greatly benefit by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Bibliofagus on September 11, 2013, 01:43:35 PM
Yeah. Lets give all our money to the guy who does the best (whatever the fuck that means) things with society's limited resources to have the other 5.999.999.999 people on earth reap the vast benefits!
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Xerographica on September 11, 2013, 04:02:30 PM
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Yeah. Lets give all our money to the guy who does the best (whatever the fuck that means) things with society's limited resources to have the other 5.999.999.999 people on earth reap the vast benefits!
I'm saying that if people can't choose exactly how much positive feedback (money) they give to an organization, then there's no way to accurately determine how much benefit society is deriving from that particular good/service.  Without this feedback it's a given that either too much, or too little, of that good/service will be supplied.  In other words, without this feedback it's a given that society's limited resources will be inefficiently allocated.  In other words, without this feedback it's a given that we won't derive the maximum value from how society's limited resources are used.  

You can certainly argue that congresspeople can determine how much benefit society derives from a particular good/service.  But if you're going to argue that their determination is at least equally as accurate as the sum of everybody's feedback...then this can't only be true of public goods.  

If congresspeople can know, better than society itself, exactly how much benefit society derives from public education...then it has to be true that congresspeople can know, better than society itself, exactly how much benefit society derives from milk.  So if we're better off allowing congresspeople to determine how much public education should be supplied, then we're also better off allowing congresspeople to determine how much milk should be supplied.  

The fact of the matter is...as a group, millions and millions of taxpayers have infinitely more insight/foresight than 300 congresspeople do.  That's why we'd be infinitely better off by allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves exactly how much positive feedback (tax dollars) they give to government organizations.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Plu on September 11, 2013, 04:50:26 PM
Do you never stop repeating the exact same thing over and over again?
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: mykcob4 on September 11, 2013, 05:39:51 PM
The problem with people that advocate "free enterprize" is that it isn't free and it isn't fair. The fact is that the wealthy start out with an unfair advantage. They deny opportunity to the unwealthy and the poorly capitalized, thus excluding competition. Therefore you end up with corrupt corporate monopolies. This corrupt corporate monopoly business world is what the conservatives call free enterprize.
I have seen the arguements, the bumper sticker mentality that generate misleading slogans like "redistribution of wealth" as if they are true. They are anything but the truth.
If you could gauranty fair opportunity and fair compitition, then and only then would you and could you have a true "free enterprize" system.
The truth is that corrupt corporate monopolies don't pay fair wages, they don't pay taxes, they aren't responsible to the environment, they don't have safe work places, and they don't allow fair free compitition.
So don't bore me with bumper-sticker mentality buzzword lying slogans. Don't lie to my face about capitalism and socalled "free enterprize". And don't lie about "redistribition of wealth".
The fact is that wealth has been redistributed to the top 1% wealthy for decades and the conservatives have lied about that distribution. It's classic propaganda.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012 ... ital-gains (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-25/opinions/35495014_1_tax-code-income-rate-on-capital-gains)
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/02-4 (https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/02-4)
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/ ... -lower-93/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/)
http://www.patternliteracy.com/655-redi ... th-upwards (http://www.patternliteracy.com/655-redistributing-wealth-upwards)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/ ... very/?_r=0 (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-through-the-recovery/?_r=0)
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/ ... very/?_r=0 (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-through-the-recovery/?_r=0)
http://www.google.com/search?q=rich+get ... d=0CE4QsAQ (http://www.google.com/search?q=rich+getting+richer&biw=1024&bih=596&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ROIwUu67KcGG2wW2m4HwBw&ved=0CE4QsAQ)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... NpMe3P5ruQ (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=rich%20getting%20richer&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&ved=0CGAQFjAL&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FABC_Univision%2FNews%2Fus-rich-richer-poor-poorer%2Fstory%3Fid%3D19393378&ei=ROIwUu67KcGG2wW2m4HwBw&usg=AFQjCNFKWkDrdy4G1gEVIixUNpMe3P5ruQ)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 25q7gQ9YNg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=rich%20getting%20richer&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&ved=0CIYBEBYwDw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbillmoyers.com%2F2013%2F02%2F22%2Fin-this-recovery-the-rich-get-richer%2F&ei=ROIwUu67KcGG2wW2m4HwBw&usg=AFQjCNFU7NPZPIHf-3iwh6M225q7gQ9YNg)
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: LikelyToBreak on September 11, 2013, 06:36:51 PM
Damn!  They must be having snowball fights in hell.   :shock:   I agree with most of mykcob4 post.  :-k  

The only exception to his post which I take is:
QuoteThe fact is that wealth has been redistributed to the top 1% wealthy for decades and the conservatives have lied about that distribution. It's classic propaganda.
Unless what he means by conservatives is the bi-partisan party.  As both parties have had there turn at the rudder, and both have redistributed the wealth to the top 1%er's.  Otherwise, I can pretty much agree with mykcob4.  Go figure.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on September 11, 2013, 06:54:41 PM
Xero, you're also forgetting some very important facts in bumper sticker politics. Billionaires get to spend vast sums of money to influence congress to pass laws that heavily favor them while mom and pops corner bakery can't even get a cop to stop by for a donut..
Classical fail. Are the moms and pops all failures and ought to remain as such for not being billionaires?
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: mykcob4 on September 11, 2013, 07:07:20 PM
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Damn!  They must be having snowball fights in hell.   :shock:   I agree with most of mykcob4 post.  :-k  

The only exception to his post which I take is:
QuoteThe fact is that wealth has been redistributed to the top 1% wealthy for decades and the conservatives have lied about that distribution. It's classic propaganda.
Unless what he means by conservatives is the bi-partisan party.  As both parties have had there turn at the rudder, and both have redistributed the wealth to the top 1%er's.  Otherwise, I can pretty much agree with mykcob4.  Go figure.
Well you might believe that the redistribution of wealth is the fault of both parties but the "Bikini Chart" is the truth to the fact that the republicans are primarily responsible for wealth being redistributed to the top 1% wealthy Americans.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Xerographica on September 11, 2013, 08:33:17 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Xero, you're also forgetting some very important facts in bumper sticker politics. Billionaires get to spend vast sums of money to influence congress to pass laws that heavily favor them while mom and pops corner bakery can't even get a cop to stop by for a donut..
Classical fail. Are the moms and pops all failures and ought to remain as such for not being billionaires?
How is crony capitalism possible in a pragmatarian system?  Do environmentalists give the EPA more money if the EPA allows corporations to trash the environment?  Is the EPA really going to have any legitimacy/credibility if the only people funding it are big corporations?  Obviously not...and the EPA would know this.  Everybody would know this.

In a pragmatarian system we'd know exactly what percentage of the public was funding any given government organization.  Billionaires only represent less than 1% of the population.  So if a government organization is only receiving funding from 1% or less of the population, then clearly the government organization would lose all legitimacy/credibility.  Voters would clearly see that the government organization was not supplying a public good.  As a result, it would no longer qualify to receive public funding.  It would be removed from the "menu"...as it should be.  

So tell me, what percentage of the population would have to give their taxes to a government organization in order to credibly argue that it truly is supplying a public good?  What is the legitimacy threshold?  How low can the percentage be before it becomes a given that the government organization is simply catering to special interests?  

In order for a public good to genuinely be considered a public good...it has to have a broad appeal.  It has to benefit a significant portion of the population.  Pragmatarianism would allow us to accurately determine exactly what percentage of the population was benefiting from any given public good.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: LikelyToBreak on September 11, 2013, 09:03:34 PM
Sorry mykcob4 but your myopic vision is too short and narrow again.  The Bikini Chart shows how things went south when the Democrats took over Congress.

And this stuff didn't start in 2000, it started in 1900.  Take a look at when the Democrats controlled both houses.
QuoteDemocrats controlled BOTH house from 1955 until 1980 (26 years).
From 1981 until 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House.
Democrats recaptured both houses in 87 and held them until 95 when the Republicans took both houses and held them until 2005.
//http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_years_did_democrats_control_both_house_and_senate

Wake up and smell the beans.  The Democrats only sound different than the Republicans.  It is all one big party, and they are leaving us with the tab.

Xerographica, until you can come up with a way to stop all the cronyism in the government,  pragmatarianism or any other system won't work.  The plutarchy would count the votes and rig them as they wanted them.  Yes, I am saying we cannot trust the government to do what it is mandated to do.  And as far as I can see, there is nothing we can do about.  The plutarchy controls 90% of the press and enough of the government to get what they want.  Suck it up, and figure out a way to level the playing field or try to educate people as to what reality is.  If you can't do that, move on to another subject.  Sorry, but I didn't design, make, or willing work on the playing field we have inherited.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: mykcob4 on September 11, 2013, 10:41:49 PM
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Sorry mykcob4 but your myopic vision is too short and narrow again.  The Bikini Chart shows how things went south when the Democrats took over Congress.

And this stuff didn't start in 2000, it started in 1900.  Take a look at when the Democrats controlled both houses.
QuoteDemocrats controlled BOTH house from 1955 until 1980 (26 years).
From 1981 until 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House.
Democrats recaptured both houses in 87 and held them until 95 when the Republicans took both houses and held them until 2005.
//http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_years_did_democrats_control_both_house_and_senate

Wake up and smell the beans.  The Democrats only sound different than the Republicans.  It is all one big party, and they are leaving us with the tab.

