Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2016, 03:33 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2016 04:18 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
Let me elaborate further.

The current system is not sustainable. In the 1950's and before, people got by without credit. The cost of living rose as the standard of living improved, but credit was not easy to get a hold of or widespread, but wages rose fast enough to keep up. People saved, instead of borrowing on the future, and yet they sill managed to own homes, put kids through school, and retire. The last half century has seen two parallel phenomena, the stagnation of wages, and the widespread availability of credit. How are the two connected? Because the widespread access of easy credit has been masking the stagnant wages. The cost of living continues to rise, driven by increased standards of living, which are themselves fueled by the consumer driver economy. But how do you afford a more expensive standard of living if your pay doesn't keep up fast enough to match it? You get a line of credit and you borrow. Fast forward this a few decades, and the credit industry itself is a multi-billion dollar industry, one that the rest of the economy needs in order to allow people to maintain the standard of living that the economy both sells to them and desperately needs them to try to maintain in order to keep consumption (and thus, demand for goods) up. College used to be optional, but you could afford to pay for it out of pocket or at least without settling yourself with crushing debt for decades. That's no longer the case. If wages continue to stagnate, something will give. A tipping point will be reached, when debt becomes so excessive that the creditors themselves become too much of the economy. People paying off credit cards and student loans, who cannot afford to put aside money for savings, aren't in a position to be driving a consumer driven economy. More and more wages are being spent on necessities and paying off debt, rather than buying anything more than the essentials. In effect, the situation has knee capped their ability to consume, they are generating less demand in the economy than they otherwise could if they had more disposable income. When demand drops, the economy shrinks; it it happens too much it's a recession, if it is worse it can be a depression.

The system cannot sustain itself indefinitely, and is bound to collapse under it's own eight, unless corrective measure are taken to right the situation. If those measures are not taken, and the market collapses, it most likely will take the rest of the world economy down with it. We had a brush with this in 2008 already, but nobody seems to be wising the fuck up, and now more than ever it appears as if the actions were nothing more than a holding measure rather than an solution to the systemic problems at hand.

So it's not that I arguing for "milking" the richest, I want them to pay their fair share, because currently they're bleeding everyone else dry; and eventually credit won't be enough of a band-aid for the problem. They already have the money, a more equitable distribution of wealth won't destroy them or send them into hiding; but left 'as is' the consumer base for the largest consumer driven economy in the world will eventually collapse if they continue to stretch it too thin.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
02-10-2016, 03:48 AM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 03:28 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Making profit isn't greed. Making more profit isn't greedy.

When it's done at the expense of the health and well-being of others, it sure is.

I want a Lear jet; great. I fund it by running a company that gives 12,000 people lung cancer through toxic emissions from my factories? Not so great.

Hopefully you can see the point.

Oh, and Stevil -- that's morality for you. It is always crowd-sourced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
02-10-2016, 03:59 AM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 02:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:05 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  You seem to be operating under the wrong assumption that everyone who objects you is thinking that business = greed = evil. All some people are trying to tell you that business = greed.
Greed is a negative word, it is always used in that context.

Making profit isn't greed. Making more profit isn't greedy.
The purpose of a business, of an investment is to make profit. Nothing greedy about that.


(02-10-2016 02:05 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Causing unnecessary harm equals evil
I don't know where this rubbish comes from. Who is it that is determining that businesses are causing unnecessary harm?
People in Equador for example who are living near Chevrons oil extraction sites? Go and ask them.

(02-10-2016 02:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:05 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Yet you cannot deny that businesses are causing evil every day.
Is that my position? Really?
If you have to say nothing, then say nothing. If you have a position, feel free to state it. Playing silly games just demonstrates that you arent interested in honest discussion or cant take any criticism.

(02-10-2016 02:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:05 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Now time for you to show us businesses that are not eager to have money, or that dont show the selfish desire to have more money.
Why would I want to show you that. What point would that work to?
Possibly to refute an argument i made with support of a widely accepted dictionary definition.? You are however free to believe what you want. If you dont like your beliefs to be challenged, just say so.

(02-10-2016 02:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:05 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Im not saying greed is inherently bad, it is what it is: The desire to have more. We all like to have more of at least some things. But i also think you need to get back in touch with reality. Greed ist the one thing driving business.
No its not. Businesses aren't greedy. It is the purpose of business to turn a profit.
You are trying to make the word "greedy" to be meaningless.
People tend to think of greed as wanting to have more than is necessary, to be a glutton.
Repeating your mantra wont make it true, but you know that.
And now you are preparing the next strawman with introducing "glutton"

But ill give back the mic to the others now. You arent accessible at all.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
02-10-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Raising wages means that the workers in the economy will have more to spend in the economy.
But then the cost of doing business goes up, So the price of goods and services go up (hence cost of living goes up), OR some businesses go under and there are now less jobs than before (which means less people with money), OR businesses can't afford to hire so many people so they make some redundant or they look for more automation or they look to produce offshore.

