As 2014 unfolds we as a nation are faced with the ever increasing problem of the rich getting richer and the rest of us losing buying power and never getting a raise. The poor are becoming even poorer and the middle class is evaporating before our very eyes.
We can try to do certain things to correct this like changing the tax laws to be fair and equitable but we run into a stonewall of opposition by conservatives and lobbiest that prevent such logical measures. The strength of this nation came as a result of the middle class becoming the largest porpotionally to the populace in world history, not as the conservatives would have you believe an unfettered unregulated capitalist system.
So I propose that the conversation should not only be about extending unemployemnet benefits that have historically done great things for the economy but addressing minimum wage. I also want to propose a MAXIMUM wage. Thats right a maximum wage.
I think that we should tackle the gorilla in the room. Top earnings in this nation are completely out of control and disproportional to reality. When top earners make over 2000 times what the lowest earner in the same company makes and they make on average nearly 600 times what the average company person makes, it's time to step in and correct the wrong that that is.
If minimum wage was say 65K per annum and maximum wage was say 650K per year the middle class would become so large that it would exceed even our wildest targets for it right now.
There is a great deal of logistics to be hammered out and this is just an initial proposal, BUT a real one. Since the redistribution of wealth that has been in effect for the decades that started with Nixon up to this point has ownly moved wealth ever increasingly into the hands of the very rich, it is time for drastic and sustainable measures.
All income should be measured accurately and accounted for to make this happen and any out of country income should be heavily penalized to prevent dishonesty. Furthermore a flat tax of 36.9 % should be implemented so everyone would pay their fair share.
I expect a lot of flack over this but if you really thought about it you might see things differently.
I would venture to guess that none of you actually make in excess of 650K a year so I doubt that you would be effected. Many of you probably make less than 65K per year so it is certain to help you out. It is clear to me that this would help the nation out a great deal as the tax base would be more than double what it is now.
Just a thought that I have been pondering for some years now.
When the law of unintended consequences strikes as a result of previous market interference, the solution is more market interference.
Lots of things make sense from a bureaucratic perspective. What I'm wondering is what you're hoping to accomplish from a more grounded, material perspective. What's the impact estimation of this? Would this reduce crime? Would this reduce pollution? Would this make food cheaper for poor people? Or would this do nothing but assuage your resentment? Try looking at this from the perspective of an engineer rather than a moralist/activist.
A maximum wage of 650k would never happen without 99.99999% showing up at the .000001%'s doors with pitchforks and guillotines. Even then we'd have brand new armies with nuclear weapons being paid 599,999 to protect them from us. As much as I like the idea I'm not sure if I can see going to all out nuclear war over it..
Okay, so that's actually a good point. If there weren't any superrich people, there wouldn't be the possibility of massive private armies.
Now we have nothing but gangs and "public" armies to deal with. Which, incidentally, are a billion times more problematic.
Most people who earn 650k and over per year are not being paid it as a wage, they are making it as profit from business ventures, owning assets and other investments etc. etc.
So in reality implementing a maximum wage in this way would limit the earnings of virtually nobody.
If what you are actually proposing is that nobody be allowed to earn more than 650k per year from all sources of income, then how do you propose to enforce this? Say someone builds up a successful business and then manages to sell it for 3 million dollars, where does this money go?
The war in Afghanistan.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Lots of things make sense from a bureaucratic perspective. What I'm wondering is what you're hoping to accomplish from a more grounded, material perspective. What's the impact estimation of this? Would this reduce crime? Would this reduce pollution? Would this make food cheaper for poor people? Or would this do nothing but assuage your resentment? Try looking at this from the perspective of an engineer rather than a moralist/activist.
I know many engineers and most of them, check that, all of them don't make 650K a year.
And yes over all many things would be cheaper if not eveything. Crime would go down because municipalities could afford to have adequate law enforcement and there would also be money for education and jobs programs because of the emensely enlarged tax base. It's not about activism, it's about progressive positive accomplishment. I guess that is moral, why aim for immorality.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"When the law of unintended consequences strikes as a result of previous market interference, the solution is more market interference.
Ah the old market arguement. Since the SEC has been gutted under the "W" admin. and it has run amuck(sp) and all that has been accomplished is a world recession/depression, I think that finally regulating the markets responsibliy is in order.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"A maximum wage of 650k would never happen without 99.99999% showing up at the .000001%'s doors with pitchforks and guillotines. Even then we'd have brand new armies with nuclear weapons being paid 599,999 to protect them from us. As much as I like the idea I'm not sure if I can see going to all out nuclear war over it..
I didn't say that it would ever be accomplished. As with most ideas on this forum it will probably never leave the pages of this board.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Most people who earn 650k and over per year are not being paid it as a wage, they are making it as profit from business ventures, owning assets and other investments etc. etc.
So in reality implementing a maximum wage in this way would limit the earnings of virtually nobody.
If what you are actually proposing is that nobody be allowed to earn more than 650k per year from all sources of income, then how do you propose to enforce this? Say someone builds up a successful business and then manages to sell it for 3 million dollars, where does this money go?
Ah but if you count ALL income you would include those people. The biggest loophole in CEO earnings is income from stock holdings.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"The war in Afghanistan.
What about it? It has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
QuoteI know many engineers and most of them, check that, all of them don't make 650K a year.
That is so irrelevant.
QuoteAnd yes over all many things would be cheaper if not eveything. Crime would go down because municipalities could afford to have adequate law enforcement and there would also be money for education and jobs programs because of the emensely enlarged tax base.
So why is that everything's so expensive in the countries with lower income inequality? I'm talking about European and Asian countries.
QuoteIt's not about activism, it's about progressive positive accomplishment. I guess that is moral, why aim for immorality.
Define morality. If your idea increases people's prices and raises unemployment, how is it moral?
Quote from: "zarus tathra"QuoteAnd yes over all many things would be cheaper if not eveything. Crime would go down because municipalities could afford to have adequate law enforcement and there would also be money for education and jobs programs because of the emensely enlarged tax base. It's not about activism, it's about progressive positive accomplishment. I guess that is moral, why aim for immorality.
So why is that everything's so expensive in the countries with lower income inequality? I'm talking about European and Asian countries.
Good point BUT there are many factors that atribute to that. In every study including a study that was started when minimum wage was first started prices did not go up. The only things that went up were productivity and commerce.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/14050 (http://truth-out.org/news/item/14050)
I could site over 100 of these studies that all say the same thing.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"QuoteI know many engineers and most of them, check that, all of them don't make 650K a year.
That is so irrelevant.
QuoteAnd yes over all many things would be cheaper if not eveything. Crime would go down because municipalities could afford to have adequate law enforcement and there would also be money for education and jobs programs because of the emensely enlarged tax base. It's not about activism, it's about progressive positive accomplishment. I guess that is moral, why aim for immorality.
So why is that everything's so expensive in the countries with lower income inequality? I'm talking about European and Asian countries.
You brought up engineers not I.
We're not talking about the minimum wage, we're talking about a "maximum wage." The minimum wage is irrelevant to our discussion.
And fine, it's "complicated." So why can you simplify things to the point that you can say "rich people are the problem?"
Quote from: "mykcob4"You brought up engineers not I.
What? I'm just asking you to look at things from a more calculated, material perspective. I'd even be satisfied with speculation, as my "joule standard" thread attests. What's so hard about trying to be at least somewhat quantitative about this? You're talking about "income." So let's talk numbers.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"We're not talking about the minimum wage, we're talking about a "maximum wage." The minimum wage is irrelevant to our discussion.
And fine, it's "complicated." So why can you simplify things to the point that you can say "rich people are the problem?"
Rich people aren't the problem per se. The problem is that the income is disporportional to reality.
Okay. Now how would reducing their wages actually solve things in a more specific sense? "Making their earning proportionate to reality" is pretty abstract. I can think of a few things, but I'd like to see you give it a go.
And if the income of rich people is the problem, then how is it that you can say that "rich people aren't the problem?" Their income is kind of exactly what makes them rich.
Myckob, its OK, sorta, in theory. In practice the uberrich are going to pay armies to crush anyone who opposes them. EVERY war ever fought has been over MONEY AND POWER. Get around that.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Okay. Now how would reducing their wages actually solve things in a more specific sense? "Making their earning proportionate to reality" is pretty abstract. I can think of a few things, but I'd like to see you give it a go.
And if the income of rich people is the problem, then how is it that you can say that "rich people aren't the problem?" Their income is kind of exactly what makes them rich.
Its not that they are rich that is the problem at all. It's that their greed isn't in check. And I am not talking about their wealth I am talking about income which are two very different things. Wealth is what you have and income is what you keep getting. I said there are a lot of logistical things to work out but it isn't practical to try and solve those things here. I maximum wage would be administrated in much the same way as a minimum wage in general.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Myckob, its OK, sorta, in theory. In practice the uberrich are going to pay armies to crush anyone who opposes them. EVERY war ever fought has been over MONEY AND POWER. Get around that.
Not the Trojan war. That was fought over condums.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I also want to propose a MAXIMUM wage. Thats right a maximum wage.
I support the idea of an effective maximum wage by using a system of taxation that makes those with the greatest means proportionally responsible for their social contribution.
I agree that wealth inequity in the US is a problem that needs to be addressed but one obvious concern with capping income is that the wealthy and savvy business owners will immigrate to countries with more favorable tax codes.
Quote from: "GSOgymrat"I agree that wealth inequity in the US is a problem that needs to be addressed but one obvious concern with capping income is that the wealthy and savvy business owners will immigrate to countries with more favorable tax codes.
They're already doing that with overseas EPZ.
On a more sound economic basis, a cap on salary earned is more appropriate. Once you reach that maximum, you're taxed at 100% on anything earned above the max. Also, I would make all income taxable at the same rate, regardless where it comes from a salary or interest on bonds, or capital gain, or transfer payments, etc. This max income could be raised every year to take into account inflation. This in effect would bring more people into the middle and upper class, still giving incentives for people to work productively.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"When the law of unintended consequences strikes as a result of previous market interference, the solution is more market interference.
Ah the old market arguement. Since the SEC has been gutted under the "W" admin. and it has run amuck(sp) and all that has been accomplished is a world recession/depression, I think that finally regulating the markets responsibliy is in order.
I see you didn't understand what I wrote. That's ok, I didn't expect you to - you actually think the US is a free market economy.
And you apparently also think that a bad regulation that helps the wrong people is an absent regulation, that mal-regulation is deregulation.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"We're not talking about the minimum wage, we're talking about a "maximum wage." The minimum wage is irrelevant to our discussion.
And fine, it's "complicated." So why can you simplify things to the point that you can say "rich people are the problem?"
Actually, the smaller of the two Green Parties in the US has a proposal that ties the maximum wage to the minimum wage - max is 10x min.
There are two concepts of wealthy in play, and those who want to engineer away the wealthy (because for some unknown reason they think it is fair an moral to be unfair and immoral) never quite get the proposals to do what they want.
First is net worth, the second is income. There are people with great accumulated net worth who actually don't have outrageously exorbitant incomes, because they don't need them. Just a few hundred thousand a year to maintain their position. Then there are people who have very large incomes, but much smaller net worth. There are doctors who have six figure incomes, and most of it goes to pay for their student loans and their mortgage leaving a disposable income that is quite middle class.
So which of the two do those who wish to eat the rich really want to eat?
Quote from: "mykcob4"Its not that they are rich that is the problem at all. It's that their greed isn't in check.
If you think limiting salaries to $600k is going to keep greed in check, let me remind you that when he died, Steve Jobs had a net worth of $8b to $10b depending on who you believe, and he was receiving a salary of $1/yr. Now I'm not suggesting that Steve was greedy. But I think its worth mentioning that if Steve could do it, every single one of these other fucks you want to limit is going to be able to do it to. So limiting salary does nothing.
If you want to accomplish what you're talking about, you would need to limit total compensation and even then you'd have a tough time plugging all the loopholes. But for the life of me, I fail to see how doing that would have a positive impact on anyone. You're not going to make the poor less poor. You're not going to make more entry level jobs available. All you're going to do is make it more tricky for those with the highest level incomes to be compensated.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"When the law of unintended consequences strikes as a result of previous market interference, the solution is more market interference.
Ah the old market arguement. Since the SEC has been gutted under the "W" admin. and it has run amuck(sp) and all that has been accomplished is a world recession/depression, I think that finally regulating the markets responsibliy is in order.
I see you didn't understand what I wrote. That's ok, I didn't expect you to - you actually think the US is a free market economy.
And you apparently also think that a bad regulation that helps the wrong people is an absent regulation, that mal-regulation is deregulation.
I fully understood what you meant. I have seen your argument so many times it isn't even funny. It's an old wornout arguemnet that doesn't really have any validity. It's the "regulation is bad" kind of stuff that eminates from socalled libertarian republican conservatives that use propaganda direct from propagandist like Limbaugh to push a deregulation agenda. You also don't think that the US is a free market economy which is yet an old wornout lie propagadted from the same sources. The Ayn Rand economist would have everyone believe that the US market is not a free market. Of course it has completely been debunked by none other than Paul Krugman and other respected world economist but of course they are the boogiemen/women that no libertarian would accept.
So yeah I understood what you wrote. I understand your spin. I considered it for what it was worth the dismissed it as it should be.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "mykcob4"Its not that they are rich that is the problem at all. It's that their greed isn't in check.
If you think limiting salaries to $600k is going to keep greed in check, let me remind you that when he died, Steve Jobs had a net worth of $8b to $10b depending on who you believe, and he was receiving a salary of $1/yr. Now I'm not suggesting that Steve was greedy. But I think its worth mentioning that if Steve could do it, every single one of these other fucks you want to limit is going to be able to do it to. So limiting salary does nothing.
If you want to accomplish what you're talking about, you would need to limit total compensation and even then you'd have a tough time plugging all the loopholes. But for the life of me, I fail to see how doing that would have a positive impact on anyone. You're not going to make the poor less poor. You're not going to make more entry level jobs available. All you're going to do is make it more tricky for those with the highest level incomes to be compensated.
I have already addressed this earlier in the thread.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"There are two concepts of wealthy in play, and those who want to engineer away the wealthy (because for some unknown reason they think it is fair an moral to be unfair and immoral) never quite get the proposals to do what they want.
First is net worth, the second is income. There are people with great accumulated net worth who actually don't have outrageously exorbitant incomes, because they don't need them. Just a few hundred thousand a year to maintain their position. Then there are people who have very large incomes, but much smaller net worth. There are doctors who have six figure incomes, and most of it goes to pay for their student loans and their mortgage leaving a disposable income that is quite middle class.
So which of the two do those who wish to eat the rich really want to eat?
Invalid question. Calls for a conclussion of YOUR making. Distorts and misrepresents the original idea of the thread.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "mykcob4"Ah the old market arguement. Since the SEC has been gutted under the "W" admin. and it has run amuck(sp) and all that has been accomplished is a world recession/depression, I think that finally regulating the markets responsibliy is in order.
I see you didn't understand what I wrote. That's ok, I didn't expect you to - you actually think the US is a free market economy.
And you apparently also think that a bad regulation that helps the wrong people is an absent regulation, that mal-regulation is deregulation.
I fully understood what you meant. I have seen your argument so many times it isn't even funny. It's an old wornout arguemnet that doesn't really have any validity. It's the "regulation is bad" kind of stuff that eminates from socalled libertarian republican conservatives that use propaganda direct from propagandist like Limbaugh to push a deregulation agenda. You also don't think that the US is a free market economy which is yet an old wornout lie propagadted from the same sources. The Ayn Rand economist would have everyone believe that the US market is not a free market. Of course it has completely been debunked by none other than Paul Krugman and other respected world economist but of course they are the boogiemen/women that no libertarian would accept.
So yeah I understood what you wrote. I understand your spin. I considered it for what it was worth the dismissed it as it should be.
You claim that since the wrong group of cronies was put in charge that the SEC was gutted. You claim the US economy is free market. You also claim that you understand my argument. You claim that when I say regulation was re-written to benefit people you don't like instead of people you like that my argument is nothing more than "regulation is bad". You also use the nonsensical phrase "libertarian republican conservatives" which means about the same thing as "all yellow and all red at the same time".
Your understanding is about as shallow as an empty washtub, but you know the right sound-bites from your chosen team to parrot when someone disagrees with you. Blue Good Red Bad! the Coastal Crips Rule the South-West Bloods Drool!
My question is, why are you more concerned with pissing off CEO's than, say, ending war? Or promoting clean energy? We have a billion problems that are bigger than this, and yet this seems to be the only thing you care about.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"My question is, why are you more concerned with pissing off CEO's than, say, ending war? Or promoting clean energy? We have a billion problems that are bigger than this, and yet this seems to be the only thing you care about.
I didn't say that I didn't care about war. That is just you interjecting the thread that you started into this thread.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"You claim that since the wrong group of cronies was put in charge that the SEC was gutted. You claim the US economy is free market. You also claim that you understand my argument. You claim that when I say regulation was re-written to benefit people you don't like instead of people you like that my argument is nothing more than "regulation is bad". You also use the nonsensical phrase "libertarian republican conservatives" which means about the same thing as "all yellow and all red at the same time".
Your understanding is about as shallow as an empty washtub, but you know the right sound-bites from your chosen team to parrot when someone disagrees with you. Blue Good Red Bad! the Coastal Crips Rule the South-West Bloods Drool!
You know Jason, you're a broken record. The same old bullshit. You don't get to define me. Yeah you have your opinion and I clearly think that you are incorrect. You "parraot" the old Ayn Rand libertarian line that I have heard for decades, yet you call me a parrot. You keep saying that I endorse some gangland mentality which is completely false. I really don't care what you say or what you think. I am not playing your game.
My understanding is full and complete no matter how you want to describe it.
(//http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2837510/michael-jackson-eating-popcorn-o.gif)
It's so nice to see the discussion deteriorate to mindless name calling. It's so gosh darn productive.
While I DO think income levels are so obscenely skewed to utterly ridiculous levels where the top money grubbers live like kings and queens of untold opulence while the majority of the actual producers of goods all to often live day to day barely able to get by then said royalty influence lawmakers to allow wholesale exploitation of workers all perfectly legal and laugh their way to banks.
The sadder part is these money hoarders often use their vast wealth to surround themselves in high security out of fear the workers are eventually drag them off to the gallows. Just read up a bit on revolutions of the past and they were seldom pretty so if you have designs on limiting their wealth you better be willing to quite literally drag them screaming and kicking to watch other heads roll and rivers of blood to flow. These people will never willingly give up on being filthy rich unless the only alternative is a slow, agonizing, public death. To even get to that point will require a long, bloody civil war and it'll have to be on a global scale. I just don't see it happening. We're not in Gene Roddenberry's world.
I saw a video about "eating the rich", right off the bat the narrator thought that money disappeared after being "eaten". I was like "whut?" The whole argument was built around the premise that after "eating the rich" that the money acquired from the rich through some re-distribution method that he never mentioned mysteriously vanished.
Needless to say, I rolled my eyes at the whole calculation, since he couldn't even grasp the simple concept of gross national product.
I think this was the video, been a while since I last saw it.
[youtube:197x271m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ[/youtube:197x271m]
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"It's so nice to see the discussion deteriorate to mindless name calling. It's so gosh darn productive.
While I DO think income levels are so obscenely skewed to utterly ridiculous levels where the top money grubbers live like kings and queens of untold opulence while the majority of the actual producers of goods all to often live day to day barely able to get by then said royalty influence lawmakers to allow wholesale exploitation of workers all perfectly legal and laugh their way to banks.
The sadder part is these money hoarders often use their vast wealth to surround themselves in high security out of fear the workers are eventually drag them off to the gallows. Just read up a bit on revolutions of the past and they were seldom pretty so if you have designs on limiting their wealth you better be willing to quite literally drag them screaming and kicking to watch other heads roll and rivers of blood to flow. These people will never willingly give up on being filthy rich unless the only alternative is a slow, agonizing, public death. To even get to that point will require a long, bloody civil war and it'll have to be on a global scale. I just don't see it happening. We're not in Gene Roddenberry's world.
Things haven't changed much. In the Medieval Age, the baron or the duke would leave his castle with three or four dozens of soldiers to protect himself from the poors. Today, the billionaires move around with their security agents, lawyers, publicist and a whole slew of people catering to his every wish and whim, making sure the public stays at bay. Of course, they have their shills, advocating this ideology of a free market to every idiot who is gullible to listen to that tripe. The thing is, if the market were to be left to be free, it would be quickly dominated by monopolies. History has shown this time and time again. The only entity that can stop this is strong government that would work for the people, which of course for these rich people is the last thing they want. So in every which way they can, they will sabotage, usurp, corrupt the government, aka "bleed the beast" so that they can do whatever they want.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Blue Good Red Bad! the Coastal Crips Rule the South-West Bloods Drool!
Exactly, that is your whole argument.
You probably even believe that Republicans, who grow the government faster than the Democrats do, are "small government." Woot Coastal Crips!
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The thing is, if the market were to be left to be free, it would be quickly dominated by monopolies. History has shown this time and time again.