Xerographica, until you can come up with a way to stop all the cronyism in the government,  pragmatarianism or any other system won't work.  The plutarchy would count the votes and rig them as they wanted them.  Yes, I am saying we cannot trust the government to do what it is mandated to do.  And as far as I can see, there is nothing we can do about.  The plutarchy controls 90% of the press and enough of the government to get what they want.  Suck it up, and figure out a way to level the playing field or try to educate people as to what reality is.  If you can't do that, move on to another subject.  Sorry, but I didn't design, make, or willing work on the playing field we have inherited.
You and I will never agree on a specific point, the fact that you view every politician as a corrupt crony. I am not myopic in my viewpoint. You say the chart shows what happened when the Democrats took Congress, but that is not right. It shows what happened specifically when the repukes took the whitehouse. Remember Congress is stagnated unless either party gets a supermajority otherwize government just grinds to a halt. The fact is that the economy only works if a Democrat or something other than a republican/conservative is in the Whitehouse. Since Teddy R. left the repuke party the repukes have been a corrupt party that caters to corrupt corporate monopolies. You can't say that of the Dems. Yes they have a few concerns that are very wealthy, but by and large the Dems are concerned with the middle class, the poor, the environment, PROGRESS and every minority, labor and workers and the general society at large. The reason that the economy works under the Dems is because the middle class gets larger and everyone benefits from that.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Colanth on September 11, 2013, 11:05:04 PM
"Redistribution of wealth" in economics refers to the manipulation by the wealthy to assure that money flows upward.  Accumulation of wealth, the result of that redistribution, causes destruction of the spending class,which causes depressions.

If you think October 29, 1929 was one of the high points of American history, then you're right about redistribution of wealth being a good thing.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: mykcob4 on September 11, 2013, 11:21:02 PM
Quote from: "Colanth""Redistribution of wealth" in economics refers to the manipulation by the wealthy to assure that money flows upward.  Accumulation of wealth, the result of that redistribution, causes destruction of the spending class,which causes depressions.

If you think October 29, 1929 was one of the high points of American history, then you're right about redistribution of wealth being a good thing.

EXACTLY!
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: LikelyToBreak on September 11, 2013, 11:38:32 PM
mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteYou say the chart shows what happened when the Democrats took Congress, but that is not right. It shows what happened specifically when the repukes took the whitehouse.
Maybe I looked at the wrong Bikini chart.  Where the jobs started dropping in 2006.  I know your response.  "It was a delayed reaction because Clinton did so well."  Or something along those lines.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteThe fact is that the economy only works if a Democrat or something other than a republican/conservative is in the Whitehouse.
Then why were the economies good during the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations?  I know, it was because of the Democrats in congress, right?
mycob4 wrote in part:
QuoteSince Teddy R. left the repuke party the repukes have been a corrupt party that caters to corrupt corporate monopolies. You can't say that of the Dems.
Sure I can and I thought I had been saying exactly that.
//http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm
I also recognize that the Dems don't have a monopoly on scandals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#Executive_Branch
mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteYes they have a few concerns that are very wealthy, but by and large the Dems are concerned with the middle class, the poor, the environment, PROGRESS and every minority, labor and workers and the general society at large.
That is their rhetoric, just like the Rep's say they are for a balanced budget.  Just hot air coming out of moving lips.  

mykcob4, you seem to have a religious conviction towards the Dems.  I have liked some Dems in my day and I liked a Rep too.  But, I never had the conviction to one party, even when I was running as a Libertarian, than you seem to have to the Dems.  Let me clue you in, their shit stinks too.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: mykcob4 on September 12, 2013, 11:05:44 AM
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteYou say the chart shows what happened when the Democrats took Congress, but that is not right. It shows what happened specifically when the repukes took the whitehouse.
Maybe I looked at the wrong Bikini chart.  Where the jobs started dropping in 2006.  I know your response.  "It was a delayed reaction because Clinton did so well."  Or something along those lines.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteThe fact is that the economy only works if a Democrat or something other than a republican/conservative is in the Whitehouse.
Then why were the economies good during the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations?  I know, it was because of the Democrats in congress, right?
mycob4 wrote in part:
QuoteSince Teddy R. left the repuke party the repukes have been a corrupt party that caters to corrupt corporate monopolies. You can't say that of the Dems.
Sure I can and I thought I had been saying exactly that.
//http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm
I also recognize that the Dems don't have a monopoly on scandals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#Executive_Branch
mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteYes they have a few concerns that are very wealthy, but by and large the Dems are concerned with the middle class, the poor, the environment, PROGRESS and every minority, labor and workers and the general society at large.
That is their rhetoric, just like the Rep's say they are for a balanced budget.  Just hot air coming out of moving lips.  

mykcob4, you seem to have a religious conviction towards the Dems.  I have liked some Dems in my day and I liked a Rep too.  But, I never had the conviction to one party, even when I was running as a Libertarian, than you seem to have to the Dems.  Let me clue you in, their shit stinks too.
Ah well, I don't want to argue points that we have been beating to death since we started posting to each other. I don't have a "religious conviction" to anything, thank you very much.
The thing is the basic tenet of each party, what drives the party.
Illregardless of the party name or eavn their proposed platforms (slogans-bushwords-bumper stickers), there are basically two ideals.
Conservative and Liberal!
Conservatives:
restrict human/civil rights
redistribute resources from the middle class to the rich and corrupt corporations
foster fear, hate, and prejudice
dumb down the general populace
prey upon the weak
destroy the environment
promote selvishness and greed
degrade and disenfranchise everyone and everything that isn't white male and religious
Supress voting
decry cultural differences
and believe ethics can be summed up in a phrase "if you don't get caught it isn't a crime."
Liberals:
believe in humanity, human rights, diversity
strengthen the middle class
protect the environment
believe in the rule of law

So on and so forth. Now there are morons and corrupt people on both sides but the basic tenet is the driving force and the difference between the two.
Notice the two I described were not political parties.
So since the Democratic party is mainly Liberal and progress....and....
the republican party is mainly conservative,....
it stands to reason that I and any normal logical person that cares about this nation would prefer the Democratic party.
That is not to say that I pull the lever that marks all and just Democratic candidates, but it is to say that I will never vote for a conservative candidate no matter what party that they run in or on.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Colanth on September 12, 2013, 11:29:35 AM
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteThe fact is that the economy only works if a Democrat or something other than a republican/conservative is in the Whitehouse.
Then why were the economies good during the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations?
18% interest on mortgages is "working" to you?  The economy under Reagan was only "working" to enrich the wealthy.  The poor?  "Ketchup is a vegetable."  Anyone trying to get SS Disability under Reagan's administration couldn't - if you weren't too disabled to apply for it, you weren't too disabled to work.  The economy really "works" when the poor do all the heavy lifting and the wealthy get all the benefits.

Eisenhower, today, would be FAR to the left of Obama.  A couple of things helped the economy during his administration.  We were still rebounding from the Depression.  (People finally had money, the future was now [there were all sorts of new things coming to market], so people spent money.)  The fact that the market was flooded with "Japanese junk" also helped, it kept prices down.  We were still on a war footing, economically, when he took office (war is good for business).  The arms race was pretty much the same as being on a war footing, and that lasted right through the rest of his administration.  And Congress wasn't hell-bent on making him look bad regardless of the cost.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 12, 2013, 01:32:49 PM
Quote from: "Xerographica"Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFq05Z7_Dyk)

Xero: [usual argument]

Liberal: Your problem is that you don't understand the crucial importance of redistribution of wealth.

Xero: Is every bakery going to be a success? Obviously not...right? If that were the case then poverty would be eliminated because everybody who lacked money would be guaranteed money simply by starting a bakery. No need for redistribution.


Your logic doesn't go all the way. If everyone would be a baker, they would all go bankrupt, as they would have only one customer, themselves. So it's not an option for any society that every individual can become a baker. Secondly, not everyone has exactly the same skills, and this is a good thing since in any given society, you want different things to be produced. And therefore it goes without saying that not everyone will have the skills to run a business. Not everyone will be able to earn enough money to survive or have a decent lifestyle. And it's counter-productive for that society to ignore those who fall into the cracks, as history has shown time and time again, that you'll end up with a high rate of crimes.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Bibliofagus on September 12, 2013, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "Xerographica"Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFq05Z7_Dyk)

Xero: [usual argument]

Liberal: Your problem is that you don't understand the crucial importance of redistribution of wealth.

Xero: Is every bakery going to be a success? Obviously not...right? If that were the case then poverty would be eliminated because everybody who lacked money would be guaranteed money simply by starting a bakery. No need for redistribution.


Your logic doesn't go all the way. If everyone would be a baker, they would all go bankrupt, as they would have only one customer, themselves. So it's not an option for any society that every individual can become a baker. Secondly, not everyone has exactly the same skills, and this is a good thing since in any given society, you want different things to be produced. And therefore it goes without saying that not everyone will have the skills to run a business. Not everyone will be able to earn enough money to survive or have a decent lifestyle. And it's counter-productive for that society to ignore those who fall into the cracks, as history has shown time and time again, that you'll end up with a high rate of crimes.

This is no problem in Xero's universe.
Somewhere there is a guy who makes the bestest investment choices and we should all hand over our business to him to reap vast benefits.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Bibliofagus on September 12, 2013, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: "Xerographica"I'm saying that if people can't choose exactly how much positive feedback (money) they give to an organization.