Putting up wages isn't cost free.
If there is an oversupply of willing workers then the price of a worker goes down. If there is a shortage of workers then the price of a worker goes up.
If you support businesses, help them to form and survive then you create jobs. More demand for workers naturally causes wages to go up.

Artificially raising wages causes businesses to hire less people, it puts people out of work.


(02-10-2016 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The working poor that you conveniently ignore? Then spend their entire pay making ends meet. If their wages went up, the extra wages wouldn't go into savings or the stock market or otherwise be squirreled away, that extra income would almost all be instantly spent and go right back into the economy thus generating more demand.
This is a stretch.
You are saying that if a company producing hammers pays its employees more then their profits will go up rather than down.
Immediately we see that their costs go up, because (let's say they decided, out of the Goodness of their hearts, to give everyone a 10% pay increase). You think, now that those people are going to turn around and increase sales bu buying hammers and now the business is going to be more wealthy than before. Shit, if the world worked like that then we would see buinsess paying each of their employees more and more and more and more becasue in their "greedy" nature they want to make more and more money right. Far out, it seems so easy. Just pay your workers more money and you will get that back + extra in sales. Amazing!



(02-10-2016 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  When demand goes up, companies produce more, and to do that they hire more people as their business expands.
There is the idea of govt taxing people less. IF govt taxes people less, then people will have more disposable income and hence money shifts more easily in the economy. I do agree with less taxes if that is possible.

But paying people more and expecting that to increase profits is extremely moronic. If it worked, then businesses would do it without need for govt intervention. But of course it doesn't work. Hence there are people shouting out for raising of minimum wage.

(02-10-2016 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Give a million dollar tax break to Bill Gates, will he spend a million more dollars on clothing and food? No.
It doesn't really work like that.

IN NZ there was a big hoo ha about giving the movie companies tax breaks for making the Hobbit in NZ. Now, without the tax breaks they probably would have made the movies in a different country. NZ would have lost out on a massive industry and also the income provided by the flow on tourism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2016, 01:59 PM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 03:59 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Greed is a negative word, it is always used in that context.

Making profit isn't greed. Making more profit isn't greedy.
The purpose of a business, of an investment is to make profit. Nothing greedy about that.


I don't know where this rubbish comes from. Who is it that is determining that businesses are causing unnecessary harm?
People in Equador for example who are living near Chevrons oil extraction sites? Go and ask them.
A huge generalisation is being made "businesses are causing unnecessary harm"
It seems all businesses are being painted with an "evil" brush.
WTF is this about? Do you want to outlaw business because you deem them to be evil and greedy?

Do we all just sit and home, play games all day and demand the govt tax the rich and give us money to buy food, power and the next computer games?

(02-10-2016 03:59 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Is that my position? Really?
If you have to say nothing, then say nothing.
I've pretty much been saying nothing regarding the evil concept and you guys keep calling my up on it. I have no interest in discussing if businesses are evil or not. I am merely supporting the idea that if we encourage business then we generate income and jobs. And I have been asking how supporting people for not working by taking the rich is sustainable, how that improves the economy?

Environmental issues is an entirely different topic.

(02-10-2016 03:59 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Playing silly games just demonstrates that you arent interested in honest discussion or cant take any criticism.
I'm not playing any silly games. I'm wanting to talk about support for business vs support for socialist policies. I'm not the one going down the "evil", or "greed" rabbit holes.


(02-10-2016 03:59 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Possibly to refute an argument i made with support of a widely accepted dictionary definition.? You are however free to believe what you want. If you dont like your beliefs to be challenged, just say so.
You can use the definition of "greed" to mean "wanting more" if you want. I don't think others are using that definition. Just look at Thump's post on the matter.
Quote:When it's done at the expense of the health and well-being of others, it sure is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2016, 03:43 PM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The working poor that you conveniently ignore? Then spend their entire pay making ends meet. If their wages went up, the extra wages wouldn't go into savings or the stock market or otherwise be squirreled away, that extra income would almost all be instantly spent and go right back into the economy thus generating more demand.
This is part of the problem. These guys don't reinvest money or even save for their future, for a house or for their kids education. You give them money and they rush out and spend it, on chips, fizzy drink, smart phones, cable tv, pizza. You name it, they spend, spend, spend, then demand that the govt gives them more money.

When the "rich" put money into the stock market they are investing back into the economy, they are investing into businesses which generally pays many people's wages.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2016, 04:03 PM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 03:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  In the 1950's and before, people got by without credit. The cost of living rose as the standard of living improved, but credit was not easy to get a hold of or widespread, but wages rose fast enough to keep up.
Credit gave people the ability to spend beyond their means. It also provides people the ability to make smart investments and multiply their profits (if your returns are greater than the cost of borrowing).

