Two vastly different views of an expensive home

[NotreDame]

...and you continue to ignore the part about profits in your definition.

And you continue with the false equivocation of “profits” with “lowest possible wage.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

Life must be easy with no historical perspective. Black families are less well off because their work generated wealth for white people and not themselves. Because they have been redlined into segregated neighborhoods where schools were crappy and opportunities limited. You act like starting a small business makes people special, it doesn't. If you can't afford to pay employees, shut your doors or give them equity. Underpaying employees to keep doors open is one thing, doing it to maintain profit margins is something else all together.

Tell me more about “underpaying”? What would that look like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Craig234]

Says nothing about taxation. It is about distribution of wealth (which seems to be treated within the question as fixed) which implies a distributor.

It was exactly about taxation. It's one thing for you not to understand that and need to be told, and another for you to refuse to listen and keep defending your error.

You really need information this basic explained? Distribution of wealth is affected by taxation, probably more than by anything else. It does not imply "a distributor".

Not at all. Taxes in one form or another are a baseline requirement for any wise civilization, which must provide a governing function capable of a (defined) list of activities. If Taxation is Theft, it's a necessary one, and a fine one. The question isn't "Should we have taxes", it is "What level of income should we generate in order to fund the government's actual required functions, and what is the least destructive means of raising those funds?".

Good to see you aren't in the crazier camp, at least entirely.

I accept that you are unable to respond to

If that had said 'unwilling to read the rest of the sentence', you'd not be as wrong as you are.

I really need a good meme response for when the left accuses me of being a right-wing-extremist-trumpster that also works when the right accuses me of being a trump-hating-libtard.

You need other things than a meme, but "extremist ideological garbage" does not say "right-wing-extremist-trumpster".

And? Why should we care if some people have done very well for themselves and others?

Sorry you don't understand why plutocracy is bad and harmful, the greatest threat to the US, and why democracy is a good thing and needed.

…no. Merely increasing taxes to make richer people poorer, in an attempt to “reduce inequality” would only fall under the “punitive tax rates” portion of that formulation.

Nope. No more than, say, protecting National Parks from rich people owning them and shutting out the public is "punitive". It's protecting the public and democracy from plutocratic tyranny.

“Politically Preferred” =/= “Public Good”, especially once we consider long term public good.

"Politically preferred" can be good or bad. But the public good needs to be politically preferred, for government to give the people power, to defeat those against the public good.

Sadly, this is incorrect

Nope.

The more we regulate a portion of the economy, for example, the more the regulatory agency becomes controlled by wealthy interests within that sector of the economy. The more economic decisions are made by politicians, the more economic decisions are made by the people who influence politicians with timely donations (as the wag once put it, when you legislate buying and selling, the first things bought and sold are legislators).

Typical Libertarian gibberish and lies. "The more we have police, the more they protect the criminals and criminals do harm! The only solution to crime is no police!" If you talk about a corrupt cop, you have a point, but equating 'police' and 'corrupt police' is a lie, just as equating 'government' and 'corrupt government' is.

But, you don’t have to take that from me. Take it from that famous right wing extremist zealot…. Er…. Nate Silver:

Misleading. When the corrupt military budget is extracting massive amounts from the budget, showing it extracted 1.8% less than the year before doesn't address the issue, it hides it.

 

[RetiredUSN]

You actually believe that garbage? explains much, pathetic sociopathic bull****. Spend some time volunteering at a homeless or battered women shelter speaking to people, just maybe you'll acquire something called "empathy" and won't be such a callous human being.

You were not talking about homeless and battered. Most poor people are not battered or homeless.

Why are you deflecting?

If you continue to make poor choices, then your life is probably going to suck.

 

[Drawdown]

You actually believe that garbage? explains much, pathetic sociopathic bull****. Spend some time volunteering at a homeless or battered women shelter speaking to people, just maybe you'll acquire something called "empathy" and won't be such a callous human being.

