• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Burr gives intelligent well thought out response to right wing Jethro.

Crakhobarbie

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2020
Messages
10,969
Reaction score
9,168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I've always loved Bill Burr. And this clip confirms that my thoughts about him are justified.

 
Yes, I would say capitalism is working. In fact, I would say the combination of free markets and democracy has done more to raise the quality of life for more people the world over the past 200 years than any other institutions in human history.

In fact, here's some data that absolutely shreds the income distribution argument. By the left's standards, the world economy was in better shape 200+ years ago when we had a far more compressed income distribution.

1665096511119.png

I love Bill Burr, but he's out to lunch on this issue. He should stick to rage comedy.
 
Yes, I would say capitalism is working. In fact, I would say the combination of free markets and democracy has done more to raise the quality of life for more people the world over the past 200 years than any other institutions in human history.

In fact, here's some data that absolutely shreds the income distribution argument. By the left's standards, the world economy was in better shape 200+ years ago when we had a far more compressed income distribution.

View attachment 67416741

I love Bill Burr, but he's out to lunch on this issue. He should stick to rage comedy.

Those numbers would be far more meaningful if they showed a median GDP per capita, the huge gains of the relatively few very wealthy could be greatly skewing those numbers.
 
Those numbers would be far more meaningful if they showed a mean GDP per capita, the huge gains of the relatively few very wealthy could be greatly skewing those numbers.
You mean "median."
 
Those numbers would be far more meaningful if they showed a median GDP per capita, the huge gains of the relatively few very wealthy could be greatly skewing those numbers.
Not sure about that, and that graph could be showing the median. The Y-axis isn't labeled, but it could number of people at that income level. If so, I don't see how one person make $1T would drag the peak to the right. That peak is measured from an assessed poverty line, and I don't think the extremes influence it.
 
here's some data that absolutely shreds the income distribution argument.
While i agree capitalism can work, I also believe income distribution is only one of many issues that could eventually lead to the failure of our beloved system....The system that you, apperantly, believes is working so smoothly. Here's an article that goes over my concerns.
 
Right-wing ignorance includes their conflating policies that benefit citizens with Mao and Stalin. 'You can't restrict pollution or raise the minimum wage, because that's communism and that killed millions under Mao and Stalin!'

It's idiotic and it works to get millions to agree with the idiocy.
 
I've always loved Bill Burr. And this clip confirms that my thoughts about him are justified.


Yes...capitalism has worked amazingly. It's brought more freedom and prosperity to the largest number of people than anything that has ever existed in human history.
 
Yes...capitalism has worked amazingly. It's brought more freedom and prosperity to the largest number of people than anything that has ever existed in human history.
See post #7
 
I've always loved Bill Burr. And this clip confirms that my thoughts about him are justified.


He brings up things that have nothing to do with capitalism.

Our interference in other countries isn't capitalism.

Tents cities happen in liberal socialist areas more.

Concentration of wealth is no biggie when everyone is much wealthier as a result.
 
I have deliberately skipped over all the responses to this thread, because I am The Amazing Hamish and I can tell you without looking what those responses were.

Basically, the same stupid shit the person who wrote to Burr said.
 
While i agree capitalism can work, I also believe income distribution is only one of many issues that could eventually lead to the failure of our beloved system....The system that you, apperantly, believes is working so smoothly. Here's an article that goes over my concerns.
I believe it is working better than any other economic system devised by man.
 
Right-wing ignorance includes their conflating policies that benefit citizens with Mao and Stalin. 'You can't restrict pollution or raise the minimum wage, because that's communism and that killed millions under Mao and Stalin!'

It's idiotic and it works to get millions to agree with the idiocy.
Ironically, you may not find a more idiotic straw-man argument on DP over the past month.
 
I'm a big capitalist....like sweden
 
See post #7
Now list the problems of all the other options. That's the thing. Capitalism is merely the least bad solution, but one of it's benefits is that, at it's core, it's freedom. However, this is not to be taken to mean that I support laissez faire capitalism. We can take bits and pieces of other economic models and glue them into a capitalist system to provide certain restraints or fill certain gaps. The question that comes to play is how much of other things do we add that capitalist system, but the engine has to be capitalism.

Humans have the ego and hubris to think they can control vast complicated systems and tinker with it to solve all the problems. That road ends in tyranny as you will always tinker. There is no Utopia.
 
