Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2016, 02:47 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 02:14 PM)morondog Wrote:  Stevil do you have a one track mind? More jobs is not the goal. It might be a side effect. It might be a sub-goal on the path towards achieving a better life for all. It certainly is not the end-goal.
Sure, I'm not trying to tell you what your purpose for living ought to be. If you choose to go "The good life" then great for you.
Quote:Tom Good, a 40-year-old London plastics designer, it relates the joys and miseries he and his wife Barbara experience when they attempt to escape modern commercial living by "becoming totally self-sufficient" in their home in Surbiton

But from an economy perspective there is much criticism about wages not being high enough or about the poor not having opportunity.

I'm merely trying to discuss that.

My stance is that if poor have ability to get qualifications and ability to get jobs then they have ability to have a decent income and no longer be poor.

So my thoughts on the problem of having poor, is to create jobs and provide opportunity. In my view (rightly or wrongly), just giving money to the poor doesn't help the problem and the idea of getting that money by taking it from businesses exacerbates that problem by even further reducing the available jobs.

I recognise that it is indeed a problem to have people who are poor, people who don't have opportunity to get them out of being poor, people who (for whatever reason, end up on social welfare for a decade or more, perhaps a lifetime).
And I do think that it is important to address this problem.
In my mind you do it by providing free quality education and by creating jobs.

Also, in my mind you create jobs, not by raising costs but by supporting businesses and perhaps giving startups a helping hand.

Also, in my mind we are now a global world, where many jobs and many production sites are now non local to the consumers. So for these jobs in particular you are competing against other countries for this work. Many countries have very low wages. How do you compete against that?

I come from a centre right position, I have always been this way. NZ tends towards the centre right, which is why National party are in office much much more that Labour party. We do of course have significant amounts of people that are centre left.

Am I correct to be centre right? I don't know. My sticking point regards to centre left is that I don't see how they are creating jobs, or incentivising people to enter the workforce. They seem to be focused on a take from the rich and give to the poor mentality, which to me can't work.

In some ways I like your example of a country sharing the wealth from a resource the country had. I think it would be great if my country (government) could earn money and use that to build roads and infrastructure, pay for health care, spend money to prevent people being homeless etc. If they had this national income they they could reduce taxes which would promote more businesses and more jobs, promote more consumer spending etc. Wouldn't that be great?

But NZ doesn't have oil or diamonds. We could have govt take all the land away from people and rent out the land and use that rent income instead of taxes, but this would shift the burden onto farmers and away from businesses which don't rely on land for their value production. Our govt had many schemes under Muldoon, which were termed "Think Big" which was having the govt run businesses and make money. But, as it turns out, governments are terrible at running businesses, terribly inefficient, meaning that the businesses were failing, the cost of the goods and services were high, there was a monopoly and hence low levels of innovation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 02:55 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 02:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 02:22 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think that, in a sense, Stevil's position is consistent and realistic.

Consistent yes. Realistic? Hardly. Since when has unrestrained profit been a good thing?
As I have said many many times my position isn't one where businesses have no constraints.
I keep saying this, however you keep insisting that my position is what I say it isn't.

(12-10-2016 02:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  Also Stevil just like I pay taxes as my fee to society for the right to live in it, businesses can pay tax as their fee to operate. They get something out so they should damn well put something in too. It's not "taking money from business", it's *cost of doing business*.
I'm sorry, are you implying that my position is that businesses shouldn't pay taxes? Where did you get that one from?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 03:06 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 02:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 02:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  Consistent yes. Realistic? Hardly. Since when has unrestrained profit been a good thing?
As I have said many many times my position isn't one where businesses have no constraints.
I keep saying this, however you keep insisting that my position is what I say it isn't.
Gimme a sec. I'll go find quotes.

Quote:
(12-10-2016 02:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  Also Stevil just like I pay taxes as my fee to society for the right to live in it, businesses can pay tax as their fee to operate. They get something out so they should damn well put something in too. It's not "taking money from business", it's *cost of doing business*.
I'm sorry, are you implying that my position is that businesses shouldn't pay taxes? Where did you get that one from?
Well when you spend your time talking about how government "takes money from business" what the hell conclusion am I supposed to draw other than that you think taxing business is a bad idea? Hey maybe they'll take their jobs offshore, then we'll be really fucked.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 03:08 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 02:35 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 02:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  Consistent yes. Realistic? Hardly. Since when has unrestrained profit been a good thing?

To be fair, I don't think he's advocating for unrestrained profit.
Correct, it seems at least Grasshopper is reading the words I type rather than imagining up something else.

(12-10-2016 02:35 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  There has been some strawmanning on both sides here, and people are talking past each other to some degree. What I think is realistic about Stevil's position is that we can't expect businesses to police themselves.
Again correct. It's not an expectation that would be realistic.

(12-10-2016 02:35 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  He seems to think that we are suggesting that they should do that, but I don't think anyone really is.
I called up EK on his expectation. He keeps stating that we can't trust them. I keep telling him that it is an unrealistic expectation to trust them. I pointed out that it isn't a valid criticism to claim that they are untrustworthy. It is invalid because we wouldn't have that expectation in the first place. They aren't evil, because they aren't breaking any expectations or trust. We don't consider a cat to be evil for catching and eating birds. We expect a cat to catch and eat birds. It is in the nature of cats to do that, just as it is in the nature of businesses to use resources and to seek reduction of costs.

I certainly don't think the left wing folk think that businesses left to their own devices would do the "right" thing. But I think it is taking things way too far by calling businesses greedy and evil, this is something that EK alone has stated. Much of my time in this thread has been trying to break people's strawman of my position. I have no idea why they are strawmanning, perhaps the US guys label me as Libertarian and take that to an extreme and think I must fit in that box.

I'm not quite sure why Morondog is having issues understanding my position. He's not US, he is smarter than that.


(12-10-2016 02:35 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  We're just saying that they need to be restrained by government,
I'm not arguing against this.

(12-10-2016 02:35 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  and I'm not sure he disagrees with that.
Correct.

(12-10-2016 02:35 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Both sides are spending a lot of time and energy arguing against claims that the other side isn't really making.
Yes, the majority of the time is me being attacked (strawmaned) and trying to explain that my position isn't what they think it is. I'm certainly being drawn into a discussion about morality (my position is much different from the vast majority of people) but ultimately this is irrelevant to the core of this discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 03:15 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 03:06 PM)morondog Wrote:  Well when you spend your time talking about how government "takes money from business" what the hell conclusion am I supposed to draw other than that you think taxing business is a bad idea? Hey maybe they'll take their jobs offshore, then we'll be really fucked.
I talk about high taxation, there is a consequence when you tax very high. Then large businesses spend money on expensive accountants, and expensive schemes to get out of paying tax. You then get no tax income rather than some.

Also, it is a fact that in many circumstances you are competing against other countries for the businesses. What do you need to do to get that business to operate in your own country rather than offshore? Does the give and take weigh up, is there benefit in that business operating in your own country even when you give them some tax breaks. It's all part of negotiation and looking at the bigger picture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2016 03:33 PM by morondog.)
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  A corporation that takes its business off-shore so that it can employ children with no regard for safety and pay them a pittance is causing harm.
While it does not appear to be illegal, it should be.

Please don't counter that with some version of "they're bringing much needed jobs/wages to that place" because the cost of doing that, in human terms, is too high.
Then we disagree on this. Seems your definition of harm is different to mine. I certainly know that your understanding of the purpose for government and law differs from mine. You have a strong moral conviction, I have none at all.
See, I see this as you advocating complete laissez-faire "they can do what the fuck they like" business practices.

(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 01:42 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's more like you're only concerned that builders construct buildings, while everyone else is worried about the damage they might do to the environment or the native inhabitants in the process.
The context of the conversation is with regards to supporting businesses (which creates jobs) vs heavy taxes and raising minimum wage (which increases costs for businesses)

My question is, how do we create jobs by increasing costs for businesses.

I'm interested here in job creation.
Whether businesses are creating pollution or not is an entirely different topic. a.k.a. not relevant to the concern about where jobs are coming from.
The question posed here is not about taking money from the business, it's about the business *paying* for environmental damage that they cause. When you answer that with "it's not relevant because it increases costs for the business and means they won't create jobs" how else do we read it than that you think that business profit is the best and only motive that should drive law making?

Quote:I talk about high taxation, there is a consequence when you tax very high. Then large businesses spend money on expensive accountants, and expensive schemes to get out of paying tax. You then get no tax income rather than some.

Also, it is a fact that in many circumstances you are competing against other countries for the businesses. What do you need to do to get that business to operate in your own country rather than offshore? Does the give and take weigh up, is there benefit in that business operating in your own country even when you give them some tax breaks. It's all part of negotiation and looking at the bigger picture.

Of course. Total taxation means no one will bother to do business. No taxation means everyone will use your country as a tax haven and none of the money will benefit the people in that country, except perhaps indirectly through job creation. Therefore setting the tax rate is a tricky business. As a government you should definitely want to maximise the tax you bring in, without hurting the economy too much in the process. And the *reason* you want to maximise that tax is to carry out social projects. Because ultimately as the government you do not exist to have a healthy economy or to be nice to those amoral profit driven businesses, but to ensure that your citizens have e.g. access to free quality education.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
12-10-2016, 03:40 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2016 03:44 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 02:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Owwww.
Really, I mean, many idiots assume lack of belief in morality = sociopath.
Fuckin stupid conclusion, but, hey whatever.