Uh most battered women's shelters won't let a man through their front door unless they work there as a matter of policy....

 

[Logical1]

Have you noticed that all the democrats that have been in Congress forever and want socialism own one or more hugely expensive mansions?

 

[NotreDame]

Have you noticed that all the democrats that have been in Congress forever and want socialism own one or more hugely expensive mansions?

Do they want Socialism? Or are they advocates of a greater social welfare/safety net. The two are not synonymous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[southwest88]

When a capitalist and a socialist look at an expensive home, this is what they say. A socialist says no one should live in an expensive home like that. OTOH a capitalist says it would be great if everyone could live in a home like that. And they work toward that happening.

Would there be expensive homes in a socialist state?

What would that phrase mean in a socialist state?

What does expense mean in a socialist state?

 

[southwest88]

...

Poor people in America live fabulous, wealthy lives compared to the poor in communist nations. Starvation? :roll: Let me know when 30 million people die from starvation in the U.S. Our problem isn't that we don't have food - our problem is that we have too much, and we like the less healthy portions of our abundance more.

poor in communist nations

Two things there. 1. There are only five Communist nations left in the World: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam (from Communist Countries, Past and Present.)

So that's not a convincing argument. If you were to compare the poor in the US with the poor in non-Western countries, or some other widespread category, that might offer a more representative comparison.

2. By definition, I don't think there are any poor in Communist nations. That is, I expect that Communist nations would define what we call poor in the West as hooligans, or nonconformists, or some other term. No Communist nation worth its salt is going to admit that there are poor people living there.

 

[mrjurrs]

Ah, but “for profit” doesn’t mean “lowest possible wage.” At best all you’ve managed to do is identify a practice that occurs in capitalist regimes. That doesn’t make them capitalism or to be capitalism that practice must exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

since wages lower profit, lower wages by definition impact profit, I'd be interested in any examples of a capitalist economy paying labor a living wage

 

[mrjurrs]

What you’ve missed is capitalism doesn’t necessitate X amount of profit, or necessitate a specific wage on the broad spectrum of possible wages to be paid. Capitalism has profits as a feature, but not some specific amount.

And your “thumbs down” on the analogy is based on your not understanding the analogy. It doesn’t matter that slavery and democracy aren’t “economic” systems. What matters is how I used them, and they are used in a parallel manner to how you’ve used capitalism and “lowest wage possible.”

You’ve identified a practice that occurs in a capitalist society, that of “lowest wage” as capitalism, and similarly a practice that has has occurred in democracies, slavery, as democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Canada is a democracy w/o slavery. Can you give me a capitalist country (a stretch) that pays their labor a living wage?

 

[mrjurrs]

:lamo

Bulll****. That you swallow that diseased leftist swill is pathetic. 54% of Black Americans are middle to upper income earners. They work their asses off, have high expectations of themselves and their families, and they succeed. Those that dont are stuck in the ****holes leftist have created for them.

Life's easy when you don't do the research...
Demographic trends and economic well-being | Pew Research Center

 

[mrjurrs]

Tell me more about “underpaying”? What would that look like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At one end is the plantation or gulag, at the other end is paying your employees so little that they still qualify for govt provided benefits for low income people.

 

[mrjurrs]

Oh is that why? Who the hell knew? Here I thought capitalism was a economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. Some other features associated with capitalism are capital accumulation, market economy, and competitive markets.

What you reference isn’t inherently capitalism or necessarily capitalism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Profit is a part of the basic definition of capitalism. Period.

 

[VanceMack]

Life's easy when you don't do the research...
Demographic trends and economic well-being | Pew Research Center

"In 2014, about a quarter (26%) of blacks were poor, compared with 10% of whites. The black-white poverty gap has narrowed somewhat since the mid-1970s, when 30% of blacks were living below the poverty line"

Dont you just hate it when your own source kicks you in the balls?

I guess if you werent so eager to make a snarky comment, you wouldnt have made such a stupid snarky comment.

 

[mrjurrs]

"In 2014, about a quarter (26%) of blacks were poor, compared with 10% of whites. The black-white poverty gap has narrowed somewhat since the mid-1970s, when 30% of blacks were living below the poverty line"

Dont you just hate it when your own source kicks you in the balls?

I guess if you werent so eager to make a snarky comment, you wouldnt have made such a stupid snarky comment.

uhhh...you claimed 54% of blacks were middle to upper income and then point out % of poor to refute my comment?. In your attempt to kick me in the balls I say try again Charlie Brown, signed Lucy

 

[VanceMack]

uhhh...you claimed 54% of blacks were middle to upper income and then point out % of poor to refute my comment?. In your attempt to kick me in the balls I say try again Charlie Brown, signed Lucy

You think that the fact that 54% are middle to upper middle income earners and 26% by your stat is in poverty is inconsistent?

Seriously...stop kicking your own ass. Its just....sad.

 

[Nickyjo]

When a capitalist and a socialist look at an expensive home, this is what they say. A socialist says no one should live in an expensive home like that. OTOH a capitalist says it would be great if everyone could live in a home like that. And they work toward that happening.

That must be why so many capitalists support unions, living wages, raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, etc.

 

[weaver2]

When a capitalist and a socialist look at an expensive home, this is what they say. A socialist says no one should live in an expensive home like that. OTOH a capitalist says it would be great if everyone could live in a home like that. And they work toward that happening.

If they are working toward everyone living in a good home, how come 1% of the population own 33% of all the wealth in the US and the bottom 50% can hardly afford rent because they own only 1.9% of the nations wealth. Perhaps it would be a good ideal if the capitalists quit working or the 50% will only own 1%.

 

[weaver2]

When a capitalist and a socialist look at an expensive home, this is what they say. A socialist says no one should live in an expensive home like that. OTOH a capitalist says it would be great if everyone could live in a home like that. And they work toward that happening.

Capitalism unless controlled by the government has the drive, capacity and intent to become a monopoly accumulate all the wealth at the very top and devolve into a Banana Republic. Capitalism does this through corruption of the government and rapacious business practices. Socialism unless controlled by the government has the drive, capacity and intent to become a monopoly accumulate all the wealth at the very top and devolve into a Banana Republic. Socialism does it through corruption of the government and propaganda claiming socialism is working for everyone.

All economic systems have at their heart the accumulation of wealth at the top. That's why people invented representative government. The key to fairness is honest, transparent, intelligent government not any specific economic system.

 

[Logical1]

Simply put, republicans believe ANYONE can have an expensive house if THEY WORK FOR IT.

 

[Aurora]

What do capitalism and communism have in common?
Starving poor people

The communist has little chance at prosperity, a capitalist society allows everyone a shot at it. Even the marxist scum of the Frankfurt School realized communism wouldn't be brought to the west by economic means but rather social means. Hence the current democrat / progressive party.

 

[weaver2]

Simply put, republicans believe ANYONE can have an expensive house if THEY WORK FOR IT.

Simply put, Republican believe anyone can have an expensive house. All they need to do is, in the immortal words of Mitt Romney, "Borrow money from your parents".

 

[weaver2]

The communist has little chance at prosperity, a capitalist society allows everyone a shot at it. Even the marxist scum of the Frankfurt School realized communism wouldn't be brought to the west by economic means but rather social means. Hence the current democrat / progressive party.

Would you please, for the enlightenment of us Democratic Party members, who are completely in the dark, tell us all about our communist programs and platforms.

 

[NotreDame]

Profit is a part of the basic definition of capitalism. Period.

Ya think? Yes it is, but what you are remiss in acknowledging is that part of capitalism doesn’t necessitate paying the lowest possible wage. Paying the lowest possible wage isn’t capitalism as lowest possible wage isn’t a fundamental feature of capitalism. Paying a lowest possible wage is how some have acted in a capitalist regime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk