Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed. I can't even get a poster to understand how only having 300 potential customers out of 300 million would be bad for her business. Conservatives just don't get why inequality matters.
It's called "Freedom of Choice" -- look into it.
In terms of Economics, it's called Opportunity Costs, Diminishing Returns and Economy of Scale.
I don't expect non-starters to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
But not every adult can donate millions to campaigns.
Oh, yes they, can....
HEAVY HITTER The American Hospital Association represents 37,000 individual members at more than 5,000 hospitals and health care systems.
The American Hospital Association gave....
$779 Million to Obama for America 2008
$260 Million to DNC 2008
$428 Million to RNC 2008
If more than 5,000 hospitals are members, then that means 86.8% are members.
That's a monopoly.
Because there is a hospital monopoly, hospital monopolies can price-gouge Americans charging $55,000 for an appendectomy that only costs about $2,800 with a profit margin.
And the priced-gouged money is used to fund campaigns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
Don't you think you'd be better off if you had more customers?
What an exemplary response by Control-Freak Liberals who think they have a "right" to micromanage everything in the name of the Greater Good.
Don't you think you should mind your own business?
One cannot help but to believe that all Liberals suffer from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
Is it safe to assume that if 300 people controlled all the wealth of the US that'd be just fine by you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
I agree wealth is a good thing.
Equivocation Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.
Intensional The mistake of treating different descriptions or names of the same object as equivalent even in those contexts in which the differences between them matter.
Learn the difference between Income and Wealth, and then you'll be able to discuss things honestly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
Wealth that is unevenly distributed, however, destabilizes societies.
Prove it.
You and the others constantly make that claim, but when challenged to provide evidence from neutral sources, you runaway, dodge, deflect and avoid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
I wish there was equal access to opportunities for all citizens.
There is.
Writ of Opportunity
This Writ authorizes WestCobb and all other duly situated ignorant persons to enter the residences of the socioeconomically disadvantaged and conduct a search of the premises for the socioeconomically disadvantaged.
WestCobb et al are authorized to use any means at their disposal, up to and including the use of Deadly Force, to take the socioeconomically disadvantaged into custody.
Upon taking the socioeconomically disadvantaged into custody, WestCobb et al are authorized to transport the socioeconomically disadvantaged to any one of the several hundred nearest venues providing free opportunities, or low-cost opportunities or tax-payer funded opportunities.
This Writ shall remain in full force and effect until every socioeconomically disadvantaged person has taken advantage of every possible opportunity available.
The Honorable Judge Mircea
Signed this 29th Day of December in the Year 2014
Let's revisit this.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
Don't you think you'd be better off if you had more customers?
Isn't it just amazing how you're so ready and willing to micromanage and boss around the working or the productive, yet you disdain and refrain from applying that same zeal to the non-working and the counter-productive?
That's quite the consistently hypocritical double-standard...
Are you sure it has not trickled down? Over 90% of the public that want jobs have them. I think some of the wealth must have been allowed to trickle or there would not be as many jobs. Most of the bottom 99% have a lot of what in the past been considered luxuries. Hang outside of a local social service building and see how many people are on their iPhone's. See how many must of had enough money trickle down so they could buy tattoos, etc .
This is completely beside the point. 200 years ago the richest of the rich lived in conditions that would be considered unsanitary today. So what?
The wealth gap has shot up enormously in the last 35 years. Even the "Greed Is Good" 80s weren't this bad. Poverty might be a bit more palatable today due to modern technology, but that's nothing for the richest nation on earth to be proud of.
A certain amount of wealth inequality is natural and desirable. The real trick is to allow a measure of fairness in the attaining of wealth. Ideally, those with both talent and the willingness to work hard in useful fields should be those who are rewarded best. A medical doctor should make far more than a fast food manager. In the real world, groups that perform little useful function (many/most government workers, lawyers, high finance people) game the system to deliver compensation their way. Note that 2 of these 3 examples are heavily skewed toward the Democratic party (and the 3rd is also, to a degree).
I'd say a healthy society is one where people respect others' property and have the right to keep their own...also one free from institutionalized violence (which we call government). People should follow the golden rule.
Basically, I don't think it's anyone's right to decide who should do well or who shouldn't. The more tampering there is, the more unjustice there is. Let the market (voluntary trade between people) decide. Trying to figure out the right combination of laws to control people's money will never be fair, especially since you can't prevent corruption. That's how we got where we are now.
I agree that respect for personal property is a must in a healthy society, but your characterization of government as institutionalized violence is too extreme. Government is a necessary evil because human nature is flawed. Once you have government and laws -- and again, as a non anarchist I think you must -- the rules will tip the scales in favor of some over others. Laws of inheritance, laws of taxation, laws of access to educational institutions, infrastructure, police, military, etc. -- all are going to play heavily into who accumulates wealth and who doesn't. Government isn't the only factor that determines who will succeed and who doesn't -- it's not even the most significant in our system -- but it is a factor. It's inescapable.
The leftist search for Utopia has been around for thousands of years, never to be found, simply because it doesn't exist because it cannot exist.
Talk about irrational.
Again I can't make these kinds of irrational nonsensical responses up.
So seeing income/wealth inequality as a problem is a search for utopia in the conservative Fantasyland thinking.
Using that illogical thinking calls into question why should the government or society do anything to correct/address deal with any societal problems after all it's just a search for Utopia.
If more than 5,000 hospitals are members, then that means 86.8% are members.
That's a monopoly.
Because there is a hospital monopoly, hospital monopolies can price-gouge Americans charging $55,000 for an appendectomy that only costs about $2,800 with a profit margin.
And the priced-gouged money is used to fund campaigns.
What an exemplary response by Control-Freak Liberals who think they have a "right" to micromanage everything in the name of the Greater Good.
Don't you think you should mind your own business?
One cannot help but to believe that all Liberals suffer from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
Equivocation Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.
Intensional The mistake of treating different descriptions or names of the same object as equivalent even in those contexts in which the differences between them matter.
Learn the difference between Income and Wealth, and then you'll be able to discuss things honestly.
Prove it.
You and the others constantly make that claim, but when challenged to provide evidence from neutral sources, you runaway, dodge, deflect and avoid.
There is.
Writ of Opportunity
This Writ authorizes WestCobb and all other duly situated ignorant persons to enter the residences of the socioeconomically disadvantaged and conduct a search of the premises for the socioeconomically disadvantaged.
WestCobb et al are authorized to use any means at their disposal, up to and including the use of Deadly Force, to take the socioeconomically disadvantaged into custody.
Upon taking the socioeconomically disadvantaged into custody, WestCobb et al are authorized to transport the socioeconomically disadvantaged to any one of the several hundred nearest venues providing free opportunities, or low-cost opportunities or tax-payer funded opportunities.
This Writ shall remain in full force and effect until every socioeconomically disadvantaged person has taken advantage of every possible opportunity available.
The Honorable Judge Mircea
Signed this 29th Day of December in the Year 2014
Let's revisit this.....
Isn't it just amazing how you're so ready and willing to micromanage and boss around the working or the productive, yet you disdain and refrain from applying that same zeal to the non-working and the counter-productive?
That's quite the consistently hypocritical double-standard...
Mircea
It's always mildly flattering when one as august as the mighty Mircea deigns to take an interest in my post, but it would be a much greater honor if you actually read what I wrote. Unlike the poster I was referring to, I think you can grasp why it would be a bad thing if 300 people controlled all of the wealth in our economy. She blithely thinks ... so what, even if that was the case, she'd still get hers. Uh, if there were only 300 people who could provide employment and 299,999,700 vying to provide them with goods and services -- that would be a bad thing.
The end result of 35 years of dismal conservative policies.
Which Conservative policies were those? 8 years of Clinton numerous years of democratic control of the house and senate .
You guys always seem to forget to show the % of taxes being paid by those in your little chart.
Are you sure it has not trickled down? Over 90% of the public that want jobs have them. I think some of the wealth must have been allowed to trickle or there would not be as many jobs. Most of the bottom 99% have a lot of what in the past been considered luxuries. Hang outside of a local social service building and see how many people are on their iPhone's. See how many must of had enough money trickle down so they could buy tattoos, etc.
Yeah, iPhones and tattoos aside, the stats don't lie. The wealth hasn't trickled down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
