What ceiling?

[The Rabbi]

If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

 

[Polk]

Never mind that. If that's what Polk wants then we need to amputate one finger off every promising pianist's hand, because he might get ahead through talent. We need to lobotomize every artist because their native talent rather than hard work might account for success. Every basketball player over 6ft needs to have a little off the bottom, to make it fair.
Wasn't there an Isaac Asimov book or something that had this as its theme?

You're thinking of a short story by Kurt Vonnegut. Harrison Bergeron. And no, that's not even remotely close to what I'm arguing. In fact, it's much closer to what you're arguing. Your argument is effectively that unless your parent was a famous pianist, you should be allowed to be a pianist no matter how good you are.

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying, much less how you got that out of anything I wrote.
My position is that government should not concern itself with results, only with rules. So what if a small number of people have a disproportionate amount of wealth, as long as no one is legally barred from competing? Some people are brighter, harder working, more talented, or come from wealthy families. So what?

Who cares if people aren't legally barred from competing? It's only a competition if people can compete freely. A good analogy to business competition exists here, actually. Even if you have a better product, you're never going to be able to get it off the ground if there is a monopoly player in the market. That's why it's necessary for government to prevent the monopoly player from abusing their position.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're thinking of a short story by Kurt Vonnegut. Harrison Bergeron. And no, that's not even remotely close to what I'm arguing. In fact, it's much closer to what you're arguing. Your argument is effectively that unless your parent was a famous pianist, you should be allowed to be a pianist no matter how good you are.

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying, much less how you got that out of anything I wrote.
My position is that government should not concern itself with results, only with rules. So what if a small number of people have a disproportionate amount of wealth, as long as no one is legally barred from competing? Some people are brighter, harder working, more talented, or come from wealthy families. So what?

Who cares if people aren't legally barred from competing? It's only a competition if people can compete freely. A good analogy to business competition exists here, actually. Even if you have a better product, you're never going to be able to get it off the ground if there is a monopoly player in the market. That's why it's necessary for government to prevent the monopoly player from abusing their position.

You dont get it (what a surprise). The only monopolies are those created by government, like utilities, Ma Bell in the old days, the Post Office, etc. Every other business is subject to competition.

 

[Polk]

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying, much less how you got that out of anything I wrote.
My position is that government should not concern itself with results, only with rules. So what if a small number of people have a disproportionate amount of wealth, as long as no one is legally barred from competing? Some people are brighter, harder working, more talented, or come from wealthy families. So what?

Who cares if people aren't legally barred from competing? It's only a competition if people can compete freely. A good analogy to business competition exists here, actually. Even if you have a better product, you're never going to be able to get it off the ground if there is a monopoly player in the market. That's why it's necessary for government to prevent the monopoly player from abusing their position.

You dont get it (what a surprise). The only monopolies are those created by government, like utilities, Ma Bell in the old days, the Post Office, etc. Every other business is subject to competition.

Wow, you really are totally disconnected from reality.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who cares if people aren't legally barred from competing? It's only a competition if people can compete freely. A good analogy to business competition exists here, actually. Even if you have a better product, you're never going to be able to get it off the ground if there is a monopoly player in the market. That's why it's necessary for government to prevent the monopoly player from abusing their position.

You dont get it (what a surprise). The only monopolies are those created by government, like utilities, Ma Bell in the old days, the Post Office, etc. Every other business is subject to competition.

Wow, you really are totally disconnected from reality.

If you think what I wrote is not true then you are the one disconnected from reality.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Single payer, stop the wars........tax the shit out of Wall St.

Surplus achieved.

Then it would be only a matter of time then you'd be praising Allah.

 

[Polk]

You dont get it (what a surprise). The only monopolies are those created by government, like utilities, Ma Bell in the old days, the Post Office, etc. Every other business is subject to competition.

Wow, you really are totally disconnected from reality.

If you think what I wrote is not true then you are the one disconnected from reality.

It's not true. There are many examples of firms with monopolies that were not of government creation. Standard Oil's monopoly wasn't of government creation, and neither was Carnegie Steel, nor is Major League Baseball.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Wealth isn't nearly as fluid as you make it out to be. Sure, those lists will change over time due to changing products and deaths. That's not really representative of mobility though. Consider the following: Someone born in to parents in the top fifth of earners has a better chance of remaining in the top fifth with only a high school diploma than someone born to parents in the bottom fifth of earners with a college degree has of making it to the top fifth.

So you do want income redistribution.

No, I want a society where people rise and fall based on the merits of their own work.

Yep, That would be using commonsense of course, which we know doesn't exist in Washington. ~BH

 

[Annie]

Wow, you really are totally disconnected from reality.

If you think what I wrote is not true then you are the one disconnected from reality.

It's not true. There are many examples of firms with monopolies that were not of government creation. Standard Oil's monopoly wasn't of government creation, and neither was Carnegie Steel, nor is Major League Baseball.

and what happened with those? Did you see anyone complaining? Laws were made because of Carnegie, Rockerfeller, and trusts.

 

[Polk]

If you think what I wrote is not true then you are the one disconnected from reality.

It's not true. There are many examples of firms with monopolies that were not of government creation. Standard Oil's monopoly wasn't of government creation, and neither was Carnegie Steel, nor is Major League Baseball.

and what happened with those? Did you see anyone complaining? Laws were made because of Carnegie, Rockerfeller, and trusts.

MLB has an exemption and Standard Oil was broken up. That's not really the point though. Rabbi claimed that monopolies only exists where the government creates them. That's pretty obviously not true.

 

[Annie]

It's not true. There are many examples of firms with monopolies that were not of government creation. Standard Oil's monopoly wasn't of government creation, and neither was Carnegie Steel, nor is Major League Baseball.

and what happened with those? Did you see anyone complaining? Laws were made because of Carnegie, Rockerfeller, and trusts.

MLB has an exemption and Standard Oil was broken up. That's not really the point though. Rabbi claimed that monopolies only exists where the government creates them. That's pretty obviously not true.

After the laws were made, late 19th and early 20th has been true. Monopolies were limited to public interests companies. Like phone, electric, gas.

 

[Polk]

and what happened with those? Did you see anyone complaining? Laws were made because of Carnegie, Rockerfeller, and trusts.

MLB has an exemption and Standard Oil was broken up. That's not really the point though. Rabbi claimed that monopolies only exists where the government creates them. That's pretty obviously not true.

After the laws were made, late 19th and early 20th has been true. Monopolies were limited to public interests companies. Like phone, electric, gas.

Sure, but that wasn't what Rabbi was arguing. Rabbi was saying that even without those laws, monopolies don't exist unless the government grants them.

 

[The Rabbi]

MLB has an exemption and Standard Oil was broken up. That's not really the point though. Rabbi claimed that monopolies only exists where the government creates them. That's pretty obviously not true.

After the laws were made, late 19th and early 20th has been true. Monopolies were limited to public interests companies. Like phone, electric, gas.

Sure, but that wasn't what Rabbi was arguing. Rabbi was saying that even without those laws, monopolies don't exist unless the government grants them.

They don't. They might exist for some time but over time competition destroys their monopoly power. That would have happened to Standard Oil, and all the other 19th century corporation even without government interference.
Does IBM have a monopoly on mainframe computers? They did. Now look at them. What about the evening newspaper in most cities? Now look at them.
In the long term there is no business no matter how big that does not experience competition, unless their profitability is really bad.