Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 331 of 350 (607289)
03-02-2011 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Taz
03-02-2011 11:36 PM


Re: simple
Taz writes:
Before I go down this path of debatre with you, I need to know if you're genuinely this naive or if you're just playing dumb.
Perhaps you should check the data, like I did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Taz, posted 03-02-2011 11:36 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Taz, posted 03-03-2011 12:54 AM Phage0070 has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 332 of 350 (607291)
03-03-2011 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Phage0070
03-02-2011 10:46 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
I am not sure why you are inventing hypothetical planets and machines which "churn out real wealth at a stratospheric rate". Do you think this scenario is likely to occur anytime soon? The fact is that the amount of wealth resource in existence in society at any point in time is finite. Therefore the degree to which this finite (note: not static - but finite) wealth is concentrated in (for example) the top 1% has a very practical impact on the amount of wealth available at that point in time to the remaining 99% Surely this is simply mathematically indisputable?
Phage writes:
They don't "run" a free market.
Can you read? I didn't say anybody was "running" the freemarket did I? I said that capitalist society runs on a capitalist economy. Read that which you quoted instead of imbuing me with your false preconceptions about my position.
Phage writes:
For the sake of expediency I am going to assume that legal economic transactions are at the very least morally neutral until indicated otherwise.
That's fine. This obviously includes both returns on investments provided as a result of the capitalist system and the payment of taxes implemented in order to make that economic system achieve it's ultimate intended aim of benefitting society as a whole. Both by your own definition are just "morally neutral" components of the economic system.
Phage writes:
Straggler writes:
But creates wealth for who?........
Who ultimately have we selected that economic system to benefit?
For everyone....
Exactly. So now the question is this - Is the ever increasing concentration of wealth that unfettered capitalism inevitably (as you have described it) results in beneficial or detrimental to this aim?
Whatever you might think about woolly liberal notions of social divison and whatnot even on it's own capitalist terms the concentration of wealth amongst a handful of old men and their heirs cannot be good for either competition or entrepreneurial innovation in a capitalist society can it? Thus countermeasures to unfettered capitalism are required.
Phage writes:
..., don't you get that?
I very much do "get that". The question is - Do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Phage0070, posted 03-02-2011 10:46 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 7:04 AM Straggler has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3282 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 333 of 350 (607292)
03-03-2011 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Phage0070
03-02-2011 11:38 PM


Re: simple
Ok, let me get this straight. Are you claiming that the wealth distribution is becoming more equalized? I just want to make sure because you seem to be under some kind of spell that prevents you from being non-cryptic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Phage0070, posted 03-02-2011 11:38 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by xongsmith, posted 03-03-2011 3:07 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 336 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 7:10 AM Taz has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 334 of 350 (607305)
03-03-2011 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Taz
03-03-2011 12:54 AM


Poor Phage0070
Poor Phage0070....
Everybody kicking him when he's face down in the gutter.
It's tough to defend hardened, ruthless criminals.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Taz, posted 03-03-2011 12:54 AM Taz has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 335 of 350 (607326)
03-03-2011 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Straggler
03-03-2011 12:47 AM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Straggler writes:
The fact is that the amount of wealth resource in existence in society at any point in time is finite. Therefore the degree to which this finite (note: not static - but finite) wealth is concentrated in (for example) the top 1% has a very practical impact on the amount of wealth available at that point in time to the remaining 99% Surely this is simply mathematically indisputable?
No, as the hypothetical illustrated. The skyrocketing of a total in no way limits the increase or size of a subset. If you had even tried in the slightest you would see that.
I don't have time for the rest of your shit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2011 12:47 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2011 9:01 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 336 of 350 (607327)
03-03-2011 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Taz
03-03-2011 12:54 AM