I'm all for improvement, but rants in favor of socialism aren't calls for improvement of capitalism; they're calls for replacement. Big difference.
Who ranted in favor of socialism? I agreed will Burr. There are a lot of issues with capitalism. Issues that, once worked out, could make our country better.
 
Now list the problems of all the other options. That's the thing. Capitalism is merely the least bad solution, but one of it's benefits is that, at it's core, it's freedom. However, this is not to be taken to mean that I support laissez faire capitalism. We can take bits and pieces of other economic models and glue them into a capitalist system to provide certain restraints or fill certain gaps. The question that comes to play is how much of other things do we add that capitalist system, but the engine has to be capitalism.

Humans have the ego and hubris to think they can control vast complicated systems and tinker with it to solve all the problems. That road ends in tyranny as you will always tinker. There is no Utopia.
If you honestly believe that we don't have some horrendous issues ( as shown in post 7) then we're just gunna have to disagree.
 
First you have to find a purely Capitalistic system left in this world in order to make the argument one way or the other.

Go ahead....I will wait.......and wait and wait.
 
If you honestly believe that we don't have some horrendous issues ( as shown in post 7) then we're just gunna have to disagree.
I'll address each of those "problems:"
  • Inequality: not a problem. See post 2.
  • Economic instability: Capitalism, well run, is by far the most stable economic model the world has ever seen.
  • Monopoly power: Not a feature of well run capitalism. If you want monopoly, go for the central ownership model. In that system there is no choice.
  • Short-termism: Gibberish. Market participants balance long and short term risk decisions and do so in their best interests, not yours.
  • Environmental costs: by no means unique to capitalism. China, for example, is an environmental mess.
  • Immobilities: utterly ridiculous. There is more mobility in a well run capitalist system than in any other.
  • Monopsony: Again, that is not capitalism. It is, however, a feature socialism.

So I think we can write off the cite in post 7 as little more than ill informed hysteria.
 
I'll address each of those "problems:"
  • Inequality: not a problem. See post 2.
It's a big problem. A study of 300 top US companies released by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) found the average gap between CEO and median worker pay jumped to 670-to-1 (meaning the average CEO received $670 in compensation for every $1 the worker received). That's outrageous. The results of this greed are laid out for all to see. Just drive through any city.

  • Economic instability: Capitalism, well run, is by far the most stable economic model the world has ever seen.
And has ours been "well run"? If we left it to the captains of industry people would still be working 15 hour days 7 days a week. Unbridled capitalism is simply unsustainable..
  • Monopoly power: Not a feature of well run capitalism. If you want monopoly, go for the central ownership model. In that system there is no choice.
Again, without government intervention, industry takes advantage of the worker. That's another big problem with capitalism that has never been resolved.
  • Short-termism: Gibberish. Market participants balance long and short term risk decisions and do so in their best interests, not yours.
The key words here " in their best interest"... Not what's best for the economy, the environment, nor what's ethically nor morally correct. Scumbags (which many captains of industry are) do f**ked up shite. Constant oversight is imperative.

  • Environmental costs: by no means unique to capitalism. China, for example, is an environmental mess.
Not unique to capitalism. But again, without constant oversight, greed Trump's the environment and workers pay and safety every time.
  • Immobilities: utterly ridiculous. There is more mobility in a well run capitalist system than in any other.
From the article: "In a free market, factors of production are supposed to be able to easily move from an unprofitable sector to a new profitable industry. However, in practice, this is much more difficult. E.g. a farmworker who is made unemployed cannot just fly off to a big city and find a new job. He has geographical ties to his birthplace; he may not have the right skills for the job. Therefore, in capitalist societies, we often see long periods of structural unemployment." Which part don't you understand?

  • Monopsony: Again, that is not capitalism. It is, however, a feature socialism.
What? Absolute nonsense. Monopsony is market power in employing factors of production. firms can definitely have monopsony power in employing workers and paying lower wages. We've seen this problem grow here since the 1950's. Firms collect more and more whilst leaving the workers less and less. I get that you choose to ignore all these issues, but all the people living in the streets because of low wages are painfully aware.
So I think we can write off the cite in post 7 as little more than ill informed hysteria.
IMHO, we can write off your opinion as parroted right wing garbage.
 
Back
Top Bottom