But the history of the Earth shows that monopolies only exist when protected by the government.
It is true that there is an ideology that hearkens back to the days of Feudalism. Feudalism, the first enemy of Classical Liberalism (Libertarianism) has never fully gone away but recasts itself over and over again each time it fails.
Currently it is called "Progressivism", the belief that some people are sufficiently superior that they should have the right to have political authority over others and that those others should know their place and not question their betters. There once was the Feudal Baron, now there is the Department Bureaucrat.
Feudalists hate the free market. They despise it. What is the point of being a self-appointed elite when there exists a mechanism whereby people can turn themselves into elite? Also, since progressive believe the elite should rule, they believe that these free market elites must (for unknown reasons) seek political power, and therefore are trying to take that political power away from the progressive feudalists.
Don't worry. Free marketers aren't trying to seize political power and rule you. We just don't agree that you are elite and have a right to rule us. Of course that last bit is enough to infuriate progressive feudalists - that we deny that they are elite.
Quote from: "Sal1981"I saw a video about "eating the rich", right off the bat the narrator thought that money disappeared after being "eaten". I was like "whut?" The whole argument was built around the premise that after "eating the rich" that the money acquired from the rich through some re-distribution method that he never mentioned mysteriously vanished.
Needless to say, I rolled my eyes at the whole calculation, since he couldn't even grasp the simple concept of gross national product.
I think this was the video, been a while since I last saw it.
Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ)
Eat The Rich is a cult classic man! :lol: sooo.. we open upscale restaurants and feed the clientele back to themselves. They become self consuming.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Quote from: "Sal1981"I saw a video about "eating the rich", right off the bat the narrator thought that money disappeared after being "eaten". I was like "whut?" The whole argument was built around the premise that after "eating the rich" that the money acquired from the rich through some re-distribution method that he never mentioned mysteriously vanished.
Needless to say, I rolled my eyes at the whole calculation, since he couldn't even grasp the simple concept of gross national product.
I think this was the video, been a while since I last saw it.
Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ)
Eat The Rich is a cult classic man! :lol: sooo.. we open upscale restaurants and feed the clientele back to themselves. They become self consuming.
This reminds me of of Twilight Zone epi, to Serve Man
[youtube:3p1ppkb0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMZJ-mM2n9A[/youtube:3p1ppkb0]
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Johan"If you think limiting salaries to $600k is going to keep greed in check, let me remind you that when he died, Steve Jobs had a net worth of $8b to $10b depending on who you believe, and he was receiving a salary of $1/yr. Now I'm not suggesting that Steve was greedy. But I think its worth mentioning that if Steve could do it, every single one of these other fucks you want to limit is going to be able to do it to. So limiting salary does nothing.
If you want to accomplish what you're talking about, you would need to limit total compensation and even then you'd have a tough time plugging all the loopholes. But for the life of me, I fail to see how doing that would have a positive impact on anyone. You're not going to make the poor less poor. You're not going to make more entry level jobs available. All you're going to do is make it more tricky for those with the highest level incomes to be compensated.
I have already addressed this earlier in the thread.
No I don't believe you did. I read through the thread when I posted my question and I've just read through it again to make sure I didn't miss anything. There is nothing you've written in this thread which answers the question of how imposing a limit on the income of the highest paid individuals would have a positive impact on anyone. Nothing. Nada. None.
In your first post you wrote this:
QuoteI think that we should tackle the gorilla in the room. Top earnings in this nation are completely out of control and disproportional to reality. When top earners make over 2000 times what the lowest earner in the same company makes and they make on average nearly 600 times what the average company person makes, it's time to step in and correct the wrong that that is.
Why is that wrong? Explain it. Clearly. You haven't done that.
Also this, which no one has picked up on until now.
QuoteIf minimum wage was say 65K per annum and maximum wage was say 650K per year the middle class would become so large that it would exceed even our wildest targets for it right now.
Question for you. What would you expect a $5 foot long from Subway to cost when Subway has to pay every employee behind the counter $65k/yr instead of the $15-20k they pay now?
Before you answer, take into consideration that everything you currently own that can be touched was on a truck at some point before you owned it. One can certainly earn $65k or more as a truck driver these days, but more and more of the drivers in that industry are entry level drivers who average about $28k or so. Same with truck mechanics. They can make in the $65k range now but the majority make far less.
So before you speculate on what a $5 foot long is going to end up costing once the folks behind the counter have to be paid 3-4x what they make now, keep in mind that logistics costs for actually getting the roast beef and cheese to the store are also going to increase significantly over what they are now.
I happen to know quite a few people who currently earn in excess of $65k/yr and I can assure you none of them would be happy to $25 or more for a foot long sub. So I'd like to know how your grand plan is going to make life better for all the subway employees and employees of similar low end retail companies who end up unemployed once their company goes belly up. A $65k minimum wage is great if you can get a job. But that's going to be hard for lots of people to do if a boat load of the current unskilled labor jobs disappear.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"It is true that there is an ideology that hearkens back to the days of Feudalism. Feudalism, the first enemy of Classical Liberalism (Libertarianism) has never fully gone away but recasts itself over and over again each time it fails.
Currently it is called "Progressivism", the belief that some people are sufficiently superior that they should have the right to have political authority over others and that those others should know their place and not question their betters. There once was the Feudal Baron, now there is the Department Bureaucrat.
Feudalists hate the free market. They despise it. What is the point of being a self-appointed elite when there exists a mechanism whereby people can turn themselves into elite? Also, since progressive believe the elite should rule, they believe that these free market elites must (for unknown reasons) seek political power, and therefore are trying to take that political power away from the progressive feudalists.
Don't worry. Free marketers aren't trying to seize political power and rule you. We just don't agree that you are elite and have a right to rule us. Of course that last bit is enough to infuriate progressive feudalists - that we deny that they are elite.
Nope progressivism isn't remotely feudalism not in the least. That is just more conservative libertarian rhetoric. progressivism doesn'r in the least believe that there is a superior class that should rule over others, again just more rhetoric from the right. Progressives don't hate the free market at all. Progressives want a free and fair market. What you don't understand is that capitalism is suspitable to corruption in the form of exploitation and monopolies. Saying that the government protects monopolies is correct if you have a conservative government. Example being the Reagan years when hostile take overs were encouraged and protected by Reagan and his cronies.
This rightwing propaganda rhetoric that you've bought into that the progressives are elitist is just completely wrong. The fact is that the rightwing are the elitist. Historically and presently conservatism MEANS conserving power and wealth for the elite.
Libertarian is not liberalism at all. It is a sham. It is an Ayn Rand style of eliminating a government by the people and having a government run by giant corrupt corporation. Giant corrupt corproations don't want regulations which is the purpose of libertarians to eliminate regulations, to eliminate unions and workers rights, to protect giant corporate interest. It's a wildwest big dog wins everytime scenerio which doesn't work. It finites wealth to the very few.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Johan"If you think limiting salaries to $600k is going to keep greed in check, let me remind you that when he died, Steve Jobs had a net worth of $8b to $10b depending on who you believe, and he was receiving a salary of $1/yr. Now I'm not suggesting that Steve was greedy. But I think its worth mentioning that if Steve could do it, every single one of these other fucks you want to limit is going to be able to do it to. So limiting salary does nothing.
If you want to accomplish what you're talking about, you would need to limit total compensation and even then you'd have a tough time plugging all the loopholes. But for the life of me, I fail to see how doing that would have a positive impact on anyone. You're not going to make the poor less poor. You're not going to make more entry level jobs available. All you're going to do is make it more tricky for those with the highest level incomes to be compensated.
I have already addressed this earlier in the thread.
No I don't believe you did. I read through the thread when I posted my question and I've just read through it again to make sure I didn't miss anything. There is nothing you've written in this thread which answers the question of how imposing a limit on the income of the highest paid individuals would have a positive impact on anyone. Nothing. Nada. None.
In your first post you wrote this:
QuoteI think that we should tackle the gorilla in the room. Top earnings in this nation are completely out of control and disproportional to reality. When top earners make over 2000 times what the lowest earner in the same company makes and they make on average nearly 600 times what the average company person makes, it's time to step in and correct the wrong that that is.
Why is that wrong? Explain it. Clearly. You haven't done that.
Also this, which no one has picked up on until now.
QuoteIf minimum wage was say 65K per annum and maximum wage was say 650K per year the middle class would become so large that it would exceed even our wildest targets for it right now.
Question for you. What would you expect a $5 foot long from Subway to cost when Subway has to pay every employee behind the counter $65k/yr instead of the $15-20k they pay now?
Before you answer, take into consideration that everything you currently own that can be touched was on a truck at some point before you owned it. One can certainly earn $65k or more as a truck driver these days, but more and more of the drivers in that industry are entry level drivers who average about $28k or so. Same with truck mechanics. They can make in the $65k range now but the majority make far less.
So before you speculate on what a $5 foot long is going to end up costing once the folks behind the counter have to be paid 3-4x what they make now, keep in mind that logistics costs for actually getting the roast beef and cheese to the store are also going to increase significantly over what they are now.
I happen to know quite a few people who currently earn in excess of $65k/yr and I can assure you none of them would be happy to $25 or more for a foot long sub. So I'd like to know how your grand plan is going to make life better for all the subway employees and employees of similar low end retail companies who end up unemployed once their company goes belly up. A $65k minimum wage is great if you can get a job. But that's going to be hard for lots of people to do if a boat load of the current unskilled labor jobs disappear.
I didn't address the logistics and you are correct about that. I said that there would be a great deal to work out. I don't think that a sub would go from $5 to $25 if implimented. If you actually took the wealth created in this nation and divided by the 180 million people that earn income it would more than exceed 65K a year.
Just wondering myk.. Where did you get the $65k/$650k figures? Is it based on hard data or just some magic numbers you pulled out of the magical rabbit's ass somewhere? :-k
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "SilentFutility"Most people who earn 650k and over per year are not being paid it as a wage, they are making it as profit from business ventures, owning assets and other investments etc. etc.
So in reality implementing a maximum wage in this way would limit the earnings of virtually nobody.
If what you are actually proposing is that nobody be allowed to earn more than 650k per year from all sources of income, then how do you propose to enforce this? Say someone builds up a successful business and then manages to sell it for 3 million dollars, where does this money go?
Ah but if you count ALL income you would include those people. The biggest loophole in CEO earnings is income from stock holdings.
Then you'd have to be extremely careful as introducing something like this would stop people wanting their businesses to grow over the value of 650k and stop people wanting to invest large sums of money etc if the maxmimum return is smaller than the amount they invest.
Yeah, you'd basically have no technology startups. Do you really want that? "oops, I created the next amazon.com, I'm fucked."
I cannot say I mind the idea of tying the maximum wage in a corporation to its average wage, but absolute numbers shouldn't be used, or else you'd have the argument brought up again every year whe you wanted to legislate cost-of-living increases.
As for a 37% flat tax, no. That's too high.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Just wondering myk.. Where did you get the $65k/$650k figures? Is it based on hard data or just some magic numbers you pulled out of the magical rabbit's ass somewhere? :-k
The 65K was based on a living wage of comfort as suggested by a Harvard sociology study that took into account what an average family of 4 in the USA would need to make to pay for all cost, put enough money away to retire and succesfully send their kids to college. It is a very loose figure. The maximum is 10X that minimum and of my own design.
Like I said it is just an idea and there is a great deal to consider morally and logistically.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I cannot say I mind the idea of tying the maximum wage in a corporation to its average wage, but absolute numbers shouldn't be used, or else you'd have the argument brought up again every year whe you wanted to legislate cost-of-living increases.
As for a 37% flat tax, no. That's too high.
The 36.9% is based on the maximum set for capital gains tax.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I didn't address the logistics and you are correct about that. I said that there would be a great deal to work out. I don't think that a sub would go from $5 to $25 if implimented.
I going to guess that you've never run a business and/or been responsible for keeping that business profitable. Go do that for a couple decades and then get back to me on what you think a subway sub would cost if subway had to pay everyone $65k/yr. I'm pretty sure you'll change your tune. Again, keeping in mind that along with paying out 4x what they do now in store salaries, the load of roast beef and other supplies it now costs them $500 to transport is going to cost them $1000 or $1500 to transport. Which means the roast beef itself is going to cost more. Because along transporting the roast beef from the supplier to the store, the farmer that raised the cow has to transport the grain to feed the cow and that's also going to cost more to transport. As is the cost the farmer has to pay to transport the diesel fuel required to run the farm tractors. And so on and so forth all the way down the line.
Its really awesome to picture a world where the lowest paid among us ends up making 4 or 5 times what they're making now. Until you realize that in order to achieve that, all goods and services will end up costing 5 times or more what they do now. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Yippy I'm bringing in $65k/yr, happy days are here again. Lets go to McDonalds and celebrate with a couple $45 value meals.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "mykcob4"I didn't address the logistics and you are correct about that. I said that there would be a great deal to work out. I don't think that a sub would go from $5 to $25 if implimented.
I going to guess that you've never run a business and/or been responsible for keeping that business profitable. Go do that for a couple decades and then get back to me on what you think a subway sub would cost if subway had to pay everyone $65k/yr. I'm pretty sure you'll change your tune. Again, keeping in mind that the load of roast beef and other supplies it now costs them $500 to transport is going to cost them $1000 or $1500 to transport. Which means the roast beef itself is going to cost more. Because along transporting the roast beef from the supplier to the store, the farmer that raised the cow has to transport the grain to feed the cow and that's also going to cost more to transport. And so on and so forth all the way down the line.
Its really awesome to picture a world where the lowest paid among us ends up making 4 or 5 times what they're making now. Until you realize that in order to achieve that, all goods and services will end up costing 5 times or more what they do now. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I OWN my own business and have for quite some time now. I don't have any employees but do have 3 partners.
In the over all picture of things if you look at the profit margins of say Exxon/Mobil you would reduce their profit margin from somewhere in the 20% range to about 14% which is equitable. But when you consider that the executives would reduce their pay, the margin increases to probably higher than the original.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I OWN my own business and have for quite some time now. I don't have any employees but do have 3 partners.
In the over all picture of things if you look at the profit margins of say Exxon/Mobil you would reduce their profit margin from somewhere in the 20% range to about 14% which is equitable. But when you consider that the executives would reduce their pay, the margin increases to probably higher than the original.
You can make minimum wages whatever you want but you are NOT going to get Exxon or their share holders to take a 6% reduction in profit margin because of it. If you raise their costs, they are going to pass every single cent of those increased costs along to the customer rather than take even the slightest reduction in profit margin. I think you're dreaming or smoking crack if you believe otherwise.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "mykcob4"I OWN my own business and have for quite some time now. I don't have any employees but do have 3 partners.
In the over all picture of things if you look at the profit margins of say Exxon/Mobil you would reduce their profit margin from somewhere in the 20% range to about 14% which is equitable. But when you consider that the executives would reduce their pay, the margin increases to probably higher than the original.
You can make minimum wages whatever you want but you are NOT going to get Exxon or their share holders to take a 6% reduction in profit margin because of it. If you raise their costs, they are going to pass every single cent of those increased costs along to the customer rather than take even the slightest reduction in profit margin. I think you're dreaming or smoking crack if you believe otherwise.
Eh, that might be true if they successfully create a cartel system. But most cartels aren't successful for very long without some kind of government regulation.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Eh, that might be true if they successfully create a cartel system.
One word. OPEC.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "mykcob4"I OWN my own business and have for quite some time now. I don't have any employees but do have 3 partners.
In the over all picture of things if you look at the profit margins of say Exxon/Mobil you would reduce their profit margin from somewhere in the 20% range to about 14% which is equitable. But when you consider that the executives would reduce their pay, the margin increases to probably higher than the original.
You can make minimum wages whatever you want but you are NOT going to get Exxon or their share holders to take a 6% reduction in profit margin because of it. If you raise their costs, they are going to pass every single cent of those increased costs along to the customer rather than take even the slightest reduction in profit margin. I think you're dreaming or smoking crack if you believe otherwise.
Like I said it is just an idea with hundreds of logistic problems to work out. Like Zara stated there is the problem of start ups and their potential. That being said I still think the differential of income is way out of wack and something drastic and effective needs to be done.
Quote from: "mykcob4"That being said I still think the differential of income is way out of wack
Why?
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "mykcob4"That being said I still think the differential of income is way out of wack
Why?
Why?
Well for one reason everytime the top 1% have more than 30 % of the wealth the entire populace suffers. Many economist form all over the world in all times since economist have been monitoring such things have said so.
I'm not suffering.
Myk..if your business took off beyond your wildest dreams and suddenly your income skyrocketed to say.. $10,000,000 a month would you forgo it all in favor of a mere $650k a year? Easy to say yes, but few would ever believe you. :-?
Quote from: "mykcob4"The 36.9% is based on the maximum set for capital gains tax.
It's too high, in my opinion. Taking that much money out of the free market and devoting it to government expenditures is not a good idea, I think.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "mykcob4"That being said I still think the differential of income is way out of wack
Why?
Why?
Well for one reason everytime the top 1% have more than 30 % of the wealth the entire populace suffers. Many economist form all over the world in all times since economist have been monitoring such things have said so.
I'm inclined to agree with you that this is a problem. I don't think a maximum wage is at all feasible or that it would even be a net plus if it was given unintended consequences and all. It isn't just money that needs to be distributed equally. Power does as well. Even if you could somehow equally distribute all the wealth in the US, it would end up not too differently than it is now a short time later. It is no coincidence that the wealthiest counties in the US are located around DC. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper ... -counties/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2013/04/25/americas-richest-counties/)
The incentive structure is perverse. You'd need to change that for a redistribution of wealth to work and even then there will certainly be winners and losers.
Yeah, it seems strange to expect the government to "redistribute" the wealth when the government's more responsible than anyone for concentrating the wealth in the first place.
I think the whole concept of trying to redistribute wealth is ludicrous. As I said above, I'm not suffering at all because the super rich people are super rich. And I realize that upon reading that, one might be inclined to say well you're one of the lucky ones so goody for you but there are tons of other people who aren't as fortunate as you. But here's the thing. There was a time when I was one of those unfortunate people.
There was a time in my life when I was working in my chosen field and although I had a job and extremely cheap rent and very few other expenses, I could not make ends meet. I just couldn't do it. I always paid the rent. But eating three meals a day was tough at times and nasty phone calls from the two or three agencies I had credit balances with were a regular part of my month.
But instead of going boo hoo I can't make a living because the rich are too rich and someone should punish them so my life can be better, I took personal responsibility for my predicament and I did something about it. Namely I completely abandoned my chosen career field (professional pilot) and switched to a field that until then I'd had zero desire to enter (truck driver). I became a trucker because that's where jobs were.
But all of that is getting away from the main point. Which is that despite the rich getting constantly richer, I was able to go from a place where I couldn't afford to eat, to a place where I am well paid for my work and respected by my peers. I got a raise and a promotion last year and another promotion this year with a raise expected as soon as we're able to schedule a meeting to hash out the fine details.
Am I fortunate? Absolutely. But I'm also fucking talented and fucking determined so I don't need or want the government passing laws to make it easier for me or anyone else to get ahead. If you're talented and determined, the rich can get richer and you'll do fine. And if you're not talented and determined, then as I'm concerned, your choices should be to take what you can get and like it or find a way to make yourself more talented and more determined.
I never wanted to work in trucking. It wasn't my dream career. But I looked at my skill set and I followed the money and this is where I ended up and I'm doing well so I couldn't be happier. I'm sick and fucking tired of listening to people whine about how they put all their effort into getting a degree in Hindu abstract art history and now they can only get a job at Starbucks because they there are no jobs for people with Hindu abstract art history degrees. No shit sherlock what the fuck did you think was going to happen?
Nobody owes you anything. If you want to get ahead, get yourself ahead. Don't expect the government or anyone else to do it for you. If that means you've got to work in a field you never planned on working in then follow the money and go work there. Even with the super rich being super rich there is still plenty of wealth to be had. Its up to you to figure out how to get it on your own, not with the government giving you some kind of free pass to it.
The government has a place putting a floor under society so we don't have mass starvation and huge pockets of mass poverty, but Johan's right in that the standard of living has gone up overall and plenty of people gripe never lifting a finger to get ahead.
I pissed away more opportunities than most people ever have so it's tough to bitch about my tiny SSI check now that my body has broken down.
My son pissed away high school, dropped out in 10th grade, but he's working in retail making a good living. Its really what you make out of life, but exceptions do need to be taken into account.
Quote from: "Johan"I'm not suffering.
Good for you!
What about everyone else?
QuoteThen you'd have to be extremely careful as introducing something like this would stop people wanting their businesses to grow over the value of 650k and stop people wanting to invest large sums of money etc if the maxmimum return is smaller than the amount they invest.
I'm not entirely sure if keeping everyone whose only goal is to make as much money by screwing people over is suddenly unable to make more money while people whose goal is to build a company and earn a decent wage from it can continue to do so is really a bad thing. But maybe that's just me.
Imagine a world where the greedy were kicked out of the country and only those who were actually interested in building something to help society could stay...
