Nice video on wealth inequality in America
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2013, 12:42 PM
RE: Nice video on wealth inequality in America
"$10/hour minimum wage is too low."

Then why not make it $20.00? Or $40.00? Why not $200.00?

The problem isn't the minimum wage, it's inflation. If there were no inflation, a family could live well on one $10.00 per hour salary. However, once inflation is entered into the equation, prices start to rise in concert with a devaluation in the existing supply of money. Thus, ten dollars buys today what five dollars bought ten years ago. It's the same ten dollars, and the amount of labor exerted to earn that ten dollars is the same (or less) than it was ten years ago.

Not to mention, when you enact a minimum wage, you guarantee that those with the lowest level of skill and the least work experience (minorities and teens) won't be able to find work. And those who do get a pay raise and get to keep their job as a result of the minimum wage will suffer in the long run due to the rising cost of labor. As I mentioned above, when costs rise, business owners simply pass those costs on to the consumer.

The answer to a living wage isn't forcing people to pay ever higher salaries. It's to stop increasing the amount of currency in circulation, which is the genesis of inflation. That's something that government does in order to finance the debt it incurs. In simple terms, every time the state increases the money supply, your dollars buy less. Manipulating interest rates is a favorite tool of inflation "control" that the state uses and it leads to boom and bust cycles, one of which we are currently still suffering. The problem with that, though, is that you can't control inflation by manipulating the interest rate. All you can do is cause malinvestment and other market anomalies which in turn, exacerbate the very problem you're attempting to solve.

In simple terms, the minimum wage is analogous to treating a tooth ache with heroine. Sure, you'll get some immediate relief but the infection is still there and still growing. At some point, the heroine can't overcome the pain of the toothache and to boot, the infection will have spread to your vital organs and then, you die.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 12:44 PM
RE: Nice video on wealth inequality in America
(05-03-2013 11:37 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Capitalism was a revolutionary system,"

Sure was.... 100,000 years ago when the first human traded some of the fruits of his labor for some of the fruits of another human's labor. The rest of what you're talking about is a result of statism. You can deny it, demand that I stop saying it, ignore reality and scream about property rights all you like and it won't get you one inch closer to understanding the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

On an aside, since property rights are so devastating, I'm assuming that you don't claim any ownership to anything... including your argument.

You are just ignorant and stupid, and there really isn't any other way to put it. You are ideological, and set on believing whatever it is that you want to believe, regardless of facts, evidence or arguments to the contrary.

You really would think there would be limits to stupidity, ignorance and lack of wisdom. I'd even settle for just the latter. It would be nice if the number of people, as a portion of the total population, intelligent and rational enough to think for themselves, could improve by just a little bit. If we could just have a little boost to the number of people not stuck on some bullshit ideology, founded on nonsense, that would be amazing.

Every single day, I move away from thinking that we actually have a chance, toward thinking we are just completely and utterly fucking screwed. The people intelligent enough, and willing, to solve the problems, are just completely, exponentially outnumbered by others, then adding in the insistent, overwhelming fanaticism of those others, I'd have to say fucked might even be an understatement.

We should change the name of the thread to: What is worse than fucked?

We might as well accept that things are falling apart, and just start taking bets on how and when.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: Nice video on wealth inequality in America
"You are just ignorant and stupid, and there really isn't any other way to put it."

If that's true, then it should be quite easy for you to formulate a cogent argument against everything I've said. And I'd be fine with that. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I've changed my position on almost everything a number of times throughout my life, because I'm not wed to the positions, I'm wed to the truth.

I'm happy to read your arguments and examine any evidence you have for them but you'll have to first make an argument rather than a personal attack.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like bbeljefe's post
05-03-2013, 12:59 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2013 01:53 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Nice video on wealth inequality in America
(05-03-2013 12:52 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "You are just ignorant and stupid, and there really isn't any other way to put it."

If that's true, then it should be quite easy for you to formulate a cogent argument against everything I've said. And I'd be fine with that. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I've changed my position on almost everything a number of times throughout my life, because I'm not wed to the positions, I'm wed to the truth.

I'm happy to read your arguments and examine any evidence you have for them but you'll have to first make an argument rather than a personal attack.

You have yet to provide an argument. You have, also, yet to provide any arguments against any of the previous things I've raised in other threads, or even address what I've raised in this thread. I can't give you the ability, or a greater ability, to reason/use logic. And I can't make up an argument and give you an argument, if that argument doesn't exist.

