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.
Because the magnetic strip offered value to others and they were voluntarily willing to pay for it in a free market.
Ahh, yes, all transactions are voluntary. Relative inequalities in power and leverage? Don't exist, right? Those who control markets by virtue of having vastly more economic power aren't "coercing" anyone, even though they have added no value (i.e. utility, not dollars) and force those without power to adopt their prescriptions, right? Oh, I forgot, despite study after study to the contrary, market power doesn't even exist!
Second, the notion that the market is about volition fundamentally misunderstands the manufacturing of consent (again, well documented) and how marketing (generally) exploits well-known cognitive biases to make people act against their own rational interests (as well as against the social interest). Creating desires where none existed and needs where none existed is about perpetuating the system rather than actually creating additional value. See the research on the hedonic treadmill to see the fallacy.
Information is provided by the capitalists, and yet it is considered "volition" if people - not knowing better - agree with the information.
The problem is not that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. It's that the government is intent on wasting billions of dollars on pork and pet projects. Cut the funding on these useless studies and delay funding on the ones that are NOT useless until we can afford to pay for it (which we probably could if you cut out all of the useless spending).
Pork is not a large percentage of the budget and also is a good thing anyway. "Pork" is what funds local projects in your district and allows representatives to actually represent their localities. The outcry against pork has made compromise impossible and also hurt the ability of representative government to represent narrow, local interests that still need funding (around the country).
Second, all of the government waste sites document tiny, tiny fractions of the federal budget, even in the aggregate. Moreover, those "useless studies" are very often what leads to technological, agricultural, psychological, etc.. progress. It also indirectly funds the educational system while giving professors and student assistants huge amounts of hands-on experiments in their given field. Moreover, many of the "useless studies" end up being important or even revolutionary years down the road, even if they appear not to in the short run.
There is spending to be cut, but its not from little inefficiencies added up together, but mainly from huge boondoggles like purchasing military equipment the military says it doesn't want or need or continuing to fund military research projects that have become outdated or mired in complications.
No, I asked "why is it so hot out" and you answered "because the temperature is high". "They earned it" or "they deserve it" is a non-answer to "why do they deserve this wealth"? So I ask again, why do they deserve more wealth than a million of their neighbors combined will ever see? Why does a businessman who figures out how to monetize a magnetic strip on a plastic card deserve billions, while a police officer who is maimed while saving the lives of a dozen school children deserves a pension of $40k per annum?
Basically they deserve it because people paid them for it. If you build 10 houses and sell them for $100,000 a piece and people are willing pay for it then you deserve to keep the money.
Pork is not a large percentage of the budget and also is a good thing anyway. "Pork" is what funds local projects in your district and allows representatives to actually represent their localities. The outcry against pork has made compromise impossible and also hurt the ability of representative government to represent narrow, local interests that still need funding (around the country).
Second, all of the government waste sites document tiny, tiny fractions of the federal budget, even in the aggregate. Moreover, those "useless studies" are very often what leads to technological, agricultural, psychological, etc.. progress. It also indirectly funds the educational system while giving professors and student assistants huge amounts of hands-on experiments in their given field. Moreover, many of the "useless studies" end up being important or even revolutionary years down the road, even if they appear not to in the short run.
There is spending to be cut, but its not from little inefficiencies added up together, but mainly from huge boondoggles like purchasing military equipment the military says it doesn't want or need or continuing to fund military research projects that have become outdated or mired in complications.
I'm fully aware that some pork projects can be a good thing. Just like it would be a good thing for me to have a bigger house. But since I can't afford it right not, I have to prioritize and take care of my needs first. The government should do the same but their only solution is to raise taxes.
The government wastes a lot of money...there's one example not even 45 miles from me. The MOX projects which the government has already spent 4 billion on is in danger of being scrapped. So that will be 4 billion gone down the drain and while that is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the US debt, it definitely adds up when things like this continuously happen.
This is why of all the taxes, I consider property to be the least "fair" if you will. Income tax is defined by what you make, sales by what you spend, property is beyond the individuals control.