Credit is neither evil nor good.

I know plenty of people that borrow money to have a flash car, or burrow money while they are paying for subscription TV, having a smart phone, or buying alcohol or perhaps paying for a holiday, or buying a top of the line 50 inch TV. In fact most poor people in my country have these things were as I don't. It seems I live with a lower living standard than many of the poor.

Myself, I have a small tv, less than 30 inch. I don't subscribe to pay tv. I hardly ever buy alcohol. My car is very modest. I certainly wouldn't borrow for any of these things. I think Financial management ought to be a subject taught in schools.

You would think that introducing easy credit would increase people's purchasing power, and hence drive up business and jobs. In a way it does, because businesses can borrow and use that to expand their business.

But people who don't have good finance skills, they borrow because there is stuff they want and they want it now. They then end up with a debt and an interest burden.
Because they are all borrowing and spending, then the cost of goods and services goes up hence cost of living goes up. Wages don't go up, because there are lots of people competing for unskilled jobs. It's a supply and demand thing.

The way to get wages to go up is to either increase the demand for labour or to reduce the size of the labour supply. It's not by artificially setting the minimum wage because that will lead to unemployment.

(02-10-2016 03:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But how do you afford a more expensive standard of living if your pay doesn't keep up fast enough to match it? You get a line of credit and you borrow.
Or, you further your education, you develop in demand skills, you borrow only for investment purposes rather than for consumer purposes, you cut back on expenses. You hope that government support businesses and create jobs.


(02-10-2016 03:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So it's not that I arguing for "milking" the richest, I want them to pay their fair share
Who gets to decide what is a fair share?

(02-10-2016 03:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  They already have the money, a more equitable distribution of wealth won't destroy them
What is meant by equitable distribution?
Do we reward for investment, creation of jobs, for risk taking, and initiative?
Or do we have an idea that people ought to have money despite anything they do?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
02-10-2016, 04:16 PM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 03:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The working poor that you conveniently ignore? Then spend their entire pay making ends meet. If their wages went up, the extra wages wouldn't go into savings or the stock market or otherwise be squirreled away, that extra income would almost all be instantly spent and go right back into the economy thus generating more demand.
This is part of the problem. These guys don't reinvest money or even save for their future, for a house or for their kids education. You give them money and they rush out and spend it, on chips, fizzy drink, smart phones, cable tv, pizza. You name it, they spend, spend, spend, then demand that the govt gives them more money.

And just where do those chips, fizzy drink, smart phones, cable tv, and pizza come from? Facepalm

Quote:When the "rich" put money into the stock market they are investing back into the economy, they are investing into businesses which generally pays many people's wages.

Putting money into the stock market puts money into peoples pockets and companies' coffers.
Spending money on goods and services puts money into the economy.

You have it backwards. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
02-10-2016, 06:18 PM
RE: Do or Die
I read the first ten pages before skipping here to the end.

Dark one.

This is a great place for freedom of expression. Personally, and this is just my opinion. I don't think the resistance that you describe lies on the shoulders of others here as much as it does on your own (holds mirror up)

Saying you have degrees and have been/are part of mensa, who gives a fuck? Using that as a defense or justification for your views is a load of bollocks (to term an english phrase)

There is no "right or wrong" in debates, when there is, it becomes an arguement.

Have your say, defend it, just dont expect people to agree with it Drinking Beverage

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
02-10-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: Do or Die
(02-10-2016 04:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  Putting money into the stock market puts money into peoples pockets and companies' coffers.
Spending money on goods and services puts money into the economy.

You have it backwards. Drinking Beverage
Putting money into stock markets not only generates income for yourself but also provides funds for businesses to produce goods and services.

Spending money on consumables means that your money is used up.
Now saying that we just give people money in order to spend, well where does that money come from?
Saying the rich have heaps, lets take it from them, means that
1. you are giving a disincentive for people to become rich or for the rich to be part of your society.
2. you taking money away from people who would otherwise use that money to start up or invest in businesses.
3. you are assuming that there is an endless supply of money to be taken and redistributed.
4. You are telling people at the bottom end of the chain to not worry about upskilling or working, because you will just give them money.

You are hoping that somehow this "extra" spend will increase sales and hence increase jobs and then jobs will fall into the laps of those that aren't working regardless of the effort or lack of effort they make towards looking for a job. The thing is, there is not enough money to do that. It is also not sustainable, you can't just keep taking money and giving it away, hoping that the poor will spend it, and hoping somehow that this creates jobs and that the poor will then be motivated to take those jobs. It's a completely false economy.

You ought to be encouraging the poor to up-skill, to save and invest, to not take up credit (if possible).
You ought to be encouraging the wealthy to start up businesses and to invest in your economy.

I really don't get this , Take from the rich and give to the poor mentality. I understand you don't like the idea of supporting businesses, so there we are. I'm right wing, you are left wing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: