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.
No it isn't. You just don't like the ramifications of what I wrote, even though it fully encompasses the relevant moral aspects that you vacuously tried to claim it did not.
Economics is amoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
The marketplace is grossly out of balance, and so something needs to be done to make work more valuable, across the board.
Then get government and other Command Groups out of the way, and stop interfering in the Market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Economics is a social science discipline. Not a law.
Uh-huh.....
Great Britain's government owned, controlled and operated National Health Service (NHS):
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list. This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
If the Laws of Economics do not exist, then why did those people die? Why were there waiting lists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
You can affect it by external stimulus to get it to behave morally, for example.
No, you can't, but keep up your attempts to mislead people....it's amusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
The simple facts are the upper end wages have massively increased over the labor of the masses.
That is the Laws of Economics in action, specifically to wit: Supply & Demand.
If your skills are not in demand, then go where they are, or acquire new skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
.... increasing the minimum wage,...would be an appropriate measure.
Sure...if you want to lose even more jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE
... since none of these twits have Henry Ford's insight,....
Henry Ford's insight?
Quote:
At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.
To combat the high turnover and to boost morale, Henry Ford announced the famous "$5 a day" wage. It was actually a profit-sharing plan. (The bonus wage came with certain obligations to which the employee agree.) Nevertheless, Ford's plan doubled typical wages and sent shockwaves through the other car companies. They thought Ford was crazy and would soon go out of business. Ford knew, however, that this new deal would not only lower costs due to decreased turnover, but it would create more buyers of his cars: the employees themselves! The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees' homes to ensure that they were doing things the "American way." They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family.
Source: State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources
So....please....enlighten us about Ford's insight.
As your employer, I'll gladly come to your home to make absolutely certain you are doing things the American way, and that you are clean and sober with no pornography or videos or music that is gratuitously violent.
Sorry, I'll have to remove all of your Quentin Tarantino DVDs and all of your hippity-hoppity music.
Oh...and make sure you have plenty of US flags flying...
We buy them at work. Now if we assume (generously I might add) that 20% of our purchase price of our latest robot is labor, it would equal 1/4th of an Full Time eployee whose cost was $80k annually, with benefits. We are eliminating 3 FTEs, so in one MONTH, the labor required to build the robot would be offset by the labor it reduced. And those 3 spots will be gone..forever.
Actually, it is a good one. It's grounded firmly in the most ubiquitous ethic on the planet, the ethic of reciprocity.
Perhaps you simply prefer a more immoral society. Perhaps you feel that you are in a position where you are better off being able to exploit rather than practicing consideration for others. That's your prerogative.
Yet you want to accomplish this through big governments force and coercion. As if government is moral.
Having a government is moral. Perhaps you just don't like how being moral means that you have obligations to something other than yourself. Your corrupted perspective seems to be such that you cannot bring yourself to admit what is moral versus what is simply your personal preference.
Having a government is moral. Perhaps you just don't like how being moral means that you have obligations to something other than yourself. Your corrupted perspective seems to be such that you cannot bring yourself to admit what is moral versus what is simply your personal preference.
The only ones with a corrupted perception are the big government supporters who love to run others lives. Ruin it is more like it.
How moral was Jim Crow oh moral one? Or the laws that threw Japanese Americans in jail for just being of that descent? Or the laws that throw people in jail today for drug use even though no ones rights have been abused? Or the tax laws that steal our money for others causes? You have a sick twisted perception of right and wrong so how could you have any perception of what is moral?
This current administration has murdered over 200 children in Pakistan and Yemen with drones, some in schools. How can anyone forget the hundreds of thousands of children who died in Iraq at the hands of our sanctions? And you have the gall to proclaim that wicked entity is moral?
Is it because you are so arrogant that you think your ideals are so moral you have to force it on others "for their own good"? Your morals are so righteous that others don't count? It's good to be king.
The only ones with a corrupted perception are the big government supporters who love to run others lives.
Ah. The old "I know you are but what am I?" defense.
It isn't surprising that you fail to understand the nature of liberal perspective. You don't really have a vested interest in learning what you don't know in that regard, because it would make defending what you defend impossible, if you had any integrity. On the odd chance that you, or some casual reader, is ready to learn, here is what you go wrong: Liberals recognize the wisdom that the measure of a society is how it treats is most vulnerable members. This is a moral precept, so if one cares only about themselves and their own interest, and has no real moral fiber to speak of, they will have a lot of difficulty understanding the concept.
Regardless, it isn't about "running others lives" but rather making sure everyone can "run their own lives" without the more powerful people "running their own lives" resulting in their tromping all over less powerful people "running their own lives". Power doesn't not grant privilege, in a moral society - it grants obligation. That principle goes back thousands of years. It is nothing new. Jesus, Charlemagne, George Washington; they each had their flaws, of course - they were men of prior, more barbaric, ages - but they all espoused this principle that you seem unwilling to accept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
How moral was Jim Crow oh moral one?
Not at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Or the laws that threw Japanese Americans in jail for just being of that descent?
Zippo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Or the laws that throw people in jail today for drug use even though no ones rights have been abused?
I suppose we'll have to defer judgment on that until you provide the facts of the case, and we can validate whether or not you're lying about those facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Or the tax laws that steal our money for others causes?
Taxes aren't stolen. They are assessed and collected, even if you cannot bring yourself to be honest about it. And they're not used for others' causes, but rather, as a whole, in the best interests of our society, again, even if you cannot bring yourself to be honest about it. You're welcome to lie to yourself about the nature of taxes, but don't think to have an unrebutted soapbox for the lies you like here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
You have a sick twisted perception of right and wrong so how could you have any perception of what is moral?
No. I have a very well-grounded, fundamentally honorable, perception of right and wrong. It's grounded in universal ethics like the ethic of reciprocity, an ethic found in practically every belief system going back millenia. By contrast, your "twisted perception of right and wrong" is evidently whatever is best for you, personally - whatever best serves your own personal interest, without regard to how that affects others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
This current administration has murdered over 200 children in Pakistan and Yemen with drones, some in schools. How can anyone forget the hundreds of thousands of children who died in Iraq at the hands of our sanctions? And you have the gall to proclaim that wicked entity is moral?
Of course, one of the most time-tested tactics of posters like yourself who know that their perspectives have been exposed as corrupt is to make up things to argue against, even though the person they're responding to didn't say those things. I never said that those actions were moral. I said that , "Having a government is moral." I worded that very carefully, to make sure it was perfectly accurate, rather than just accepting the unproven premises in your inquiry.
When you have to make stuff up to argue against, rather than arguing against what the other person actually wrote, it is time to realize that your argument has failed. I doubt you'll admit that though. I suspect you'll go on playing the ridiculous games necessary to insulate yourself from feeling the effect of the moral perspectives that I've posted in opposition to the corrupted perspectives that you've defended.
Ah. The old "I know you are but what am I?" defense.
It isn't surprising that you fail to understand the nature of liberal perspective. You don't really have a vested interest in learning what you don't know in that regard, because it would make defending what you defend impossible, if you had any integrity. On the odd chance that you, or some casual reader, is ready to learn, here is what you go wrong: Liberals recognize the wisdom that the measure of a society is how it treats is most vulnerable members. This is a moral precept, so if one cares only about themselves and their own interest, and has no real moral fiber to speak of, they will have a lot of difficulty understanding the concept.
Regardless, it isn't about "running others lives" but rather making sure everyone can "run their own lives" without the more powerful people "running their own lives" resulting in their tromping all over less powerful people "running their own lives". Power doesn't not grant privilege, in a moral society - it grants obligation. That principle goes back thousands of years. It is nothing new. Jesus, Charlemagne, George Washington; they each had their flaws, of course - they were men of prior, more barbaric, ages - but they all espoused this principle that you seem unwilling to accept.
Not at all.
Zippo.
I suppose we'll have to defer judgment on that until you provide the facts of the case, and we can validate whether or not you're lying about those facts.
Taxes aren't stolen. They are assessed and collected, even if you cannot bring yourself to be honest about it. And they're not used for others' causes, but rather, as a whole, in the best interests of our society, again, even if you cannot bring yourself to be honest about it. You're welcome to lie to yourself about the nature of taxes, but don't think to have an unrebutted soapbox for the lies you like here.
No. I have a very well-grounded, fundamentally honorable, perception of right and wrong. It's grounded in universal ethics like the ethic of reciprocity, an ethic found in practically every belief system going back millenia. By contrast, your "twisted perception of right and wrong" is evidently whatever is best for you, personally - whatever best serves your own personal interest, without regard to how that affects others.
Of course, one of the most time-tested tactics of posters like yourself who know that their perspectives have been exposed as corrupt is to make up things to argue against, even though the person they're responding to didn't say those things. I never said that those actions were moral. I said that , "Having a government is moral." I worded that very carefully, to make sure it was perfectly accurate, rather than just accepting the unproven premises in your inquiry.
When you have to make stuff up to argue against, rather than arguing against what the other person actually wrote, it is time to realize that your argument has failed. I doubt you'll admit that though. I suspect you'll go on playing the ridiculous games necessary to insulate yourself from feeling the effect of the moral perspectives that I've posted in opposition to the corrupted perspectives that you've defended.
You took the cowardly approach and didn't address anything I said about how immoral government is. Instead you made things up and tried to make it about me in your repugnant attempt to justify theft of my money for causes YOU think are good. How "moral" of you to force your will on others.
We didn't fight British tyranny to replace it with our own tyranny.
I'll be expecting another long winded say nothing post of yours that doesn't address anything of substance but instead deflects and denies.
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.