I should add: You could care less about truth. The statement about changing you positions, only highlights the problem. Changing your position only goes to show that you have made up your mind, previously. That's a fundamental problem with you being unwise. All of your views are based on ideology, fundamentally lacking in objectivity. All of your ideas and thoughts are tied to that ideology, and dependent on that ideology.

To what you mentioned previously: No, I don't claim ownership of things, and that would include the arguments I make. If any person wants to use any of the arguments I make, they are free to do so, in many ways. I only claim ownership to my thoughts/perceptions, because as far as I can tell, those things are from me. For things outside of my mind, ownership is determined otherwise, usually through natural processes and social interactions.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: Nice video on wealth inequality in America
(05-03-2013 10:47 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I don't know why you would feel the need to use one way that our government defines poverty, in comparison with a completely different measure, to other countries, in order to try and show something that would be completely irrelevant to the point, even if true. I also don't know why you would use-- "If the level of well-being of the poor were to double, but you had to accept that the well-being of the rich would increase by a factor of 10, would you oppose that outcome?"-- that is just a false dilemma, that, also, completely avoids the problem.

Great example of logic fail here. If capitalism increases the wealth of all however in doing so increases the wealth of a minority by more, than my question is perfectly framed and gets to the heart of the matter of whether wealth inequality is a problem. I asked the question if you would prefer that the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich. You don't want to answer that question because you know your honest answer would not be an appealing one.

I cited median income information that people 'living in poverty' in the US are on the whole more wealthy than the typical citizen in most advanced western countries. You might find that inconvenient, but it is certainly not irrelevant. I cited that information because my question assumes a premise that capitalism has increased the wealth of the poor. Do you deny that premise? Capitalism has history on its side with example after example of the wealth of a nation being greatly improved across all strata of society, albeit unevenly, so you need to come up with something other than righteous indignation if you wish to challenge that premise.

Ohh, and it is best to avoid repeating your resort to ad hominem with others on this thread . I find noted capitalist pig, Cheryl Crow, quotable for this moment Smile :

"My friend the communist
Holds meetings in his RV
I can't afford his gas
So I'm stuck here watching TV
I don't have digital
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got

I'm gonna soak up the sun
Gonna tell everyone
To lighten up (I'm gonna tell 'em that)"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
05-03-2013, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2013 03:37 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Nice video on wealth inequality in America
(05-03-2013 02:08 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Great example of logic fail here. If capitalism increases the wealth of all however in doing so increases the wealth of a minority by more, than my question is perfectly framed and gets to the heart of the matter of whether wealth inequality is a problem. I asked the question if you would prefer that the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich. You don't want to answer that question because you know your honest answer would not be an appealing one.

I cited median income information that people 'living in poverty' in the US are on the whole more wealthy than the typical citizen in most advanced western countries. You might find that inconvenient, but it is certainly not irrelevant. I cited that information because my question assumes a premise that capitalism has increased the wealth of the poor. Do you deny that premise? Capitalism has history on its side with example after example of the wealth of a nation being greatly improved across all strata of society, albeit unevenly, so you need to come up with something other than righteous indignation if you wish to challenge that premise.

Ohh, and it is best to avoid repeating your resort to ad hominem with others on this thread . I find noted capitalist pig, Cheryl Crow, quotable for this moment Smile :

"My friend the communist
Holds meetings in his RV
I can't afford his gas
So I'm stuck here watching TV
I don't have digital
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got

I'm gonna soak up the sun
Gonna tell everyone
To lighten up (I'm gonna tell 'em that)"

Even assuming the measurements were proper in reflecting the situation you were trying to illustrate, it would not follow that inequality wasn't a problem. If there was a logical failing, it was on your part. You made that assumption, and the illogical leap, not me. That was invalid. It was just bullshit aimed at deflecting from some thing you know is a problem.

The question was a false dilemma-- it makes an invalid argument, and it's a dilemma. You can't assume that the rich having less, would make the poor have less. That is a logical failing, on your part. It's invalid. I'd obviously accept the rich having less, because the results would be the money circulating through the economy--I'd like that without governmental policies, ideally--as opposed to the government having to borrow massive amounts of money (i.e. taking on debt) and attempting to manipulate and play games with the currency, in order to solve problems that should not even be problems, like you seemed to imply would be an okay thing, in you first post.

Capitalism, as I've already cited in this thread, if you actually cared to educate yourself, was "revolutionary", but it also included things like "imperialism, genocide, war, mass killings, slavery, starvation, desperation, etc.". I could also add in that in instances of capitalism being a system of economics for places that experienced growth, besides extreme, immoral atrocities, that happened in some places like America, as great example, there was also governmental, collective, intervention, usually in places with strong, stable, republican, democratic forms of government.

