Is this country really what our founding fathers dreamed of?

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

Maybe they have expensive tastes; maybe they have a nasty coke habit. It's none of your business. You have no business.

See now that's the response right their that tells me that you can't answer my question. People DON'T need to make more than a million dollars a year when most of our population makes less than $100,000 a year. But as for your example, it's okay for this person to take money from honest people so that they can satisfy their drug addiction. This person as well as you are the kind of people that shouldn't have the priviledge to live in this country, because you are the ones that keep bringing us down. Statistics show that income inequality is a large cause of crime here in the United States.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
THAT'S the thing. It's NOT in the current state, but shouldn't it? Doesn't it make sense for a person's value or salary to be proportional to how they contribute to society.

Let me use the Walter Williams article again to illustrate a point.

The bottom line explanation of Michael Jordan's income relative to mine lies in his capacity to please his fellow man. The person who takes exception to Jordan's salary or sees him, as my letter-writer does, as making "little contribution to society" is really disagreeing with decisions made by millions upon millions of independent decision-makers who decided to fork over their money to see Jordan play."

Who is going to make the decision of person's value to society and how fairly will that decision be?

Currently the marketplace makes that decision with millions of people freely choosing how to spend there money.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by eric
That is a wonderful ideal, but that is all it is. Due to inherent human nature it has never and will never be possible or feasible !!!

Well, I understand that, but I still think it can be loads closer to fair than it is right now.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
THAT'S the thing. It's NOT in the current state, but shouldn't it? Doesn't it make sense for a person's value or salary to be proportional to how they contribute to society.

The value of the contribution to society is dictated by the market place for the said talent or contribution. If I had Michael Jordan's skill and talent, maybe I could be like mike ("I believe I can fly"), but since I don't, I can't. It's the scarcity of the talent that drives the price, and NOT by accident, the scarcity (the uniquieness of his talent) is what motivates people to pay to see him. You have a severe learning disability, but just for this one concept, I guess.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Let me use the Walter Williams article again to illustrate a point.



Who is going to make the decision of person's value to society and how fairly will that decision be?

Currently the marketplace makes that decision with millions of people freely choosing how to spend there money.

I'll say basically the same thing again. You sympathize towards those who make decisions on prices because the consumers do pay the price. The consumer chooses to pay because maybe they really want to see Michael Jordan play, but they don't decide what they price of that is going to be. The big guy does, and that person just figures that if the consumer pays the price he sets, then it's automatically fair.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
The value of the contribution to society is dictated by the market place for the said talent or contribution. If I had Michael Jordan's skill and talent, maybe I could be like mike ("I believe I can fly"), but since I don't, I can't. It's the scarcity of the talent that drives the price, and NOT by accident, the scarcity (the uniquieness of his talent) is what motivates people to pay to see him. You have a severe learning disability, but just for this one concept, I guess.

The question here is not "why" the consumer pays but "what" they "must" pay and why the price has to be set at what it is.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
I'll say basically the same thing again. You sympathize towards those who make decisions on prices because the consumers do pay the price. The consumer chooses to pay because maybe they really want to see Michael Jordan play, but they don't decide what they price of that is going to be. The big guy does, and that person just figures that if the consumer pays the price he sets, then it's automatically fair.

They decide if the price of the ticket is too high for them or not. You're like a complete utter retard. The stadium and the team decide the price based on previous sales and what people are evidently WILLING to pay. Willing. No force. No coercion. Not like socialism and crippling market overregulation. People who think like you are dangerous to society. you're a psychopath.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Oh wait, are basketball tickets a right now? I smell a constitutional amendment.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
O.k. Vinnie, but that was not my question. I asked you (and the same could be applied to anyone else), how does someone making a very large sum of money take away from your possiblity to do the same?

I'm not talking about spending money, I'm talking about earning money.

Maybe I don't want to go into the entertainment business or the blood-sucking corporate business. Maybe I want to benefit my community and become a police officer. Police officers can't make more money than they do because of all the money a community must spend on goods and services that are unfairly priced.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Oh wait, are basketball tickets a right now? I smell a constitutional amendment.

See that's the attitude I hate. If you can't afford it, then don't buy it. That's the kind of blatently selfish conservative ideal that gets me to feel the way I do. Why shouldn't everyone have to right to the same pleasures here in this country since we are all supposed to be so equal?

 

[MtnBiker]

Of course they decide on what price. If seats in general section cost 500 dollars very few people would pay to see a game. If the price was 1 dollar many more people than the stadium could hold would want to see the game, so how would the decision of who does and who does not see the game for 1 dollar be made. Instead the marketplace has set a balance of cost for the game and what people are willing to pay. Not to mention it is very likely you could watch the game on t.v. for free.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
Maybe I don't want to go into the entertainment business or the blood-sucking corporate business. Maybe I want to benefit my community and become a police officer. Police officers can't make more money than they do because of all the money a community must spend on goods and services that are unfairly priced.

There's nothing more terrifying to me than you, roaming around in public, sanctioned by the state to use force as you see fit.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
They decide if the price of the ticket is too high for them or not. You're like a complete utter retard. The stadium and the team decide the price based on previous sales and what people are evidently WILLING to pay. Willing. No force. No coercion. Not like socialism and crippling market overregulation. People who think like you are dangerous to society. you're a psychopath.

Yes, they decide the "highest possible" price that people are willing to pay so they can make as much money as possible!

DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY!?! Yea, the only people that I am dangerous towards are the wealthy who are afraid of having "their" salary go down!

 

[Comrade]

Okay I'm really tired and I'm making really dumb grammar mistakes. Bear with me.

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
Well, that's true. But, these people have no choice but to cough up the cash for something they want. Of course, in order to fight it, they can't do that.

But basically, it's okay with you that the rich are greedy. You just are content to blame it on the lower class for "freely" paying for the product/service.
They have no other choice.

Actually the point you should get by now is the rich became so by deserved means, and the only greed party to this discusion would be the obvious demand to remove property rights based on this entirely reasonable system and give those are are TRULY GREEDY, and certainly armed, the means to do nothing but enact a violent seizure of all wealth and dole it out to you as a slave. If you intend to be enriched by the whole experience you should learn the art of political assasination and mass civilian repression. Those will be the new keys to the mansion based on the new standard.

Your ideas have served no purpose on the last century other appeal to the simple GREED of the poor, aka dis-enfranchised losers under capitalism. If one cannot win under a system fair laws protecting personal property I'm sure it's attractive to just use guns to get the stuff. But there won't be enough to go around and if you don't get in with the right agencies you can explect a lifetime of working for them.

The greed aspect is every more evident compared to orginal movement began in Russia. You are not serfs fighting for the right to own land from nobels. Instead I see all the basics of life and liberty plus a computer is not enough to suit your wants, one based entirely on the coveted lifestyle you have no right to claim aside from pure greed. What you need for life and opportunity isn't the issue at all, and at least that was how the Reds first set out to achieve.

But its the rich are only thinking about money, right? The difference is they didn't get that way being bitter.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
Maybe I don't want to go into the entertainment business or the blood-sucking corporate business. Maybe I want to benefit my community and become a police officer. Police officers can't make more money than they do because of all the money a community must spend on goods and services that are unfairly priced.

Fair enough but that is your choice. Therefore you cannot be upset with the income level made by that choice. There are many ways to benifit your fellow man and earn the amount of many you want.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
Everyone in this country should have to right to enjoy the same pleasures. That's right, these people want these things. It's not their fault that the price is outrageous. They'll pay but reluctantly because there is nothing they as one person can do.

let me see if i have this right. Everything in this country should be able to be purchased by anyone no matter how much or little money they have. That about right. Congratulations, you just defined socialism.

You are just so closed-minded: "Money is everything. Some people are millionaires, but many are struggling finanically. But, who cares about them...?"

Don't quote me. Especially if you're going to insist on putting words in my mouth. I never even implied any of the above. Don't do it again.

I never said that we have to give everything to people for free, but lower prices reasonably to draw in the gap between the upper and lower class. What's the harm in that: only that the extremely rich won't make as much.

Did you not take economics in high school. Here is a quick lesson for you.


! \ /s
! \ /
! \ /
! / \ e
! ----------------- price cieling
! / \ d
!------------------------- quantity supplied

That't pretty rough but bare with me. The above is supply and demand chart. What you propose is a price ceiling where no more than a certain price can be charge for certain goods and services.
The s stands for equilibrium that pt at which buyers agree to the quantity that sellers are willing to provide at a given price . If you set prices below equilibrium more people will buy the product but there is not enough supply to match it as is illustrated. This results in a shortage of the good. At this pt there are two options. The seller can increase supply to meet demand at the cieling price. This does not work becasue suppliers can't afford to supply extra goods on top of what they are already supplying at the imposed price. The alternative is to raise prices to the pt of equilibrium. It doesn't mean that everyone is happy so to speak it just means that is what both sides are willing to give up.

What you propose actually decreases the supply of the good you are trying to make affordable to poor people. Let's say the good is lamborghini's. Who do you think is going to buy those cheaper lamborghini's first? The people that can most afford them, i.e. the rich leaving less supply for us poor folk. For proof of this see what happened when a price cieling was set on rent in NY.

You never answered my questions, specifically "Why does someone NEED to make more than a million dollars a year?"
and
"Do you think that athletes, movie stars, and singers are more important to society than police officers, nurses, doctors, fire fighters, etc.?"

1) why should they not be allowed to.
2)no, but until people decide that they won't pay that much for movie, game and concert tickets there is no reason for it to change.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
See that's the attitude I hate. If you can't afford it, then don't buy it. That's the kind of blatently selfish conservative ideal that gets me to feel the way I do. Why shouldn't everyone have to right to the same pleasures here in this country since we are all supposed to be so equal?

What's your credit card situation lookin like? Not good, I'm guessing.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Of course they decide on what price. If seats in general section cost 500 dollars very few people would pay to see a game. If the price was 1 dollar many more people than the stadium could hold would want to see the game, so how would the decision of who does and who does not see the game for 1 dollar be made.

DUH! It's first come, first serve like it is now. Once the stadium is full, then they don't sell any more tickets. That's the way it is isn't it?

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
What's your credit card situation lookin like? Not good, I'm guessing.

I'm doing fine, but that's irrelevant.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by Bern80
l


Don't quote me. Especially if you're going to insist on putting words in my mouth. I never even implied any of the above. Don't do it again.

YOU'VE DONE EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO IMPLY THAT!!!