You appear to think that money is the only/best way to give positive feedback.
Why?
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on September 12, 2013, 03:27:21 PM
Xero comes from somewhere in chess universe.
(//http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q490/atheola/32-funny-pictures-463.jpg)
I enjoy stealing jokes too. :)
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Xerographica on September 12, 2013, 08:32:28 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Your logic doesn't go all the way. If everyone would be a baker, they would all go bankrupt, as they would have only one customer, themselves. So it's not an option for any society that every individual can become a baker. Secondly, not everyone has exactly the same skills, and this is a good thing since in any given society, you want different things to be produced. And therefore it goes without saying that not everyone will have the skills to run a business. Not everyone will be able to earn enough money to survive or have a decent lifestyle. And it's counter-productive for that society to ignore those who fall into the cracks, as history has shown time and time again, that you'll end up with a high rate of crimes.
Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

Everyone can't save poor people, so we only want the best saviors to be saviors.  How do we determine who the best saviors are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

If it doesn't make any sense for bakers to be exempt from this vetting process...then why would it make any sense for saviors to be exempt from this vetting process?  

Obviously there's a demand for helping poor people.  Which is great.  But I want taxpayers to choose where their taxes go because there's nothing more absurd than arguing that any two saviors are equally effective.  You might as well argue that any two bakers are equally effective.  Then there's no reason for anybody to shop at all.  

Let me share with you my perspective on the only real effective method to help lift people out of poverty.  

I've lived in and studied developing countries for many years.  People aren't lifted out of poverty because charities and governments do so much good.  They are lifted out of poverty because profit driven foreign companies are allowed to set up factories.  It's obvious that working in a sweatshop isn't a good option.  It's not even a great option.  In fact, it's a terrible option.  So what does it mean when so many people voluntarily choose to work in sweatshops?  It means that it's a sufficiently better option than their second best option...subsistence agriculture.  

US companies set up factories in foreign countries because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.  And people choose to work in those factories because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.

As the demand for cheap labor increases...workers' options increase as well...so the wages that factories pay eventually rise.  If you increase the demand for labor it's a given that wages are eventually going to rise.  

The moral of the story is that profit seeking greedy bastards have unintentionally lifted infinitely more people out of poverty than any intentional poverty reduction efforts by governments or charities.  

And what do liberals want to do?  Because they fail to think things through, rather than do what factory owners inadvertently do and give workers better options, they simply want to shut sweatshops down which does nothing but eliminate workers' best options.  

If you want to help improve people's standard of living, then you have to figure out how to use society's limited resources in a way that gives consumers sufficiently better options...which will allow you to give workers sufficiently better options.  It's not easy...there's a lot of risk and no guarantees...but this is exactly what capitalists do.  There's absolutely nothing altruistic about it but the results are infinitely beneficial.  

So on one hand we have morally superior liberals causing harm and morally inferior capitalists creating benefit.  That's what you'll come to understand if you think things through.

Basically, the quantity and quality of options is a function of how well people are using society's limited resources.  In order to determine who's doing better things with society's limited resources...we absolutely must have consumer sovereignty.  Right now the public sector is half the economy.  If we want everybody to be better off, then we have extend consumer sovereignty to the public sector by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: mykcob4 on September 12, 2013, 09:26:51 PM
Quote from: "Xerographica"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Your logic doesn't go all the way. If everyone would be a baker, they would all go bankrupt, as they would have only one customer, themselves. So it's not an option for any society that every individual can become a baker. Secondly, not everyone has exactly the same skills, and this is a good thing since in any given society, you want different things to be produced. And therefore it goes without saying that not everyone will have the skills to run a business. Not everyone will be able to earn enough money to survive or have a decent lifestyle. And it's counter-productive for that society to ignore those who fall into the cracks, as history has shown time and time again, that you'll end up with a high rate of crimes.
Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

Everyone can't save poor people, so we only want the best saviors to be saviors.  How do we determine who the best saviors are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

If it doesn't make any sense for bakers to be exempt from this vetting process...then why would it make any sense for saviors to be exempt from this vetting process?  

Obviously there's a demand for helping poor people.  Which is great.  But I want taxpayers to choose where their taxes go because there's nothing more absurd than arguing that any two saviors are equally effective.  You might as well argue that any two bakers are equally effective.  Then there's no reason for anybody to shop at all.  

Let me share with you my perspective on the only real effective method to help lift people out of poverty.  

I've lived in and studied developing countries for many years.  People aren't lifted out of poverty because charities and governments do so much good.  They are lifted out of poverty because profit driven foreign companies are allowed to set up factories.  It's obvious that working in a sweatshop isn't a good option.  It's not even a great option.  In fact, it's a terrible option.  So what does it mean when so many people voluntarily choose to work in sweatshops?  It means that it's a sufficiently better option than their second best option...subsistence agriculture.  

US companies set up factories in foreign countries because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.  And people choose to work in those factories because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.

As the demand for cheap labor increases...workers' options increase as well...so the wages that factories pay eventually rise.  If you increase the demand for labor it's a given that wages are eventually going to rise.  

The moral of the story is that profit seeking greedy bastards have unintentionally lifted infinitely more people out of poverty than any intentional poverty reduction efforts by governments or charities.  

And what do liberals want to do?  Because they fail to think things through, rather than do what factory owners inadvertently do and give workers better options, they simply want to shut sweatshops down which does nothing but eliminate workers' best options.  

If you want to help improve people's standard of living, then you have to figure out how to use society's limited resources in a way that gives consumers sufficiently better options...which will allow you to give workers sufficiently better options.  It's not easy...there's a lot of risk and no guarantees...but this is exactly what capitalists do.  There's absolutely nothing altruistic about it but the results are infinitely beneficial.  

So on one hand we have morally superior liberals causing harm and morally inferior capitalists creating benefit.  That's what you'll come to understand if you think things through.

Basically, the quantity and quality of options is a function of how well people are using society's limited resources.  In order to determine who's doing better things with society's limited resources...we absolutely must have consumer sovereignty.  Right now the public sector is half the economy.  If we want everybody to be better off, then we have extend consumer sovereignty to the public sector by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.
You are spewing the same old myth that conservatives have told, well since there where conservatives.
"Supply and demand" as if that is a natural and realistic situation. For more than a thousand years business has known that they can create a false demand and control the supply. Take tupips. They were valued so highly that they created an empire. It was a false market and a false demand. The crave soon passed and the empire vitually crumbled. You might say it was the onset of pop culture.
There is no such thing as "consumer soveriegnty." There is only the new monarchy which are the giant corrupt corporations. Those corporations manipulate supply, demand, consumer psychology, the markets, wealth, and governments. Since there are very few that make purchases based on NEED, the consumer as a whole is manipulated like a pro wrestling fan. The outcome is predetermined.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Colanth on September 12, 2013, 09:59:05 PM
Quote from: "Xerographica"Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.
In your world that means that everyone buys from the best baker.  In the real world almost everyone buys from the cheapest baker, even if his bread isn't all that good.  So unless best=cheapest, your "logic" fails the reality test.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Xerographica on September 13, 2013, 06:47:41 AM
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Xerographica"Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.
In your world that means that everyone buys from the best baker.  In the real world almost everyone buys from the cheapest baker, even if his bread isn't all that good.  So unless best=cheapest, your "logic" fails the reality test.
It's kind of a good point.  But you're really not at all destroying my argument by pointing out that "best" is often a balance between quality and cost.  Values are subjective...so the "best" bread will be pretty much whatever consumers decide to spend their money on.  

When it comes to steak...sure I love a filet mignon...but more often than not...I prefer a larger less costly steak that will actually satisfy my hunger.  

My argument is that we maximize value by allowing consumers to give producers feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.  This is true whether we're talking about the private sector or the public sector.  Eliminate this vetting process and it's impossible for producers to supply the optimal quantities of bread, steak, public education, national defense and so on.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 13, 2013, 08:41:20 AM
Quote from: "Xerographica"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Your logic doesn't go all the way. If everyone would be a baker, they would all go bankrupt, as they would have only one customer, themselves. So it's not an option for any society that every individual can become a baker. Secondly, not everyone has exactly the same skills, and this is a good thing since in any given society, you want different things to be produced. And therefore it goes without saying that not everyone will have the skills to run a business. Not everyone will be able to earn enough money to survive or have a decent lifestyle. And it's counter-productive for that society to ignore those who fall into the cracks, as history has shown time and time again, that you'll end up with a high rate of crimes.
Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

Everyone can't save poor people, so we only want the best saviors to be saviors.  How do we determine who the best saviors are?  Consumer sovereignty.  

If it doesn't make any sense for bakers to be exempt from this vetting process...then why would it make any sense for saviors to be exempt from this vetting process?  

Obviously there's a demand for helping poor people.  Which is great.  But I want taxpayers to choose where their taxes go because there's nothing more absurd than arguing that any two saviors are equally effective.  You might as well argue that any two bakers are equally effective.  Then there's no reason for anybody to shop at all.  

Let me share with you my perspective on the only real effective method to help lift people out of poverty.  

I've lived in and studied developing countries for many years.  People aren't lifted out of poverty because charities and governments do so much good.  They are lifted out of poverty because profit driven foreign companies are allowed to set up factories.  It's obvious that working in a sweatshop isn't a good option.  It's not even a great option.  In fact, it's a terrible option.  So what does it mean when so many people voluntarily choose to work in sweatshops?  It means that it's a sufficiently better option than their second best option...subsistence agriculture.  

US companies set up factories in foreign countries because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.  And people choose to work in those factories because it's sufficiently more profitable to do so.

As the demand for cheap labor increases...workers' options increase as well...so the wages that factories pay eventually rise.  If you increase the demand for labor it's a given that wages are eventually going to rise.  

The moral of the story is that profit seeking greedy bastards have unintentionally lifted infinitely more people out of poverty than any intentional poverty reduction efforts by governments or charities.  

And what do liberals want to do?  Because they fail to think things through, rather than do what factory owners inadvertently do and give workers better options, they simply want to shut sweatshops down which does nothing but eliminate workers' best options.  

If you want to help improve people's standard of living, then you have to figure out how to use society's limited resources in a way that gives consumers sufficiently better options...which will allow you to give workers sufficiently better options.  It's not easy...there's a lot of risk and no guarantees...but this is exactly what capitalists do.  There's absolutely nothing altruistic about it but the results are infinitely beneficial.  

So on one hand we have morally superior liberals causing harm and morally inferior capitalists creating benefit.  That's what you'll come to understand if you think things through.

Basically, the quantity and quality of options is a function of how well people are using society's limited resources.  In order to determine who's doing better things with society's limited resources...we absolutely must have consumer sovereignty.  Right now the public sector is half the economy.  If we want everybody to be better off, then we have extend consumer sovereignty to the public sector by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.


Your experiment was ACTUALLY carried... starting in the 19th century, and we know what it led to. It was so bad that the reaction was Karl Marx laying down the foundation of communism. If that is not to your taste for you to consider getting more knowledge on this matter, you can read Charles Dickens to get a glimpse of 19th century living in England. It wasn't pretty for the low wagers. In the 20th century, unfettered capitalism led to the 1920's follies and the Great Depression of 1929-45. Today we see the big corporations corrupting the American system - just about every decision from SCOTUS has been on the side of big corporations, and democracy in America is a sick cow. What you're forgetting is that economic power spills over to the political arena, and those who have the money tend to corrupt politicians to bid for their own interests. That has been true throughout the ages, if anything that history has taught us. So forgive me if I don't want to drink from your kool-aid.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: LikelyToBreak on September 13, 2013, 09:54:22 AM
Seems to me, that both sides of this debate are falling for a false dichotomy.
QuoteFalse dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

We don't have to choose between Ayn Rand or Karl Marx.  Or the Dems and the Reps for that matter.  We could look at other ways of doing things.  Picking and choosing the best from both Rand and Marx.  Which again won't work if corruption is not addressed.

josephpalazzo mentioned the Great Depression.  Which many economists think was caused by the Federal Reserve.
QuoteEssentially, the Great Depression, in their view, was caused by the fall of the money supply.
//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
Keep in mind the Federal Reserve is a cabal of bankers.  If the big banks' bankers decided they wanted to get rid of the small banks, they could control the money supply through the Fed to make it rough on the small banks.  The small banks would have to close or sell out to the big banks.  Something which happened during the Great Depression.  While not proof of corruption, it sure stinks of it.

The bottom line, IMHO, is that until we get people in government willing to go after those who misuse their government offices, no system will work to help most people.  And then by picking and choosing ideas from the "conservatives" and the "liberals" the majority of people could live good productive lives.

It will never happen though.  Such people are bought off or assassinated.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 13, 2013, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"josephpalazzo mentioned the Great Depression.  Which many economists think was caused by the Federal Reserve.
QuoteEssentially, the Great Depression, in their view, was caused by the fall of the money supply.
//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
Keep in mind the Federal Reserve is a cabal of bankers.  If the big banks' bankers decided they wanted to get rid of the small banks, they could control the money supply through the Fed to make it rough on the small banks.  The small banks would have to close or sell out to the big banks.  Something which happened during the Great Depression.  While not proof of corruption, it sure stinks of it.

The prevailing view is that the Federal Reserve inacted the wrong policies to stem the fall of the economy, not that it caused the Great Depression.

QuoteThe bottom line, IMHO, is that until we get people in government willing to go after those who misuse their government offices, no system will work to help most people.  And then by picking and choosing ideas from the "conservatives" and the "liberals" the majority of people could live good productive lives.

It will never happen though.  Such people are bought off or assassinated.


True, but in time big money always finds itself buying the politicians. And in large part, the citizenry is not vigilant to twart that. Most people are complacent until all hell breaks loose, and then they take to the streets. By then, it's either repression or a breakdown of fabrics that used to make up that society. History abounds with riots and revolutions. We're not going to change human nature. Most people don't give a damn until their little corner is turned upside down.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: The Whit on September 13, 2013, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: "Colanth"18% interest on mortgages is "working" to you?  The economy under Reagan was only "working" to enrich the wealthy.  The poor?  "Ketchup is a vegetable."  Anyone trying to get SS Disability under Reagan's administration couldn't - if you weren't too disabled to apply for it, you weren't too disabled to work.  The economy really "works" when the poor do all the heavy lifting and the wealthy get all the benefits.

Eisenhower, today, would be FAR to the left of Obama.  A couple of things helped the economy during his administration.  We were still rebounding from the Depression.  (People finally had money, the future was now [there were all sorts of new things coming to market], so people spent money.)  The fact that the market was flooded with "Japanese junk" also helped, it kept prices down.  We were still on a war footing, economically, when he took office (war is good for business).  The arms race was pretty much the same as being on a war footing, and that lasted right through the rest of his administration.  And Congress wasn't hell-bent on making him look bad regardless of the cost.

Who is "business"?  And who is it that fights these wars?
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: The Whit on September 13, 2013, 01:06:02 PM
Quote from: "mykcob4"The problem with people that advocate "free enterprize" is that it isn't free and it isn't fair. The fact is that the wealthy start out with an unfair advantage. They deny opportunity to the unwealthy and the poorly capitalized, thus excluding competition. Therefore you end up with corrupt corporate monopolies. This corrupt corporate monopoly business world is what the conservatives call free enterprize.
It's real definition is crony capitalism, and should not be confused with free market enterprise.
QuoteI have seen the arguements, the bumper sticker mentality that generate misleading slogans like "redistribution of wealth" as if they are true. They are anything but the truth.
If you could gauranty fair opportunity and fair compitition, then and only then would you and could you have a true "free enterprize" system.
You're right.  So we must find a way to hold people accountable for fraud and deception to keep the market place honest.  For this we have the judicial branch of the government.
QuoteThe truth is that corrupt corporate monopolies don't pay fair wages, they don't pay taxes, they aren't responsible to the environment, they don't have safe work places, and they don't allow fair free compitition.
And if you look closely you'll see that all of these monopolies are getting money from government subsidies in some form.

QuoteSo don't bore me with bumper-sticker mentality buzzword lying slogans. Don't lie to my face about capitalism and socalled "free enterprize". And don't lie about "redistribition of wealth".
I agree with you about redistribution of wealth but you misunderstand the free market.
QuoteThe fact is that wealth has been redistributed to the top 1% wealthy for decades and the conservatives have lied about that distribution. It's classic propaganda.
The fact is that there are very few politicians on both sides who aren't in the pockets of big business.  I do remember before 2007 the Democrats downright denying there was any chance of a financial collapse.  Who helped pass the 800 BILLION DOLLAR banker bailout?  Both parties.  

If you're still a fan of the two party system you're just as delusional as the guy on the other side of the fence.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 13, 2013, 01:30:37 PM
Quote from: "The Whit"So we must find a way to hold people accountable for fraud and deception to keep the market place honest. For this we have the judicial branch of the government.
.
.

If you're still a fan of the two party system you're just as delusional as the guy on the other side of the fence.

Third parties in the US don't fare well. And the judiciary is mostly in the hands of big corporations. The system is so rigged that there is little chance it can ever be reformed.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: The Whit on September 13, 2013, 02:21:56 PM
Quote from: "mykcob4"Ah well, I don't want to argue points that we have been beating to death since we started posting to each other. I don't have a "religious conviction" to anything, thank you very much.
If you say so, but I'm about to tell you why you're wrong.

QuoteThe thing is the basic tenet of each party, what drives the party.
Illregardless of the party name or eavn their proposed platforms (slogans-bushwords-bumper stickers), there are basically two ideals.
No, there's not.  There are as many ideals as there are people on this planet.  but, let's examine your definition of these two to see if we can find any inconsistencies.
QuoteConservative and Liberal!
Conservatives:
restrict human/civil rights
redistribute resources from the middle class to the rich and corrupt corporations
foster fear, hate, and prejudice
dumb down the general populace
prey upon the weak
destroy the environment
promote selvishness and greed
degrade and disenfranchise everyone and everything that isn't white male and religious
Supress voting
decry cultural differences
and believe ethics can be summed up in a phrase "if you don't get caught it isn't a crime."
Holy shit.  Don't bust a vein.  Now, let's do a thought experiment.  Replace "Conservative" with "Atheist" and tell me who that sounds like.
QuoteLiberals:
believe in humanity, human rights, diversity
strengthen the middle class
protect the environment
believe in the rule of law
Hmm...Let's replace "Liberal" with "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jew".   =/  

In fact, if you want to replace "Liberal" with "Christian" you can change "Conservative" to "Muslim" and in some cases "Jew" and it still sounds exactly the same.  I guess the religious don't have a monopoly on bigotry.

Anyway, let's continue...

QuoteSo on and so forth. Now there are morons and corrupt people on both sides but the basic tenet is the driving force and the difference between the two.
Notice the two I described were not political parties.
No, but you're about to.
Quote
So since the Democratic party is mainly Liberal and progress....and....
the republican party is mainly conservative,....
And there it is!  So, what you're saying is that we can replace "Conservative" with "Republican" and "Liberal" with "Democrat" and it will be generally accurate.  Got it.  But does that work?  
QuoteDemocrats:
believe in humanity, human rights, diversity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan)
QuoteFirst KKK: As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[19] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.
But that was a while ago.

QuoteThird KKK: The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by a numerous independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama
George Wallace was a segregationist Democrat.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Wallace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Wallace)

Still, even that was 50 years ago.  Things change right?

Well, while I will grant that is is mainly Republicans these days speaking out against marriage equality and immigration, the Democratic party is not innocent.

Continuing:
Quotestrengthen the middle class
Ohh this one is juicy.  So, hows about that jobless recovery?  Hows about that nearly trillion dollar bailout and the government take overs of Obama?  Hows about the stock market reaching new highs while wages have stagnated and job recovery has been slow.  What about that minumum wage?  Doesn't that help the working class?  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 87975.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/american-samoa-minimum-wage_n_1687975.html)
QuoteA report last year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said employment in American Samoa has declined because of the minimum wage increases that began in 2007. The 142-page report said the decrease in employment was a result of losing a tuna cannery in American Samoa. Employers blamed the minimum wage increase for layoffs, work hour reductions and hiring freezes.
So, I think we can bust the myth that Dems "strengthen the middle class".
Quoteprotect the environment
http://ivn.us/2013/02/11/the-revolving- ... o-company/ (http://ivn.us/2013/02/11/the-revolving-door-fda-and-the-monsanto-company/)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s ... 43810.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html)
http://www.alternet.org/story/155850/ob ... se_big_oil (http://www.alternet.org/story/155850/obama_is_fast-tracking_an_environmental_disaster_to_please_big_oil)

Quotebelieve in the rule of law
Do I need to bring up "Fast and Furious"?  How about Guantanamo?  What about drone strikes?  What about bailing out banks instead of letting them go bankrupt?  What about the second amendment?

Quoteit stands to reason that I and any normal logical person that cares about this nation would prefer the Democratic party.
Wrong.
QuoteThat is not to say that I pull the lever that marks all and just Democratic candidates, but it is to say that I will never vote for a conservative candidate no matter what party that they run in or on.
I would hope no one would vote for anyone that fits your definition of conservative.  However, your definition of conservative is not "the" definition of conservative and as I've shown democrats used to fit your definition of it.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: The Whit on September 13, 2013, 02:27:02 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Third parties in the US don't fare well. And the judiciary is mostly in the hands of big corporations. The system is so rigged that there is little chance it can ever be reformed.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html)

Read that document real quick and rethink that last statement.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 13, 2013, 03:03:53 PM
Quote from: "The Whit"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Third parties in the US don't fare well. And the judiciary is mostly in the hands of big corporations. The system is so rigged that there is little chance it can ever be reformed.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html)

Read that document real quick and rethink that last statement.

What they fail to anticipate is that corporations would have the same rights as a person (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 1886),  and that money would be equal to free speech (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -2010), hence the judiciary gave full control of the political system to big money. If you believe you have democracy in the US you are delusional.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: The Whit on September 13, 2013, 03:06:42 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"What they fail to anticipate is that corporations would have the same rights as a person (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 1886),  and that money would be equal to free speach (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -2010), hence the judiciary gave full control of the political system to big money. If you believe you have democracy in the US you are delusional.
Let me be more specific.

QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 13, 2013, 03:11:01 PM
Quote from: "The Whit"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"What they fail to anticipate is that corporations would have the same rights as a person (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 1886),  and that money would be equal to free speach (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -2010), hence the judiciary gave full control of the political system to big money. If you believe you have democracy in the US you are delusional.
Let me be more specific.

QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


As I said in a previous post, and I'll repeat: We're not going to change human nature. Most people don't give a damn until their little corner is turned upside down.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Jmpty on September 13, 2013, 03:57:05 PM
Man I hate the Tea Party. When I hear them speak, or read their bullshit ideas, it makes me sad.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Colanth on September 13, 2013, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: "Xerographica"
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Xerographica"Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.
In your world that means that everyone buys from the best baker.  In the real world almost everyone buys from the cheapest baker, even if his bread isn't all that good.  So unless best=cheapest, your "logic" fails the reality test.
It's kind of a good point.  But you're really not at all destroying my argument by pointing out that "best" is often a balance between quality and cost.
In the real world there's no "balance" - 98% of the people choose cost.  Why do you think Walmart is the world's most successful retailer?  Quality?

QuoteValues are subjective...so the "best" bread will be pretty much whatever consumers decide to spend their money on.
If the real world worked that way, we'd still be hunting with sharpened sticks.  It costs too much to make stone points.

QuoteWhen it comes to steak...sure I love a filet mignon...but more often than not...I prefer a larger less costly steak that will actually satisfy my hunger.
But do you buy aged prime hamburger, or the stuff in the supermarket?  Until human nature changes, the supermarkets have absolutely no incentive to sell good meat, so the cheap, corn-stuffed-in-the-feedlot stuff is all you'll get.

QuoteMy argument is that we maximize value
Value is what people WILL pay, not what they COULD pay.  What's the "value" of a piece of meat, aged 12 months, then ground?  If it has to sell for $20/pound?  If only a relatively few people in the country would buy it, it has no "value" (which is set by the price actually paid for it) because no one will risk producing it.  But feed-lot beef selling for $1.50/pound has the value of $1.50/pound.

Quoteby allowing consumers to give producers feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.
Society will opt for cost, so again, you're equating value with cost.

QuoteThis is true whether we're talking about the private sector or the public sector.  Eliminate this vetting process and it's impossible for producers to supply the optimal quantities of bread, steak, public education, national defense and so on.
Bread, steak and public education seem to be in sufficient supply.  (Of course, since we put no "value" on quality, some of them aren't worth what we pay for them, but you're talking about quantity, and I haven't heard of a lot of kids not being in school because there wasn't enough education.)

National defense?  We don't count cost, or look at quality, when the nation is attacked.  Remember the last time?  December 7, 1941?  We had a depression.  There was no money.  We produced enough soldiers, and enough materiel, to fight and win a war on 2 fronts.  Not because "the people" chose to put their money into national defense, but because the government chose to spend enough to win the war, even if it had meant bankrupting the country.  You don't tell the mugger that you need your money for your future retirement.  He'll eliminate the problem - and your retirement - for you.  When it comes to life or death, cost is 2nd, quality is 3rd, and there's are only 1 thing you worry about - winning.  You count cost after you win.  (If you lose it doesn't matter any more.)

National defense has as much to do with this discussion as the color of Buggs Bunny's new house does.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: The Whit on September 13, 2013, 04:06:43 PM
Two hands at work are more effective than a thousand being sat on.  Make a ruckus about it.  Start overturning people's corners.  Neither the American or French Revolutions were started by people who sat around and complained about how shitty everything was and left it at that.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Colanth on September 13, 2013, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Keep in mind the Federal Reserve is a cabal of bankers.  If the big banks' bankers decided they wanted to get rid of the small banks, they could control the money supply through the Fed to make it rough on the small banks.  The small banks would have to close or sell out to the big banks.  Something which happened during the Great Depression.
So long ago?  Think 2008-2010.

The only problem I have with this is that it's supposed to be a 30 (or multiples of 30) year cycle, and this was an 80 year period.  The banks "failed" 10 years early.  But it did happen, and for the same reasons.  It'll keep happening until the system changes, and since it's the politicians who are profiting from the situation, they're not going to change it.