I'm not an end justifies the means person. I'm not in favor of immorality, especially on an extreme and large scale. In that sense, based on an assumption/hypothetical scenario, if that would result in both the rich and poor, all being poor, I'd accept that result.

Like I said, the statistics were irrelevant. Showing that some number, or percent, of people in devolved nations are poor by a certain standard, shows that and that alone. If that is what it shows, especially if a large percent, it shows that other nations would have, what I would call, a problem.

Lastly, I try to avoid listening to shitty music, so Cheryl Crow isn't on my list of respected artists.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: Nice video on wealth inequality in America
(05-03-2013 02:08 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Ohh, and it is best to avoid repeating your resort to ad hominem with others on this thread .

You should have started and stopped there.

People who can't even interpret arguments, and then take a "fuck you" or being called stupid, as a last effort of the other person to argue against what they never had in the first place, are just annoying.

I want to be blacklisted and exiled.

It's bad enough dealing with this kind of stuff on TV and radio. I can turn the station, but damn. You would expect more from people, especially on here. A site of people claiming not to believe in god, and making arguments worse than those of the religious, and some as if the actually held a belief in god(s).

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: Nice video on wealth inequality in America
"People who can't even interpret arguments, and then take a "fuck you" or
being called stupid, as a last effort of the other person to argue
against what they never had in the first place, are just annoying."


I haven't experience that as your last effort. It seems to come pretty early on, as I recall. Wink

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: Nice video on wealth inequality in America
"You have yet to provide an argument."

Look up dude. I've provided arguments in two posts above. You've not provided any refutation to either of them. You've attacked me on a personal level and you've wholly misunderstood or, at least, misrepresented what I've said to you.

Regarding property, why are you responding to me? If you're correct and we don't own our arguments, then there is no reason for you to address me with your retorts. The arguments I'm making could belong to anyone. Well, not really, because non of us owns anything.

Oh and, btw, what's your address? I may be in need of a kidney transplant and if there are two of them in your body, I'm entitled one of them. And do you have a car? Because I may need to use one of those as well.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 05:58 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2013 06:14 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Nice video on wealth inequality in America
(05-03-2013 03:58 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "You have yet to provide an argument."

Look up dude. I've provided arguments in two posts above. You've not provided any refutation to either of them. You've attacked me on a personal level and you've wholly misunderstood or, at least, misrepresented what I've said to you.

Regarding property, why are you responding to me? If you're correct and we don't own our arguments, then there is no reason for you to address me with your retorts. The arguments I'm making could belong to anyone. Well, not really, because non of us owns anything.

Oh and, btw, what's your address? I may be in need of a kidney transplant and if there are two of them in your body, I'm entitled one of them. And do you have a car? Because I may need to use one of those as well.

Can you read? Do you have low reading comprehension? Who is responsible for you education, or lack thereof? Let me guess-- the state.

I said I didn't claim ownership of the argument(s)-- I didn't say that I didn't make the argument(s), and I didn't say that the arguments weren't addressed toward some thing. I actually even went to the extent of saying that I did claim my thoughts, and even that I did make the argument(s). I also pointed out, in the latter part, how ownership is determined outside of the things of which I'd actually claim ownership. That should, to a person capable of proper inference, indicate that I could own things of which I do not claim ownership.

As far as what you consider arguments: I can't force-feed or spoon-feed you. I'm not your parent or your teacher. If you don't understand a concept, I'm not going to continually explain it, over and over, just to have to run home to your ideology, that you insist on believing, by purposefully disregarding objectivity and empirical evidence.

I've yet to see you actually, directly address any thing that I've brought up. In this thread, specifically, you completely ignored my original point. In an actual, off-line conversation, I'd might be able to do it; but right now, I'm not going to do my thinking and your thinking for the both of us.

To quickly let you know what you did in this thread specifically: I addressed the presence of a state currently, and the historical development of states. You, subsequently, ignored that in order to throw out "100,000 years ago", first of all, and I'm not even going to fact-check on how historically inaccurate that part of the comment was, beyond just pointing out that it's likely off by a little bit; then you went on to talking about the rest being states, when my post was addressing the development of states.

I also tried to indicate that capitalism and states are both human systems-- reification should be avoided. The actually problem is people-- the problems all start with humans and them being irrational in thinking and decision making. Starting with human beings, at whatever point it was history, the fundamental, if you want to call it "root of all evil" started by human irrationality. That would have lead in this order-- religion -> capitalism -> states --with the corruption being part of human's natural irrational tendencies in thinking, but the order is pretty much where one leads to the other.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: