Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Dec '16 17:59
    It occurred to me that so long as there are privately owned corporations there will always be a 1%.

    How can this be avoided or is the movement to do away with the top 1% just mindless demagoguery? Off the top of my head, only government takeover would prevent this from happening. But then, you would have those in government being paid top dollar to keep these institutions viable. Would it be OK if these CEO's making a killing were government employees? Would everyone be happy then?
  2. 20 Dec '16 18:09
    Originally posted by whodey
    It occurred to me that so long as there are privately owned corporations there will always be a 1%.

    How can this be avoided or is the movement to do away with the top 1% just mindless demagoguery? Off the top of my head, only government takeover would prevent this from happening. But then, you would have those in government being paid top dollar to keep ...[text shortened]... be OK if these CEO's making a killing were government employees? Would everyone be happy then?
    I think it's mindless demagoguery to assume there is such a thing as a "movement to do away with the top 1%."
  3. 20 Dec '16 18:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I think it's mindless demagoguery to assume there is such a thing as a "movement to do away with the top 1%."
    What can be done other than whine about them like Marx being on his monthly?
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Dec '16 19:00
    Originally posted by whodey
    It occurred to me that so long as there are privately owned corporations there will always be a 1%.

    How can this be avoided or is the movement to do away with the top 1% just mindless demagoguery? Off the top of my head, only government takeover would prevent this from happening. But then, you would have those in government being paid top dollar to keep ...[text shortened]... be OK if these CEO's making a killing were government employees? Would everyone be happy then?
    Mathematically, doing away with the top 1% would be an awfully hard thing to do.
  5. 20 Dec '16 19:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    It occurred to me that so long as there are privately owned corporations there will always be a 1%.

    How can this be avoided or is the movement to do away with the top 1% just mindless demagoguery? Off the top of my head, only government takeover would prevent this from happening. But then, you would have those in government being paid top dollar to keep ...[text shortened]... be OK if these CEO's making a killing were government employees? Would everyone be happy then?
    Mindless Demagoguery. There will always be a 1%, unless everyone is exactly the same. Natural systems oscillate, and are unpredictable. No amount of Command and Control can forcibly equalize an entire economic market to the point where every single aspect moves in unison in the same direction all the time, everywhere. Mises and the Austrians won the Calculation debate decades ago.

    Another thing to consider: Everyone presumably wants to succeed. In essence, the pursuit of the 1% and a spot among them is what we all spend our lives doing. A raise is considered a good thing, but guess what? If you get a raise, a promotion, etc, you are closer to the 1%. Theoretically, people who oppose the 1% should be content with the lowest job possible, and should hate or reject a promotion vehemently. But that never happens, of course. It is the great hypocrisy of movements against the 1%: that they demonize that which they hope to become and pursue each day.
  6. 20 Dec '16 21:04
    Originally posted by whodey
    It occurred to me that so long as there are privately owned corporations there will always be a 1%.

    How can this be avoided or is the movement to do away with the top 1% just mindless demagoguery? Off the top of my head, only government takeover would prevent this from happening. But then, you would have those in government being paid top dollar to keep ...[text shortened]... be OK if these CEO's making a killing were government employees? Would everyone be happy then?
    if there were no tax loopholes, if education and healthcare wouldn't suffer because the uber wealthy get insane tax breaks, if companies couldn't ship jobs overseas and the workers had a living minimum wage, if a working man on a budget wouldn't go bankrupt for getting sick, nobody would care that some people are billionaires.
  7. 20 Dec '16 21:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    if there were no tax loopholes, if education and healthcare wouldn't suffer because the uber wealthy get insane tax breaks, if companies couldn't ship jobs overseas and the workers had a living minimum wage, if a working man on a budget wouldn't go bankrupt for getting sick, nobody would care that some people are billionaires.
    Education and Healthcare suffer because government can't keep its hands off the funds it sets up for those programs (see: SSI funds repeatedly dipped into, state example in NJ's Transportation fund which is treated as a Slush fund, etc). Tax loopholes do need to be closed, but I suspect that you mean any tax breaks for anyone who doesn't match your particular opinion (read: tax breaks for firms and private enterprise), in which case I recommend some basic economic courses to familiarize yourself with non-Keynesian economic thought (Keynesian economic thought was effectively discounted in the 1970s, and whose brief resurgence is a mirage of a wistful lust for relevance).

    The "Living Wage" will skyrocket. Do you know why inflation is targeted? Because 1) inflation is a sign of growth, and 2) because inflation allows firms to pay wages such that the real wages fall and profits are allowed to increase, until the next labor deal wipes those out.

    Health insurance costs are so high because the ACA effectively made demand for health insurance perfectly inelastic. It is now illegal to not have health insurance coverage, meaning insurance as a product is now guaranteed to be in demand, forever, and profit is guaranteed, forever. A public option does nothing to absolve the industry of these problems, it simply trades privately corrupt and anti-competitive entities for publicly corrupt and anti-competitive entities, who as a result, have exponentially more power to exert on everyone, which in turn breeds more corruption.

    Wage your war on success and prosperity in a place where people enjoy squalor (say, North Korea) please. I, for one, would like to actually progress in my life, and the obstacles to doing this come from people like you, not the 1%.
  8. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    20 Dec '16 22:36
    Originally posted by whodey
    It occurred to me that so long as there are privately owned corporations there will always be a 1%.

