Fear of a Black President

Advocate wrote:

It is not really free enterprise -- it is a stacked deck with price fixing, unbelievable executive compensation, interlocking directorships, etc., with the taxpayers paying through the neck.

And a flawed Justice Department, that will be investigated for not hiring qualified lawyers, regardless of party affiliation. Just heard on MSNBC.
:wink:

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...
The heart of the free market you champion is based on coveting thy neighbor's everything. You're talking yourself in circles.

T
K
O

Wow! This, Di, is really your most stupid of many stupid remarks.

The heart of the free market is voluntary transactions among people for their mutual but not equal benefit. The voluntary participation of people in a free market is not to bring others down, but to bring themselves up. The neat thing about a free market is that total wealth is increasing and not fixed with parts of it continually traded back and forth. Yes some wealthy become less wealthy and some poor become more wealthy, but the total wealth of the participants, absent invidious or jealous participants, is always expanding.

0 Replies

I love the 'total wealth is increasing' BS that Republicans spout. I really don't think it is. We get new products, and standard of living might rise across the board as science advances; but wealth is relative. It has no objective meaning other then as a measurement of the differences between people.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

...
The heart of the free market you champion is based on coveting thy neighbor's everything. You're talking yourself in circles.

T
K
O

Wow! This, Di, is really your most stupid of many stupid remarks.

The heart of the free market is voluntary transactions among people for their mutual but not equal benefit. The voluntary participation of people in a free market is not to bring others down, but to bring themselves up. The neat thing about a free market is that total wealth is increasing and not fixed with parts of it continually traded back and forth. Yes some wealthy become less wealthy and some poor become more wealthy, but the total wealth of the participants, absent invidious or jealous participants, is always expanding.

Cool, you replied. However, you didn't refute my point.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I love the 'total wealth is increasing' BS that Republicans spout. I really don't think it is. We get new products, and standard of living might rise across the board as science advances; but wealth is relative. It has no objective meaning other then as a measurement of the differences between people.

Cycloptichorn

Wealth is relative like you say. There are those starving and there are those not starving. There are those with short life expectancies and those with long life expectancies. There are the poor and there are the rich.

When the number of those not starving is increasing, wealth is increasing relative to what it was before the number of those not starving increased. When the number of those living beyond 80 years is increasing, wealth is increasing relative to what it was before the number of those living beyond 80 years increased. When the number of those with incomes greater than a million dollars is increasing, wealth is increasing relative to what it was before the number of those with incomes greater than a million dollars increased.

By the way, check it out yourself. According to US news and World Report, the number of those with incomes greater than a billion dollars has increased from 13 to 500 over the last few decades. So relative to what total wealth was in say 1958, total wealth has increased substantially by 2008.

Another source:
http://robertdfeinman.com/society/debt_wealth.html

0 Replies

so what if those with 'a billion dollars' or more has increased? It does not mean that there is new money, or wealth; it's just a different way of measuring the same thing that has always been there.

There was NOBODY with a billion dollars in 1850, but were there people as wealthy or wealthier then some of our modern billionaires? Of course.

Wealth has always remained the same - the total number of available resources on the planet divided by the population. There are occasionally new resources found, but the population keeps increasing; all that matters is how the pie is divided up, that's what wealth is; what section of the pie you get. It's false to say that new 'wealth' is created, there is no such thing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I love the 'total wealth is increasing' BS that Republicans spout. I really don't think it is. We get new products, and standard of living might rise across the board as science advances; but wealth is relative. It has no objective meaning other then as a measurement of the differences between people.

Cycloptichorn

They must mean "Republican" wealth! The Republicans devised a way that they ALL benefit while the country suffers from inept, unqualified, arrogant when caught in a lie or scheme individuals, that think anyone not of their thinking can go pound salt or go to hell, whichever comes first.

After over 3000 deaths in 9-11, you can't make hide nor hair as to why Building 7 went down, when it wasn't hit! Why there's no debris or bodies from Flight 93! And where is the plane that hit the Pentagon, already?

9-11 gave the Repugs all the ammo they needed to justify an unjust war, the taking of innocent people to Gitmo, Abu Graib torture and you wonder if a Black man is qualified?

ANYTHING would be a welcome change from the thieves in the White House, Justice Department, the cronyism, while right-winged idiots keep questioning why we need change! Cool

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Wealth has always remained the same - the total number of available resources on the planet divided by the population. There are occasionally new resources found, but the population keeps increasing; all that matters is how the pie is divided up, that's what wealth is; what section of the pie you get. It's false to say that new 'wealth' is created, there is no such thing.

This is utter nonsense and it betrays a profound ignorance of how our economy actually functions. Your premise hasn't been true since currency was adopted, really. Once upon a time Land=Wealth. Since there was only so much land, there was only so much wealth. Not so in the modern world. Ever hear of the service sector? Ever hear of a business with no assets selling for substantial sums? Do you think Google has assets totaling in the Billions? (Rhetorical questions, of course.)

The pieces of pie scenario hasn't really worked since Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776. What he theorized; these United States of America proved beyond a reasonable doubt: An economy based on currency is essentially limitless because there is a virtually unlimited quantity of things that have value; be it land, an hour worked, or art, anything. In a currency based economy; virtually anything can be monetized and everything that is, grows the economy.

This is something communists never understood and socialists still don't seem to get... but the still-relevant work of Adam Smith can still be had for free on the internet for anyone who chooses to educate his or her self. The bottom line is: you don't have to have less in order for your neighbor to have more. This is horrendously misguided thought... and results in the haves wanting to keep the have-nots down as well as the have-nots wanting to steal from the haves. While the fairytale Utopia's of everyone being a "have" is probably unattainable; this ideal should be approached through the creation of opportunity; not thievery.

Modest redistribution is absolutely necessary to avoid tyranny. Total redistribution is the epitome of evil as demonstrated by virtually every communistic regime in history.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Wealth has always remained the same - the total number of available resources on the planet divided by the population. There are occasionally new resources found, but the population keeps increasing; all that matters is how the pie is divided up, that's what wealth is; what section of the pie you get. It's false to say that new 'wealth' is created, there is no such thing.
This is utter nonsense and it betrays a profound ignorance of how our economy actually functions. Your premise hasn't been true since currency was adopted, really. Once upon a time Land=Wealth. Since there was only so much land, there was only so much wealth. Not so in the modern world. Ever hear of the service sector? Ever hear of a business with no assets selling for substantial sums? Do you think Google has assets totaling in the Billions? (Rhetorical questions, of course.)

The pieces of pie scenario hasn't really worked since Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776. What he theorized; these United States of America proved beyond a reasonable doubt: An economy based on currency is essentially limitless because there is a virtually unlimited quantity of things that have value; be it land, an hour worked, or art, anything. In a currency based economy; virtually anything can be monetized and everything that is, grows the economy.

This is something communists never understood and socialists still don't seem to get... but the still-relevant work of Adam Smith can still be had for free on the internet for anyone who chooses to educate his or her self. The bottom line is: you don't have to have less in order for your neighbor to have more. This is horrendously misguided thought... and results in the haves wanting to keep the have-nots down as well as the have-nots wanting to steal from the haves. While the fairytale Utopia's of everyone being a "have" is probably unattainable; this ideal should be approached through the creation of opportunity; not thievery.

Modest redistribution is absolutely necessary to avoid tyranny. Total redistribution is the epitome of evil as demonstrated by virtually every communistic regime in history.

You are simply incorrect, Bill. Money

wealth, things equal wealth(of course, emotions and other intangibles do as well, but that's not an economic argument lol). I agree with you that a economy based upon Belief has the ability to expand far past one based on land or gold; but that expansion does not equal a creation of new objects or resources whatsoever.

When the chips are down, it is physical goods that matter - not some imagined 'wealth.' I think that both you and others who promote Smith's ideas seem to to confuse the ever-expanding pace of science, with Wealth; it is not the same thing at all.

You say

Quote:

Do you think Google has assets totaling in the Billions? (Rhetorical questions, of course.)

No, they do not. Their 'worth' is measured by the amount of people who wish to use their service, but it is a false wealth; Google is not worth the price that it is reported to be. For when the systems fail - and they inevitably and always do - tangible goods remain, goods whose worth is based upon service and other intangibles will vanish instantly. It's a false measurement of value, and can drop in the blink of an eye; the internet bubble showed that.

You state

Quote:

This is something communists never understood and socialists still don't seem to get... but the still-relevant work of Adam Smith can still be had for free on the internet for anyone who chooses to educate his or her self. The bottom line is: you don't have to have less in order for your neighbor to have more.

The whole world has the same amount of total wealth; all that matters is how it is allocated and what units are used. Science increases the standard of living and re-defines wealth, but does not change the measurement and the way that we view it. So when one has much more, everyone has less. Yes, this is an exaggeration for effect, but it's true.

Quote:

This is horrendously misguided thought... and results in the haves wanting to keep the have-nots down as well as the have-nots wanting to steal from the haves. While the fairytale Utopia's of everyone being a "have" is probably unattainable; this ideal should be approached through the creation of opportunity; not thievery.

You are describing Science. If you want to describe 'wealth' as 'science allowing everyone to have more of everything they want,' then yeah. But most don't view it that way. It's all about relative pieces of the pie.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Really?

This painting sold for $135 million. Surely you realize that's a damn sight more than the Oil, silver, gold, wood and canvas that it was created from. How does this fit the "the total number of available resources on the planet divided by the population" theory you seem so confident in? The simple truth is; it doesn't. An idea can be even more valuable, despite being created from zero resources beyond the human mind. Don't believe me? Ask Larry Page and Sergey Brin. :wink:

(Read Smith before dismissing him, Cyclo. You're smarter than that.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I love the 'total wealth is increasing' BS that Republicans spout. I really don't think it is. We get new products, and standard of living might rise across the board as science advances; but wealth is relative. It has no objective meaning other then as a measurement of the differences between people.

Cycloptichorn

Total wealth "is" increasing for the top 5 percent of the already wealthy. The middle class and the poor have been losing ground for the past seven years - thanks to Bush and his trickle down tax cuts for the wealthy. That McCain wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent tells us that McCain doesn't understand the middle class or the poor's struggles to keep food on the table.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I love the 'total wealth is increasing' BS that Republicans spout. I really don't think it is. We get new products, and standard of living might rise across the board as science advances; but wealth is relative. It has no objective meaning other then as a measurement of the differences between people.

Cycloptichorn

Total wealth "is" increasing for the top 5 percent of the already wealthy. The middle class and the poor have been losing ground for the past seven years - thanks to Bush and his trickle down tax cuts for the wealthy. That McCain wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent tells us that McCain doesn't understand the middle class or the poor's struggles to keep food on the table.

Now this is a valid argument. The ideas that total wealth is increasing and that the wealthy are the beneficiaries are not mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Really?
This painting sold for $135 million. Surely you realize that's a damn sight more than the Oil, silver, gold, wood and canvas that it was created from. How does this fit the "the total number of available resources on the planet divided by the population" theory you seem so confident in? The simple truth is; it doesn't. An idea can be even more valuable, despite being created from zero resources beyond the human mind. Don't believe me? Ask Larry Page and Sergey Brin. :wink:

(Read Smith before dismissing him, Cyclo. You're smarter than that.)

I've read Smith; I'm not dismissing him. I understand his argument and yours.

But what you talk about isn't really long-term wealth. It's assumed wealth. That painting sold for 135 million b/c somebody who had a very large slice of the resource pie decided to trade their resources for it; they desired it. That doesn't make it actually worth 135 million 'dollars' of resources such as food, or whatever.

As I said; there has not been a society or currency which has not collapsed sooner or later. When the inevitable happens, assumed wealth vanishes; the second food runs short, or water becomes hard to get, you just try trading that painting for resources and see how much ya get Laughing

Wealth is relative; it will always be so; and the only thing we can do to change the total amount of wealth is advance scientific development, find more total resources or better ways to use them.

At the end of the day, your argument is grounded in social convention, whereas mine is grounded in physics; which do you think is longer lasting?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Really?
This painting sold for $135 million. Surely you realize that's a damn sight more than the Oil, silver, gold, wood and canvas that it was created from. How does this fit the "the total number of available resources on the planet divided by the population" theory you seem so confident in? The simple truth is; it doesn't. An idea can be even more valuable, despite being created from zero resources beyond the human mind. Don't believe me? Ask Larry Page and Sergey Brin. :wink:

(Read Smith before dismissing him, Cyclo. You're smarter than that.)

I've read Smith; I'm not dismissing him. I understand his argument and yours.

But what you talk about isn't really long-term wealth. It's assumed wealth. That painting sold for 135 million b/c somebody who had a very large slice of the resource pie decided to trade their resources for it; they desired it. That doesn't make it actually worth 135 million 'dollars' of resources such as food, or whatever.

Stubborn ignorance is unbecoming. That painting, when sold, was worth exactly 135 million dollars. The fella who sold it may very well have invested his money in more traditional assets. A farmer without money for seed may sell his paintings for seed money. The girl who cut's your hair creates $20 or so in value, simply by moving her scissors. You said money is wealth. If that is so; how can you then claim that services that generate money aren't creating wealth? Your anticipated answer that someone else traded their real money for the service (like the fella who bought the painting) isn't a rebuttal... it is the beginning of understanding your error. The more times money changes hands; the more people get to enjoy it. This is a fundamental truth and if you really read and/or understood Smith and/or my argument; you'd realize that by now.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As I said; there has not been a society or currency which has not collapsed sooner or later. When the inevitable happens, assumed wealth vanishes; the second food runs short, or water becomes hard to get, you just try trading that painting for resources and see how much ya get

Assuming that the entire world's currency is going to collapse is a pretty ridiculous way to make a point. You may as well argue that humans are not long for this earth, because in earth-terms; we're not.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Wealth is relative; it will always be so; and the only thing we can do to change the total amount of wealth is advance scientific development, find more total resources or better ways to use them.

This is beyond idiotic. Science has nothing to do with art. Science has nothing to do with entertainment. Science is only one of many things that can create wealth. The only thing you said here that makes any sense at all is that wealth is relative... but what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Watch this pardox in your own reasoning: If the United States shares their existing science with the countries of Africa, for instance; Africans will be able to increase their own wealth simply by utilizing it. This would happen independent of the United States' resources, would it not? Stop arguing and start thinking.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

At the end of the day, your argument is grounded in social convention, whereas mine is grounded in physics; which do you think is longer lasting?

The two are not mutually exclusive... and this has been well known by every economist worth a nickel since at least 1776. :wink:

0 Replies

I must agree with O'Bill on this one; that painting was worth $135 million when it sold; that's what somebody paid for it. It was worth that much to the person who purchased it, and probably others who would have purchased it if they had the money. Value is in the eye of the beholder; we all have differing values for different things. It may not be worth $135 million to you or I, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have that much worth to an art collector of art museum.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Do you have any support that the Dems would like a government takeover? Personally, I would welcome it.

I second that!

Amazing how many humans want to keep trying nationalization or collectivism or socialism or communism no matter how many times these governmental schemes have proven to be failures.

I think the fundamental mental fixation of these humans is their propensity to covet rather than applaud and root for the accomplishments of others.

Quote:
EXODUS, CHAPTER 20
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.

The heart of the free market you champion is based on coveting thy neighbor's everything. You're talking yourself in circles.

T
K
O

It's based on meeting someone else's need first or providing something that someone else wants first.

That's how you get paid and get what you want.

Your odd view of the free market is probably due to having very little exposure to it.

You need a few more years away from public schools (including universities) and out there serving ordinary needs of people without a government subsidy to pay the bills.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

so what if those with 'a billion dollars' or more has increased? It does not mean that there is new money, or wealth; it's just a different way of measuring the same thing that has always been there.

There was NOBODY with a billion dollars in 1850, but were there people as wealthy or wealthier then some of our modern billionaires? Of course.

Wealth has always remained the same - the total number of available resources on the planet divided by the population. There are occasionally new resources found, but the population keeps increasing; all that matters is how the pie is divided up, that's what wealth is; what section of the pie you get. It's false to say that new 'wealth' is created, there is no such thing.

Cycloptichorn

The number of people who successfully obtain college degrees, and own their own businesses, mansions, private jets, yachts, motorcycles, automobiles, trucks, vacation homes, air conditioners, TVs, computers, washers, dryers, freezers, refrigerators, lawn mowers, and frequently travel the world, has greatly increased since 1850.

Wealth has rarely remained the same (e.g., caves versus houses, horses versus automobiles.) That claim of yours is so dumb as to make me believe you know that as well as I do. If you do know that, then why are you pretending otherwise? Could it be that you are lying to achieve some goal? If so, then think of less dumb lies to tell.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I love the 'total wealth is increasing' BS that Republicans spout. I really don't think it is. We get new products, and standard of living might rise across the board as science advances; but wealth is relative. It has no objective meaning other then as a measurement of the differences between people.

Cycloptichorn

If you doubt the 'total wealth' of 1,000,000 average citizens to be greater than the 'total wealth' of 1,000,000 average citizens of another country, all you need do is compare their standard of living.

If you concede that Americans have a higher standard of living, then it is obvious that at some point total wealth has increased at a greater rate than total wealth for the other group.

0 Replies

real, You're attempts to compare apples and oranges just doesn't fly. Just because one million of our citizens may be "wealthier" than one million citizens of another country doesn't improve our own situation - when more middle class families - 47 million more - are going without health insurance, and over two million families are losing their homes in this year alone.

Our purchasing power in the US has dropped for the past seven years. Our currency's value has dropped against all major currencies around the world. Our fuel cost has doubled, and food costs are increasing at double-digit rates annually.

We're not talking about the citizens of another country; we have enough problems right here at home in the US. There are over six billion humans now living on this planet. Our so-called standard of living has been dropping against all major developed countries - not increasing. That's what counts; not one million in the US vs one million in another country.

Our country has always had our share of families living in poverty; all while the top five percent get richer, and most everybody else having a difficult time keeping up with inflation, and the loss of equity in their homes - our biggest asset for most. Even some so-called wealthy have lost their homes; Ed McMahon is a good example.

0 Replies

Well, no; but social convention changes, whereas physics, not so much.

And it can change very quickly as well. The entire world doesn't have to collapse for things to drastically lose their value; people are quite often trapped in troubled areas for various reasons, and the failure of their assumed wealth is a big problem.

I get your point, I just look at the situation from a different perspective, is all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Fear of a Black President

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know