Not at all. You're cordially invited to look up the definition of sociopath:

M-W Dictionary Wrote:noun, Psychiatry.

1. a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

In case you had trouble spotting yourself, I've added some emphasis.

Now, you can call me an "idiot" all you want, but clearly you don't know the meaning of the word I'm using quite as well as I do. I'll refrain from insulting your intelligence, because you're obviously smart ... but the fact you cannot refrain from insulting mine when I'm obviously intelligent too says a bit more about you than it does me.

Bottom line: you have no other defense than personal attack. That's a tacit admission of vapidity, don't you think?

(11-10-2016 02:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I mean really, If you want to know if I have empathy then ask, don't assume from a philosophical standpoint.
It's like saying that atheists can't be good without a belief in god.

lol, it isn't a philosophical standpoint that is my basis anyway. It's linguistic and definitional. By your lights, industrial disasters which have killed -- killed -- thousands are acceptable, because, hey, that's business.

Before you compose your reply, think about where, in all this thread, you've advocated for any community responsibility held by business; think about where you've advocated for businesses having anything other than profit as a motive.

Yeah, I didn't find it, either. Climb down from the cross there, and review your own outlook.

(11-10-2016 02:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You are saying that I can't have empathy if I don't have a belief in moral rights, wrongs and obligations. Where is the logic in that thinking?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that your lack of belief in morality leads me to believe you have no empathy. That's a different point altogether.

Anyone who would defend the ability to turn a profit over the ability to live a life free of domineering business should expect his empathy being called into question. That you don't only supports my estimation of you as having a sociopathic touch: you clearly aren't able to understand the emotions others might have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 03:43 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 03:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Then we disagree on this. Seems your definition of harm is different to mine. I certainly know that your understanding of the purpose for government and law differs from mine. You have a strong moral conviction, I have none at all.
See, I see this as you advocating complete laissez-faire "they can do what the fuck they like" business practices.
Really, I don't know how you read that into it.

(12-10-2016 03:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  The context of the conversation is with regards to supporting businesses (which creates jobs) vs heavy taxes and raising minimum wage (which increases costs for businesses)

My question is, how do we create jobs by increasing costs for businesses.

I'm interested here in job creation.
Whether businesses are creating pollution or not is an entirely different topic. a.k.a. not relevant to the concern about where jobs are coming from.
The question posed here is not about taking money from the business, it's about the business *paying* for environmental damage that they cause. When you answer that with "it's not relevant because it increases costs for the business and means they won't create jobs" how else do we read it than that you think that business profit is the best and only motive that should drive law making?
No-one has mentioned taxes as compensation for environmental (or other) issues of doing business.
I would actually disagree with that position because taxes are general money which can be used for anything. If a business is creating sink holes by mining in a town then I personally would put some clauses into their mining contract to ensure measures are taken not to create sink holes. It may raise the cost to them of doing business but at least it addresses the problem. Raising tax and then using this money on something else e.g. taxing mining operation in Dunedin and spending that money on the roads in Auckland doesn't exactly seem fair to the folk living in Dunedin.

(12-10-2016 03:29 PM)morondog Wrote:  Of course. Total taxation means no one will bother to do business. No taxation means everyone will use your country as a tax haven and none of the money will benefit the people in that country, except perhaps indirectly through job creation. Therefore setting the tax rate is a tricky business. As a government you should definitely want to maximise the tax you bring in, without hurting the economy too much in the process. And the *reason* you want to maximise that tax is to carry out social projects. Because ultimately as the government you do not exist to have a healthy economy or to be nice to those amoral profit driven businesses, but to ensure that your citizens have e.g. access to free quality education.
Is see the govt purpose as different to you "Access to free quality education" is means undertaken by govt rather than the purpose of govt. To me govt is there to create a safe, stable and thriving society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 03:48 PM
RE: Do or Die
(12-10-2016 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
M-W Dictionary Wrote:noun, Psychiatry.

1. a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

In case you had trouble spotting yourself, I've added some emphasis.



(11-10-2016 02:11 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I do not accept that anything is morally wrong or morally right.

Exhibit A.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 03:55 PM
RE: Do or Die
(11-10-2016 07:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 02:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  You are saying that I can't have empathy if I don't have a belief in moral rights, wrongs and obligations. Where is the logic in that thinking?

I think you seem periliously close to the condition where you don't have empathy and you justify it by appealing to your lack of belief in morals.

He crossed the Rubicon a whie back, MD.

What he, like any fundamentalist Christian, doesn't understand (obviously), is that absolute morality is not the only form of morality. Relative and subjective moralities are both in play as well.

But to a rigid mind -- as EK pointed out earlier, he's deeply averse to grey -- to a rigid mind, such complexities are not just anathemæ, but existential crises.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: