@sh76 saidso the government, ie our taxes, should pay DeVos to teach whoever wants it, whatever DeVos wants. So i can look forward to a DeVos history teacher teaching my grandkids that the slaves liked being slaves and that God made 2 people boink their children until he killed the entire incestuous humanity in a flood, only for the incest to resume again?
Military, yes.
Education, no. I have no problem with the government paying for education, but government should not be the provider of education. It's plainly incompetent to do so in many cases.
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidHey Myopic one the UK has been operating a system of socialised capitalism since the creation of the welfare state about 80 odd years and counting.
UhHuh... and what is the shelf life of communism..>? 75 years?
And soothfast is looking at the US (250 years). What about the rest of the West,,, thousands of years?
I realise it works for you right wing types to pretend it’s a choice between unfettered cowboy capitalism and Stalinism but it’s not. You really need to crawl out from your stoopid yank Cold War bunker and smell the ‘fair trade’ coffee
1 edit
@kevcvs57
Let' say someone creates wealth in some way or another. Then, another guy creates his own wealth.
You fellers seem to be saying that there is a limit or limitation on the amount that can exist? Like that pie which everyone references all the time? That there is only so much pie that can go around? There can be no 'newly created' wealth?
An interesting concept, but I do not follow. If there is a lot of wealth all around, and I want to start another business to increase my wealth, is there theoretically no way that I can make more??
And this: How does the wealth of one person have anything to do with another person?
@averagejoe1 saidi will skip over the parts you misunderstood from kev
@kevcvs57
Let' say someone creates wealth in some way or another. Then, another guy creates his own wealth.
You fellers seem to be saying that there is a limit or limitation on the amount that can exist? Like that pie which everyone references all the time? That there is only so much pie that can go around? There can be no 'newly created' wealth?
An interest ...[text shortened]... more??
And this: How does the wealth of one person have anything to do with another person?
"How does the wealth of one person have anything to do with another person?"
because nobody can create wealth on their own.
not the multi-billion dollar kind
a carpenter makes a chair, goes to the market and sells that chair. He is entitled to the entirety of the profit. He uses that wealth to get materials to make more chairs
A multibillion dollar chair company employs a thousand carpenters, each making chairs. They are paid a salary worth a fraction of the wealth, the chairs they are creating. The owner, or owners of that company didn't create jack. They aren't making chairs. The carpenters do.
We are saying that the share of the profit the carpenters are getting is too low and we should renegotiate this contract. We want to apply free market principles to the labour market as well.
4 edits
@zahlanzi saidDistributors do provide a service, the carpenters working for the single multi billion dollar chair Co. do not have to worry about design, marketing, risk of not selling his chair, QA, a chair making venue, procurement of materials, QA of procured materials and a hundred other things. That is why he choses the lower rate. Lone carpenter making one off chairs is running a risk and may make less than the guy working for the large Co. apart from being extremely inefficient driving up the cost of his chairs. he may make a fraction of a fraction, who will he negotiate with?
i will skip over the parts you misunderstood from kev
"How does the wealth of one person have anything to do with another person?"
because nobody can create wealth on their own.
not the multi-billion dollar kind
a carpenter makes a chair, goes to the market and sells that chair. He is entitled to the entirety of the profit. He uses that wealth to get materials to ma ...[text shortened]... uld renegotiate this contract. We want to apply free market principles to the labour market as well.
zhalooney bamboozle for brains said:
"We are saying that the share of the profit the carpenters are getting is too low and we should renegotiate this contract.
Can you define what the share should be? If you know it to be too low, what is the number for too low and where did you get it beside putting your fingers inside your stinky sticky foofoo valve and yanking them out. If three carpenters and an upholsterer work on the chair, how much is each of their shares, are they all the same, suppose there's a guy at the end, let's call him zahloopy, he's not too clever, all he does is wipe the chair down, what is his share, where did the number come from?
@zahlanzi saidThen allow a re-phrase...How does the wealth amassed by one person have anything to do with another person? This question does not incorporate HOW the wealth is created, so your retort is flat.
i will skip over the parts you misunderstood from kev
"How does the wealth of one person have anything to do with another person?"
because nobody can create wealth on their own.
not the multi-billion dollar kind
a carpenter makes a chair, goes to the market and sells that chair. He is entitled to the entirety of the profit. He uses that wealth to get materials to ma ...[text shortened]... uld renegotiate this contract. We want to apply free market principles to the labour market as well.
As t chair situttaion, a guy invests (risks) into a warehouse to make chairs, creates jobs, pays salaries. To your point, yes, salaries are negotiated every day, and no one HAS to work there. Form a Unnion or walk out if they want to. But you seem to say that this risk taker who hit it big has some duty of care to the people he paid to make chairs that he sells for a profit. YOu also seem to say that he should split profits with them. Well, that is his choice, they are his chairs that he has come by legally.
Yes, the carpenters can demand a piece of the profits and see if he will do it, or give big bonuses, or buy into the business. Buy into the business, Zahlanzi. Tough for you to swallow, I know, you just want him to pay them more money for making chairs with hammers and nails. Assuming they are making what they are worth, I do not know where you are going with your argument. YOu seem to think they should make more,,,,,why? How far does the owner have to go here?
I always see that you libs never close your posts, tell us what the man who created the company should do to make you happy. A reasonable answer, please. Pretend you are the owner, maybe?
@averagejoe1 saidNon white individuals and those who are not heterosexual frequently face unfair discrimination that limits their opportunity to get an education, buy property even if they have the money, get adequate health care, obtain mortgages and build a business. Education is largely funded through property taxes. Poor neighborhoods have schools with larger class sizes and fewer supplies. The maternal mortality rate for black women is far higher than for white, even after statistically taking into consideration their economic status. The list goes on. Your Pierre example is faulty. It is not at all what liberals are suggesting. We just want an equal playing field. I suspect you are fairly unaware of the history of systemic racism in the U.S. and how it has led to so much hardship for so many. It is now on the rise. I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court allowed states to bring back segregation.
The world knows our slogan, The Land of Opportunity. You say, then, that there is NO opportunity for everyone?
Oh, you must be saying that if I live near a lake but Pierre lives 100 miles from a lake, he does not have the opportunity to catch lake fish to feed his family like I do. So, it would follow that our government should provide him fish? Jesus. Just what ...[text shortened]... opportunity differently than would a normal person?
You fellers sure leave your posts a'hangin.
@averagejoe1 saidI searched and cannot find where she said this. Please post a link.
Well I have seen it here before, esp those espousing marxism, but suffice to say that our VP said a year ago that 'at the end of the day, everyone should end up in the same place'... her words.
She meant what she said, it is what her discussion was about.
So I can give you no better example than VP Camala.
@zahlanzi saidParents can decide which schools their kids go to, thank you very much. Some level of oversight is okay, such as an accreditation requirement for school that accept vouchers. But government is plainly incompetent to run schools in many cases (as they are at administering most services). Letting the free market work, even if it is government money, is the far superior option.
so the government, ie our taxes, should pay DeVos to teach whoever wants it, whatever DeVos wants. So i can look forward to a DeVos history teacher teaching my grandkids that the slaves liked being slaves and that God made 2 people boink their children until he killed the entire incestuous humanity in a flood, only for the incest to resume again?
You know, like the Canadian healthcare system. The government pays, but people decide where to go. There are problems with that system too, of course, but a government monopoly over anything almost never works.
@phranny saidJust like Z above , you leave your post hanging, you leave it unclosed, you offer no answer to what you perceive as a problem.
Non white individuals and those who are not heterosexual frequently face unfair discrimination that limits their opportunity to get an education, buy property even if they have the money, get adequate health care, obtain mortgages and build a business. Education is largely funded through property taxes. Poor neighborhoods have schools with larger class sizes and fewer supplie ...[text shortened]... on the rise. I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court allowed states to bring back segregation.
Lets say you both, with your wikileak synopsis of life in the USA, are giving us facts. Discrimination, ability to afford health care, etc......
In this land of opportunity, what do you think will make everyone universally satisfied?? Wajoma has shown that there appears to be little more to do with employees other than standard pay and benefits at the chair factory, or do you have another idea?
We are trying to solve problems on the Forum, help us out here with the chair employees.
See next post for an actual real-life example. The Pillow Guy.!
@AverageJoe1
Sorry I messed up Pillow Man post. Here it is, copied.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/us-politics/mike-lindell-net-worth-mypillow-donald-trump-supporter-b1072583.html#
So he has all this money, and creating a few hundred jobs.
Can you and Z be civil and lay out a better plan for our society to deal with a zillionaire who built a biz, took risk as Wajoma explains above?
A fun study,,,,standing by. This is your moment, you and Z!!
1 edit
@averagejoe1 said"How does the wealth amassed by one person have anything to do with another person?"
Then allow a re-phrase...How does the wealth amassed by one person have anything to do with another person? This question does not incorporate HOW the wealth is created, so your retort is flat.
As t chair situttaion, a guy invests (risks) into a warehouse to make chairs, creates jobs, pays salaries. To your point, yes, salaries are negotiated every day, and no one HAS ...[text shortened]... company should do to make you happy. A reasonable answer, please. Pretend you are the owner, maybe?
You only amass billions through exploiting someone else
1 edit
@zahlanzi saidOK. You are following Suzianne's 'On the Backs of Others' philosophy. One lives off the back of others if he uses slave labor, generally speaking. You could say exploiting.
"How does the wealth amassed by one person have anything to do with another person?"
You only amass billions through exploiting someone else
Well if that is exploiting, how can the pillow guy be said to be 'exploiting someone else' if he is paying them money to voluntarily work for him? It can't apply in both cases, Z.
Why won't you answer this, or correct your statement hereinabove? 🤔