Fairness and Redistribution

[Rshermr]

Once again, Free...you fundamentally misunderstand how the process works. Profits do not start in the pockets of "shareholders" and trickle down to workers...profits are what may or may not be left over after a product or service is provided. Profits trickle upwards, not the other way around.

Dammit, dammit, dammit . . . all I am saying is that labor is the origin of all wealth. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to understand. Profits should not have to "trickle down" to workers if they could retain the fruits of their labor to begin with.

Trickle down is a hard concept to understand, Free because it only exists in the minds of people who don't understand economics. Workers DO retain the fruits of their labor to begin with. They are paid a wage which IS the fruit of that labor. Profits on the other hand may or may not EVER come to pass. Think about it and you'll see that I'm right. Many businesses never make a profit or only make one after many years of incurring losses. The workers at those businesses will realize the "fruits of their labor" every time that they get paid. That pay doesn't "trickle down" from profits...that pay exists whether or not a profit is ever made.

Jesus, Oldstyle. Here you are again quoting some drivel from the libertarian economist you idolize. Again trying to redefine trickle down. Give it up. Every economist and every economics student who ever looked at the concept knows what trickle down is, and knows what you are saying is stupid. Untrue. BS. And you say it for only one reason, because you have tried to say that trickle down was made up by those who were against reagonomics. Just another piece of dogma posted by a complete con tool.
And, by the way, trickle down, as it actually was devised by REPUBS in the Reagan admin, trying to make supply side economics more palatable to the non rich, was very, very easy to understand. Your twisted effort at redefining it is what makes it difficult to understand. Because few can follow the twisted logic of your beloved economist.
Really hard to have a conversation with dipshits like you.

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMD1VMabYkw]The Fountainhead Howard Roark Speech Ayn Rand - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oldstyle]

Dammit, dammit, dammit . . . all I am saying is that labor is the origin of all wealth. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to understand. Profits should not have to "trickle down" to workers if they could retain the fruits of their labor to begin with.

Trickle down is a hard concept to understand, Free because it only exists in the minds of people who don't understand economics. Workers DO retain the fruits of their labor to begin with. They are paid a wage which IS the fruit of that labor. Profits on the other hand may or may not EVER come to pass. Think about it and you'll see that I'm right. Many businesses never make a profit or only make one after many years of incurring losses. The workers at those businesses will realize the "fruits of their labor" every time that they get paid. That pay doesn't "trickle down" from profits...that pay exists whether or not a profit is ever made.

Jesus, Oldstyle. Here you are again quoting some drivel from the libertarian economist you idolize. Again trying to redefine trickle down. Give it up. Every economist and every economics student who ever looked at the concept knows what trickle down is, and knows what you are saying is stupid. Untrue. BS. And you say it for only one reason, because you have tried to say that trickle down was made up by those who were against reagonomics. Just another piece of dogma posted by a complete con tool.
And, by the way, trickle down, as it actually was devised by REPUBS in the Reagan admin, trying to make supply side economics more palatable to the non rich, was very, very easy to understand. Your twisted effort at redefining it is what makes it difficult to understand. Because few can follow the twisted logic of your beloved economist.
Really hard to have a conversation with dipshits like you.

LOL Ah, yes...it's Rshermr...the only guy in the country who "supposedly" taught college level courses in economics AS AN UNDERGRADUATE yet doesn't understand basic Keynesian economic principles and had no clue who Thomas Sowell was! If there was a bullshit alarm in this place it would be shrieking loudly every time you post, little buddy!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you can complain about company greed,

not in a Republican capitalist economy. If a company is greedy, i.e, if it doesn't offer the lowest possible price to its customers, its customers go elsewhere.

The beauty of Republican capitalism is that it makes all companies slaves to their customers. This is exactly how you get the highest standard of living in the world.

Hope you don't mind if I amplify that, from Mamet and Sowell...

1. Now, here is the determining criterion as to which is better: which is better able to correct itself? This is the difference between, as Thomas Sowell would say, the free market (constrained) and the Liberal (unconstrained) view of the world. Either side may be wrong about plans, or about programs. But which system is better able to discard the failed and experiment to find the new.


2. The answer is the free market. It is not perfect; it is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand.


a. In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc.


3. In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!

 

[regent]

Speaking of research, should research be done with the idea of finding the truth about a proposition or finding evidence to support your beliefs?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Speaking of research, should research be done with the idea of finding the truth about a proposition or finding evidence to support your beliefs?

Well...didn't you realize, reggie....?

In my case, they are one and the same.


Need proof?
Sure....
Can you find any errors in my posts?
'course not....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Speaking of research, should research be done with the idea of finding the truth about a proposition or finding evidence to support your beliefs?

After doing research can you say one substantive thing in support of liberalism? What does your inability tell us about liberalism?