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.
So what gives the right to the mob to victimize the minority?
What minority? Everyone will closely be equal.
If you mean "victimize" as in, politically, I cant imagine how "mob rule" could be worse then being ruled by the oligarchic plutocracy, for the benefit of the oligarchic plutocracy. At least in mob rule, the greater good is being served.
When you build something with what you find in the ground, that product becomes the means to extract wealth from someone else. In that regard it "generates" wealth, but it does not create it.
*What if I save money because of it?
At least you are understanding the concept of how extracting more of something or "finding" a new resource simply lowers the value of it or other resources exchanged for it.
*I understand inflation.
It has made people money at the expense of someone else. You mention the "market", as in shares. This is a closed economic model, which makes it a terrific example. If my Microsoft share is worth $5, and an Apple share is worth $5, if my Microsoft share goes up to $15, isnt the Apple guy poorer on the exchange market? He can no longer exchange his Apple share for your Microsoft even up, he now has to trade 3 of his Apple shares for your Microsoft. So you basically extracted 2 Apple shares, and THAT is the so called "created" wealth.
*What about the guys that created both shares. I understand the market is a gamble sometimes and when gambling you will lose money but the reason why people trade stocks is because a Bill Gates created a Microsoft that has real value and is worth buying. Just because people gamble Microsoft shares on the stock market doesn't mean Microsoft hasn't created real wealth. People have saved money because of these products which stimulates production creating jobs and wealth that wasn't there before.
What does this have to do with anything?
*It's a creating wealth example.
The vehicle did not "create" any wealth. If has served the purpose of extracting wealth, adjusting the values of wealth, and extracting wealth more efficiently, but it hasnt created any.
*So if I go a 300 mile trip on a buggy feeding the horses, staying at inns, eating several meals doesn't save money versus getting three hundred miles much quicker with less money spent in a car? If I saved money by buying a car and the car maker made some money he created wealth.
Let me try to translate what you are trying to say. If a company reduces their prices by some new process, and saves you money, how is that transferring wealth?
Im not exactly sure how to explain this any more clearer. The price of the manufactured good has nothing to do with the function of wealth transfer, just the amount of wealth that can be extracted per unit.
*If I saved money and the company made money didn't their idea create wealth for both of us? Do you see my point? Wealth can be created and not always is it transferred.
Since the economy would be planned, it would make it completely impractical to allow people to simply construct their own factories on whatever land they wanted.
Oh a perfectly planned economy for all exists. I was not aware that these theoretical omniscient beings have drawn up the perfect economy for everyone. Well let's go ahead and just become cogs in the government machine then shall we? Shall we just prey that these Gods feel that our unique interests are important?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
They wouldnt have a "monopoly" over initial materials. There would be several factories that would be invidually competing within the government standards to attract business, and the government would purchase those materials from those factories.
It is cute that you think this government monopoly is somehow looking out for you more than a business monopoly without realizing that the humans who run it are identical. Or are we still talking about omniscient and benevolent beings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Not only are DMVs notoriously understaffed, but the staff that is there has no direct vested interest in improving the operation of the facility. This is exactly why your minimum wage burger flipper couldnt give two damns how fast he makes your food, the quality of the food, or if he washes his hands or not. He has no vested interest in doing so. He is making the same money whether or not 3 customers are served, or 600 are served.
It is still the same government that is running the DMV that will be planning this whole idealized economy. Yet we are to believe that this hypothetical government will somehow be different than the one we have now right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
If you gave each DMV worker a cut of the total labor value extracted from the customers, they would serve a person a second. However, pay them $8 an hour, and they are going to give you an $8 an hour job.
If you gave each DMV worker a cut of the total labor value you would simply send them a bill not pay them. They are paid by confiscated value. Therefore, their labor "value" is a liability and not an asset. I hardly doubt that they would work harder if they had to pay their "customers". Real value can only be determined by a voluntary purchaser. Forced "services" provide no value other than to escape from further unjust force. Does a thug working in a "protection ring" in the neighborhood really provide value?
Since the economy would be planned, it would make it completely impractical to allow people to simply construct their own factories on whatever land they wanted.
They wouldnt have a "monopoly" over initial materials. There would be several factories that would be invidually competing within the government standards to attract business, and the government would purchase those materials from those factories.
Not only are DMVs notoriously understaffed, but the staff that is there has no direct vested interest in improving the operation of the facility. This is exactly why your minimum wage burger flipper couldnt give two damns how fast he makes your food, the quality of the food, or if he washes his hands or not. He has no vested interest in doing so. He is making the same money whether or not 3 customers are served, or 600 are served.
If you gave each DMV worker a cut of the total labor value extracted from the customers, they would serve a person a second. However, pay them $8 an hour, and they are going to give you an $8 an hour job.
The average dmv worker makes much more than minimum wage as do most government workers and that comes with better benefits than the private sector could offer. Minimum wage burger flippers are either on their way to a better paying job or are working that job because it's low enough to keep getting welfare benefits from the government. Most people don't choose to stay making a low wage.
The greed of money inspires people to do better and invent which produces more wealth. The lazy don't deserve it because they don't want it bad enough. This pie in the sky idea that if you pay people they will perform better is not always true. I have known government workers that got great benefits, were paid well over minimum wage, didn't work very hard and were still lazy. Just look at how many people abuse the welfare system in this country. Instead of getting a job they settle for welfare and relax, it then makes them stay on longer than they should and encourages freeloading. Why should I be creative and invent if I just have to share my money with everyone else and everyone else gets to take credit along with me?
If you mean "victimize" as in, politically, I cant imagine how "mob rule" could be worse then being ruled by the oligarchic plutocracy, for the benefit of the oligarchic plutocracy. At least in mob rule, the greater good is being served.
Greater good!!! C'mon, we all know that the "greater good" is left to be defined by those in power. Whether those who are in power are there because they are a majority, wealthy, or decree.
I am opposed to both mob rule and our current government/business collusion. I believe that every person is equal. Therefore I don't believe in any system which would define what or how a person should act or should or should not do voluntarily and peacefully.
I believe in only one thing.
No individual, group, or government should be permitted to use any force that is not retaliatory against any individual, group, or government who does not initiate force.
Simple. Free. Peaceful. Just. Not perfect, but as close as we as imperfect and unique human beings can ever hope to be.
Any ideas about controlling or manipulating the free will of the people that requires the initiation of force are immoral and unjust.
When the "Deep South" breaks its habit of voting blood red every election, then I will change my perception. Until then, the only logical conclusion is that a state that votes conservative is in favor of conservative fiscal policies. Racial demographics have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Blood red? OMG lol!
Racial demographics absolutely have something to do with it. Especially when an inordinate amount of federal money goes to certain racial demographics and certain racial demographics pay very little in taxes.
You made the statement that the blue states have been supporting the red states for a "long long time".
You are going by the 2005 tax foundation information. I asked you to prove this "long long time" assertion. You didn't.
Racial demographics absolutely have something to do with it. Especially when an inordinate amount of federal money goes to certain racial demographics and certain racial demographics pay very little in taxes.
Imagine what those states would look like if the federal welfare money was non-existent? Banana Republics of the South, anyone?
You made the statement that the blue states have been supporting the red states for a "long long time".
You are going by the 2005 tax foundation information. I asked you to prove this "long long time" assertion. You didn't.
Are you serious? LOL! Are you familiar with "strawman" arguments, or "red herrings?"
I'm not going to spend all day finding the oldest data I can find in an attempt to satisfy and answer your useless question. I can extrapolate my ambiguous temporal statement based on the data available. The economies of the South were in worse shape "a long time ago" than they are now! Logic works wonders for those who can employ same.
What is a "long time" to you? Is it five years? A decade? A century? Since the New Deal?
Tell you what, instead of attacking the length of period of my claim, why don't you try to do something useful, like show that the red states contribute their fair share, or WOULDN'T fall flat on their rears if federal spending for prisons, farm subsidies, and military bases disappeared?
The countries you mention have a somewhat lower living standard IMO (though I am not that familiar with Ireland). We in the US will soon become like Britain, with higher cost of living, lower wages, higher taxes.
By what standard do I judge that W Europe has a higher standard? I live in Germany and work for a US company. I work alongside Germans and by comparison they are quite a bit better off. I have traveled extensively in Europe for the last twenty years and have been unable to escape the conclusion that most europeans are better off from cradle to grave.
In America we are free. We are free to reach for the stars and sell our labor and creativity, so the industrious and imaginative can be very successful. We also have government programs funded thru taxpayer dollars that seem to encourage people to do nothing at all, but subsist off a meager handout in the form of government sponsored charity.
There is a disparity of wealth in this country because we are free; free to aspire to greatness, and free to subsist off a government check and the charity of others. For those who are poor in this country, we offer the freedom to better themselves.
We could all be poor and miserable as they are in Cuba or Zimbabwe, but those people are not free, but they are all equally poor.
Not everyone has the same oppurintunity to better themselves Yes it may may be free but that does not mean it is available to everyone.
Oh a perfectly planned economy for all exists. I was not aware that these theoretical omniscient beings have drawn up the perfect economy for everyone. Well let's go ahead and just become cogs in the government machine then shall we? Shall we just prey that these Gods feel that our unique interests are important?
"Prey" is a pretty accurate word when you're referring to government and power.
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.
Yet we are to believe that this hypothetical government will somehow be different than the one we have now right?