As Joseph said, until it hits everyone, no one is going to do anything about it but bitch.  Once it gets bad enough people will do something about it - but the longer it takes, the less pretty it's going to be.  I'm afraid that next time the bankers are going to have some help "jumping" from the windows.  But I won't be here to worry - it won't happen for at least another 60 years.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: The Whit on September 13, 2013, 04:36:40 PM
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Xerographica"Values are subjective...so the "best" bread will be pretty much whatever consumers decide to spend their money on.
If the real world worked that way, we'd still be hunting with sharpened sticks.  It costs too much to make stone points.
What?  It's not about cost, it's about cost-benefit.  The reason we're not running around with sharpened sticks is because the efficiency of stone tools make up for the cost of production.
Quote
QuoteWhen it comes to steak...sure I love a filet mignon...but more often than not...I prefer a larger less costly steak that will actually satisfy my hunger.
But do you buy aged prime hamburger, or the stuff in the supermarket?  Until human nature changes, the supermarkets have absolutely no incentive to sell good meat, so the cheap, corn-stuffed-in-the-feedlot stuff is all you'll get.
Yeah, because the people who buy aged prime hamburger go to places that specialize in that.  The reason  most supermarkets don't carry top quality cuts is because the cost exceeds the budget of their customer demographic.  Supermarkets couldn't stock those meats in any considerable quantity without risking them spoiling before being sold.  Spoiled food is wasted money, and wasted money is not good for business.  Likewise, the space they would use to store and display these meats would be better used by stocking products the customers WILL buy.
Quote
QuoteMy argument is that we maximize value
Value is what people WILL pay, not what they COULD pay.  What's the "value" of a piece of meat, aged 12 months, then ground?  If it has to sell for $20/pound?  If only a relatively few people in the country would buy it, it has no "value" (which is set by the price actually paid for it) because no one will risk producing it.  But feed-lot beef selling for $1.50/pound has the value of $1.50/pound.
You mistake value and price as being the same thing.  It's not.  Value is relative to the individual.  A dollar and a pound of ground beef do not have the same value to me.  If I value ground beef more than I value the dollar, I might trade the dollar for the beef.  If I didn't value the beef more, I'd be inclined to keep my dollar.  The relative value of that dollar depends on the amount one has and the opportunity cost of any transaction.  Those who have more money will spend more to purchase higher quality products because the relative value of the dollar has decreased.  If this isn't the case, why do rich people ride around in expensive cars while the less well off drive cheaper vehicles?  I know that if I could afford a brand new BMW M3 I'd be on my way to the dealer right the hell now.
Quote
Quoteby allowing consumers to give producers feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.
Society will opt for cost, so again, you're equating value with cost.
No, that was you.
Quote
QuoteThis is true whether we're talking about the private sector or the public sector.  Eliminate this vetting process and it's impossible for producers to supply the optimal quantities of bread, steak, public education, national defense and so on.
Bread, steak and public education seem to be in sufficient supply.  (Of course, since we put no "value" on quality, some of them aren't worth what we pay for them, but you're talking about quantity, and I haven't heard of a lot of kids not being in school because there wasn't enough education.)
THAT WILL ALWAYS BE THE CASE!  Supply is limited while demand is infinite.  Finite ? Infinite.  Supply will NEVER equal demand.  The quality problem is a problem of insufficient competition.
QuoteNational defense?  We don't count cost, or look at quality, when the nation is attacked.
Really?  How is it NOT in your best interests to give the best quality gear to your soldiers?

QuoteRemember the last time?  December 7, 1941?
I've heard of it but I don't remember.  That was 45 years before my birth.
QuoteWe had a depression.  There was no money.  We produced enough soldiers, and enough materiel, to fight and win a war on 2 fronts.
Damn right!  'Murica, bitches!

QuoteNot because "the people" chose to put their money into national defense, but because the government chose to spend enough to win the war, even if it had meant bankrupting the country.
The war was funded in large part by selling war bonds to the people.  Aces and soldiers, including the survivors of Iwo Jima in the picture of the flag raising, toured the country to raise money for the war effort.  Those who bought war bonds wanted it spent correctly, on the best equipment.  Generals wanted that money spent on the best equipment to give their armies the best advantage for success.  Soldiers wanted the best equipment to increase their chances of survival.  The people who made this equipment did the best job they could because it was their brothers, sons and husbands fighting in them.

QuoteYou don't tell the mugger that you need your money for your future retirement.  He'll eliminate the problem - and your retirement - for you.  When it comes to life or death, cost is 2nd, quality is 3rd, and there's are only 1 thing you worry about - winning.  You count cost after you win.  (If you lose it doesn't matter any more.)
So it's best to not have it a matter of life and death then isn't it?  Better still to not have it a matter of cost!  How do you suggest we do this?

National defense has as much to do with this discussion as the color of Buggs Bunny's new house does.[/quote]
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: mykcob4 on September 13, 2013, 04:37:00 PM
Quote from: "The Whit"
Quote from: "mykcob4"Ah well, I don't want to argue points that we have been beating to death since we started posting to each other. I don't have a "religious conviction" to anything, thank you very much.
If you say so, but I'm about to tell you why you're wrong.

QuoteThe thing is the basic tenet of each party, what drives the party.
Illregardless of the party name or eavn their proposed platforms (slogans-bushwords-bumper stickers), there are basically two ideals.
No, there's not.  There are as many ideals as there are people on this planet.  but, let's examine your definition of these two to see if we can find any inconsistencies.
QuoteConservative and Liberal!
Conservatives:
restrict human/civil rights
redistribute resources from the middle class to the rich and corrupt corporations
foster fear, hate, and prejudice
dumb down the general populace
prey upon the weak
destroy the environment
promote selvishness and greed
degrade and disenfranchise everyone and everything that isn't white male and religious
Supress voting
decry cultural differences
and believe ethics can be summed up in a phrase "if you don't get caught it isn't a crime."
Holy shit.  Don't bust a vein.  Now, let's do a thought experiment.  Replace "Conservative" with "Atheist" and tell me who that sounds like.
QuoteLiberals:
believe in humanity, human rights, diversity
strengthen the middle class
protect the environment
believe in the rule of law
Hmm...Let's replace "Liberal" with "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jew".   =/  

In fact, if you want to replace "Liberal" with "Christian" you can change "Conservative" to "Muslim" and in some cases "Jew" and it still sounds exactly the same.  I guess the religious don't have a monopoly on bigotry.

Anyway, let's continue...

QuoteSo on and so forth. Now there are morons and corrupt people on both sides but the basic tenet is the driving force and the difference between the two.
Notice the two I described were not political parties.
No, but you're about to.
Quote
So since the Democratic party is mainly Liberal and progress....and....
the republican party is mainly conservative,....
And there it is!  So, what you're saying is that we can replace "Conservative" with "Republican" and "Liberal" with "Democrat" and it will be generally accurate.  Got it.  But does that work?  
QuoteDemocrats:
believe in humanity, human rights, diversity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan)
QuoteFirst KKK: As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[19] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.
But that was a while ago.

QuoteThird KKK: The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by a numerous independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama
George Wallace was a segregationist Democrat.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Wallace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Wallace)

Still, even that was 50 years ago.  Things change right?

Well, while I will grant that is is mainly Republicans these days speaking out against marriage equality and immigration, the Democratic party is not innocent.

Continuing:
Quotestrengthen the middle class
Ohh this one is juicy.  So, hows about that jobless recovery?  Hows about that nearly trillion dollar bailout and the government take overs of Obama?  Hows about the stock market reaching new highs while wages have stagnated and job recovery has been slow.  What about that minumum wage?  Doesn't that help the working class?  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 87975.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/american-samoa-minimum-wage_n_1687975.html)
QuoteA report last year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said employment in American Samoa has declined because of the minimum wage increases that began in 2007. The 142-page report said the decrease in employment was a result of losing a tuna cannery in American Samoa. Employers blamed the minimum wage increase for layoffs, work hour reductions and hiring freezes.
So, I think we can bust the myth that Dems "strengthen the middle class".
Quoteprotect the environment
http://ivn.us/2013/02/11/the-revolving- ... o-company/ (http://ivn.us/2013/02/11/the-revolving-door-fda-and-the-monsanto-company/)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s ... 43810.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html)
http://www.alternet.org/story/155850/ob ... se_big_oil (http://www.alternet.org/story/155850/obama_is_fast-tracking_an_environmental_disaster_to_please_big_oil)

Quotebelieve in the rule of law
Do I need to bring up "Fast and Furious"?  How about Guantanamo?  What about drone strikes?  What about bailing out banks instead of letting them go bankrupt?  What about the second amendment?

Quoteit stands to reason that I and any normal logical person that cares about this nation would prefer the Democratic party.
Wrong.
QuoteThat is not to say that I pull the lever that marks all and just Democratic candidates, but it is to say that I will never vote for a conservative candidate no matter what party that they run in or on.
I would hope no one would vote for anyone that fits your definition of conservative.  However, your definition of conservative is not "the" definition of conservative and as I've shown democrats used to fit your definition of it.
Oh for cryin' out loud. The fact is that conservatives are historically and presently bad when it comes to the rule of law (Meaning the Constitution and civil rights), the environment, the laborer and or workers. Everything I stated about the differences in the two ideals and parties is absolutely TRUE.
And lets NOT replace "liberal" and "conservative" with UNRELATED names like christian and muslim. That is just stupid and illogical.
BTW there are many different ideals but I STATED "the basic tenets."
My definition IS correct concerning conservatives, and the reason is obvious. No matter what an actual conservative feels, they still go along with the republicans which are manipulated and controlled by corrupt corporations, and extreme factions like the NRA. So my definition is spot on.
BTW the southern Dems of the 50s/60s are all republicans now so you can't say that the DEMs are against civil rights. That was a stupid argument on your part.
Your reference to drone strikes is wrong because they are perfectly LEGAL, and the only reason Gitmo isn't shut down is because of REPUBLICANs in Congress are blocking it. "fast and furious" wasn't a party issue. You have to understand that people that work in various government jobs have those jobs longer than the people voted in to head the departments. There are thousands of problems that occur as a culture that has been in place for decades that newly elected people can't solve in their time in office.
Now about the 2nd Amendment. The thing is that the NRA and conservatives have lied and misinterprited the 2nd (A) for decades. The constitution allows the citizen to bare arms, and read it carefully, because there is NO provision for a standing army, therefore the right to bare arms is predicated on being a member of a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"!!!!!!!! As far as the bailout goes I haven't got the patiences to give you the full economic and history lesson that you need. It's easy for people that don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about to say "let the banks fail"!!!!
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Xerographica on September 14, 2013, 12:21:11 AM
Quote from: "Colanth"In the real world there's no "balance" - 98% of the people choose cost.  Why do you think Walmart is the world's most successful retailer?  Quality?
It helps people free up money for more valuable uses...

QuoteIndeed, presuming that individuals need and will choose to buy, regardless of price, a given level of safety is a grossly simplistic and paternalistic view of human behavior.  Consumers are often willing to forgo safety, because of the cost, in deference to other things.  Some are even willing to forgo health and years of life in order to have other things now.  People smoke even though they know that smoking is harmful.  Poor people buy cheap, less-than-reliable electric appliances because by doing so, they can have more of other things. - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free (//http://books.google.com/books?id=dHI2I5m0sZ0C)
Quote from: "Colanth"National defense?  We don't count cost, or look at quality, when the nation is attacked.
QuoteAn individual human life has no equivalent.  But that is not to say that nothing can be ranked with, let alone outrank, a human life.  The French government knows that each year several drivers lose their lives because of the beautiful roadside avenues of trees, yet they do not cut them down.  Even aesthetic pleasure is (rightly) allowed to outrank a certain number of human lives.  - James Griffin
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Shiranu on September 14, 2013, 02:55:18 AM
QuoteNo matter what an actual conservative feels, they still go along with the republicans which are manipulated and controlled by corrupt corporations, and extreme factions like the NRA. So my definition is spot on.

No matter what an actual liberal feels, they still go along with the democrats which are manipulated and controlled by corrupt corporations (TransCanada, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Lockheed Martin, and a wall of text more) and support Obama's extreme policies like the use of drones to kill American citizens without trial or a conservative healthcare initiative. So my definition of American liberals is spot on; they aren't liberals in practice, and often in thought either.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: The Whit on September 14, 2013, 05:20:27 AM
Quote from: "mykcob4"Oh for cryin' out loud. The fact is that conservatives are historically and presently bad when it comes to the rule of law (Meaning the Constitution and civil rights), the environment, the laborer and or workers.
The fact is that your conservative straw man doesn't fit many people outside of the south, and they used to be Democrats.

QuoteEverything I stated about the differences in the two ideals and parties is absolutely TRUE.
No, it isn't.

QuoteAnd lets NOT replace "liberal" and "conservative" with UNRELATED names like christian and muslim. That is just stupid and illogical.
I was doing that to show the parallels between your argument against conservatives and the religious' ignorant, fear mongering views on atheists.  The stupid and illogical bits are yours.

QuoteBTW there are many different ideals but I STATED "the basic tenets."
What you basically showed is that you don't have the capacity to think.  I'm starting to think you're only an atheist because someone told you it was cool.

QuoteMy definition IS correct concerning conservatives, and the reason is obvious. No matter what an actual conservative feels, they still go along with the republicans which are manipulated and controlled by corrupt corporations, and extreme factions like the NRA. So my definition is spot on.
LOL @ the NRA being an extreme faction.  I don't agree with everything the NRA has done but they're far from extreme.
QuoteBTW the southern Dems of the 50s/60s are all republicans now so you can't say that the DEMs are against civil rights.
You're right, I was saying they were bigoted assholes.  The fact that they're all republicans now just goes to show that the political party doesn't have much to do with anything.

QuoteYour reference to drone strikes is wrong because they are perfectly LEGAL, and the only reason Gitmo isn't shut down is because of REPUBLICANs in Congress are blocking it. "fast and furious" wasn't a party issue. You have to understand that people that work in various government jobs have those jobs longer than the people voted in to head the departments. There are thousands of problems that occur as a culture that has been in place for decades that newly elected people can't solve in their time in office.
Fast and Furious was being carried out until 2011--three years into his first term.  He didn't start it, but he didn't stop it either.  Just like the war in Afghanistan.  It took him how long to finally pull troops out of Iraq after campaigning that he would have everyone home in a few weeks?

QuoteNow about the 2nd Amendment. The thing is that the NRA and conservatives have lied and misinterprited the 2nd (A) for decades. The constitution allows the citizen to bare arms, and read it carefully, because there is NO provision for a standing army, therefore the right to bare arms is predicated on being a member of a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"!!!!!!!!
I have a right to defend myself, period.

QuoteAs far as the bailout goes I haven't got the patiences to give you the full economic and history lesson that you need. It's easy for people that don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about to say "let the banks fail"!!!!
I dare you to touch on the 2007 market crash and bail-outs.  I dare you.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: LikelyToBreak on September 14, 2013, 09:56:50 AM
Being lazier than The Whit, I found another list of "Liberals vs. Conservatives"  Thought you guys might enjoy it, and see how the other side thinks about things.
QuoteIf a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.

   If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
     

   If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.

   If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned
for everyone.
     

   If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to
defeat his enemy.

   A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look
good.
     

   If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

   If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
     

   If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves
as independently successful.

   Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of
government protection.
     

   If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better
his situation.

   A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
     

   If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches
channels.

   Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
     

   If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.

   A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion
silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
     

   If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about
shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

   A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
     

   If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs
and is embarrassed.

   If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's
in labor and then sues.

   If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends
can have a good laugh.

   A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
//http://iwonder2.synthasite.com/news-and-politics.php#nabble-td3915861
This is an accurate portrayal of "Conservatives and Liberals."   :wink:
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 14, 2013, 11:00:44 AM
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"//http://iwonder2.synthasite.com/news-and-politics.php#nabble-td3915861
This is an accurate portrayal of "Conservatives and Liberals."   :wink:

Great stuff for Comedy Central.  :pirate:
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: mykcob4 on September 14, 2013, 11:59:25 AM
The fact is that the display by some including the "whit" is not at all realistic. What it is is FOX propaganda. Portraying Liberals as people that want to legislate against beef producers because those particular Liberals are vegetarian is just a flat out lie.
Conservatives don't like ANY laws unless those laws oppress minoroties and the poor.
Government is necessary for society. Why conservatives hate government is because the government makes sure (as best it can) to insure equal opportunity for all illregardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture, looks, age, nation of origin, size, belief, and all the different demographics that make up that society.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: LikelyToBreak on September 14, 2013, 12:50:43 PM
mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteThe fact is that the display by some including the "whit" is not at all realistic.
Include your own displays as well.  Then I'll agree.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteWhat it is is FOX propaganda.What it is is FOX propaganda.
I wouldn't know, I never watch Fox.  Or ABC, or CBS, or NBC, or CNN.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuotePortraying Liberals as people that want to legislate against beef producers because those particular Liberals are vegetarian is just a flat out lie.
Portraying Conservatives as people that just don't care about the poor is a flat out lie.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteConservatives don't like ANY laws unless those laws oppress minoroties and the poor.
See the above answer.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteGovernment is necessary for society.
Some government is necessary for society.  Too much government is a tyranny.  The trick is keeping it somewhere between an anarchy and a tyranny.

mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteWhy conservatives hate government is because the government makes sure (as best it can) to insure equal opportunity for all illregardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture, looks, age, nation of origin, size, belief, and all the different demographics that make up that society.
For starters, that is a pipe-dream.  For two, the US government has always been for the rich.  For three, if government is for the racial equality, why did they enforce Jim-crow laws?  Why do blacks even today get longer jail sentences than whites who commit the same crimes?  If it is for equality, why do men and women often have different standards to qualify for a given job?  Why does the military require people to be able to pass a test in English in order for them to get in?  Why can't I go back into the military because I am too old?

Why is it liberals don't want true equality, they want favoritism for their select few?  Conservatives want a color-blind society which doesn't take the differences which the liberals seem so concerned about, and establish more of a meritocracy where the best can rise to the top and bring the rest along.

The point being, while you bitch about Fox propaganda, you seem to willing buy the Democrat propaganda hook-line and sinker.  Instead of allowing yourself to be led around by the nose by Democrat politicians, shouldn't you be able to decide for yourself which policies make the most sense?  And how can you know which policies make the most sense, if you refuse to consider any of the polices not originating from the Democrats?

Just something to think about.  :-k
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Jmpty on September 14, 2013, 12:57:35 PM
(//http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/stupid-question-stupid-dumb-question-facepalm-demotivational-posters-1356066944.jpg)
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 14, 2013, 02:11:50 PM
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteGovernment is necessary for society.
Some government is necessary for society.  Too much government is a tyranny.  The trick is keeping it somewhere between an anarchy and a tyranny.

That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Colanth on September 14, 2013, 02:34:46 PM
Quote from: "Xerographica"
Quote from: "Colanth"In the real world there's no "balance" - 98% of the people choose cost.  Why do you think Walmart is the world's most successful retailer?  Quality?
It helps people free up money for more valuable uses...
Please put the goal posts back where you found them.

Quote
Quote from: "Colanth"National defense?  We don't count cost, or look at quality, when the nation is attacked.
An individual human life has no equivalent.  But that is not to say that nothing can be ranked with, let alone outrank, a human life.
But when it's a matter of the entire country, nothing *IS* ranked above defense.  (Not by countries that continue to exist.  We call countries that put other things above defense, "losers".)