    How can this be avoided or is the movement to do away with the top 1% just mindless demagoguery? Off the top of my head, only government takeover would prevent this from happening. But then, you would have those in government being paid top dollar to keep ...[text shortened]... be OK if these CEO's making a killing were government employees? Would everyone be happy then?
    It occurred to me that so long as there are privately owned corporations there will always be a 1%.

    Amazing, you figured this out all by yourself?
  9. 20 Dec '16 22:38
    Originally posted by mchill
    It occurred to me that so long as there are privately owned corporations there will always be a 1%.

    Amazing, you figured this out all by yourself?
    So if government takes over then these same people will get over looked by people like you?

    Will it give you a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that the state owns all the corporations in name, or does it give you a warm enough feeling knowing that government will bail them out as if they own them in name?
  10. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    20 Dec '16 22:43
    Originally posted by sh76
    Mathematically, doing away with the top 1% would be an awfully hard thing to do.
    Actually it would be very easy. All you need is 10-15 machine guns and some ammo, it would take 3-4 days, tops. The difficult part would be finding all that money they stashed in offshore accounts and various lock boxes and figuring how to redistribute it. I must admit, it's a delightful thought though!

  11. 21 Dec '16 00:21
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    Education and Healthcare suffer because government can't keep its hands off the funds it sets up for those programs (see: SSI funds repeatedly dipped into, state example in NJ's Transportation fund which is treated as a Slush fund, etc). Tax loopholes do need to be closed, but I suspect that you mean any tax breaks for anyone who doesn't match your partic ...[text shortened]... ally progress in my life, and the obstacles to doing this come from people like you, not the 1%.
    "Wage your war on success and prosperity"
    someone is on the brink of starving and one wants to take X% of all their money

    someone has more money than a million other people and one wants to take Y%+1% from them, so that a million families from the former category might drive on safer roads, get better education, better healthcare.

    in one case an almost starving family becomes a really starving family
    in the other, someone still has money to eat and eat well, buy a house, send their kids to college, buy a yacht.

    in one case the almost starving family now has enough to maybe buy some stuff, put back into the economy
    in the other case the money is piled in bank accounts most of it never to be used.

    but yeah, there is a war waged on the poor poor rich people.


    "I, for one, would like to actually progress in my life, and the obstacles to doing this come from people like you, not the 1%"
    yeh, obstacles. who needs to be healthy, educated, live in a country with good infrastructe? these aren't the things one needs to progress in life
  12. 21 Dec '16 00:28
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    Education and Healthcare suffer because government can't keep its hands off the funds it sets up for those programs (see: SSI funds repeatedly dipped into, state example in NJ's Transportation fund which is treated as a Slush fund, etc). Tax loopholes do need to be closed, but I suspect that you mean any tax breaks for anyone who doesn't match your partic ...[text shortened]... ally progress in my life, and the obstacles to doing this come from people like you, not the 1%.
    "Education and Healthcare suffer because government can't keep its hands off the funds it sets up for those programs (see: SSI funds repeatedly dipped into, state example in NJ's Transportation fund which is treated as a Slush fund, etc)."
    and who allows them to do that? when they must introduce yet another tax cut, what programs do you think they cut?


    "but I suspect that you mean any tax breaks for anyone "
    yes, that would make your position easier. because obviously i must be opposed to all tax breaks by principle

    no dear. tax breaks should go to people wanting to start a business. to people struggling to put food on the table. to business willing to keep jobs local.
  13. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    21 Dec '16 06:58
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    Education and Healthcare suffer because government can't keep its hands off the funds it sets up for those programs (see: SSI funds repeatedly dipped into, state example in NJ's Transportation fund which is treated as a Slush fund, etc). Tax loopholes do need to be closed, but I suspect that you mean any tax breaks for anyone who doesn't match your partic ...[text shortened]... ally progress in my life, and the obstacles to doing this come from people like you, not the 1%.
    And people like you will never get much further than you are now unless you educate yourself about how you've been conditioned to think that the 1% actually gives a crap what happens to you. You can begin by not voting for the very people who are trying to screw you. Reagan was not an economic genius. Trickle-down does not, has not, and will never work. The obscenely rich do not need to spend money and so it never gets down to the people who need it. Give the money in those corporate handouts to those at the bottom, and watch that money enter the economy immediately and begin working to benefit everybody, not just those who tell you they care about you to get your vote.
  14. 21 Dec '16 16:44
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    And people like you will never get much further than you are now unless you educate yourself about how you've been conditioned to think that the 1% actually gives a crap what happens to you. You can begin by not voting for the very people who are trying to screw you. Reagan was not an economic genius. Trickle-down does not, has not, and will never work. ...[text shortened]... working to benefit everybody, not just those who tell you they care about you to get your vote.
    Actually it is people like yourself who will never accomplish anything if you feel that successful people always cheated you. The problem in this country is that we don't have enough people contributing, not that those who have and contribute the most don't contribute enough.
  15. 21 Dec '16 16:57
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Actually it is people like yourself who will never accomplish anything if you feel that successful people always cheated you. The problem in this country is that we don't have enough people contributing, not that those who have and contribute the most don't contribute enough.
    That's right, those lazy bums should just stop blaming others and start inheriting a lot of money like hard-working Americans do.