(Yeah yeah, I know, the country would be
very empty.)
Quote from: "Johan"I think the whole concept of trying to redistribute wealth is ludicrous. As I said above, I'm not suffering at all because the super rich people are super rich. And I realize that upon reading that, one might be inclined to say well you're one of the lucky ones so goody for you but there are tons of other people who aren't as fortunate as you. But here's the thing. There was a time when I was one of those unfortunate people.
There was a time in my life when I was working in my chosen field and although I had a job and extremely cheap rent and very few other expenses, I could not make ends meet. I just couldn't do it. I always paid the rent. But eating three meals a day was tough at times and nasty phone calls from the two or three agencies I had credit balances with were a regular part of my month.
But instead of going boo hoo I can't make a living because the rich are too rich and someone should punish them so my life can be better, I took personal responsibility for my predicament and I did something about it. Namely I completely abandoned my chosen career field (professional pilot) and switched to a field that until then I'd had zero desire to enter (truck driver). I became a trucker because that's where jobs were.
But all of that is getting away from the main point. Which is that despite the rich getting constantly richer, I was able to go from a place where I couldn't afford to eat, to a place where I am well paid for my work and respected by my peers. I got a raise and a promotion last year and another promotion this year with a raise expected as soon as we're able to schedule a meeting to hash out the fine details.
Am I fortunate? Absolutely. But I'm also fucking talented and fucking determined so I don't need or want the government passing laws to make it easier for me or anyone else to get ahead. If you're talented and determined, the rich can get richer and you'll do fine. And if you're not talented and determined, then as I'm concerned, your choices should be to take what you can get and like it or find a way to make yourself more talented and more determined.
I never wanted to work in trucking. It wasn't my dream career. But I looked at my skill set and I followed the money and this is where I ended up and I'm doing well so I couldn't be happier. I'm sick and fucking tired of listening to people whine about how they put all their effort into getting a degree in Hindu abstract art history and now they can only get a job at Starbucks because they there are no jobs for people with Hindu abstract art history degrees. No shit sherlock what the fuck did you think was going to happen?
Nobody owes you anything. If you want to get ahead, get yourself ahead. Don't expect the government or anyone else to do it for you. If that means you've got to work in a field you never planned on working in then follow the money and go work there. Even with the super rich being super rich there is still plenty of wealth to be had. Its up to you to figure out how to get it on your own, not with the government giving you some kind of free pass to it.
Well if you endorse the status quo than you endorse redistrabution of wealth because that has been what is going on for some time now. the government plays referee in this case as it protects EQUAL oppertunity!
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Yeah, it seems strange to expect the government to "redistribute" the wealth when the government's more responsible than anyone for concentrating the wealth in the first place.
I am proposing a government change so the government isn't in the business of "redistributing" the wealth into the hands of the wealthy like it is now.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Johan"I'm not suffering.
Good for you!
What about everyone else?
What about them? There was a time when I was unable to make ends meet. Instead of whining that the government should fix the problem for me, I fixed the problem myself. Everyone else should do the same.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Well if you endorse the status quo than you endorse redistrabution of wealth because that has been what is going on for some time now. the government plays referee in this case as it protects EQUAL oppertunity!
If you say so.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I am proposing a government change so the government isn't in the business of "redistributing" the wealth into the hands of the wealthy like it is now.
The vote seems to be in on this: Americans don't care for the idea of forcible redistribution of wealth.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Yeah, it seems strange to expect the government to "redistribute" the wealth when the government's more responsible than anyone for concentrating the wealth in the first place.
That's true, but only because the rich have the power to corrupt the government. It's up to the common folks to not let this happen. The idea of a democracy was to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But you have to take into account that the rich on their side with the huge power they have, won't let this happen either. Take the case of United Citizen Vs the Federal Government. This was an organization financed by the Republicans which won the decision from a Republican dominated SCOTUS. That decision has undermined democracy more than any other decision since 1776. It basically hands over all future elections into the hands of the rich. Until that decision is overturned, the American people are screwed.
Quote from: "mykcob4"... I also want to propose a MAXIMUM wage. Thats right a maximum wage.
I think that we should tackle the gorilla in the room. Top earnings in this nation are completely out of control and disproportional to reality. When top earners make over 2000 times what the lowest earner in the same company makes and they make on average nearly 600 times what the average company person makes, it's time to step in and correct the wrong that that is...
Just a thought that I have been pondering for some years now.
Yes, I have also been of the same opinion for some number of years. Although this is probably the first time I have ever voiced an opinion on the matter.
In fact, if we had a maximum wage, there would probably be no need for a minimum wage! Like what kind of CEO would want to pay his workers 10 dollars an hour when doing so would limit his own earnings to 100 dollars an hour (using the OP's suggestion of the highest being not more than 10 times the lowest within any given organisation.)
My suggestion, though, would be to start off with something a bit easier for the fat cats to deal with. Like the highest earner not to earn more that 100 times that of the lowest. This would make it much less threatening to the fat cats. Once the law is in place, incrementally reduce the disparity little by little. Sorta like the reverse of what they have been doing to us for all these years.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Johan"I'm not suffering.
Good for you!
What about everyone else?
What about them? There was a time when I was unable to make ends meet. Instead of whining that the government should fix the problem for me, I fixed the problem myself. Everyone else should do the same.
How long ago was this?
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Johan"I'm not suffering.
Good for you!
What about everyone else?
What about them? There was a time when I was unable to make ends meet. Instead of whining that the government should fix the problem for me, I fixed the problem myself. Everyone else should do the same.
Not everyone else can do the same. Should they just die and reduce the surplus population?
Quote from: "Plu"How long ago was this?
Its been a long ongoing process. I changed career fields in 2004, again around 2006, then changed again in 2010. The career change in 2010 coincided with moving to another state. We moved from a state with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country to a state with one of the highest. And what'd ya know? I've had 3 different jobs since then even though there are no jobs. You can write that off as pure luck if you like but you would be wrong.
Quote from: "Jason78"Not everyone else can do the same.
I disagree.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jason78"Not everyone else can do the same.
I disagree.
Yes, if you know which ass to kiss and how much of your pride to let go, anyone can fix it themselves. I don't think that's what Jason78 meant, though.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jason78"Not everyone else can do the same.
I disagree.
So basically you're saying that everybody should be an Einstein, a Thomas Edison, or a Steve Jobs... Do you see anything wrong with this kind of reasoning?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "zarus tathra"Yeah, it seems strange to expect the government to "redistribute" the wealth when the government's more responsible than anyone for concentrating the wealth in the first place.
That's true, but only because the rich have the power to corrupt the government. It's up to the common folks to not let this happen. The idea of a democracy was to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But you have to take into account that the rich on their side with the huge power they have, won't let this happen either. Take the case of United Citizen Vs the Federal Government. This was an organization financed by the Republicans which won the decision from a Republican dominated SCOTUS. That decision has undermined democracy more than any other decision since 1776. It basically hands over all future elections into the hands of the rich. Until that decision is overturned, the American people are screwed.
Ssssssoooo you're going to consolidate power... so that it can be more evenly distributed? Please tell me how that makes sense.
Face it, you're so heavily conditioned by society that you are incapable of imagining a state of affairs in which power is shared evenly. If the poor were to redistribute the wealth themselves, for example, that'd be "anarchy."
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jason78"Not everyone else can do the same.
I disagree.
So basically you're saying that everybody should be an Einstein, a Thomas Edison, or a Steve Jobs... Do you see anything wrong with this kind of reasoning?
Yep being as smart as Einstein is how I got where I am today. Well that and according to Hijiri, kissing a lot of ass. Unfortunately both of you are wrong.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jason78"Not everyone else can do the same.
I disagree.
Yes, if you know which ass to kiss and how much of your pride to let go, anyone can fix it themselves. I don't think that's what Jason78 meant, though.
Pay your rent with that pride, then. Don't take my taxes because you're too proud to bust your ass.
I don't know about you or anyone else, but I'll scrub toilets before I ask for a handout. I'll bite my lip and let the boss think I like him when I don't, because like you, I'm a proud man.
I'm too proud to want a handout. I will do what it takes to avoid that fate.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "zarus tathra"Yeah, it seems strange to expect the government to "redistribute" the wealth when the government's more responsible than anyone for concentrating the wealth in the first place.
That's true, but only because the rich have the power to corrupt the government. It's up to the common folks to not let this happen. The idea of a democracy was to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But you have to take into account that the rich on their side with the huge power they have, won't let this happen either. Take the case of United Citizen Vs the Federal Government. This was an organization financed by the Republicans which won the decision from a Republican dominated SCOTUS. That decision has undermined democracy more than any other decision since 1776. It basically hands over all future elections into the hands of the rich. Until that decision is overturned, the American people are screwed.
Ssssssoooo you're going to consolidate power... so that it can be more evenly distributed?
Which part of "The idea of a democracy was to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people," don't you understand?
QuotePlease tell me how that makes sense
.
What you don't understand is the perversion of Citizen United Vs the Federal government on democracy. Wake up and smell the coffeee.
QuoteFace it, you're so heavily conditioned by society that you are incapable of imagining a state of affairs in which power is shared evenly.
What are you, a fucking moron?
QuoteIf the poor were to redistribute the wealth themselves, for example, that'd be "anarchy."
How's that ever related to my post?
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Pay your rent with that pride, then. Don't take my taxes because you're too proud to bust your ass.
I don't know about you or anyone else, but I'll scrub toilets before I ask for a handout. I'll bite my lip and let the boss think I like him when I don't, because like you, I'm a proud man.
I'm too proud to want a handout. I will do what it takes to avoid that fate.
You know what, you can do whatever you like when and if you lose your job. Some people have families to feed, however, and unemployment benefits will at least pay you what you were earning in your previous job while you look for similar-paying work.
Tsk tsk..pride is one of the 7 deadly sins..off to H E double hockey sticks for you buddy boy. [-(
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Some people have families to feed, however, and unemployment benefits will at least pay you what you were earning in your previous job while you look for similar-paying work.
For many people unemployment will not pay anywhere near what they were earning previously.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "zarus tathra"Ssssssoooo you're going to consolidate power... so that it can be more evenly distributed?
Which part of "The idea of a democracy was to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people," don't you understand?
[/quote]
Once you give a small elite control of your armies and police and infrastructure, that nice little catchphrase loses all meaning.
QuoteQuoteIf the poor were to redistribute the wealth themselves, for example, that'd be "anarchy."
How's that ever related to my post?
Because having the poor "redistribute the wealth" directly would probably be a lot more efficient than having a large, top-heavy proxy do it.
QuoteQuote from: "zarus tathra"QuoteWhich part of "The idea of a democracy was to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people," don't you understand?
(1) Once you give a small elite control of your armies and police and infrastructure, that nice little catchphrase loses all meaning.
QuoteIf the poor were to redistribute the wealth themselves, for example, that'd be "anarchy."
How's that ever related to my post?
(2) Because having the poor "redistribute the wealth" directly would probably be a lot more efficient than having a large, top-heavy proxy do it.
Your answers (1) and (2) contradict themselves. For the poors to redistribute, they would need control of the army, which would be in the hands of an elite, which would defeat your initial goal of the poors redistributing.
The most effective government is a democracy, which should be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But there is one major caveat: the people must be well informed and contantly vigilant as the powerful rich have different and opposite interests as the common people, and they will do everything in their power to corrupt the government. Without a well informed and vigilant population, democracy becomes a perversion, effectively controlled by the upper class.To wit: present situation in the USA, where the rich have unlimited access with their money to skew every single election, thus getting the politicians they want to be elected and do their bidding.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Some people have families to feed, however, and unemployment benefits will at least pay you what you were earning in your previous job while you look for similar-paying work.
For many people unemployment will not pay anywhere near what they were earning previously.
Well I can't speak for where you live, but over here in Washington we have
sane unemployment laws. :-D
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Johan"For many people unemployment will not pay anywhere near what they were earning previously.
Well I can't speak for where you live, but over here in Washington we have sane unemployment laws. :-D
According to Washington state unemployment website, the maximum benefit anyone can receive is $624/wk. I make more than that. Lots of other people make more than that.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Some people have families to feed, however, and unemployment benefits will at least pay you what you were earning in your previous job while you look for similar-paying work.
For many people unemployment will not pay anywhere near what they were earning previously.
Yes unemployment insurance doesn't pay anywhere near what people need because it isn't suppose to. It is a safety net designed to get people through the transition to find employment that, I must add, that THEY pay for. So it is a good thing. It also helps the economy because it keeps people in the mainstream of consuming while they are looking for work. It isn't abused as much as the conservatives would have you believe. Not even close. It actually saves money in the long run, because it keeps people from becoming homeless, from losing a credit rating that they worked hard to achieve. People that don't receive unemployment, that get nothing, get foreclosed on, become homeless. Unemployment relieves the stress so they can actually concentrate on finding a job. To receive those benefits one must meet a minimum standard that includes actually looking for a job. It isn't a free pass or even free money. It is one of the best programs ever developed in this nation that benefits not only the people that have to use it but the entire community.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"You know what, you can do whatever you like when and if you lose your job. Some people have families to feed, however, and unemployment benefits will at least pay you what you were earning in your previous job while you look for similar-paying work.
I've fed a family, raising my son. I bust my ass to make ends meet without asking for a handout. I've also gone on unemployment, which is not a handout, because I paid the insurance premiums for it. Also, unemployment only pays 40% of your highest quarterly average from the last year of employment, so I don't think it's quite the panacea that you're portraying here.
If you're happy asking for someone else to pay your way, that's your business. I don't even mind helping you out. But make sure you
need it. Living on the public dime because you're too "proud" to do honest work, or too proud to bite your tongue when your boss doesn't molly-coddle you. I want my taxes to help people who
need it. That was my point.
You'll either get it, or you won't.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I've also gone on unemployment, which is not a handout
Then why did you call it a handout in your first response? It's one or the other, mate.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Some people have families to feed, however, and unemployment benefits will at least pay you what you were earning in your previous job while you look for similar-paying work.
For many people unemployment will not pay anywhere near what they were earning previously.
Yes unemployment insurance doesn't pay anywhere near what people need because it isn't suppose to. It is a safety net designed to get people through the transition to find employment that, I must add, that THEY pay for. So it is a good thing. It also helps the economy because it keeps people in the mainstream of consuming while they are looking for work. It isn't abused as much as the conservatives would have you believe. Not even close. It actually saves money in the long run, because it keeps people from becoming homeless, from losing a credit rating that they worked hard to achieve. People that don't receive unemployment, that get nothing, get foreclosed on, become homeless. Unemployment relieves the stress so they can actually concentrate on finding a job. To receive those benefits one must meet a minimum standard that includes actually looking for a job. It isn't a free pass or even free money. It is one of the best programs ever developed in this nation that benefits not only the people that have to use it but the entire community.
I wasn't slamming unemployment, I was merely pointing out an inaccurate statement.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Johan"I'm not suffering.
Good for you!
What about everyone else?
What about them? There was a time when I was unable to make ends meet. Instead of whining that the government should fix the problem for me, I fixed the problem myself. Everyone else should do the same.
This is quite possibly the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard in my entire fucking life. Basically, because your circumstances were fortunate, you expect the same of everyone else. And don't give me that crap about being in a tough spot and using your will and determination to get out. You know why? Because that stuff is raw circumstance as well. There is no human equality, what you were able to mentally push yourself to do is not possible and should not be expected of everyone else. As a psychologist, the thing that bothers me the most about right-wing rhetoric is this idea that what one can do, anyone can do. Free will is a can of bullshit. Your brain itself is based on circumstances, you can't will your own wants and dispositions, it's an illusion. So just because one person is able to overcome a situation from a mental standpoint, you cannot conclude that anyone else can do the same.
Furthermore, it is absolutely ridiculous to think in terms of possibilities, as seen in the comments like "if I can do it, others can." What matters isn't whether it's possible for others, what matters is whether it is probable. And you should not hone in on an individual level. The proper moral society is one where it is PROBABLE that everyone is well-off, not one where it is merely possible for one to be well-off. Just think about being reincarnated as a new person in one of two societies: A more utilitarian-minded society vs. a competitive dog-eat-dog society. Now assume a very important fact about reality, that you have absolutely no control over the genes you will have, the upbringing you will have, the life experiences you will have, and any combination of nature/nurture that goes on to determine your brain for you. You have no choice at all, it's all based on causal factors that occur during and before the fact. With this in mind, which is the more moral society to be born into, not knowing who you will even be? What do you think your odds are of falling into the top 20% of survivors in the dog-eat-dog society? Idiots who believe in free will, responsibility, and self-determination think it's 100% whereas the reality of the matter is it's 20%, as I just said. You can't will your own brain, you are reasoning about it after-the-fact. So have a little decency and try to focus on utilitarian goals instead of sounding like an evil piece of shit and pouting "I got mine, where's yours?" in a life where everyone's starting points is different, even COVERTLY in terms of brain development based on nature/nurture. And please don't give me the tired argument of "Well now that you know how your brain is, just work to change it." Or some shit like that. The bottom line is that there are causal variables determining every thought, including the ones to change it. Once right-wing economists start acknowledging the inherent injustice of nature and human inequality and actually have a utilitarian outlook, I'll start listening.
Yeah, him and his white privilege, with his trucker's job and his work ethic!
Seriously, few people "succeed" in our system because not that many people actually have anything that resembles a work ethic. If you're one of the few that does, then in any fair system, you will rise and the masses will not.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Johan"For many people unemployment will not pay anywhere near what they were earning previously.
Yes unemployment insurance doesn't pay anywhere near what people need because it isn't suppose to. It is a safety net designed to get people through the transition to find employment that, I must add, that THEY pay for. So it is a good thing. It also helps the economy because it keeps people in the mainstream of consuming while they are looking for work. It isn't abused as much as the conservatives would have you believe. Not even close. It actually saves money in the long run, because it keeps people from becoming homeless, from losing a credit rating that they worked hard to achieve. People that don't receive unemployment, that get nothing, get foreclosed on, become homeless. Unemployment relieves the stress so they can actually concentrate on finding a job. To receive those benefits one must meet a minimum standard that includes actually looking for a job. It isn't a free pass or even free money. It is one of the best programs ever developed in this nation that benefits not only the people that have to use it but the entire community.
I wasn't slamming unemployment, I was merely pointing out an inaccurate statement.
And rightly so, I should point out. Definitely not my best moment as far as research. (Though not as bad as the time many years ago when I didn't how my own ASD was spelled.)
Quote from: "NatsuTerran"This is quite possibly the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard in my entire fucking life. Basically, because your circumstances were fortunate, you expect the same of everyone else. And don't give me that crap about being in a tough spot and using your will and determination to get out. You know why? Because that stuff is raw circumstance as well. There is no human equality, what you were able to mentally push yourself to do is not possible and should not be expected of everyone else. As a psychologist, the thing that bothers me the most about right-wing rhetoric is this idea that what one can do, anyone can do. Free will is a can of bullshit. Your brain itself is based on circumstances, you can't will your own wants and dispositions, it's an illusion. So just because one person is able to overcome a situation from a mental standpoint, you cannot conclude that anyone else can do the same.
Oh for fuck sake. Right-wing? That's just funny right there. You sure got me nailed. :roll:
Though I doubt it will do any good, let me explain a little bit about why I feel the way I do. As I've explained above, I've had a few careers in my day. I'm gone pretty far and I've done a lot and yes, I've been very very fortunate. And yes, my skill set and work ethic and level of determination are probably above average. And while all of that probably contributes to why I feel as I do, it isn't the core reason.
The core reason is probably this. I work in trucking and trucking is, to be blunt, a bit of shitty industry. Most of the companies in this industry treat their drivers (and often other employees as well) like dog shit and the industry average turnover rate of 75-120% (depending on company size) reflects this. However I work for a truly excellent company. Not an excellent company by trucking company standards, but rather an excellent company but anyone's standards and our turnover rate which I believe is around 25% reflects this. And yet, we can't hire people fast enough. In fact, we can't even get people to apply fast enough. We're growing and business is great except we have to turn down too much of it because we don't have enough people. Its a problem. In fact its one of our biggest problems right now and we're scrambling to come up with new solutions.
Now granted, we are picky. We only hire experienced drivers. But we also prefer those who are a cut above the rest so we don't take just anyone. Show up for a job app in sweatpants and a Metallica t-shirt and you're probably not going to get a call from us normally. But we probably would call the Metallica t-shirt guy right now because like I said, we can't get anyone to even apply.
And its not just us. As maintenance coordinator I work with several local vendors to keep our equipment up and running. Lately I've been having trouble getting equipment fixed in a timely manner because a couple of shops we use have lost people and can't find replacements fast enough. One shop we use put ads on the internet and in every local paper and they got exactly one reply. One of the tire shops we use? They usually have four or five techs on staff. They're down to two now. Same problem. Can't even get people to apply.
So this what I'm seeing. And then I hear people talk about how we need to place limits on the rich because they make too much money which then somehow prevents young and poor people from being able to earn a living and the one word that comes to mind for me is bullshit. I could steer at least twenty people into living wage situations tomorrow with just a couple of phone calls if I could just get them to get off their asses and show up.