QuoteThe French government knows that each year several drivers lose their lives because of the beautiful roadside avenues of trees, yet they do not cut them down.  Even aesthetic pleasure is (rightly) allowed to outrank a certain number of human lives.
What does that have to do with national defense?  Please, you'll wear out the wheels on the goal posts.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: LikelyToBreak on September 14, 2013, 03:59:43 PM
josephpalazzo asked:
QuoteThat's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Although he quoted me, it would be interesting to see what others have to say about this question too.  

My answer would be to regulate the trading houses and the Federal Reserve.

For example, we have sales taxes in most states and the federal government is currently debating a national sales tax.  Why is it that Wall Street isn't taxed on trades?  A proposal of a 1/4% tax on trades was proposed at one time, but it never got enough traction to ever even be put up for a vote.  If my memory serves me correctly.  If people have to pay sales tax to buy clothes, why are the Wall Streeter's getting away with not having to pay any taxes on their trades?  They are selling things which are not essential to life, yet they get away not being taxed on it.  A sales tax may have the effect of slowing down trades, which would help to stabilize industry.  And raise money for the government.

The Federal Reserve regulates itself through its' board of directors.  One seat is for an appointee from the government.  The rest of the board are appointees from the major banks.  The government appointee usually comes from the banking industry and goes back to the banking industry when their term is up.  We have the fox guarding the henhouse.  Does anyone else see anything wrong with that?

Because the government worries about the type of toilet seat Ma and Pa Kettle have in their general store, rather than regulating the Fed and Wall Street, we end up with the tyranny of a plutarchy.  Which is what the idea to was to begin with, we were just told differently.  When conservatives, libertarians and the like say they want less regulation, they are talking about for the small business's which might be able to compete with the big publicly traded business's, if they weren't shaken down for trivalities.

Another thing which annoys me, is who appointed the US to be policeman to the world?  While I understand the CIA which answers to the plutarchy who want insure the large multinational corporations can throw military might around when they want to, I don't see how it really benefits me and other average Americans.  We just to get to pay for some rich assholes bilking a foreign country while using our people and money to do it.

I could go on, but I don't want to write a book.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 14, 2013, 04:50:29 PM
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"josephpalazzo asked:
QuoteThat's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Although he quoted me, it would be interesting to see what others have to say about this question too.  

My answer would be to regulate the trading houses and the Federal Reserve.

For example, we have sales taxes in most states and the federal government is currently debating a national sales tax.  Why is it that Wall Street isn't taxed on trades?  A proposal of a 1/4% tax on trades was proposed at one time, but it never got enough traction to ever even be put up for a vote.  If my memory serves me correctly.  If people have to pay sales tax to buy clothes, why are the Wall Streeter's getting away with not having to pay any taxes on their trades?  They are selling things which are not essential to life, yet they get away not being taxed on it.  A sales tax may have the effect of slowing down trades, which would help to stabilize industry. And raise money for the government.

You have one party totally dedicated to raise not even one penny in taxes, which BTW, is the same party who wants less government. So that idea would be nixed from the get-go.

QuoteThe Federal Reserve regulates itself through its' board of directors.  One seat is for an appointee from the government.  The rest of the board are appointees from the major banks.  The government appointee usually comes from the banking industry and goes back to the banking industry when their term is up.  We have the fox guarding the henhouse.  Does anyone else see anything wrong with that?

There would be a problem if any of them would break the law. That they come from the banking industry ensures they have some relevant competency. Otherwise having someone who doesn't understand the industry would invite real trouble.

QuoteBecause the government worries about the type of toilet seat Ma and Pa Kettle have in their general store, rather than regulating the Fed and Wall Street, we end up with the tyranny of a plutarchy.  Which is what the idea to was to begin with, we were just told differently.  When conservatives, libertarians and the like say they want less regulation, they are talking about for the small business's which might be able to compete with the big publicly traded business's, if they weren't shaken down for trivalities.

Yes but less regulation is translated as less regulation for Wall Street by the GOP, the very same industry you want to tax more, and which the GOP won't go for.

QuoteAnother thing which annoys me, is who appointed the US to be policeman to the world?  While I understand the CIA which answers to the plutarchy who want insure the large multinational corporations can throw military might around when they want to, I don't see how it really benefits me and other average Americans.  We just to get to pay for some rich assholes bilking a foreign country while using our people and money to do it.

I could go on, but I don't want to write a book.

The problem here is that nature abhors a vacuum. If the US opt out, then you'll get China and Russia filling in the vacuum. Do you really want these countries policing the high seas? I can guarantee you that their decisions won't be in favor of free trade or even fair trade.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: mykcob4 on September 14, 2013, 05:05:59 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"mykcob4 wrote in part:
QuoteGovernment is necessary for society.
Some government is necessary for society.  Too much government is a tyranny.  The trick is keeping it somewhere between an anarchy and a tyranny.

That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Of course I do. I think if the government would actually enforce many laws that are just flat out ignored then the desparity would close. The SEC has been gutted. Monopoly enforcement is a complete joke. Labor laws don't exist anymore. Bank regulation never happens. As far as illegal aliens goes, the only reason we have such a large number of illegals is because business hires them. They pay them cash, don't report them, don't provide medical care, etc....!
Just enforcing a few of the laws that already exist would certainly end a great deal of the corrupt corporate monopoly criminality.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 14, 2013, 05:53:44 PM
Quote from: "mykcob4"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Of course I do. I think if the government would actually enforce many laws that are just flat out ignored then the desparity would close. The SEC has been gutted. Monopoly enforcement is a complete joke. Labor laws don't exist anymore. Bank regulation never happens. As far as illegal aliens goes, the only reason we have such a large number of illegals is because business hires them. They pay them cash, don't report them, don't provide medical care, etc....!
Just enforcing a few of the laws that already exist would certainly end a great deal of the corrupt corporate monopoly criminality.

To do all that you would need to hire lots of people. A rough estimate would require $50billions per year. The GOP is threathening to close down the government if it doesn't cut an additional $10 billions from the budget. What you want is not going to happen.

Edit: Sorry, there was one too many zeroes: should read $5billions/year.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: LikelyToBreak on September 14, 2013, 06:15:01 PM
josephpalazzo asked:
QuoteThat's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
josephpalazzo, you put down the not only my suggestions, but mkcob4's as well.  It seems you are saying, either nothing can be done, or it can't be done because the GOP won't allow it, so why try?

Can we hear the answer you have for your question?

BTW, good answer mkcob4.  I liked it.   =D>
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: josephpalazzo on September 14, 2013, 06:27:20 PM
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"josephpalazzo asked:
QuoteThat's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
josephpalazzo, you put down the not only my suggestions, but mkcob4's as well.  It seems you are saying, either nothing can be done, or it can't be done because the GOP won't allow it, so why try?

Can we hear the answer you have for your question?

In one post, I wrote:
QuoteTrue, but in time big money always finds itself buying the politicians. And in large part, the citizenry is not vigilant to thwart that. Most people are complacent until all hell breaks loose, and then they take to the streets. By then, it's either repression or a breakdown of fabrics that used to make up that society. History abounds with riots and revolutions. We're not going to change human nature. Most people don't give a damn until their little corner is turned upside down.

In another, this:
QuoteThird parties in the US don't fare well. And the judiciary is mostly in the hands of big corporations. The system is so rigged that there is little chance it can ever be reformed.

That pretty much says what I think.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: LikelyToBreak on September 14, 2013, 09:53:46 PM
josephpalazzo, that's what I thought you were getting at.  But, for a minute there, I thought you were agreeing with the political pundits.  

I pretty much agree with josephpalazzo's assessment.  We are at the mercies of the plutarchy.  I do think there are ways to turn things around, but they won't be done.  Still, it is kind of fun to try to think of ways to improve the country and the world in general.  Even if there is no real chance of actually implementing our ideas.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: mykcob4 on September 15, 2013, 12:18:09 AM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "mykcob4"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"That's easy to say, but harder is defining what and where the government is necessary. As just one example, a recent report says that the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99% has widely increased, even suggesting it will widen even more in the future -- do you believe the government has a role on this issue, if yes, what would it be according to you?
Of course I do. I think if the government would actually enforce many laws that are just flat out ignored then the desparity would close. The SEC has been gutted. Monopoly enforcement is a complete joke. Labor laws don't exist anymore. Bank regulation never happens. As far as illegal aliens goes, the only reason we have such a large number of illegals is because business hires them. They pay them cash, don't report them, don't provide medical care, etc....!
Just enforcing a few of the laws that already exist would certainly end a great deal of the corrupt corporate monopoly criminality.

To do all that you would need to hire lots of people. A rough estimate would require $50billions per year. The GOP is threathening to close down the government if it doesn't cut an additional $10 billions from the budget. What you want is not going to happen.

Edit: Sorry, there was one too many zeroes: should read $5billions/year.
We wouldn't have to hire anymore at all. We only have to enforce the laws as they are on the books. That means utilizing the people that are already employeed to do the jobs that they were hired to do!
And FUCK the GOP. The reason those laws aren't enforced in the first place is the GOP.
Title: Re: Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution
Post by: Plu on September 15, 2013, 07:19:28 AM
QuoteWe wouldn't have to hire anymore at all. We only have to enforce the laws as they are on the books. That means utilizing the people that are already employeed to do the jobs that they were hired to do!

This assumes that there are many people who are literally twiddling their thumbs, and that such includes all the people whose job is to make sure other people do their job.

If that's the case, you have a much bigger problem that you think you have.