Never said he was poor ... I don't have a metric for what is rich, but if he doesn't consider himself rich, why not?
You asked him why wasn't he rich...whats the opposite of rich? And if you don't have a metric for what is rich then how can you ask him "Why arn't you rich btw?"?
1. Sonofabitch we're talking past each other here, but you need the equipment first ....
2. ok then
3. No I didn't say it was illigal, I said there were policies that prevented it, just like in many cities there are policies that prevent smoking, like high taxes on ciggaretes. Also I find it funny that the US thought Co-determination was such an awesome idea they put it in german and not the US ... thats funny, or maybe I'm right that they wanted to restrict the power of German Capitalists, they thought they were restricting the german economy.
5. Jeez, THEY HAVE MORE DECISION MAKING POWER, If you start out with 0 votes and you suddenly get 40% of the votes you suddenly have a little more power do you ... Germany doesn't have a neo-liberal policy, also Greece and Spain failed when they started financializing and de-regulating their economy, strong socail democracies are diong well.
1. And what? It was billed that way by RUssians trying to defend theri system, and Americans trying to demonize it. Not by actual socialists.
2. Courts and law are just mediators between the gun. Also Socialism isn't always government enforced, infact most socialists don't even want to involve the government, they want a revolution where the state doesn't play the role, the workers and communities do.
The difference is socialism is democratic and cpaitalism is plutocratic, plain and simple, and yeah it is different people, just like the American revolution had different people making the rules, i.e. the people rather than the king.
Unions ensured their own decline in the U.S. by only looking out for themselves.Exactly, and with the decline of Unions comes the decline of the middle class.
1. And what? It was billed that way by RUssians trying to defend theri system, and Americans trying to demonize it. Not by actual socialists.
2. Courts and law are just mediators between the gun. Also Socialism isn't always government enforced, infact most socialists don't even want to involve the government, they want a revolution where the state doesn't play the role, the workers and communities do.
The difference is socialism is democratic and cpaitalism is plutocratic, plain and simple, and yeah it is different people, just like the American revolution had different people making the rules, i.e. the people rather than the king.
No they failed when they ran out of other people's money.
1. Ah, so its only not socialism after it fails? Hows about China? Thats also billed as socialism of a sort.
2. LOL socialists want to change who does the distribution without ever earning it. BTW, how is revolution NOT rule through violence?
Capitalism isnt plutocratic because whose at the top and the number at the top can change. Its not designed to be exclusive, its designed to be inclusive. The American revolution had people at the top making the rules that allowed for consent of the governed and a framework of laws beyond majority rule. The "rulers" change all the time, because that was the way it was set up. Socialists like yourself always talk about democracy until the mob disagrees with them. Socialism is not about democracy its about consolidation of power.
Unions ensured their own decline in the U.S. by only looking out for themselves.
We certainly have a lot more freedom in this country then you have in yours. Try running a business in both countries.... and see the difference.
1. No it wasn't socialism from the begining, neither is China, and many of the first opponants of the USSR were strong socialists like Emma Goldman.
2. revolution just means change, no socialists want the distribution to be those who actually earn it, through labor, not through property ownership.
Capitalism is plutocratic by definition, thats like saying monarchies arn't monarchies because the king can change, also it is exclusive and growingly so, the rulers of capital are consolidating more and more, the American revolution was about political democracy.
As for your last point that isn't an argument its just a talking point, Socialism has always been about democracy.
... ok nice talking point, but the fact is when they stopped collecting taxes and handed over their finances to investment firms thats when the major crashes happened.
LOL. They literally ran out of money to finance all the social spending. If you are going to ignore reality, hit the door.
1. So, since you say it isnt socialism, it isnt? You dont want socialism linked to those two collossal failures because it highlights the path socialism can go down where it robs people. Property rights arent just for the rich, they protect everyone. If you absolve them, you absolve them for everyone. Property rights allow the building of wealth.
2. Revolution is ALWAYS about taking something from someone else and giving it to someone else. Labor is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it in a mutual exchange, its not about forcing the employer to pay all they can afford or there is no point to taking risk and being an employer.
Its not a talking point, socialism always slides into autocratic rule, one way or another. Europe is the only example we have of it not happening and its failing as an economic system. Secondly: "Capitalism is plutocracy" isnt a talking point? Cmon. Last, the Kings didnt change via election. Consent of the governed and elections are what makes a monarchy different from a representative republic. You know this, you are just trying to get cutesy to maintain your failed logic.
I see ... Why arn't you rich btw? Are you just too lazy or are you too dumb?
That's baiting, doesn't really help your argument.
I guess you're expecting some canned response, you won't find that here.
Not really, libertarians always say that outcomes in Capitalism are 100% warrented, so if you are not rich ... if must be for a personal reason.
So it's clear you don't work at Wal-Mart. I'll say - for the sake of the argument - that you're a lawyer. If 30 million Americans went through law school and passed the bar in just this year alone, would you expect lawyers to start making $8.00 an hour? Because if supply and demand determine the pay for a give occupation, the level of skill required to perform a given job is irrelevant. Building upon the supposition that lawyers are so abundant they only make $8.00 an hour, at that point it would be a better idea to work at Wal-Mart, as you'll make the same amount of money there but avoid the horrors of student loans.
Only supply and demand matter, so you better go run and learn the most in demand skill around - graphic design and web development! You're right, cash register jobs are meant for high school kids and college dropouts. One day, you'll only have to explain to your grandchildren why you were so lazy you couldn't even go into the field of graphic design.
What happened to "you can be anything you want to be" and what happened to going into a field that makes you happy? What about Americans like my uncle, who suffer from mental and/or physical problems that make it hard for them to find employment in many different work environments? Would you tell those people that they don't deserve to earn a comfortable living because so many other Americans can do their job? Would you tell them that they can be easily replaced?
Here's the real question- if working at Wal-Mart is so easy, why do 70% of their employees quit within a year? I think you should simply go work there for a few months and report back. The bottom line is that working there isn't easy. The turnover rate is so high because they hire people who need jobs, take advantage of them by getting them to work hours that are too long, some of them off the clock, and only have of their employees have health care. Costco covers over 95% of their employees. Anyway, my point is that your comments seem to be pointed at backing up the claim that Wal-Mart is paying and treating their employees the way they deserve to be treated. And I think Americans deserve to make a living if they're working hard and putting in long hours. It's just the right thing to do, and it's also the right thing to do to put our economy back on track.
Well, I don't expect everyone or anyone to be rich.
My beliefs hinge on the most reasonable amount of freedom, for the individual, not everyone (including myself) becoming rich.
But I thought everyone can be rich ... which means if you are not rich, it's your choice not to be rich ... or you're just lazy or dumb ... Since there are not systemic problems in capitalism you can't blame the system.
I'm not some stereotypical libertarian, with canned responses.
I've already said, that if you expect that, you won't find it with me.
What you're doing is baiting and it won't work.
So under capitalism what are the reasons for someone not being rich?
So under capitalism what are the reasons for someone not being rich?
So under capitalism what are the reasons for someone not being rich?
The goods/services that they provide are not in high demand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?