Now to be fair, I will readily admit that all of these are blue collar skilled and semi-skilled labor positions and most of them want at least some experience. So it would be foolish to claim that just because this one particular job sector in this one particular location can't hire people fast enough the same situation exists in all job sectors in all locations. Of course that's not the case. Its never the case in fact. But I think it would be equally foolish to claim that this one particular job sector in this one particular location is the only place where this situation exists.
There are jobs out there right now for the taking. Show up and its yours. There are career fields out there, blue collar and white collar both, which need people right now. They might not be the jobs you want. They might not be the career fields you trained in. But a job is a job and living wage is a living wage. Remember, I didn't set out to work in trucking, I ended up there.
So when you tell me 'yeah that's great that you did it but what about the rest of us who can't?' I say bullshit. Not all of you can do it and that will be the case no matter what laws we put in place. But everywhere I go I see companies that wish they could find more people. I see jobs needing to be filled. So I have a hard time agreeing with anyone who claims we need to change the laws because no one can find work.
I speak only of corporations that have stock holders when saying this.
So let's say a top wage earner of the corporation (usually CEO) gets a salary of $1,000,000 a year then the lowest paying employee withing that company should be paid a minimum of .025% of said CEO salary with a minimum of 2 weeks paid vacation a year. That is based off of a 40 work week which comes out to be 2000 hours of work a year and 80 hours paid vacation.
40 hours * 52 weeks= 2080 hours in a year - 80 hours vacation = 2000 worked hours
$1,000,000 * .025 = $25,000 / 2000 = $12.50hr
It could be worked as a sliding scale also as the corp. and it cannot drop below .015%.
Top wage earner's salary is $2,000,000. Then the minimum wage earner of the corporation is would get .02%
40 hours * 52 weeks= 2080 hours in a year - 80 hours vacation = 2000 worked hours
$2,000,000 * .02 = $40,000 / 2000 = $20.00hr
Let's try again this time $3,000,000 is the top wage earner within the corporation.
40 hours * 52 weeks= 2080 hours in a year - 80 hours vacation = 2000 worked hours
$3,000,000 * .0175 = $52,500 / 2000 = $26.25hr
Another try at few more for the top wager earner.
40 hours * 52 weeks= 2080 hours in a year - 80 hours vacation = 2000 worked hours
$4,000,000 * .0166 = $64,400 / 2000 = $33.20hr
40 hours * 52 weeks= 2080 hours in a year - 80 hours vacation = 2000 worked hours
$5,000,000 * .0158 = $79,400 / 2000 = $39.50hr
40 hours * 52 weeks= 2080 hours in a year - 80 hours vacation = 2000 worked hours
$6,000,000 * .0154 = $92,400 / 2000 = $46.20hr
40 hours * 52 weeks= 2080 hours in a year - 80 hours vacation = 2000 worked hours
$7,000,000 * .0152 = $106,400 / 2000 = $53.20hr
40 hours * 52 weeks= 2080 hours in a year - 80 hours vacation = 2000 worked hours
$8,000,000 * .0151 = $120,800 / 2000 = $60.44hr
So, you may be thinking no fucking way and that what I just pitched is out of line well, keep reading.
Well anyway at this point of explanation you can clearly see that the top wage earner would find it really hard to bilk these kind of wages out of a company. Keep in mind that a for top corporations wage earner salary breaks down like this per hour, with no vacation hours accounted for which means 2080 hours per year figured at a 40 hour work week and no other golden parachutes included.
$1,000,000 / $480.77 hr
$2,000,000 / $961.54 hr
$3,000,000 / $1442.31 hr
$4,000,000 / $1923.08 hr
$5,000,000 / $2403.85 hr
$6,000,000 / $2884.62hr
$7,000,000 / $3365.38 hr
$8,000,000 / $3846.15 hr
I don't know one person out there that I would say that is worth $3800 an hour no matter how smart they are and how much college that they may have gone through.
So when a top corporate wage earner is making bullshit salaries and all the other benefits that they bilk, remember we are talking about a business that stock holders own, not small business such as a LLC (limited liability corp.) or a company that incorporated.
So yeah I don't think we need to cap a maximum wage but it sure would be nice if there was a more realistic way to deal with low wage earners as a few people on top suck companies like GM that was loosing money yet at the same time giving themselves ridiculous salaries. Who took the hit? The small guy on the line that had to take a pension cut that was once negotiated as a part of there wage. The fat cats on top walked away with all their money that a struggling company couldn't afford, mean while the line worker gets there kicked in the ass.
Quote from: "Johan"I've been very very fortunate.
So basically you're saying you've got to be lucky to get a good job?
How do you teach other people to be lucky?
Always carry with you a rabbit's foot.
I take offense to that :(
You've got four of those. How much hurt will it be if you lose one for someone's else good luck? Sheesh...
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Johan"I've been very very fortunate.
So basically you're saying you've got to be lucky to get a good job?
How do you teach other people to be lucky?
I wrote an entire post in which I pointed out multiple examples of real world jobs available right now that could had by almost anyone who is willing to just show up. You can try to twist that into me saying one must be lucky in order to get a job all you want but in the end all you will accomplish is to make yourself look like your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. Better luck next time.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "zarus tathra"Eh, that might be true if they successfully create a cartel system.
One word. OPEC.
That worked for a while, then prices started falling like a rock until 9/11 and Iraq War 2 and Hugo Chavez.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I've also gone on unemployment, which is not a handout
Then why did you call it a handout in your first response? It's one or the other, mate.
I didn't. Here's the post, with context:
Quote from: "Jason78"Not everyone else can do the same.
Quote from: "Johan"I disagree.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Yes, if you know which ass to kiss and how much of your pride to let go, anyone can fix it themselves. I don't think that's what Jason78 meant, though.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Pay your rent with that pride, then. Don't take my taxes because you're too proud to bust your ass.
I don't know about you or anyone else, but I'll scrub toilets before I ask for a handout. I'll bite my lip and let the boss think I like him when I don't, because like you, I'm a proud man.
I'm too proud to want a handout. I will do what it takes to avoid that fate.
[Posts separated due to embedding limits -- Thump]
Nowhere in that post did I call Unemployment Insurance a handout, because I don't think it is.
Now, if you meant unemployment insurance then you should know that you will not receive it if you quit because your boss has insulted your pride -- or quit for any other reason that isn't ruled as compelled. It seemed to me, then, that you weren't talking about UI, but rather relief or general welfare -- which I don't object to in most cases. I don't hold being too proud to work as being an adequate reason to dip into the public trough. Your UI isn't paid by my taxes, anyway; it's paid by your premiums being invested and the return being spread amongst the currently-unemployed. That too is a clear indication that I am talking in that post about welfare and not UI.
So you see, there's no contradiction in my posting; I don't hold that UI is a handout, but I do hold that welfare is. (There's nothing wrong with taking welfare when needed and justified; I just don't want to do so myself.) If you were talking about unemployment insurance, that was entirely unclear from your post.
Quote from: "mykcob4"As 2014 unfolds we as a nation are faced with the ever increasing problem of the rich getting richer and the rest of us losing buying power and never getting a raise. The poor are becoming even poorer and the middle class is evaporating before our very eyes.
We can try to do certain things to correct this like changing the tax laws to be fair and equitable but we run into a stonewall of opposition by conservatives and lobbiest that prevent such logical measures. The strength of this nation came as a result of the middle class becoming the largest porpotionally to the populace in world history, not as the conservatives would have you believe an unfettered unregulated capitalist system.
So I propose that the conversation should not only be about extending unemployemnet benefits that have historically done great things for the economy but addressing minimum wage. I also want to propose a MAXIMUM wage. Thats right a maximum wage.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Do you realize wage is not the only way to earn an income and I'm guessing the richest don't have salaries, their income comes from stocks or dividends. So if you want to put a cap on that you're basically saying that everything you earn after X amount should be taxed at 100%. That is the logical conclusion of what you're saying. Well since nobody wants to work for free, all that will happen is the top earners will stop producing or move to another country with a freer market. Totally unfeasible. I don't support this one bit.
QuoteWell since nobody wants to work for free, all that will happen is the top earners will stop producing or move to another country with a freer market.
People keep saying this like it's a bad thing. "All the people who are super rich, pay no taxes, drive smaller business away and treat their workers horribly will
leave! Imagine the horrors!"
If the rich leave, new companies will pop up to replace them overnight. That's how business works.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteWell since nobody wants to work for free, all that will happen is the top earners will stop producing or move to another country with a freer market.
People keep saying this like it's a bad thing. "All the people who are super rich, pay no taxes, drive smaller business away and treat their workers horribly will leave! Imagine the horrors!"
If the rich leave, new companies will pop up to replace them overnight. That's how business works.
Not in Michigan it doesn't. Take a drive through Flint. Let me know how you think that 'Big super rich business' all left but its ok because new companies popped up and replaced them overnight because that's how business works' deal is working out for the people there.
Quote from: "Johan"I wrote an entire post in which I pointed out multiple examples of real world jobs available right now that could had by almost anyone who is willing to just show up. You can try to twist that into me saying one must be lucky in order to get a job all you want but in the end all you will accomplish is to make yourself look like your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. Better luck next time.
Almost anyone isn't everyone.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteWell since nobody wants to work for free, all that will happen is the top earners will stop producing or move to another country with a freer market.
People keep saying this like it's a bad thing. "All the people who are super rich, pay no taxes, drive smaller business away and treat their workers horribly will leave! Imagine the horrors!"
If the rich leave, new companies will pop up to replace them overnight. That's how business works.
If you have a cap on income then any new companies that come to replace the ones who left will refrain from growing past a certain point (since there's no incentive to). Why would anyone take a risk in managing large multi-billion dollar corporations when they can probably earn the same 650k or whatever arbitrary cap with a medium-size company? So this idea encourages stagnation, laziness and reduces jobs. You can also say goodbye to Microsoft or Google or all these other big companies that will simply be "too big" for the US, assuming you live there. If you live in a poorer country same thing. You really don't want to create a hostile environment for businesses.
Quote from: "VladK"Why would anyone take a risk in managing large multi-billion dollar corporations when they can probably earn the same 650k or whatever arbitrary cap with a medium-size company?
And who is going to mourn the death of multi-billion dollar corporations? They challenge every jurisdiction in which they operate in order to protect their interests, which rarely coincide with the interest of the common people. AFAIC, they can go extinct.
Their employees and the people who buy their goods and services, that's who.
Arguably it harms "common people" as well, since some people invest in these companies as part of their pension plan. I'm probably just scratching the surface here, but such radical actions have immense consequences.
Do you ever go to the movies? Just think of the Harry Potter films alone, how much it cost to make the series (over a billion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Pott ... _series%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_%28film_series%29) But nobody would take the risk if all they could earn was 650k dollars a year. They'd just stick with simpler projects that are just as profitable.
GTA V has revenues of over a billion and cost hundreds of millions to make. You think Rockstar Games would bother if they couldn't keep what they earned beyond 650k? Would Microsoft bother making Windows and other products?
Or maybe you think this is all bullshit because it doesn't concern you, well, you don't speak for everyone and after 44 years of communism in my own country I'm very hostile to any attempts at taking over a large part of the economy anywhere in the world, particularly the US that was built on economic freedom and should be an example to the world.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Johan"I wrote an entire post in which I pointed out multiple examples of real world jobs available right now that could had by almost anyone who is willing to just show up. You can try to twist that into me saying one must be lucky in order to get a job all you want but in the end all you will accomplish is to make yourself look like your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. Better luck next time.
Almost anyone isn't everyone.
So no point in this discussion is valid unless it's a job that could held by absolutely anyone? Even Walmart greeters need to be able to pass a drug test. Are you suggesting that will change if we limit the salaries of the highest earners?
Quote from: "VladK"Quote from: "mykcob4"As 2014 unfolds we as a nation are faced with the ever increasing problem of the rich getting richer and the rest of us losing buying power and never getting a raise. The poor are becoming even poorer and the middle class is evaporating before our very eyes.
We can try to do certain things to correct this like changing the tax laws to be fair and equitable but we run into a stonewall of opposition by conservatives and lobbiest that prevent such logical measures. The strength of this nation came as a result of the middle class becoming the largest porpotionally to the populace in world history, not as the conservatives would have you believe an unfettered unregulated capitalist system.
So I propose that the conversation should not only be about extending unemployemnet benefits that have historically done great things for the economy but addressing minimum wage. I also want to propose a MAXIMUM wage. Thats right a maximum wage.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Do you realize wage is not the only way to earn an income and I'm guessing the richest don't have salaries, their income comes from stocks or dividends. So if you want to put a cap on that you're basically saying that everything you earn after X amount should be taxed at 100%. That is the logical conclusion of what you're saying. Well since nobody wants to work for free, all that will happen is the top earners will stop producing or move to another country with a freer market. Totally unfeasible. I don't support this one bit.
I've already addressed this earlier in this thread. As have many others.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteWell since nobody wants to work for free, all that will happen is the top earners will stop producing or move to another country with a freer market.
People keep saying this like it's a bad thing. "All the people who are super rich, pay no taxes, drive smaller business away and treat their workers horribly will leave! Imagine the horrors!"
If the rich leave, new companies will pop up to replace them overnight. That's how business works.
Why would anyone bust their ass if the only thing that will reward success is 100% taxation?
At a certain point folks will say,
even if my business gets more successful, I cannot gain any further. How do you expect to incentivize effort and outlay? After all, those same rich folk will be the ones investing in new technology. Is that something you really want to drive offshore? When the returns-on-investment are capped, you will no doubt find investment harder to come by, and that too will impose further hardship on the start-up. And who gets to decide what the caps are?
New companies don't appear out of thin air. Especially in the fields of technology, medicine, aerospace, and such -- the jobs that are
really worth keeping here, not the McJobs we're choking on -- those jobs require heavy investments. When you factor in the risk of business failure, it's only fair to ensure returns adequately rewarding the investment.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "VladK"Why would anyone take a risk in managing large multi-billion dollar corporations when they can probably earn the same 650k or whatever arbitrary cap with a medium-size company?
And who is going to mourn the death of multi-billion dollar corporations? They challenge every jurisdiction in which they operate in order to protect their interests, which rarely coincide with the interest of the common people. AFAIC, they can go extinct.
Except that because with their quantities of scale, they can deliver products more affordably than mom-and-pop businesses, almost every single time.
If you don't mind the cost of living going up measurably, go ahead, kill big businesses. Because that
will happen.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Plu"QuoteWell since nobody wants to work for free, all that will happen is the top earners will stop producing or move to another country with a freer market.
People keep saying this like it's a bad thing. "All the people who are super rich, pay no taxes, drive smaller business away and treat their workers horribly will leave! Imagine the horrors!"
If the rich leave, new companies will pop up to replace them overnight. That's how business works.
Why would anyone bust their ass if the only thing that will reward success is 100% taxation?
At a certain point folks will say, even if my business gets more successful, I cannot gain any further. How do you expect to incentivize effort and outlay? After all, those same rich folk will be the ones investing in new technology. Is that something you really want to drive offshore? When the returns-on-investment are capped, you will no doubt find investment harder to come by, and that too will impose further hardship on the start-up. And who gets to decide what the caps are?
New companies don't appear out of thin air. Especially in the fields of technology, medicine, aerospace, and such -- the jobs that are really worth keeping here, not the McJobs we're choking on -- those jobs require heavy investments. When you factor in the risk of business failure, it's only fair to ensure returns adequately rewarding the investment.
I agree and that is something to work out. What if the maximum was based on a maximum % and not a set rate? But like I said before there is a lot to work out. The thing is that the continued redistribution of all wealth going solely into the hands of the top 1%ers is not and will never work!
Quote from: "VladK"Their employees and the people who buy their goods and services, that's who.
Arguably it harms "common people" as well, since some people invest in these companies as part of their pension plan. I'm probably just scratching the surface here, but such radical actions have immense consequences.
Do you ever go to the movies? Just think of the Harry Potter films alone, how much it cost to make the series (over a billion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Pott ... _series%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_%28film_series%29) But nobody would take the risk if all they could earn was 650k dollars a year. They'd just stick with simpler projects that are just as profitable.
Sorry to disagree but no one is going to die because no one can make a movie like Harry Potter.
QuoteGTA V has revenues of over a billion and cost hundreds of millions to make. You think Rockstar Games would bother if they couldn't keep what they earned beyond 650k? Would Microsoft bother making Windows and other products?
There's nothing wrong with having a number of smaller firms instead a billion-dollar corporation. In fact, the competition between them would assure that we get better products at cheaper prices.
QuoteOr maybe you think this is all bullshit because it doesn't concern you, well, you don't speak for everyone and after 44 years of communism in my own country I'm very hostile to any attempts at taking over a large part of the economy anywhere in the world, particularly the US that was built on economic freedom and should be an example to the world.
No need to get all overworked up. Anyway, the US is anything but a shining beacon of light, particularly when looking at the inequality between the top 1% and the other 99% which is growing at alarming rates.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I agree and that is something to work out. What if the maximum was based on a maximum % and not a set rate? But like I said before there is a lot to work out.
So let's see. Flying cars, moon bases, teleportation, time travel, maximum wage. What do they all have in common? There's a lot to work out before it becomes reality.
QuoteThe thing is that the continued redistribution of all wealth going solely into the hands of the top 1%ers is not and will never work!
The continued redistribution of
all wealth you say? I guess that begs the question of how exactly you define wealth. Because I can assure you I am not one of the top 1% and my W2 certainly proves that the top 1% didn't end up with ALL the wealth last year.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "mykcob4"I agree and that is something to work out. What if the maximum was based on a maximum % and not a set rate? But like I said before there is a lot to work out.
So let's see. Flying cars, moon bases, teleportation, time travel, maximum wage. What do they all have in common? There's a lot to work out before it becomes reality.
QuoteThe thing is that the continued redistribution of all wealth going solely into the hands of the top 1%ers is not and will never work!
The continued redistribution of all wealth you say? I guess that begs the question of how exactly you define wealth. Because I can assure you I am not one of the top 1% and my W2 certainly proves that the top 1% didn't end up with ALL the wealth last year.
If you actually think that YOU are in charge of your finances or actually have control of the wealth that you THINK you own then you keep thinking that.
Quote from: "mykcob4"If you actually think that YOU are in charge of your finances or actually have control of the wealth that you THINK you own then you keep thinking that.
Wow. What color is the sky, in your world? Is it nice there?
Hi there Myke! Being an uneducated hick will no doubt be apparent if I start posting on this thread, but here goes anyway:
Quote...Its not that they are rich that is the problem at all. It's that their greed isn't in check...
Agreed on greed.
Greed is NOT good. Competition is good when balanced with cooperation, but greed is an imbalance. This "maximum wage" idea is out of balance the other way: too anti-competitive.
But I would like to offer an alternative suggestion to your "maximum wage" proposal. Instead of holding down the rich, let's try to pressure the rich into uplifting the wage-earners.
Greed is the problem with all of us. Not just the rich. The rest of us buy without shame from whoever gives us the "most for our money." We will be hard pressed to mitigate the greed of the rich until we take responsibility for our own greed.
Transparency and personal responsibility could be the common man's keys to the economic engine. Transparency should be mandated. Then personal responsibility kicks in.
Here's what I mean. If I can be certain that one manufacturer or service provider pays higher wages to it's employees, through some kind of mandated transparency, like the labeling on a package, I then can take personal responsibility and invest in the one that pays it's people best. Even though it may cost a little more, it will probably also be a better product.
We the wage-earners would then be able to pressure the economy more effectively. But we have to take responsibility for how we spend our money. Be conscious of the consequences. Money is buying power. The rich don't get richer without our help. Transparency would give them an incentive to share. Let them compete over who can compensate their employees the best.
Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"Hi there Myke! Being an uneducated hick will no doubt be apparent if I start posting on this thread, but here goes anyway:
Quote...Its not that they are rich that is the problem at all. It's that their greed isn't in check...
Agreed on greed.
Greed is NOT good. Competition is good when balanced with cooperation, but greed is an imbalance. This "maximum wage" idea is out of balance the other way: too anti-competitive.
But I would like to offer an alternative suggestion to your "maximum wage" proposal. Instead of holding down the rich, let's try to pressure the rich into uplifting the wage-earners.
Greed is the problem with all of us. Not just the rich. The rest of us buy without shame from whoever gives us the "most for our money." We will be hard pressed to mitigate the greed of the rich until we take responsibility for our own greed.
Transparency and personal responsibility could be the common man's keys to the economic engine. Transparency should be mandated. Then personal responsibility kicks in.
Here's what I mean. If I can be certain that one manufacturer or service provider pays higher wages to it's employees, through some kind of mandated transparency, like the labeling on a package, I then can take personal responsibility and invest in the one that pays it's people best. Even though it may cost a little more, it will probably also be a better product.
We the wage-earners would then be able to pressure the economy more effectively. But we have to take responsibility for how we spend our money. Be conscious of the consequences. Money is buying power. The rich don't get richer without our help. Transparency would give them an incentive to share. Let them compete over who can compensate their employees the best.
Your intentions are good but the idea that people would buy and willingly pay more if they know the company pays better salary most likely won't happen, at least not for the vast majority of people. Just about everybody knows that what Walmart sells comes from China, where salaries are a pittance and working conditions for workers are atrocious. When you drive by one of those Walmarts, that mushroomed all over the country, the parking lots full of cars say another story. When it comes to get the most for your bucks, people tend to ignore the issue of workers being underpaid.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I agree and that is something to work out. What if the maximum was based on a maximum % and not a set rate? But like I said before there is a lot to work out. The thing is that the continued redistribution of all wealth going solely into the hands of the top 1%ers is not and will never work!
I think tying it to the minimum wage as a multiple is fine. If the head honcho deserves to get paid a raise for great corporate performance, how much truer is it that the workers who are the backbone deserve the same raise, proportionally? The minimum wage paid by the company times
x could be a possible limit.
QuoteYour intentions are good but the idea that people would buy and willingly pay more if they know the company pays better salary most likely won't happen, at least not for the vast majority of people. Just about everybody knows that what Walmart sells comes from China, where salaries are a pittance and working conditions for workers are atrocious. When you drive by one of those Walmarts, that mushroomed all over the country, the parking lots full of cars say another story. When it comes to get the most for your bucks, people tend to ignore the issue of workers being underpaid.
Agreed on everything you said. But a mandated transparency of this magnitude would be a step in the right direction. At least it would be an empowerment for those who are willing to use their money more as a tool than a resource (does that make sense?). A positive step in the ongoing transformation of our social consciousness. Something more easily enacted by consensus than the "maximum wage," that might at least begin a path of the wage-earner having some influence over his own wages. A chance for a sort of unstructured cooperation between all of us 99%, just based on wages, without any religious or political ideologies having any direct influence for a change, because it's just information. Wage-earning transparency.
Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"Hi there Myke! Being an uneducated hick will no doubt be apparent if I start posting on this thread, but here goes anyway:
Quote...Its not that they are rich that is the problem at all. It's that their greed isn't in check...
Agreed on greed.
Greed is NOT good. Competition is good when balanced with cooperation, but greed is an imbalance. This "maximum wage" idea is out of balance the other way: too anti-competitive.
But I would like to offer an alternative suggestion to your "maximum wage" proposal. Instead of holding down the rich, let's try to pressure the rich into uplifting the wage-earners.
Greed is the problem with all of us. Not just the rich. The rest of us buy without shame from whoever gives us the "most for our money." We will be hard pressed to mitigate the greed of the rich until we take responsibility for our own greed.
Transparency and personal responsibility could be the common man's keys to the economic engine. Transparency should be mandated. Then personal responsibility kicks in.
Here's what I mean. If I can be certain that one manufacturer or service provider pays higher wages to it's employees, through some kind of mandated transparency, like the labeling on a package, I then can take personal responsibility and invest in the one that pays it's people best. Even though it may cost a little more, it will probably also be a better product.
We the wage-earners would then be able to pressure the economy more effectively. But we have to take responsibility for how we spend our money. Be conscious of the consequences. Money is buying power. The rich don't get richer without our help. Transparency would give them an incentive to share. Let them compete over who can compensate their employees the best.
I agree. I started this thread more as an amusement than anything else. I don't think it possible or even plausible, but I think greed is way out of control and something must be done about it. There was a time in this nation when people pulled together to get things done. It wasn't enough to get yours and the hell with everyone else. Undoubtedly that was because of the depression.
I think it is hard to get people to take personal responsibility for the economy. It seems like some abstract disconnected thing that's beyond their control. But if we had wage-earning transparency it might not be so steep a mountain to climb. You still have the task of getting people to pay attention on a regular basis. But it's not impossible: look at the national recycling awareness we have. People are really sick of low wages, and might be willing to look at a label about the wages of a manufacturer, if they thought they would earn more money as a result of reading it. I'm not sure how it would work exactly, but I've had this idea percolating for a while. It seems like it might be empowering.
Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"Transparency and personal responsibility could be the common man's keys to the economic engine. Transparency should be mandated. Then personal responsibility kicks in.
Here's what I mean. If I can be certain that one manufacturer or service provider pays higher wages to it's employees, through some kind of mandated transparency, like the labeling on a package, I then can take personal responsibility and invest in the one that pays it's people best. Even though it may cost a little more, it will probably also be a better product.
We the wage-earners would then be able to pressure the economy more effectively. But we have to take responsibility for how we spend our money. Be conscious of the consequences. Money is buying power. The rich don't get richer without our help. Transparency would give them an incentive to share. Let them compete over who can compensate their employees the best.
We already have a labeling law in place which allows consumers to determine which manufacturers pay their employees more than others. Just flip the item in question over and look for the following. If it says 'Made In USA' those workers got paid more. If it says 'Made In China' those workers got paid less.
So it goes without saying that the part of your plan where the lowly wage-earners will happily pay more for any product which was made by better paid workers is much more of a pipe dream than reality. Any retail store manager will tell you that if you place a made in USA light bulb on a store shelf for $4.29 right next to a made in China light bulb for $2.99 and you'll be dusting off the top of the made in USA light bulb every week while you're restocking the made in China light bulbs which you're out of again because they keep flying off the shelves.
QuoteWe already have a labeling law in place which allows consumers to determine which manufacturers pay their employees more than others. Just flip the item in question over and look for the following. If it says 'Made In USA' those workers got paid more. If it says 'Made In China' those workers got paid less.
So it goes without saying that the part of your plan where the lowly wage-earners will happily pay more for any product which was made by better paid workers is much more of a pipe dream than reality. Any retail store manager will tell you that if you place a made in USA light bulb on a store shelf for $4.29 right next to a made in China light bulb for $2.99 and you'll be dusting off the top of the made in USA light bulb every week while you're restocking the made in China light bulbs which you're out of again because they keep flying off the shelves.
OK, Let's say you're right. Have a better suggestion?
Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"OK, Let's say you're right. Have a better suggestion?
A better suggestion for what exactly? Though I've asked several times, I've yet to see anyone clearly define why the very top earners being able to earn as much as they do is such a bad thing or what it does that's so bad for the rest of us. So I'm still unclear on what problem we're actually trying to fix here.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Solomon Zorn"OK, Let's say you're right. Have a better suggestion?
A better suggestion for what exactly? Though I've asked several times, I've yet to see anyone clearly define why the very top earners being able to earn as much as they do is such a bad thing or what it does that's so bad for the rest of us. So I'm still unclear on what problem we're actually trying to fix here.
I never said top earners were the problem. I never said they weren't. I recognize the need for competition even at the highest levels of business. But the laborer needs to have his energy valued in a more realistic fashion.
Money is energy. It needs to be in motion. We are all just diverters of energy. Potentially many more people could each be controlling substantially more energy. Buying products and using services.
Money is our blood. It needs to flow to every part of the organism, at
least sufficiently to keep the body alive. And at
best so that the whole body grows and thrives.
Money is time spent in the service of another.
Money separates the laborer from the slave.
Money is life, liberty and happiness all rolled into one.
Or as King Solomon said, "Money is the answer for everything."
Top earners aren't necessarily the problem. It's apathy to the rest of us by those who pay us. The "I'm getting mine even if I have to fuck over my employees to get it" mentality.
I maintain that having a social consciousness is part of the responsibility of every individual. Rich and poor. Greed is an imbalance that causes suffering. A point where your self interest outweighs the needs of others. It's effects are just more profound when the greedy have a position where they can oppress.
It may not have a pragmatic solution. But denying there is a problem is part of the problem.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Nope progressivism isn't remotely feudalism not in the least.
Actually I just demonstrated that it is, in that both believe in an elite having power over the rest.
Quote from: "mykcob4"That is just more conservative libertarian rhetoric.
What is a "conservative libertarian" and is it anything like a "conservative progressive" or a "progressive libertarian"?
Quote from: "mykcob4"Progressives don't hate the free market at all. Progressives want a free and fair market.
So you want a market that is both unregulated and regulated for fairness? The reason why your arguments don't make sense is that your own ideas don't make sense. You need to define your words before you use them.
Quote from: "mykcob4"What you don't understand is that capitalism is suspitable to corruption in the form of exploitation and monopolies.
That's corporatism, not capitalism, although you are excused for not knowing the difference even though it has been explained before.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Saying that the government protects monopolies is correct if you have a conservative government.
Which means that conservatives and progressives are now both conservatives. Thank you.
Quote from: "mykcob4"The fact is that the rightwing are the elitist. Historically and presently conservatism MEANS conserving power and wealth for the elite.
Yes, that is true. Conservatives (and the conservatives who call themselves progressives) are elitists in search of power. The classical liberals (and classical liberals who call themselves libertarians) are the ones who oppose people accumulating and preserving political power.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Libertarian is not liberalism at all.
It isn't modern liberalism, but then modern liberalism isn't classical liberalism. Also, while they have much in common, modern liberalism isn't progressivism either.
Quote from: "mykcob4"It finites wealth to the very few.
That is conservative progressivism at its finest, yes.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "mykcob4"Nope progressivism isn't remotely feudalism not in the least.
Actually I just demonstrated that it is, in that both believe in an elite having power over the rest.
Quote from: "mykcob4"That is just more conservative libertarian rhetoric.
What is a "conservative libertarian" and is it anything like a "conservative progressive" or a "progressive libertarian"?
Quote from: "mykcob4"Progressives don't hate the free market at all. Progressives want a free and fair market.
So you want a market that is both unregulated and regulated for fairness? The reason why your arguments don't make sense is that your own ideas don't make sense. You need to define your words before you use them.
Quote from: "mykcob4"What you don't understand is that capitalism is suspitable to corruption in the form of exploitation and monopolies.
That's corporatism, not capitalism, although you are excused for not knowing the difference even though it has been explained before.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Saying that the government protects monopolies is correct if you have a conservative government.
Which means that conservatives and progressives are now both conservatives. Thank you.
Quote from: "mykcob4"The fact is that the rightwing are the elitist. Historically and presently conservatism MEANS conserving power and wealth for the elite.
Yes, that is true. Conservatives (and the conservatives who call themselves progressives) are elitists in search of power. The classical liberals (and classical liberals who call themselves libertarians) are the ones who oppose people accumulating and preserving political power.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Libertarian is not liberalism at all.
It isn't modern liberalism, but then modern liberalism isn't classical liberalism. Also, while they have much in common, modern liberalism isn't progressivism either.
Quote from: "mykcob4"It finites wealth to the very few.
That is conservative progressivism at its finest, yes.
Don't start jay. Libertarians are most definitely conservatives. Denying it is just ridiculous.
Nope progressives are not even remotely conservatives.
Don't even try that capitalism isn't corporatism crap on me. Unregulated corrupt capitalism is corporatism which is what conservatives strive for.
Stop trying to hijack progressivism for conservatives. It's just annoying and untrue.
Libertarians are not modern liberals, not even close. Another attempt by you to hijack and misrepresent the facts. Every libertarian strives for protecting the wealth of the already wealthy and they protect the exploitation that acquired that wealth.
QuoteI never said top earners were the problem. I never said they weren't. I recognize the need for competition even at the highest levels of business. But the laborer needs to have his energy valued in a more realistic fashion.
Jobs are worth what they're worth. Lots of things determine that worth. But the biggest factor by far that I've seen in determining what jobs pay is the laborers themselves and what they collectively, are willing to accept in order to do the job. You want the laborer to make more? Find a way to keep other laborers from doing the same job for less. Simple as that. When Big Daddy Starbucks no long finds a long line of applicants willing to slug coffee across his counter for $5/hr, Big Daddy Starbucks will start offering applicants $6/hr. Problem solved.
Quote from: "Johan"QuoteI never said top earners were the problem. I never said they weren't. I recognize the need for competition even at the highest levels of business. But the laborer needs to have his energy valued in a more realistic fashion.
Jobs are worth what they're worth. Lots of things determine that worth. But the biggest factor by far that I've seen in determining what jobs pay is the laborers themselves and what they collectively, are willing to accept in order to do the job. You want the laborer to make more? Find a way to keep other laborers from doing the same job for less. Simple as that. When Big Daddy Starbucks no long finds a long line of applicants willing to slug coffee across his counter for $5/hr, Big Daddy Starbucks will start offering applicants $6/hr. Problem solved.
You actually said it. Collective bargaining. It makes me sick every time I hear the argument that "the job pays what it pays" crap. If Teddy Roosevelt hadn't fought corporations children would still be working in sweat shops. Regulation is the only thing that keeps corporations from destroying what little middle class we have. This utter bullshit that the "market" will dictate everything is an utter lie!
Actually I didn't say collective bargaining and collective bargaining wasn't what I meant. What I meant was that for most part, jobs pay whatever the 'typical' qualified applicant is willing to accept in order to take and keep the job.
Anyone who has ever flown for a living in the private sector will tell you that there is never a shortage of low time pilots who are wiling to take any flying job they can get in order to build hours for better jobs. And a ton of those low time pilots are willing to do any of those jobs that they can get for free. No pay at all. I'm sure that I don't have to tell you that if you're working in that industry and getting paid anything at all, its pretty damn hard to negotiate a raise when the boss has a stack of resumes in the mailbox every morning from jackass' that would be more than willing to do what you're doing for free. Things get better once you get more experience of course. But they'll never be all that great when free is the baseline wage.
That's one of the reasons I went to trucking. There are lots of guys who will take entry level trucking jobs for extremely low wages. But I ain't never met a single truck driver yet who would show up and work for an annual salary of $0.00.
Now there are lots of ways to try and tackle this issue and collective bargaining is one of them, but I'm not suggesting that here nor in my previous post. Another way to help solve it is as you suggest through regulation and minimum wages. But if you really want to get down to brass tacks, the core of the problem is most likely population density. Anytime you've got too many applicants, the wages will go down, not up.
But also keep in mind that earlier in the thread I spoke about how many jobs I know of locally which can't find applicants fast enough. The wages offered are part of that. Make em' higher and people will show up. But there ain't no free lunch so if you offer higher starting wages, profit goes down and thus prices must go up. And if prices go up, people will want even higher starting wages and the cycle continues.
So the bottom line is this. I don't think imposing any kind of maximum wage is a solution and never will be. I think reducing the population density will help. And I think reducing the population density will become more and more of a requirement moving forward as new technology paves the way for more and more industries to meet productivity goals with fewer and fewer workers. We're already seeing factories and warehouse facilities that used to require 50-100 workers which can now operate at high productivity with fewer than 10 workers due to technology and automation. That trend will continue moving forward which means we're going to want fewer people in the pool competing for fewer and fewer jobs. But just as I think the maximum wage is an idea that wouldn't accomplish its intended goal and in fact would have many unforeseen downsides, I think we only need to look to China to see that imposing a limit on the number of children people can have is a horrible way to try to reduce population growth.
So if you're asking me what my solution is, the answer is I don't have one. But as far as I can see, neither do you unfortunately.
QuoteFind a way to keep other laborers from doing the same job for less. Simple as that.
I'm sure they'll all happily starve to death while companies laugh at them. The problem is that people only accept these low wages because the alternative is starvation. Usually deals that go along the line of "do X or die", we call them illegal.
Quote from: "VladK"Do you ever go to the movies? Just think of the Harry Potter films alone, how much it cost to make the series (over a billion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Pott ... _series%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_%28film_series%29) But nobody would take the risk if all they could earn was 650k dollars a year. They'd just stick with simpler projects that are just as profitable.
Bad example. Hollywood movies are produced at a loss (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting).
Quote from: "mykcob4"Don't start jay. Libertarians are most definitely conservatives. Denying it is just ridiculous.
I deny the ridiculous assertion that libertarians are the same as their opposites. But given that this has been explained to you less than 20 times you are excused for not figuring it out that libertarians disagree with conservatives on economics, civil liberty, and foreign policy.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Nope progressives are not even remotely conservatives.
Hillary Clinton, pro-war. Barack Obama, Wall Street tool.
Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning. Libertarians regard them as heroes. What does Obama think of them?
Quote from: "mykcob4"Don't even try that capitalism isn't corporatism crap on me.
You don't want people to try facts on you?
Quote from: "mykcob4"Unregulated corrupt capitalism is corporatism which is what conservatives strive for.
Conservatives want the corruption of special government privileges, libertarians want the non-corruption of no government privileges. You think that is the same.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Stop trying to hijack progressivism for conservatives. It's just annoying and untrue.
IF it is hijacked, it wasn't me who did it, it's people like Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, etc.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Libertarians are not modern liberals, not even close.
That's the first true thing you said, but you imply that I said they are which is untrue. I wrote "It isn't modern liberalism, but then modern liberalism isn't classical liberalism. Also, while they have much in common, modern liberalism isn't progressivism either."
Quote from: "mykcob4"Every libertarian strives for protecting the wealth of the already wealthy and they protect the exploitation that acquired that wealth.
That's conservoprogressive corporatism, not libertarian capitalism, you are describing.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "mykcob4"Don't start jay. Libertarians are most definitely conservatives. Denying it is just ridiculous.
I deny the ridiculous assertion that libertarians are the same as their opposites. But given that this has been explained to you less than 20 times you are excused for not figuring it out that libertarians disagree with conservatives on economics, civil liberty, and foreign policy.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Nope progressives are not even remotely conservatives.
Hillary Clinton, pro-war. Barack Obama, Wall Street tool.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Don't even try that capitalism isn't corporatism crap on me.
You don't want people to try facts on you?
Quote from: "mykcob4"Unregulated corrupt capitalism is corporatism which is what conservatives strive for.
Conservatives want the corruption of special government privileges, libertarians want the non-corruption of no government privileges. You think that is the same.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Stop trying to hijack progressivism for conservatives. It's just annoying and untrue.
IF it is hijacked, it wasn't me who did it, it's people like Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, etc.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Libertarians are not modern liberals, not even close.
That's the first true thing you said, but you imply that I said they are which is untrue. I wrote "It isn't modern liberalism, but then modern liberalism isn't classical liberalism. Also, while they have much in common, modern liberalism isn't progressivism either."
Quote from: "mykcob4"Every libertarian strives for protecting the wealth of the already wealthy and they protect the exploitation that acquired that wealth.
That's conservoprogressive corporatism, not libertarian capitalism, you are describing.
Oh stop your condescending bullshit. It's just childish and annoying.
1) Libertarians have never disagreed with conservatives over civil liberties, foreign policy or and especially economics. That have lock stepped right inline on every vote about the issues.
2) Hillary Clinton is NOT pro-war and Obama is NOT a Wall street tool. that is your opinion and not even remotely the fact.
3) You didn't try any "facts" on me. Not even close. You parrot a FOX buzz phrase and call it fact. They aren't facts, they are bullshit.
4) Don't lie to me about what the libertarians want. They want the same thing as all conservatives, which is no regulations on giant corporate monopolies. It's the same line as always with different verbiage and nothing more.
5) Another lie. Hillary, Obama, and Pelosi, didn't hijack anything. You trying to make out that libertarians are modern Liberals is the hijack.
6) Bullshit! Liberalism is liberalism modern, classical, whatever! Don't try your FOX spin because it is just a lie. Liberalism is progressivism, always has been.
7) Every vote in Congress by so-called libertarians, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, has been for corporate protectionism. It's Reaganesque deregulation which only causes hostile take overs and wide spread poverty for workers.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Oh stop your condescending bullshit. It's just childish and annoying.
1) Libertarians have never disagreed with conservatives over civil liberties, foreign policy or and especially economics. That have lock stepped right inline on every vote about the issues.
Civil liberties:
Libertarians favor gay marriage, conservatives oppose it.
Libertarians favor ending the drug war, conservatives oppose it. Liberals also oppose it.
Libertarians favor repeal of laws against vice, conservatives oppose said repeal.
Foreign policy:
Libertarians oppose the war in Iraq, Conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose the war in Afghanistan, Conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose a war in Syria, Conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose a war in Iran, Conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose a war in (Insert country here), Conservatives support it.
Economics
Libertarians oppose bailouts, conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose central banking, conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose grants to businesses, conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose fiat currency, conservatives support it.
Quote from: "mykcob4"2) Hillary Clinton is NOT pro-war and Obama is NOT a Wall street tool. that is your opinion and not even remotely the fact.
Hillary is still suffering from her Hawkishness from 2001 to right about now. It was Obama's miniscule desire for peace that attracted the peace vote to him that caused him to beat her in the 2008 primary. Compared to Hillary, Attila the Hun is a peace candidate.
You really don't know what your party's elected and appointed officials are up to.
Quote from: "mykcob4"3) You didn't try any "facts" on me. Not even close. You parrot a FOX buzz phrase and call it fact. They aren't facts, they are bullshit.
Such as what Obama and Hillary actually support? I know it is uncomfortable to find out that Hillary is a Hawk. Libertarians consider that a bad thing, conservatives consider that a good thing. Fox News doesn't criticize her hawkishness, although they do criticize her for playing for team Blue instead of team Red. If you actually honestly believe that Fox criticizes Hillary for being too much in favor of war then you haven't actually watched Fox news, have you?
Quote from: "mykcob4"4) Don't lie to me about what the libertarians want. They want the same thing as all conservatives, which is no regulations on giant corporate monopolies. It's the same line as always with different verbiage and nothing more.
So when a libertarian tells you what libertarians want, and it doesn't agree with your talking points memo, that means the libertarian is lying? Every libertarian is lying? You are the only person in the world who is right about this, everyone else in the entire world is wrong about what libertarians believe?
Quote from: "mykcob4"5) Another lie. Hillary, Obama, and Pelosi, didn't hijack anything. You trying to make out that libertarians are modern Liberals is the hijack.
I
never said libertarians are modern liberals. What's pissing you off is that I'm saying that name belonged to us first. Check out my exact quote: It isn't modern liberalism, but then modern liberalism isn't classical liberalism. Also, while they have much in common, modern liberalism isn't progressivism either.
See that "n't" after the "is"? That is me saying libertarianism is NOT modern liberalism. Yet you keep saying that I said it is. Yet I wrote that it is not. Yet you keep saying that I said it is. Yet I wrote that it is not. Yet you keep saying that I said it is. Yet I wrote that it is not. Yet you keep saying that I said it is. Yet I wrote that it is not. Yet you keep saying that I said it is. Yet I wrote that it is not.
Hm. Interesting. It's as if you don't actually read what people write before you disagree. What's actually pissing you off is that I've established that the word "liberal" belonged to us before it belonged to you.
So you think Hillary, Obama, and Pelosi are models of progressivism?
Quote from: "mykcob4"6) Bullshit! Liberalism is liberalism modern, classical, whatever! Don't try your FOX spin because it is just a lie. Liberalism is progressivism, always has been.
You are right that liberalism as used to day refers to modern liberalism. But not classical liberalism. Here's something you might want to try - read FDR's 1932 election platform. The one he didn't follow once he got into office.
As for liberalism being progressivism, close but no cigar. The difference is hard to tell these days but you aren't curious about it.
Quote from: "mykcob4"7) Every vote in Congress by so-called libertarians, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, has been for corporate protectionism. It's Reaganesque deregulation which only causes hostile take overs and wide spread poverty for workers.
One of those names belongs on that list. One of them. And he did vote for less government, but not for corporate protectionism. I know that your talking points memo says they are the same, but really they aren't. Many regulations actually protect corporations. Hard to believe, but true.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "mykcob4"Nope progressivism isn't remotely feudalism not in the least.
Actually I just demonstrated that it is, in that both believe in an elite having power over the rest.
Quote from: "mykcob4"That is just more conservative libertarian rhetoric.
What is a "conservative libertarian" and is it anything like a "conservative progressive" or a "progressive libertarian"?
Quote from: "mykcob4"Progressives don't hate the free market at all. Progressives want a free and fair market.
So you want a market that is both unregulated and regulated for fairness? The reason why your arguments don't make sense is that your own ideas don't make sense. You need to define your words before you use them.
Quote from: "mykcob4"What you don't understand is that capitalism is suspitable to corruption in the form of exploitation and monopolies.
That's corporatism, not capitalism, although you are excused for not knowing the difference even though it has been explained before.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Saying that the government protects monopolies is correct if you have a conservative government.
Which means that conservatives and progressives are now both conservatives. Thank you.
Quote from: "mykcob4"The fact is that the rightwing are the elitist. Historically and presently conservatism MEANS conserving power and wealth for the elite.
Yes, that is true. Conservatives (and the conservatives who call themselves progressives) are elitists in search of power. The classical liberals (and classical liberals who call themselves libertarians) are the ones who oppose people accumulating and preserving political power.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Libertarian is not liberalism at all.
It isn't modern liberalism, but then modern liberalism isn't classical liberalism. Also, while they have much in common, modern liberalism isn't progressivism either.
Quote from: "mykcob4"It finites wealth to the very few.
That is conservative progressivism at its finest, yes.
Nope progressives don't believe in the elite having power. That is a pure fabrication by you.
Holy shit what a fucking liar. I never ever said that conservatives and progressives are the same thing. Man you're so full of shit.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about, not in the least. "progressives are conservatives, blah blah blah"...what a bunch of shit.
A free market doesn't mean no laws or regulations. That would be an anarchy market or a chaos market. A free market can and should be a fair market they are not contradictory. There is no such thing as conservative progressivism that is an oxymoron. A Libertarian is not a liberal in any sense of the term, that is just you trying to hijack liberal then misuse it for your own purpose.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Nope progressives don't believe in the elite having power. That is a pure fabrication by you.
Hillary is evidence to the contrary.
Quote from: "mykcob4"There is no such thing as conservative progressivism that is an oxymoron.
So you also believe there is no such thing as "libertarian progressive" and "libertarian conservative." Good to know.
Quote from: "mykcob4"A Libertarian is not a liberal in any sense of the term, that is just you trying to hijack liberal then misuse it for your own purpose.
It isn't a
modern liberal in any sense of the term, but you're pissed that we owned the word before you did.
Let's just stop saying "progressive." Anything can be framed as being "progressive."
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "mykcob4"Nope progressives don't believe in the elite having power. That is a pure fabrication by you.
Hillary is evidence to the contrary.
Quote from: "mykcob4"There is no such thing as conservative progressivism that is an oxymoron.
So you also believe there is no such thing as "libertarian progressive" and "libertarian conservative." Good to know.
Quote from: "mykcob4"A Libertarian is not a liberal in any sense of the term, that is just you trying to hijack liberal then misuse it for your own purpose.
It isn't a modern liberal in any sense of the term, but you're pissed that we owned the word before you did.
Again with the putting words in my mouth. That is quite enough of that. Also making up what I believe is just childish as well. You don't own the word and you claiming to just illustrates what I mean about hijacking the term and then just misusing it.
Hilary isn't an example of elitism at all. You're really daft if you think that.
Jason what you do is first tell people what they believe and then begin shitting all over what YOU said that they believe. That isn't even logical and is a hallmark of FOX and the fake journalist that they use. It's utter nonsense. It's basically lying and it is childish to say the least.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "mykcob4"Oh stop your condescending bullshit. It's just childish and annoying.
1) Libertarians have never disagreed with conservatives over civil liberties, foreign policy or and especially economics. That have lock stepped right inline on every vote about the issues.
Civil liberties:
Libertarians favor gay marriage, conservatives oppose it.
Libertarians favor ending the drug war, conservatives oppose it. Liberals also oppose it.
Libertarians favor repeal of laws against vice, conservatives oppose said repeal.
Foreign policy:
Libertarians oppose the war in Iraq, Conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose the war in Afghanistan, Conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose a war in Syria, Conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose a war in Iran, Conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose a war in (Insert country here), Conservatives support it.
Economics
Libertarians oppose bailouts, conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose central banking, conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose grants to businesses, conservatives support it.
Libertarians oppose fiat currency, conservatives support it.
Quote from: "mykcob4"2) Hillary Clinton is NOT pro-war and Obama is NOT a Wall street tool. that is your opinion and not even remotely the fact.
Hillary is still suffering from her Hawkishness from 2001 to right about now. It was Obama's miniscule desire for peace that attracted the peace vote to him that caused him to beat her in the 2008 primary. Compared to Hillary, Attila the Hun is a peace candidate.
You really don't know what your party's elected and appointed officials are up to.
Quote from: "mykcob4"3) You didn't try any "facts" on me. Not even close. You parrot a FOX buzz phrase and call it fact. They aren't facts, they are bullshit.
Such as what Obama and Hillary actually support? I know it is uncomfortable to find out that Hillary is a Hawk. Libertarians consider that a bad thing, conservatives consider that a good thing. Fox News doesn't criticize her hawkishness, although they do criticize her for playing for team Blue instead of team Red. If you actually honestly believe that Fox criticizes Hillary for being too much in favor of war then you haven't actually watched Fox news, have you?
Quote from: "mykcob4"4) Don't lie to me about what the libertarians want. They want the same thing as all conservatives, which is no regulations on giant corporate monopolies. It's the same line as always with different verbiage and nothing more.
So when a libertarian tells you what libertarians want, and it doesn't agree with your talking points memo, that means the libertarian is lying? Every libertarian is lying? You are the only person in the world who is right about this, everyone else in the entire world is wrong about what libertarians believe?
Quote from: "mykcob4"5) Another lie. Hillary, Obama, and Pelosi, didn't hijack anything. You trying to make out that libertarians are modern Liberals is the hijack.
I never said libertarians are modern liberals. What's pissing you off is that I'm saying that name belonged to us first. Check out my exact quote: It isn't modern liberalism, but then modern liberalism isn't classical liberalism. Also, while they have much in common, modern liberalism isn't progressivism either.
See that "n't" after the "is"? That is me saying libertarianism is NOT modern liberalism. Yet you keep saying that I said it is. Yet I wrote that it is not. Yet you keep saying that I said it is. Yet I wrote that it is not. Yet you keep saying that I said it is. Yet I wrote that it is not. Yet you keep saying that I said it is. Yet I wrote that it is not. Yet you keep saying that I said it is. Yet I wrote that it is not.
Hm. Interesting. It's as if you don't actually read what people write before you disagree. What's actually pissing you off is that I've established that the word "liberal" belonged to us before it belonged to you.
So you think Hillary, Obama, and Pelosi are models of progressivism?
Quote from: "mykcob4"6) Bullshit! Liberalism is liberalism modern, classical, whatever! Don't try your FOX spin because it is just a lie. Liberalism is progressivism, always has been.
You are right that liberalism as used to day refers to modern liberalism. But not classical liberalism. Here's something you might want to try - read FDR's 1932 election platform. The one he didn't follow once he got into office.
As for liberalism being progressivism, close but no cigar. The difference is hard to tell these days but you aren't curious about it.
Quote from: "mykcob4"7) Every vote in Congress by so-called libertarians, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, has been for corporate protectionism. It's Reaganesque deregulation which only causes hostile take overs and wide spread poverty for workers.
One of those names belongs on that list. One of them. And he did vote for less government, but not for corporate protectionism. I know that your talking points memo says they are the same, but really they aren't. Many regulations actually protect corporations. Hard to believe, but true.
Again and again with the lies from you.
1) I never said that FOX criticized Hilary for being for a war...ever!
2) Obama promised to end the war in Iraq...which he did...and turn the attention to getting the people responsible for 911....which he did!
3) Really? Attila the Hun a peace candidate by comparison? That is just stupid!
4) Again with the "you're the only one in the world" bullshit. I derive the motivations and intentions of libertarians by the results of their actions. They vote lockstep inline with the republicans. All they want is a free for all unregulated unsafe irresponsible business environment so giant corrupt corporate monopolies can exploit everyone and everything else. That is childish, unrealistic, and irresponsible.
5) I know full well FDR's history. I don't need a revisionist history lesson from you. You have no idea what Liberal is or progression is, so quit trying to redefine it to me to fit your screwed up political agenda.
mykocb, instead of me relying on being a libertarian to know what libertarians believe, I suppose I really should rely on you to tell me instead. After all, over and over, time and again, every time you told me what libertarians believe you came up with something completely surprising that bears no relation to what I, a libertarian, mistakenly think libertarians believe.
By the way, if libertarians don't believe what I believe, I suppose it is time to find a new word for the set of beliefs I hold. I suppose "classical liberal" works well.
So yes, us classical liberals aren't modern liberals. That much we can agree on.
Elitist warmonger Hillary Clinton, do you think she is a progressive? That's a very interesting question. I've met plenty of progressives who like to say of Obama that he's far too conservative to be progressive, but he's team blue so you root for him. I have justification to believe that Hillary thinks she knows what is best for all of us unenlightened rubes in flyover country. She also was a full supporter of Bush's invasion of Iraq when she was in the Senate, and a full supporter of intervention in Libya while Secretary of State. Do you think there aren't any hawks on team blue? Team blue is just the other half of the war party. Obama also wanted to intervene militarily in Syria, but he failed to get either the UN or the Congress to approve it. The people are sick of the bipartisan wars.
By the way, if you actually do know FDR's history, describe the platform of the 1932 Democrat Party when he ran for President. Us Classical Liberals find his 1932 platform to be far superior to his 1933 performance.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"mykocb, instead of me relying on being a libertarian to know what libertarians believe, I suppose I really should rely on you to tell me instead. After all, over and over, time and again, every time you told me what libertarians believe you came up with something completely surprising that bears no relation to what I, a libertarian, mistakenly think libertarians believe.
By the way, if libertarians don't believe what I believe, I suppose it is time to find a new word for the set of beliefs I hold. I suppose "classical liberal" works well.
So yes, us classical liberals aren't modern liberals. That much we can agree on.
Elitist warmonger Hillary Clinton, do you think she is a progressive? That's a very interesting question. I've met plenty of progressives who like to say of Obama that he's far too conservative to be progressive, but he's team blue so you root for him. I have justification to believe that Hillary thinks she knows what is best for all of us unenlightened rubes in flyover country. She also was a full supporter of Bush's invasion of Iraq when she was in the Senate, and a full supporter of intervention in Libya while Secretary of State. Do you think there aren't any hawks on team blue? Team blue is just the other half of the war party. Obama also wanted to intervene militarily in Syria, but he failed to get either the UN or the Congress to approve it. The people are sick of the bipartisan wars.
By the way, if you actually do know FDR's history, describe the platform of the 1932 Democrat Party when he ran for President. Us Classical Liberals find his 1932 platform to be far superior to his 1933 performance.
1) You aren't a liberal not even the made up bullshit you call a "classic liberal." there is no such thing as "classic liberal" liberal is just liberal.
2) I never addressed who was or wasn't a "hawk" that came purely from you.
3) I have heard the rhetoric from libertarians and witnessed how they have acted and what they have voted for and against. I don't care what they say they are.
4) Describing Hilary as an elitist is inaccurate and a flat out lie. It's just more propaganda from the extreme right and FOX.
Saying that the president and Hilary wanted a war in Syria is irresponsible and false. It was on the table for discussion for LIMITED MILITARY INTERVENTION and never formulated as a strategy. So you at least exaggerated there.
I call libertarians for what they are not for what they say they are.
5) As far as FDR's platform and his actions as a first year president it isn't relevant to the issue, even though I could argue successfully the issue. You are just trying to do two things here.
a) Hijack the term liberal and misuse it.
b) confuse the issue by interject irrelevant material.
Old tactics that don't work and show how weak your argument really is.
What do you mean there is no such thing as a Classical Liberal (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal)? Perhaps you need to research the subject. After all, you claim to know how libertarians vote, but I seriously doubt that before me you've ever discussed anything with one. Ever.
And yes, Hillary and Obama wanted troops in Syria. Call it a "limited military intervention", it's still a war.
Nice of you to not discuss anything about FDR's 1932 platform. You claim that you could successfully argue the issue, but I believe that is nothing but bluster.
So this classical liberal is still waiting for you to tell me what libertarians actually believe, because after all what you described bears no relation to what I, who up until now self-described as a libertarian, actually believe.
Since nothing you wrote corresponds to anything people who call themselves libertarians believe, why don't you tell us what libertarians actually believe.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"What do you mean there is no such thing as a Classical Liberal (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal)? Perhaps you need to research the subject. After all, you claim to know how libertarians vote, but I seriously doubt that before me you've ever discussed anything with one. Ever.
And yes, Hillary and Obama wanted troops in Syria. Call it a "limited military intervention", it's still a war.
Nice of you to not discuss anything about FDR's 1932 platform. You claim that you could successfully argue the issue, but I believe that is nothing but bluster.
So this classical liberal is still waiting for you to tell me what libertarians actually believe, because after all what you described bears no relation to what I, who up until now self-described as a libertarian, actually believe.
Since nothing you wrote corresponds to anything people who call themselves libertarians believe, why don't you tell us what libertarians actually believe.
I don't need to research what I already know. Wikipedia? Really? If you search for "classic liberal" on the net all you get is a bunch of conservative political blogs and propaganda! I don't need to read some bullshit that you would over that is nothing but another hijack attempt in order to misuse the term.
I already addressed the issue if the Secretary of State and the possibility of a military intervention. I don't need your fucking spin about it.
I already told you that interjecting lies about FDR isn't relevant.
You aren't a liberal in any sense of the term. You're just a smug smarmy conservative that uses the term "libertarian" to disguise the fact that you are a conservative. I don't care what you or any libertarians SAY they believe. I don't believe them in the slightest! As far as the way libertarians vote, I guess you are too stupid to understand that I was talking how elected so-called libertarians vote on legislation. I have conversed with several self-proclaimed "libertarians." Since the repukes and tea baggers have been going off the deep end the last few years, there a great many of embarrassed repukes claiming that "libertarian" is something different, but it's really not. Same old tired worn out..."government is bad, corporations are good" Blah, blah, blah!
Jason's right about classical liberalism. It really is a thing. You either suck at google or you're being disingenuous cause I typed in "classical liberalism" and got several links in addition to Wikipedia. (https://www.google.com/#q=classical+liberalism&start=20 (https://www.google.com/#q=classical+liberalism&start=20))
Princton
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... alism.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Classical_liberalism.html)
Stanford
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)
WebChron
http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/glos ... alism.html (http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/glossary/ClassicalLiberalism.html)
UNC
http://www.unc.edu/~lpalmer/notes/May26.html (http://www.unc.edu/~lpalmer/notes/May26.html)
Berkeley
http://orias.berkeley.edu/lessonplans/C ... ralism.pdf (http://orias.berkeley.edu/lessonplans/ClassicLiberalism.pdf)
mykocb, there are two problems with the "how they vote" argument. You have a sample size of one, and he didn't vote the way the conservatives vote. The problem is he didn't vote the way the progressives voted either.
As for the rest of your post, I've never seen someone so proud to announce they refuse to think or learn.
I sometimes jokingly refer to myself as a 'liberaltarian' because I'm pragmatic about social programs, and I'm more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, though I'm inclined to vote Libertarian if there is a Libertarian (LP) candidate available, though usually it's mostly a protest vote to send a message that I'm not happy with the selection of candidates available to me. I really favored Gary Johnson, though.
Just weighing in so Mykob's sample size of Classic Liberal Libertarians can exceed one. The LP gets its share of refugees from the GOP so it has to fight a continual pull to the right, if they had nominated another Bob Barr presidential candidate, I was ready to quit.
Quote from: "billhilly"Jason's right about classical liberalism. It really is a thing. You either suck at google or you're being disingenuous cause I typed in "classical liberalism" and got several links in addition to Wikipedia. (https://www.google.com/#q=classical+liberalism&start=20 (https://www.google.com/#q=classical+liberalism&start=20))
Princton
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... alism.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Classical_liberalism.html)
Stanford
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)
WebChron
http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/glos ... alism.html (http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/glossary/ClassicalLiberalism.html)
UNC
http://www.unc.edu/~lpalmer/notes/May26.html (http://www.unc.edu/~lpalmer/notes/May26.html)
Berkeley
http://orias.berkeley.edu/lessonplans/C ... ralism.pdf (http://orias.berkeley.edu/lessonplans/ClassicLiberalism.pdf)
In every link that you posted the term "classic liberal" is at best subjective and doesn't delineate the difference between a "classic liberal" and a liberal of today. Sure Liberals have changed values somewhat, but not to the point that they are completely different than a so-called classic liberal. By no stretch of the imagination can a libertarian (which is simply a conservative embarrassed by the brand, renaming themselves) be referred to a liberal or even a classic liberal. It is an attempt to hijack the term and redefine it to suit their political agenda.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"mykocb, there are two problems with the "how they vote" argument. You have a sample size of one, and he didn't vote the way the conservatives vote. The problem is he didn't vote the way the progressives voted either.
As for the rest of your post, I've never seen someone so proud to announce they refuse to think or learn.
You think that Congress is the only place that libertarians actually are elected, and you think that there has only ever been one? You also have decided that a libertarian is a completely separate party from the republicans which it isn't. It is merely a faction of the republican party, like the reform party, the tea party, etc...! Although the reform party was once a separate party born out of the republicans it was absorbed back into the republicans long ago.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "billhilly"Jason's right about classical liberalism. It really is a thing. You either suck at google or you're being disingenuous cause I typed in "classical liberalism" and got several links in addition to Wikipedia. (https://www.google.com/#q=classical+liberalism&start=20 (https://www.google.com/#q=classical+liberalism&start=20))
Princton
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... alism.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Classical_liberalism.html)
Stanford
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)
WebChron
http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/glos ... alism.html (http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/glossary/ClassicalLiberalism.html)
UNC
http://www.unc.edu/~lpalmer/notes/May26.html (http://www.unc.edu/~lpalmer/notes/May26.html)
Berkeley
http://orias.berkeley.edu/lessonplans/C ... ralism.pdf (http://orias.berkeley.edu/lessonplans/ClassicLiberalism.pdf)
In every link that you posted the term "classic liberal" is at best subjective and doesn't delineate the difference between a "classic liberal" and a liberal of today. Sure Liberals have changed values somewhat, but not to the point that they are completely different than a so-called classic liberal. By no stretch of the imagination can a libertarian (which is simply a conservative embarrassed by the brand, renaming themselves) be referred to a liberal or even a classic liberal. It is an attempt to hijack the term and redefine it to suit their political agenda.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Classical liberalism goes back to Mill, Locke, and Smith. How in the hell could it be an attempt to hijack something that wasn't even around at the time? Classical liberalism was about limiting government; the governments of the day being monarchies. It was conceived in opposition to conservatives of the day. Socialism had yet to arrive on the scene. All this is clearly spelled out in the links I posted for anyone to see.
It has no bearing on the liberal/conservative positions of today. It is just a history of political thought. Modern libertarians claim identity with the principles classical liberalism as do modern liberals. It started in response to the abuses of the industrial revolution and evolved from there. You do grok evolution no? Libertarians and liberals/progs can both trace their roots back to classical liberalism just as humans and chimps can trace their roots back to a common ancestor. Insisting that libertarians and conservatives are the same thing is no more true than insisting communists and progressives are the same. Sure, there will be overlap on both but the schools of thought are distinct and different. Your insistence that conservatives and libertarians are the same regardless of what they profess to believe doesn't make it so.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I don't care what you or any libertarians SAY they believe. I don't believe them in the slightest!
This is
exactly why trying to have a decent discussion with you is a waste of time. Communication is a two-way street; when you start with the premise that your interlocutor is lying, you perforce block off good communication.
Listening well is a valuable skill.
"Those who see only what they wish are doomed to rot in the stink of their own perceptions." -- Frank Herbert.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"mykocb, there are two problems with the "how they vote" argument. You have a sample size of one, and he didn't vote the way the conservatives vote. The problem is he didn't vote the way the progressives voted either.
As for the rest of your post, I've never seen someone so proud to announce they refuse to think or learn.
You think that Congress is the only place that libertarians actually are elected, and you think that there has only ever been one? You also have decided that a libertarian is a completely separate party from the republicans which it isn't. It is merely a faction of the republican party, like the reform party, the tea party, etc...! Although the reform party was once a separate party born out of the republicans it was absorbed back into the republicans long ago.
Republican Party (//http://www.gop.com/)
Libertarian Party (//http://www.lp.org/)
Hm, they look like separate parties to me, but you probably think that having separate platforms, party officers, positions, offices, and budgets is another lie.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "billhilly"Jason's right about classical liberalism. It really is a thing. You either suck at google or you're being disingenuous cause I typed in "classical liberalism" and got several links in addition to Wikipedia. (https://www.google.com/#q=classical+liberalism&start=20 (https://www.google.com/#q=classical+liberalism&start=20))
Princton
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... alism.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Classical_liberalism.html)
Stanford
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)
WebChron
http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/glos ... alism.html (http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/glossary/ClassicalLiberalism.html)
UNC
http://www.unc.edu/~lpalmer/notes/May26.html (http://www.unc.edu/~lpalmer/notes/May26.html)
Berkeley
http://orias.berkeley.edu/lessonplans/C ... ralism.pdf (http://orias.berkeley.edu/lessonplans/ClassicLiberalism.pdf)
In every link that you posted the term "classic liberal" is at best subjective and doesn't delineate the difference between a "classic liberal" and a liberal of today. Sure Liberals have changed values somewhat, but not to the point that they are completely different than a so-called classic liberal. By no stretch of the imagination can a libertarian (which is simply a conservative embarrassed by the brand, renaming themselves) be referred to a liberal or even a classic liberal. It is an attempt to hijack the term and redefine it to suit their political agenda.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Classical liberalism goes back to Mill, Locke, and Smith. How in the hell could it be an attempt to hijack something that wasn't even around at the time? Classical liberalism was about limiting government; the governments of the day being monarchies. It was conceived in opposition to conservatives of the day. Socialism had yet to arrive on the scene. All this is clearly spelled out in the links I posted for anyone to see.
It has no bearing on the liberal/conservative positions of today. It is just a history of political thought. Modern libertarians claim identity with the principles classical liberalism as do modern liberals. It started in response to the abuses of the industrial revolution and evolved from there. You do grok evolution no? Libertarians and liberals/progs can both trace their roots back to classical liberalism just as humans and chimps can trace their roots back to a common ancestor. Insisting that libertarians and conservatives are the same thing is no more true than insisting communists and progressives are the same. Sure, there will be overlap on both but the schools of thought are distinct and different. Your insistence that conservatives and libertarians are the same regardless of what they profess to believe doesn't make it so.
Liberalism and conservatism classic or otherwise is an idealism that reaches far back in history and is a classic battle between the people that want to conserve wealth for the very few in forms and tools as religiosity, bloodlines, inheritance etc. verse the liberal idealism as individual freedom and fair opportunity. Therefore I don't agree with the subjective redefinition of liberalism at all. The basic tenet is the same. I am as John Locke had described the ideal of liberalism. The idea that libertarians are of the same ilk is ridiculous as they don't agree that fair and equal opportunity is a basic tenet of that idealism. Libertarians can trace their roots back to conservatism and the ideal to a completely deregulated government. that isn't in any sense of the term liberal. The way that libertarians attempt to hijack the term liberal is in the fact that they say that THEY are REAL liberals when in fact they only want a completely deregulated government, which as a result would only allow the rich and powerful exploit everyone and everything else. they deny the liberal tenet of fair opportunity and the necessity of the things that government provides.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "mykcob4"I don't care what you or any libertarians SAY they believe. I don't believe them in the slightest!
This is exactly why trying to have a decent discussion with you is a waste of time. Communication is a two-way street; when you start with the premise that your interlocutor is lying, you perforce block off good communication.
Listening well is a valuable skill.
"Those who see only what they wish are doomed to rot in the stink of their own perceptions." -- Frank Herbert.
You think that I am just being stubborn but you'd be wrong. Just because you and I don't see eye to eye doesn't mean that I don't listen. I know what a liberal is. I know the recent attempt to corrupt the meaning of liberal and the spin used to do it. I know the subjective argument and the history of the term. It's the same old thing. Conservatives like to revise history for their own political purpose. they have to redefine terms like liberal to do so. I just object when that occurs and don't let them get away with it.
Oh and by the way you should talk....!
The actual history of liberalism, conservatism, and progressivism goes very far back. Given mykcob4's demonstrated knowledge of history I would not be surprised if he didn't know why I call the most commonly used political spectrum the "French Assembly Spectrum." That is because it is based on the pre-revolution French Assembly. The aristocracy and the church lords would sit one one side of the chamber, while the peasantry and those desiring change would sit on the other. If someone was standing in front of the assembly and speaking to the assembly, the aristocracy would be to the speaker's right and the radicals would be to the speaker's left. That is where we originally get the "right wing" and the "left wing."
Of course that didn't last long, because shortly after those terms were coined there was a revolution.
The conflict between the left and right at the time were the feudalists on the right and the classical liberals on the left. These were classical liberals, not modern liberals. Their ideology was expressed most expertly by John Locke, who I strongly prefer to Hobbes or Rousseau. The first and oldest enemy of the classical liberals were the feudalists.
Classical Liberalism had its strongest expression in the early United States given much expression, albeit imperfectly, by Thomas Jefferson. It is important to remember that classical liberals believe in people and do NOT believe in government, considering it a dangerous tool at best, and a force of pure destruction at worst.
The feudalists, on the other hand, seeing history pass them by with the old aristocracy decaying and seeing feudalism give way to trade and enterprise, reinvented themselves into the early corporatist. Instead of feudal grants from the crown they sought corporate grants from the crown. As always, the classical liberals opposed this, seeing it as interference in free trade. In the early United States this was given expression by Alexander Hamilton and his intellectual heirs.
But at this point, the French Assembly model still stood, with the radical left believing in individual liberty and the conservative right believing in government favors. The feudalists were doomed, history was passing them by, and even reinventing themselves with mercantilism didn't give them much of a life line.
The progressives, much like the conservatives, didn't see government as dangerous. The conservatives saw government as a way to become powerful and to grant them unearned wealth. The progressives saw it as a way to do good, such as it is. The classical liberals still saw government as dangerous.
But Between 1880 and 1930 the progressives coopted the party and the label that used to belong to the classical liberals. Thus progressives started to be called liberals and classical liberals were left homeless until slightly after WWII when the term "libertarian" came into popular usage to describe classical liberalism and then 1971 when the Libertarian Party was founded.
The irony is that the progressives try to say that libertarianism and its first, oldest, and worst enemy - conservatism - are somehow in some undefinable way the same thing.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"The actual history of liberalism, conservatism, and progressivism goes very far back. Given mykcob4's demonstrated knowledge of history I would not be surprised if he didn't know why I call the most commonly used political spectrum the "French Assembly Spectrum." That is because it is based on the pre-revolution French Assembly. The aristocracy and the church lords would sit one one side of the chamber, while the peasantry and those desiring change would sit on the other. If someone was standing in front of the assembly and speaking to the assembly, the aristocracy would be to the speaker's right and the radicals would be to the speaker's left. That is where we originally get the "right wing" and the "left wing."
Of course that didn't last long, because shortly after those terms were coined there was a revolution.
The conflict between the left and right at the time were the feudalists on the right and the classical liberals on the left. These were classical liberals, not modern liberals. Their ideology was expressed most expertly by John Locke, who I strongly prefer to Hobbes or Rousseau. The first and oldest enemy of the classical liberals were the feudalists.
Classical Liberalism had its strongest expression in the early United States given much expression, albeit imperfectly, by Thomas Jefferson. It is important to remember that classical liberals believe in people and do NOT believe in government, considering it a dangerous tool at best, and a force of pure destruction at worst.
The feudalists, on the other hand, seeing history pass them by with the old aristocracy decaying and seeing feudalism give way to trade and enterprise, reinvented themselves into the early corporatist. Instead of feudal grants from the crown they sought corporate grants from the crown. As always, the classical liberals opposed this, seeing it as interference in free trade. In the early United States this was given expression by Alexander Hamilton and his intellectual heirs.
But at this point, the French Assembly model still stood, with the radical left believing in individual liberty and the conservative right believing in government favors. The feudalists were doomed, history was passing them by, and even reinventing themselves with mercantilism didn't give them much of a life line.
The progressives, much like the conservatives, didn't see government as dangerous. The conservatives saw government as a way to become powerful and to grant them unearned wealth. The progressives saw it as a way to do good, such as it is. The classical liberals still saw government as dangerous.
But Between 1880 and 1930 the progressives coopted the party and the label that used to belong to the classical liberals. Thus progressives started to be called liberals and classical liberals were left homeless until slightly after WWII when the term "libertarian" came into popular usage to describe classical liberalism and then 1971 when the Libertarian Party was founded.
The irony is that the progressives try to say that libertarianism and its first, oldest, and worst enemy - conservatism - are somehow in some undefinable way the same thing.
Great revisionist history. I don't have time but I will give you the real history lesson. Yes just like the bible you used SOME truths to make your lie plausible but on the whole it is a farce.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Great revisionist history. I don't have time but I will give you the real history lesson. Yes just like the bible you used SOME truths to make your lie plausible but on the whole it is a farce.
Yep, some people confuse between opposition to a particular form of government with opposition to any form of government. The early founding fathers were not in opposition to any form of government but feared that any man could take absolute power, as was the case with the monarchy when the colonies were under British rule. That's why they worked a system of check and balance to prevent that from happening. If they would be alive today, they would be horrified by the present gridlock. That was never their intention. There is meaning behind "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." Unfortunately, for the upper class - call them the elite, the 1% percenter, or the CEOS of multi-nationals - they are not interested in the common folks and their struggles to make a better life for themselves. For the upper class, it's me, myself and my money. And anything they can do to twart the government, even if it means making it weak, inefficient and corrupt as long as that serves their own interests.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"The actual history of liberalism, conservatism, and progressivism goes very far back. Given mykcob4's demonstrated knowledge of history I would not be surprised if he didn't know why I call the most commonly used political spectrum the "French Assembly Spectrum." That is because it is based on the pre-revolution French Assembly. The aristocracy and the church lords would sit one one side of the chamber, while the peasantry and those desiring change would sit on the other. If someone was standing in front of the assembly and speaking to the assembly, the aristocracy would be to the speaker's right and the radicals would be to the speaker's left. That is where we originally get the "right wing" and the "left wing."
Of course that didn't last long, because shortly after those terms were coined there was a revolution.
The conflict between the left and right at the time were the feudalists on the right and the classical liberals on the left. These were classical liberals, not modern liberals. Their ideology was expressed most expertly by John Locke, who I strongly prefer to Hobbes or Rousseau. The first and oldest enemy of the classical liberals were the feudalists.
Classical Liberalism had its strongest expression in the early United States given much expression, albeit imperfectly, by Thomas Jefferson. It is important to remember that classical liberals believe in people and do NOT believe in government, considering it a dangerous tool at best, and a force of pure destruction at worst.
The feudalists, on the other hand, seeing history pass them by with the old aristocracy decaying and seeing feudalism give way to trade and enterprise, reinvented themselves into the early corporatist. Instead of feudal grants from the crown they sought corporate grants from the crown. As always, the classical liberals opposed this, seeing it as interference in free trade. In the early United States this was given expression by Alexander Hamilton and his intellectual heirs.
But at this point, the French Assembly model still stood, with the radical left believing in individual liberty and the conservative right believing in government favors. The feudalists were doomed, history was passing them by, and even reinventing themselves with mercantilism didn't give them much of a life line.
The progressives, much like the conservatives, didn't see government as dangerous. The conservatives saw government as a way to become powerful and to grant them unearned wealth. The progressives saw it as a way to do good, such as it is. The classical liberals still saw government as dangerous.
But Between 1880 and 1930 the progressives coopted the party and the label that used to belong to the classical liberals. Thus progressives started to be called liberals and classical liberals were left homeless until slightly after WWII when the term "libertarian" came into popular usage to describe classical liberalism and then 1971 when the Libertarian Party was founded.
The irony is that the progressives try to say that libertarianism and its first, oldest, and worst enemy - conservatism - are somehow in some undefinable way the same thing.
I said that I would address this and I will. Not all at the same time because time is not on my side at the moment.
1) The first problem is the time line. The French Revolution happens after the American revolution, and even though it is true how lefties and righties were named and distinguished in the French court it happened in 1789 a full 2 years after the American Constitution was signed.
2) Another fallacy by Jason is the idea that the founders didn't believe in government. The fact is that they believed in government by the people. That is a very different thing then what Jason would have you believe. The founders wanted self rule as opposed to rule by rich land owners and aristocrats and divine monarchies. Again much different than what Jason is suggesting.
3) Funny how Jason refers to Hamilton and mixes French feudalism in with American enterprise. They do not mix. Hamilton devised the national bank to lend money to enterprises in the new nation and raise money for the GOVERNMENT with the % from those loans. Libertarians are against the Fed and want to abolish it. Which is an example of how libertarians are in no way "classic liberals" and very far removed from how the founders thought and acted.
4) The greatest lie by Jason in this little fairytale of his is the notion that Liberals were "homeless" until just after WWII when as he say libertarians came to the rescue. I don't know where he got that idea but it is utter nonsense.
In conclusion Jason wants you to believe things that just aren't true.
a) That classic liberals hate government---not true liberals classic or otherwise don't hate and fear government. They want a fair government that represents the people governed by the people and for the people, not no government at all.
b) That progressives and conservatives are the same thing--not true progressives want change for the better, conservatives don't want change at all.
c) That liberals and so-called classic liberals are different, that liberals are actually conservatives---profoundly untrue! Liberals and classic liberals are very much the same wanting free and fair government that provides opportunity for all.
There is much more but I haven't the time right now. It's safe to say that Jason is spinning the narrative to fit his conservative agenda and is trying through revisionist history to hijack the term liberal so he may misuse the term for his conservative agenda.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Oh and by the way you should talk....!
I've been reading without commenting throughout this thread, because until the battle lines were drawn, it was an interesting read and I was learning something; and economics isn't a strong area of my knowledge, so it's best for me to hush and learn under that circumstance.
You'll notice I'm not arguing that you are or aren't what you say you are, based on how I define your political outlook; I'm listening to you, agreeing with some of it, and disagreeing with other parts of it. I'm unsure what your complaint is in accusing me of being hypocritical; I read what you have to say and more importantly, I take you at face value instead of assuming that you're a liar about your views, as our exchange earlier demonstrates.
I stand by my point that your refusal to accept Jason at face value is choking off meaningful communication. He has valid points about the distinction between Republicans and Libertarians, and simply because that undermines your point, you're stuffing your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalalalal". It's no wonder you have hard sledding trying to convince people to agree with you unless they already do so. If you don't listen to others, you have no right to expect them to hear you out.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Conservatives like to revise history for their own political purpose. they have to redefine terms like liberal to do so.
Both American parties do this. Pretending that one side has a monopoly on historical accuracy, honesty, or integrity is not something I will engage in.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "mykcob4"Oh and by the way you should talk....!
I've been reading without commenting throughout this thread, because until the battle lines were drawn, it was an interesting read and I was learning something; and economics isn't a strong area of my knowledge, so it's best for me to hush and learn under that circumstance.
You'll notice I'm not arguing that you are or aren't what you say you are, based on how I define your political outlook; I'm listening to you, agreeing with some of it, and disagreeing with other parts of it. I'm unsure what your complaint is in accusing me of being hypocritical; I read what you have to say and more importantly, I take you at face value instead of assuming that you're a liar about your views, as our exchange earlier demonstrates.
I stand by my point that your refusal to accept Jason at face value is choking off meaningful communication. He has valid points about the distinction between Republicans and Libertarians, and simply because that undermines your point, you're stuffing your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalalalal". It's no wonder you have hard sledding trying to convince people to agree with you unless they already do so. If you don't listen to others, you have no right to expect them to hear you out.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Conservatives like to revise history for their own political purpose. they have to redefine terms like liberal to do so.
Both American parties do this. Pretending that one side has a monopoly on historical accuracy, honesty, or integrity is not something I will engage in.
Okay Thump that is a valid statement and I appreciate the comment sincerely and respectfully. I know what Jason is trying to say. I have heard it a million times if I have heard it once. The fact is that there may be a difference between republicans and libertarians, but what is also true is that libertarians are NOT in any sense of the term Liberals. he just can't hijack "liberal" and redefine it for his own political agenda and I won't allow him using revisionist history to do so either.
This idea that "true liberals" or "classical liberals" hate and fear government is ridiculous, that conservatives and progressives are the same thing is equally wrong. I have read the platforms of the conservatives, various tea parties, and libertarians. It all boils down to one thing: Government bad, corporation good. Any way you slice it it's the same thing over and over again, they are against fair opportunity. They aren't for "free" enterprise. To them free enterprise means no regulation at all, none, nada, zip. That isn't "free enterprise", that's wildwest anarchy where by the already rich and powerful can exploit everyone, and everything else.
Go to the libertarian website and you get the usual fluff and patriotic fluff about how they are for the "freedom" of the individual, then they start their "big government" rant and propaganda.
This rehashing both the civil war, states rights crap, and gold standard guff it nonsense. States don't have rights, individuals do, and corporations are not individuals. The civil war was fought and their side lost. The gold standard isn't realistic because it alienated most of the world due to the fact that they don't have any. If it were implemented today, the USA would be a second rate nation and China would be the sole superpower. The economy is based on speculation and has been since Nixon totally fucked up things with his out of control inflation tactic. Reagan exasperated the problem with his 600 ship initiative. He basically bought 600 ships with no money forcing the rest of the world to go to a speculation base economy. Jason lies when he states that I and liberals are all for that system that we wanted it in the first place. That isn't the case. The fact is that is reality and we have to live with what Nixon and Reagan did. The trick is and the goal for liberals is to regulate this speculation keeping it from getting out of hand, which is exactly what it did under George W. Bush. It is also the goal to bring things inline providing fair opportunity for all individuals and small businesses so they can compete on equal footing. Those goals are a long way from the libertarian ideals and completely opposite of the conservative ideals.
Lets take the libertarians on purely social issues. they say that they are for women and minorities, but if you implement the libertarian economic plans you are waging an economic war against women and minorities...AND the individual American worker. So even though libertarians say that they are for everyone, they really aren't. They are inline with republicans and conservatives.
That's it in a nut shell thump. If you still think that I am just being stubborn, well there is nothing I can say about that. Curious though. If you have been reading the entire thread, you may have read the post by allpurposeatheist who has pointed out the utter nonsense of Jason's post. You see Jason has been ignoring the facts.
Most Libertarians have an innate distrust of corporations, too. They just trust the labor market to punish shitty corporations with higher labor costs in order to compensate for the crap they pull. Also, we (because I'm a so-called "neo-Libertarian", one who doesn't adhere to the party line) don't all agree that no regulation on an industry is the ideal; the dictum in play is more like "the minimal government needed to get the job done is most desirable."
Not sure why you're mentioning the Civil War, as that started 110 years before the Libertarian Party did.
Libertarian ideals aren't economic war against women and minorities; nor do all, or most, or even many libertarians think that women and minorities should be treated as beneath white males, in my experience. Nor do all, most, or even many of us prefer the rollback of equality protections.
I don't think you're being stubborn, so much as I think that refusing to take a man at his word is simply poor form, and guaranteed to poison the conversation. That's all. Thanks for giving my point a fair hearing.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Most Libertarians have an innate distrust of corporations, too. They just trust the labor market to punish shitty corporations with higher labor costs in order to compensate for the crap they pull. Also, we (because I'm a so-called "neo-Libertarian", one who doesn't adhere to the party line) don't all agree that no regulation on an industry is the ideal; the dictum in play is more like "the minimal government needed to get the job done is most desirable."
Not sure why you're mentioning the Civil War, as that started 110 years before the Libertarian Party did.
Libertarian ideals aren't economic war against women and minorities; nor do all, or most, or even many libertarians think that women and minorities should be treated as beneath white males, in my experience. Nor do all, most, or even many of us prefer the rollback of equality protections.
I don't think you're being stubborn, so much as I think that refusing to take a man at his word is simply poor form, and guaranteed to poison the conversation. That's all. Thanks for giving my point a fair hearing.
I mentioned the civil war because "states rights" is exactly the civil war and the right side of the aisle to include the libertarians side for states rights.
I explained how the libertarians are against women and minorities economically. Reread what I wrote and try and understand that. It isn't about rolling back civil right gains, it is about allowing companies to choose without regulation how they treat and who.
As for you and your statement that you are a "neo-libertarian" I have no comment.
Here is a question to ask yourself and one I use to ask myself albeit just a little different when it pertains to me.
How is a libertarian different than a liberal on the issue? You have to ask it about each and every issue.
You also have to be first completely honest and also completely comprehensive.
In every situation I can attest that a libertarian comes out conservative directly or indirectly on each issue.
Women make up about 70% of minimum wage earners. Minorities make up closer to 80%. If libertarians are against raising the minimum wage then by default they are against women and minorities. Statistics have proven that raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs or cause job losses nor does it significantly cause the prices of things to raise.
http://www.businessforafairminimumwage. ... e-job-loss (http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss)
That is just one issue. I can do this over and over again on every issue and it still comes out the same.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Great revisionist history. I don't have time but I will give you the real history lesson. Yes just like the bible you used SOME truths to make your lie plausible but on the whole it is a farce.
Calling that revisionist, just like calling yourself politically informed, doesn't make it so. Even other progressives think you're an uninformed twit. (//http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=7630153&postcount=36)
Quote from: "mykcob4"1) The first problem is the time line. The French Revolution happens after the American revolution, and even though it is true how lefties and righties were named and distinguished in the French court it happened in 1789 a full 2 years after the American Constitution was signed.
And the seating of the French Assembly happened before both revolutions.
Quote from: "mykcob4"2) Another fallacy by Jason is the idea that the founders didn't believe in government. The fact is that they believed in government by the people. That is a very different thing then what Jason would have you believe. The founders wanted self rule as opposed to rule by rich land owners and aristocrats and divine monarchies. Again much different than what Jason is suggesting.
Even believing in government by the people doesn't mean that they thought "with the right people in charge there's no need to be afraid of a powerful government" the way you do. Check out this quote by George Washington. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Yep, that's certainly the words of someone who thinks the government can take care of everything.
Quote from: "mykcob4"3) Funny how Jason refers to Hamilton and mixes French feudalism in with American enterprise. They do not mix. Hamilton devised the national bank to lend money to enterprises in the new nation and raise money for the GOVERNMENT with the % from those loans. Libertarians are against the Fed and want to abolish it. Which is an example of how libertarians are in no way "classic liberals" and very far removed from how the founders thought and acted.
Hamilton wasn't the Classic Liberal, his opponent Jefferson was. Good grief, please study some history. I made that point pretty clearly when I called Jefferson the liberal and Hamilton the feudalist.
Quote from: "mykcob4"4) The greatest lie by Jason in this little fairytale of his is the notion that Liberals were "homeless" until just after WWII when as he say libertarians came to the rescue. I don't know where he got that idea but it is utter nonsense.
CLASSIC liberals were, because MODERN liberals had taken over their party. I made that distinction clear in what I wrote. Just because you don't like the distinction doesn't make it go away.
Quote from: "mykcob4"In conclusion Jason wants you to believe things that just aren't true.
I've never made the claim that you know what you're talking about.
Quote from: "mykcob4"a) That classic liberals hate government---not true liberals classic or otherwise don't hate and fear government. They want a fair government that represents the people governed by the people and for the people, not no government at all.
And according to Jefferson and Locke, as little of it as possible.
Quote from: "mykcob4"b) That progressives and conservatives are the same thing--not true progressives want change for the better, conservatives don't want change at all.
Change? Now you're confusing political science definitions with dictionary definitions. How tiresome. Seriously. Progressives want to change the law to conform to their ideas and conservatives want to change the law to conform to their ideas. Conflating dictionary definitions with political science definitions, that's really amateur.
Quote from: "mykcob4"c) That liberals and so-called classic liberals are different, that liberals are actually conservatives---profoundly untrue! Liberals and classic liberals are very much the same wanting free and fair government that provides opportunity for all.
There is much more but I haven't the time right now. It's safe to say that Jason is spinning the narrative to fit his conservative agenda and is trying through revisionist history to hijack the term liberal so he may misuse the term for his conservative agenda.
I did say that classic liberals are different from modern liberals. I didn't say that either of them are conservatives, although I did show you have sympathy for conservatives when I brought up the gold standard.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Calling that revisionist, just like calling yourself politically informed, doesn't make it so. Even other progressives think you're an uninformed twit. (//http)
And the seating of the French Assembly happened before both revolutions.
Even believing in government by the people doesn't mean that they thought "with the right people in charge there's no need to be afraid of a powerful government" the way you do. Check out this quote by George Washington. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Yep, that's certainly the words of someone who thinks the government can take care of everything.
Hamilton wasn't the Classic Liberal, his opponent Jefferson was. Good grief, please study some history. I made that point pretty clearly when I called Jefferson the liberal and Hamilton the feudalist.
CLASSIC liberals were, because MODERN liberals had taken over their party. I made that distinction clear in what I wrote. Just because you don't like the distinction doesn't make it go away.
I've never made the claim that you know what you're talking about.
And according to Jefferson and Locke, as little of it as possible.
Change? Now you're confusing political science definitions with dictionary definitions. How tiresome. Seriously. Progressives want to change the law to conform to their ideas and conservatives want to change the law to conform to their ideas. Conflating dictionary definitions with political science definitions, that's really amateur.
I did say that classic liberals are different from modern liberals. I didn't say that either of them are conservatives, although I did show you have sympathy for conservatives when I brought up the gold standard.[/quote]
Blah, blah, blah, just another attempt to salvage a weak and misinformed political agenda by you. Sobeit!
Quote from: "mykcob4"I mentioned the civil war because "states rights" is exactly the civil war and the right side of the aisle to include the libertarians side for states rights.
Not so. Libertarians are for individual rights, in glaring contrast to both major parties, which have cooperated in eroding the Bill of Rights.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I explained how the libertarians are against women and minorities economically. Reread what I wrote and try and understand that. It isn't about rolling back civil right gains, it is about allowing companies to choose without regulation how they treat and who.
In other words, it's the companies doing the discriminating. And again, most libertarians don't have a problem with equal-rights legislation, in my experience.
Quote from: "mykcob4"How is a libertarian different than a liberal on the issue? You have to ask it about each and every issue.
You also have to be first completely honest and also completely comprehensive.
In every situation I can attest that a libertarian comes out conservative directly or indirectly on each issue.
Of course. No one here is arguing that libertarians are like modern-day liberals. What has been pointed out to you is that in the past, classical liberalism gave rise to the libertarian movement in America.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Women make up about 70% of minimum wage earners. Minorities make up closer to 80%. If libertarians are against raising the minimum wage then by default they are against women and minorities.
Not so, for the same reason that liberals against raising the defense budget aren't "weak on defense".
Quote from: "mykcob4"Statistics have proven that raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs or cause job losses nor does it significantly cause the prices of things to raise.
http://www.businessforafairminimumwage. ... e-job-loss (http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss)
That is just one issue. I can do this over and over again on every issue and it still comes out the same.
Statistics can "prove" anything. In most cases, raises in the minimum wage see a fall in employment numbers, although there are occasionally simple plateaus and in one case (1997) a small bit of growth in jobs rate. Even economists disagree on the effects of a rise in the minimum wage, so your assertion that statistics have proven that mw rises don't kill jobs seems like overstepping your evidence.
On the larger point, of course Libertarians and modern liberals hold different views. No one is arguing otherwise. Ascribing those differences to racism or sexism doesn't seem borne out to me; those differences are much more likely to be a result of the Libertarians' taste for minimal governmental intervention.
I get it, you think that government can solve these sorts of problems. I don't share your confidence, and I do distrust the government; as the last twenty years in particular have shown, they have no interest in our welfare as citizens except insofar as the wider citizenship is kept quiet and mollified so that they do not turn out the incumbents. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'd much rather do so agreeably, and that means that even when we disagree I will listen to you and give you the benefit of the doubt, so long as I receive the same courtesy in return.
<double post deleted>
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "mykcob4"I mentioned the civil war because "states rights" is exactly the civil war and the right side of the aisle to include the libertarians side for states rights.
Not so. Libertarians are for individual rights, in glaring contrast to both major parties, which have cooperated in eroding the Bill of Rights.
Quote from: "mykcob4"I explained how the libertarians are against women and minorities economically. Reread what I wrote and try and understand that. It isn't about rolling back civil right gains, it is about allowing companies to choose without regulation how they treat and who.
In other words, it's the companies doing the discriminating. And again, most libertarians don't have a problem with equal-rights legislation, in my experience.
Quote from: "mykcob4"How is a libertarian different than a liberal on the issue? You have to ask it about each and every issue.
You also have to be first completely honest and also completely comprehensive.
In every situation I can attest that a libertarian comes out conservative directly or indirectly on each issue.
Of course. No one here is arguing that libertarians are like modern-day liberals. What has been pointed out to you is that in the past, classical liberalism gave rise to the libertarian movement in America.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Women make up about 70% of minimum wage earners. Minorities make up closer to 80%. If libertarians are against raising the minimum wage then by default they are against women and minorities.
Not so, for the same reason that liberals against raising the defense budget aren't "weak on defense".
Quote from: "mykcob4"Statistics have proven that raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs or cause job losses nor does it significantly cause the prices of things to raise.
http://www.businessforafairminimumwage. ... e-job-loss (http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss)
That is just one issue. I can do this over and over again on every issue and it still comes out the same.
Statistics can "prove" anything. In most cases, raises in the minimum wage see a fall in employment numbers, although there are occasionally simple plateaus and in one case (1997) a small bit of growth in jobs rate. Even economists disagree on the effects of a rise in the minimum wage, so your assertion that statistics have proven that mw rises don't kill jobs seems like overstepping your evidence.
On the larger point, of course Libertarians and modern liberals hold different views. No one is arguing otherwise. Ascribing those differences to racism or sexism doesn't seem borne out to me; those differences are much more likely to be a result of the Libertarians' taste for minimal governmental intervention.
I get it, you think that government can solve these sorts of problems. I don't share your confidence, and I do distrust the government; as the last twenty years in particular have shown, they have no interest in our welfare as citizens except insofar as the wider citizenship is kept quiet and mollified so that they do not turn out the incumbents. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'd mush rather do so agreeably, and that means that even when we disagree I will listen to you and give you the benefit of the doubt, so long as I receive the same courtesy in return.
I applaud that post, and agreeing to disagree is fine with me. There is no need for harshness and I am glad that you and I CAN find that common ground. I disagree with a couple of things. I don't think that government can solve everything. I actually believe a well regulated private sector can and will solve most things. I also disagree that libertarians came out of liberalism but it really doesn't matter in the long run because the libertarian ideal is in my opinion not a solution at all. It's inherent cynicism of government makes no sense. There will always be a government. The best thing to do is make government work for we people. Capitalism has a glaring flaw that can only be solved by regulation and oversight. That flaw being corruption and greed. I don't see government exploiting people, but I do see many multinationals doing so.
Also it only humane to have a safety net. It isn't a "nanny state" to provide a safety net for people. It is actually cheaper in the long run.
"On the larger point, of course Libertarians and modern liberals hold different views. No one is arguing otherwise. Ascribing those differences to racism or sexism doesn't seem borne out to me; those differences are much more likely to be a result of the Libertarians' taste for minimal governmental intervention." This is exactly correct and what I actually said. I don't believe that libertarians hold any prejudices against any social dichotomy but as a result of wanting government to keep out of all business, discrimination occurs in the form of wages and opportunity for sectors of the population. as for your example about Liberals and the defense budget, there is an explanation. Liberals want to reduce the defense budget for two reasons.
1) So it is more proportional to the whole budget and less about being the world police (multinational asset attack and protection corps) and more about being a defense budget.
2) To quit over funding defense contractors (like Haliburton) for actually nothing in return.
I just can't grasp what drives people into multi-page pissing matches like this.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"I just can't grasp what drives people into multi-page pissing matches like this.
E-peeny comparison.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "_Xenu_"I just can't grasp what drives people into multi-page pissing matches like this.
E-peeny comparison.
Hey man, my e-peen is much bigger than yours!
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "_Xenu_"I just can't grasp what drives people into multi-page pissing matches like this.
E-peeny comparison.
Hey man, my e-peen is much bigger than yours!
Pix, or it isn't true.
(//http://www.troll.me/images/geoffrey/my-epeen-is-this-big-thumb.jpg)
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin:
I'm all for sensible government, and I agree that untrammeled capitalism has problems that will not solve themselves -- monopolies being the primary example, but there are others, too.
Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I think you're confusing Libertarinism with anarchism, when such should not be done. Libertarians understand the need for a government, however, they -- we -- understand that even the government, as a tool, is limited in its scope; and we don't wish to drown the baby in the bathwater -- as opposed to throwing him out.
As for discrimination, I do believe that mustering public opinion against offenders is very valid. No corporation wants to be known as racist. When laws are needed to fix situations, I have no problem with them. But I don't want unnecessary laws.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"I just can't grasp what drives people into multi-page pissing matches like this.
I'm sure you feel better about yourself for having posted that -- in a thread you claim to not care about, no less!
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm all for sensible government, and I agree that untrammeled capitalism has problems that will not solve themselves -- monopolies being the primary example, but there are others, too.
Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I think you're confusing Libertarinism with anarchism, when such should not be done. Libertarians understand the need for a government, however, they -- we -- understand that even the government, as a tool, is limited in its scope; and we don't wish to drown the baby in the bathwater -- as opposed to throwing him out.
As for discrimination, I do believe that mustering public opinion against offenders is very valid. No corporation wants to be known as racist. When laws are needed to fix situations, I have no problem with them. But I don't want unnecessary laws.
Exactly! The Constitution is a prime example. the purpose and mission of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the individual. The Constitution doesn't specifically state it but it infers and functions to access that an individual enjoys all rights unless a specific law prohibits the action.
Back to the Constitution. The JFK Law College use to have a sample question for entrance exams. It asked: Whom does the Constitution protect?
The options were:
a) The nation
b) The law
c) The people
d) The individual
e) The majority
Most people fail this little test as they usually answer "c" 80% to 90% of the time. The answer is "d" which for some reason has eluded the majority of people in the US.
People don't understand that the states don't have rights, never did, and that corporations don't have rights, never did. There are even justices on the Supreme Court that don't understand this fundamental tenet of the Constitution or they just ignore it. Scalia for one.
I as a liberal am of a mind inline with the basic tenet of the Constitution. that is my guideline.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm all for sensible government, and I agree that untrammeled capitalism has problems that will not solve themselves -- monopolies being the primary example, but there are others, too.
Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I think you're confusing Libertarinism with anarchism, when such should not be done. Libertarians understand the need for a government, however, they -- we -- understand that even the government, as a tool, is limited in its scope; and we don't wish to drown the baby in the bathwater -- as opposed to throwing him out.
As for discrimination, I do believe that mustering public opinion against offenders is very valid. No corporation wants to be known as racist. When laws are needed to fix situations, I have no problem with them. But I don't want unnecessary laws.
Anarchists cause problems for libertarians, as they often represent themselves as speaking for libertarians and libertarianism. It's like if communists pretended to speak for Democrats on the interwebz; or Birchers for the GOP. Because the LP is small, it's vulnerable to fringe elements having too much of a voice. It's not so much that there are so many anarchists, as that there are so few libertarians to counter them. The LP is also guilty of marginalizing Classic Liberals with too much ideological purity concerns, something that really hampers its growth considering the CLs are probably the majority of libertarian-leaning Independents. Johnson was the first CL candidate for president the LP has fronted since the eighties...which not coincidentally, was the last time they got that big a percentage of the vote.
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"Anarchists cause problems for libertarians, as they often represent themselves as speaking for libertarians and libertarianism. It's like if communists pretended to speak for Democrats on the interwebz; or Birchers for the GOP. Because the LP is small, it's vulnerable to fringe elements having too much of a voice. It's not so much that there are so many anarchists, as that there are so few libertarians to counter them. The LP is also guilty of marginalizing Classic Liberals with too much ideological purity concerns, something that really hampers its growth considering the CLs are probably the majority of libertarian-leaning Independents. Johnson was the first CL candidate for president the LP has fronted since the eighties...which not coincidentally, was the last time they got that big a percentage of the vote.
An accurate critique, certainly.
There are enough Libertarian candidates tempted to entice Republicans that those not knowledegable about the party can certainly get the idea that the LP and the GOP are interchangeable, which is a shame.
Quote from: "mykcob4"People don't understand that the states don't have rights, never did, and that corporations don't have rights, never did.
Sad to say, you are incorrect here;
Citizens United changed much, and for the worse, too, as it has allowed corporate money another route into the political process.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Mister Agenda"Anarchists cause problems for libertarians, as they often represent themselves as speaking for libertarians and libertarianism. It's like if communists pretended to speak for Democrats on the interwebz; or Birchers for the GOP. Because the LP is small, it's vulnerable to fringe elements having too much of a voice. It's not so much that there are so many anarchists, as that there are so few libertarians to counter them. The LP is also guilty of marginalizing Classic Liberals with too much ideological purity concerns, something that really hampers its growth considering the CLs are probably the majority of libertarian-leaning Independents. Johnson was the first CL candidate for president the LP has fronted since the eighties...which not coincidentally, was the last time they got that big a percentage of the vote.
An accurate critique, certainly.
There are enough Libertarian candidates tempted to entice Republicans that those not knowledegable about the party can certainly get the idea that the LP and the GOP are interchangeable, which is a shame.
Quote from: "mykcob4"People don't understand that the states don't have rights, never did, and that corporations don't have rights, never did.
Sad to say, you are incorrect here; Citizens United changed much, and for the worse, too, as it has allowed corporate money another route into the political process.
As I said there are those o the Supreme Court that don't know or just ignore the Constitution.
mykcob, you bore me now.
At first it was fun, showing not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you actually don't want to know what you are talking about.
But showing that for several rounds, it gets less fun each time. You really honestly don't know what you are blathering on about. Not only that, you do my work for me each time you show that you are proud you don't know what you are talking about.
You should be sent to that reservation you jested about in another thread. Sure your beliefs differ, but your proud ignorance puts you among those of like intellect.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"You really honestly don't know what you are blathering on about.
I think you've both conducted this argument quite stupidly, but don't mind me.
(//http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/926495/eating-popcorn-o.gif)
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"mykcob, you bore me now.
At first it was fun, showing not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you actually don't want to know what you are talking about.
But showing that for several rounds, it gets less fun each time. You really honestly don't know what you are blathering on about. Not only that, you do my work for me each time you show that you are proud you don't know what you are talking about.
You should be sent to that reservation you jested about in another thread. Sure your beliefs differ, but your proud ignorance puts you among those of like intellect.
Ah the old personal insult rant because you can't win your argument. Well I'll accept that as ceding defeat. Too bad that you can't conduct yourself with maturity and intelligence.
Sure, call it that if it makes you feel better. Encyclopedia articles to support my point were met with you insisting the article itself is wrong. That means when I point out that only a colossal idiot would make that argument, I'm conceding defeat.
If it makes you feel better.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"You really honestly don't know what you are blathering on about.
I think you've both conducted this argument quite stupidly, but don't mind me.
[ Image (//http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/926495/eating-popcorn-o.gif) ]
This. Just knock it off, both of you.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"This^ is really interesting for me.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties ... page=0%2C0 (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians?page=0%2C0)
Noam Chomsky: The Kind of Anarchism I Believe in, and What's Wrong with Libertarians
Anarchism "assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them," explains Chomsky.
The fact that Chomsky says 'libertarian' and then describes 'anarcho-capitalism' kind of illustrates what I'm complaining about: the anarcho-capitalists being mistaken for libertarians.