|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: American Budget Cuts | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Poor Phage0070....
Everybody kicking him when he's face down in the gutter. It's tough to defend hardened, ruthless criminals. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 326 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
and how much of the poor guys +1 every year does inflation negate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
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: This is the sort of claim I was trying to pry out of you. Make a case for this, not just a statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024