Re: simple
Taz writes:
Ok, let me get this straight. Are you claiming that the wealth distribution is becoming more equalized? I just want to make sure because you seem to be under some kind of spell that prevents you from being non-cryptic.
No. Its simple:
The rich are getting richer. The poor are also getting richer. This is in real terms, not relative to each other. I cited data to support this. Both can buy more things of real value. The rich are getting richer at a faster rate which widens the divide, thats all. Data was cited to support this as well.
Poor: Base of 10, +1 every year.
Rich: Base of 1000, + 100 every year.
Result: Poor's personal total gets steadily larger while their percentage share of the overall total gets steadily smaller. Not a mathematical impossibility, really quite simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Taz, posted 03-03-2011 12:54 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by frako, posted 03-03-2011 7:46 AM Phage0070 has replied

frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 337 of 350 (607329)
03-03-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Phage0070
03-03-2011 7:10 AM


Re: simple
and how much of the poor guys +1 every year does inflation negate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 7:10 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 7:49 AM frako has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 338 of 350 (607330)
03-03-2011 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by frako
03-03-2011 7:46 AM


Re: simple
frako writes:
and how much of the poor guys +1 every year does inflation negate.
I guess you would have to do your research wouldn't you? Luckily for you I posted historical graphs of the real purchasing power for the wealthy and poor which are already adjusted for things such as inflation! There is no reason to just sit there and wonder... go, look at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by frako, posted 03-03-2011 7:46 AM frako has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 339 of 350 (607337)
03-03-2011 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Phage0070
03-03-2011 7:04 AM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Phage writes:
The skyrocketing of a total in no way limits the increase or size of a subset.
I didn't say it did.
I said that the amount of wealth resource in existence in society at any point in time is finite. Do you dispute this?
I said that if a resource is finite at a point in time then the concentration of that resource in the top 1% at that point in time has direct practical consequences for how much of that resource is available to the other 99% at that point in time. Do you dispute this?
These conclusions are surely mathematically indisputable? Inventing planets and money making machines in your examples does not change the facts.
Phage writes:
If you had even tried in the slightest you would see that.
If you had even tried in the slightest you wouldn't be accusing me of saying things that I haven't said.
Phage writes:
I don't have time for the rest of your shit.
  • We choose our economic system on the basis of that which will best serve society as whole.
  • The rules and regulations of the economic model should reflect that aim.
  • Capitalism arguably brings many benefits to society. Thus it is our chosen model.
  • But this economic system as you yourself have described it if left unrestrained results in a runaway concentration of wealth which if left unhindered acts against competition and entrepreneurism which are the driving force behind the innovation and wealth creation that capitalism is supposed to inspire and which lay at the root of us choosing it as our economic system in the first place.
  • Thus for the optimum working of the financial system countermeasures to this natural tendency need to be put in place.
    Hence the need for a tax system which recognises this and which requires that the stratospherically wealthy contribute more to the society that made them that wealthy in the first place.
    Phage writes:
    For the sake of expediency I am going to assume that legal economic transactions are at the very least morally neutral until indicated otherwise.
    Given that you now accept the moral neutrality of both returns on investments and the payment of taxes implemented in order to make that economic system achieve it's ultimate intended aim of benefiting society as a whole - There really seems little to argue about anyway.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 335 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 7:04 AM Phage0070 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 340 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 10:26 AM Straggler has replied

    Phage0070
    Inactive Member


    Message 340 of 350 (607357)
    03-03-2011 10:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 339 by Straggler
    03-03-2011 9:01 AM


    Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
    Straggler writes:
    I said that the amount of wealth resource in existence in society at any point in time is finite. Do you dispute this?
    Nope.
    Straggler writes:
    I said that if a resource is finite at a point in time then the concentration of that resource in the top 1% at that point in time has direct practical consequences for how much of that resource is available to the other 99% at that point in time. Do you dispute this?
    The fact that a resource is finite has direct practical consequences of how much of that resource is available.
    Point?
    Straggler writes:
  • But this economic system as you yourself have described it if left unrestrained results in a runaway concentration of wealth which if left unhindered acts against competition and entrepreneurism...
  • This is the sort of claim I was trying to pry out of you. Make a case for this, not just a statement.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 339 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2011 9:01 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 343 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2011 3:29 PM Phage0070 has replied

    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1457 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 341 of 350 (607391)
    03-03-2011 12:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 285 by Phage0070
    02-28-2011 6:45 PM


    Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
    Yes, the "workforce" are people who use the wealth.
    So, you're again insisting that the wealthiest 1% gained that wealth as the return on investment in the American worker.
    Can you elaborate on what specific investments were made and when?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 285 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 6:45 PM Phage0070 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 342 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 1:53 PM crashfrog has replied

    Phage0070
    Inactive Member


    Message 342 of 350 (607395)
    03-03-2011 1:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 341 by crashfrog
    03-03-2011 12:59 PM


    Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
    crashfrog writes:
    Can you elaborate on what specific investments were made and when?
    No, I can't personally account for massive numbers of financial investments which I was not privy to. However, you are the person crying foul. Can you elaborate on what you think is uncouth about the process? Did they break the law, should the law be changed and on what grounds, what?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 341 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2011 12:59 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 347 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2011 10:25 PM Phage0070 has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 343 of 350 (607404)
    03-03-2011 3:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 340 by Phage0070
    03-03-2011 10:26 AM


    Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
    Phage writes:
    Straggler writes:
    I said that the amount of wealth resource in existence in society at any point in time is finite. Do you dispute this?
    Nope.
    Good. Previously you could see no problem at all even with the situation where 1% of the population owned 99% of the wealth. Do you still stand by this?
    Phage writes:
    Make a case for this, not just a statement.
    How can effective monopoly of investment wealth possibly promote competition?
    How can investment decisions restricted to socially detached phenomenally wealthy old men and their heirs who need for nothing at all be the best recipe for innovation?
    Phage writes:
    Point?
    That the more concentrated the wealth in (for example) the top 1% at any given point in time the less resource there is at that point in time available to be invested by anyone else. Including the democratically elected government who are usually relied upon to invest in things like education, health, scientific research, national infrastructure etc. etc. The things on which the future productivity of society significantly depends.
    Which means that rather than a democratically determined programme of investment we instead increasingly have a programme defined by the whims of a few old men and their heirs who are so stratospherically wealthy that they are effectively cut-off from the rest of society and who have little need to do anything other than pursue their pet projects. They might decide to invest in the next generation of particle accelerators. Or they might just plough their money into building a chain of creationist institutes.
    Is this concentration of wealth and associated unelected political power good for democracy? For society? To what purpose do we select our economic system if it is not to ultimately create the most skilled, productive, efficent, materially catered for and ultimately purposeful and content society? I don’t think that runaway concentration of wealth is conducive to this aim.
    Do you?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 340 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 10:26 AM Phage0070 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 344 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2011 4:09 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 346 by Phage0070, posted 03-03-2011 7:17 PM Straggler has not replied

    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 344 of 350 (607417)
    03-03-2011 4:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 343 by Straggler
    03-03-2011 3:29 PM


    That the more concentrated the wealth in (for example) the top 1% at any given point in time the less resource there is at that point in time available to be invested by anyone else.
    I'm getting the sense that you picture them like this:
    The money is still out there moving around and allowing stuff to get done even though that 1% "has" it.
    Amirite?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 343 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2011 3:29 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 345 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2011 5:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 345 of 350 (607443)
    03-03-2011 5:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 344 by New Cat's Eye
    03-03-2011 4:09 PM


    CS writes:
    I'm getting the sense that you picture them like this:
    Not at all. Have you actually read my posts in this thread? Or are you, as Phage has done throughout, imbuing me with some sort of stereotypical position based on some sort of ideological preconceptions?
    CS writes:
    The money is still out there moving around and allowing stuff to get done even though that 1% "has" it. Amirite?
    "Stuff"? Depends how much is being hidden in metaphorical mattresses, how much is being ploughed into promoting personal or religious ideologies, how much is being diverted away to setup South Pacific sweatshops etc. etc. etc. etc.
    Ultimately the question is this - Do we design our economic system to achieve a skilled, productive, efficent, materially catered for and ultimately purposeful and content democratic society? If so capitalism with counter-measures and progressive tax structures in place is arguably a good way to do this.
    Or do we design our society around the idea that an elite miniscule minority have the inalienable right to spend the wealth generated by our chosen economic system as they see fit whatever the consequences of that may be? If this is our aim then unfettered freemarket capitalism is a dead cert.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 344 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2011 4:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024