Normally you make sense, but not today.
Grab a cup of coffee.
You just do not get LAND and CAPITAL. Understand the three factors of production. Maybe you should try tea.
If I could choose to live in a country where all the CEOs had suddenly disappeared, or a country where all the janitors disappeared, dishwashers, cleaners, and cashiers disappeared, I think I would vastly prefer life in the first one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Because the magnetic strip offered value to others and they were voluntarily willing to pay for it in a free market.
Juxtaposing it with the police officer nonsense is transparent. Unfortunately also a non-sequitir. Police officer compensation packages are based on the rarity of the skills involved. Police officers possess skills that are relatively common in the population. They are paid exactly what they are worth. If someone wants to possess more money that that which is paid to a police officer, he has options in a free society.
Step 1: Choose something more lucrative.
Step 2: Acquire or develop the skills to be good at that endeavor.
Or:
Step 3: Become a police officer with an eye on becoming police commissioner.
Are you seeing how this works, this Capitalist thing?
I know how capitalism works, what I'm saying is that it is flawed. You've described the world, but you haven't explained why you consider it just.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Police officers possess skills that are relatively common in the population. They are paid exactly what they are worth.
I don't believe the second sentence follows from the first.
If I could choose to live in a country where all the CEOs had suddenly disappeared, or a country where all the janitors disappeared, dishwashers, cleaners, and cashiers disappeared, I think I would vastly prefer life in the first one.
You didn't earn being born in a free country or a wealthy country. You earned your privileged state exactly as much as those born into extreme poverty, and it is not "envy" to point out that they experience drastically more suffering for no other reason than chance. It has literally nothing to do with choice or earning or justification. However, it's nice to see you finally hoist yourself on your own petard when noting that you "availed [yourself] of [society's] benefits." That's the point. You didn't make it on your own and without that society's vast store of infrastructure, knowledge, educational support systems, etc... you would have achieved nothing (or but a fraction) of what you have. You owe all your success to society and the generations of the past. You stand upon the shoulders of hundreds of millions through nothing of your own doing but luck.
Oh, yeah, capitalism has done SO WELL by the third world. We talk about modest increases in GDP, not looking at the fact that tens of millions work 80 hours per week on pain of starvation or even more extreme destitution. Not to mention skyrocketing inequality. There are also plenty of nations that embraced limited government (or no government, i.e. Somalia) and capitalism which have failed to grow or experienced great economic shocks. Look at the life expectancies and economic growth in Russia under Communism versus their wild west days of Capitalism; the freeing of the markets was a huge failure (which is, sadly, one reason they've turned to a fascistic strongman), causing unprecedented decreases in life expectancy and huge economic contractions from which the majority of the population has never recovered; only the Oligarchs are winning. If you think that third-world capitalism an improvement over even *primitive* communist societies, then again I'd ask you to place yourselves in the relative shoes of an industrial wage slave versus an ancient agrarian worker. If you'd prefer to work 72-96 hours in a closed factory (without the right to speak to others, to take breaks or read, etc...), then... well, hey, I've found a masochist.
Amazing, but I never spoke of envy. Anymore than a victim who is mugged envies the thief. You, perversely, think that society protecting the massive and unearned store of wealth, knowledge, infrastructure, etc... from being stolen by a tiny fragment of the population is theft. Simultaneously, the bandits, bethinking themselves the prime movers, are praised as the deserving. Well, you won't get assent to such a mad idea from me.
Second, from a utilitarian perspective, it's not about envy, but about maximizing human happiness. Why should some suffer due to unearned circumstance? Given the reality of decreasing marginal utility, inequality is necessarily related to net decreases in human happiness and a concomitant increase in unnecessary human suffering. As I mentioned very bluntly, but which you did not address, if the purpose of society is to protect and expand upon unearned iniquities, then what purpose does society serve that the state of nature would not equally serve?
This is exactly why libertarianism is indistinguishable from fascism. I asked you any number of times (in a previous thread) to point out how someone "makes themselves better" without appealing to uncaused causes (i.e. the so-called self-made man) and you never answered. However, if it ultimately comes down to "being born better", then your system is indeed fascistic. Money is power. In your society, the "betters" are born deserving power by virtue of their unearned luck. This is indistinguishable from the divine right of kings or perpetual, hereditary dictatorship, or fascism.
Your just world fallacy rears its head again. Many people work very hard or act logically and fall through the cracks. Many people do everything right and through luck or circumstance (even macroeconomic circumstance) fail. As has been pointed out to you dozens (maybe more) times, a few unearned variables like parents education and parents income predicts the majority of one's future predilection to crime, to poverty, etc... That has literally nothing to do with your mystical belief in self-improvement and everything to do with realizing the "self" is ENTIRELY a product of parents, peers, society, etc... There is no internal you that would exist (in cognizable form) if you were raised by wolves apart from these influences. All your skills, all your work ethic, your beliefs, your philosophy, etc... is a product of external forces. You are not your own. Sorry.
Moreover, if some are born better, per your assertion, wouldn't your advice also be a misnomer? If some people are more talented, does that not mean a person of limited talent could never earn or receive even a tiny fragment of the value created by the majority even if they worked twice as hard?
Not only that, but you've never explained why hard work is a virtue in and of itself! You asserted that you love your job and so should others, which is one of your many multi-faceted fallacies. Jobs are not a toy or bauble, but a necessity for most. Shouldn't pursuing one's own interests and one's care for others be more important than endless self-flagellation? And, before you talk further about loving your own job, most people (in poll after poll) dislike their jobs. Many have cruel managers, and our economic system - by virtue of its massive inequalities - does not provide them leverage to change their working conditions and also makes starting one's own business an extremely negative proposition. Moreover, if most people face negative working conditions, a game of musical chairs wouldn't solve it either.
Other than the sick reaction part, you make some good points . I mean, you admit some are "born better". Well, nothing could be less earned than that. The professors are pointing out that intergenerational mobility is low. They are also using basic logic. Genetics do play a role (empirically), which nation you are born into plays a huge role (empirically), which neighborhood you are born into plays a huge role (empirically), your race (sadly) still plays a major role in most nations, your parents' educational level and socioeconomic circumstance plays an enormous role, your exposure to peers from a young age shapes you. These things are not only logical (how else would one become the person they become if not from the unchosen impacts of others upon their lives?) but empirically supported over and over and over. The just world is merely the most insane and easily-disproved of post-hoc logical fallacies.
However, this is never about tearing others down, but about lifting those in poverty up. Again, unless you postulate a disagreement with the notion of decreasing marginal utility of additional dollars, the reality is that redistribution is its own good. It's also good from a capitalist economic perspective due to the increased marginal velocity of money in the hands of the poorer and middle classes. It's also good from a psychological perspective (which is part of our brains... you know our CORE being), as indicated from numerous studies of happiness and compilations of that research (i.e. The Spirit Level, etc...). But yes, it is all arbitrary, and only egalitarianism respects all people instead of worshiping the wealthy and discarding the poor with sharp grins and self-righteous condescension.
You my friend, are one unhappy and unfulfilled person. I do not see that changing.
You my friend, are one unhappy and unfulfilled person. I do not see that changing.
Luckily, realists and pessimists tend to live longer. That said, you are certainly right. Socialism is the only thing that brings light to my heart. Because I realize the world is unjust and work to change it, it is a very uphill battle.
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.
. I mean, you admit some are "born better". Well, nothing could be less earned than that. The professors are pointing out that intergenerational mobility is low. They are also using basic logic. Genetics do play a role (empirically), which nation you are born into plays a huge role (empirically), which neighborhood you are born into plays a huge role (empirically), your race (sadly) still plays a major role in most nations, your parents' educational level and socioeconomic circumstance plays an enormous role, your exposure to peers from a young age shapes you. These things are not only logical (how else would one become the person they become if not from the unchosen impacts of others upon their lives?) but empirically supported over and over and over. The just world is merely the most insane and easily-disproved of post-hoc logical fallacies.