Debt is Pushing the US Into Fascism

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,589
Reaction score
5,160
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Sorry, minimum wage guys like you don't get a parachute.

You should have bought some stock.

Living wage - Wikipedia
Again, "Cost of basic but decent life for a family" is entirely subjective.

For example, I have a mint condition 2003 Grand Marquis. Big enough for a family of 5. Total cost: $3,000.

But there are people who think they absolutely must have a new car.

Well depending on your views on that, will dramatically change what your "cost of basic but decent life for a family" is in your opinion.

Same is true of a house. Jim Gaffigan, has 5 kids, and they live in a 2 bedroom apartment.


My parents, both of them, grew up in homes that were barely larger than my college apartment. A size so small, as to horrify most modern Americans. None of them have central air conditioning. My parents house when I grew up didn't have A/C. We had an electric fan. About the size of a dinner plate. That was it.

Now if you think you have to have all that, and 5 bedrooms, and two bathrooms, and A/C... then your "cost of basic but decent life for a family" is going to be different.

And that's just the arbitrary and subjective nature of what you think a decent life is....

The other side, is that to the customer, and by extension, the employer.... they don't care what you think a living wage is.

They don't care. You don't. You pretend to care, when you believe someone else is going to pay the bill.... but *YOU* are going to pay the bill.

Employers don't have a single penny, that doesn't come from the customer. Not a penny.

Their money, to pay employees with, comes from you.

And if you are not willing to pay, then they can't pay, and if they can't pay, then those employees don't have a job anymore.

Pick whatever arbitrary "living wage" you want. $40,000 a year.

Are you going to pay $30 for a burger, so that the burger flipper can earn $40,000 a year to flip a burger over?

No. No one would. You would stop going out to eat, rather than pay that much. How do I know that? Because I stopped going out to eat, when it cost to much.

So those people who you think should earn a living wage, are going to earn ZERO. Now explain to me how they are better off?
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,589
Reaction score
5,160
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,589
Reaction score
5,160
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,993
Reaction score
10,590
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,101
Reaction score
2,691
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
'Debt is Pushing the US Into Fascism'

Remember that time 'debt' barricaded those policeman in that building then set it on fire? Or that time 'debt' killed that ex-police commissioner and then looted his store?
Remember which economic system those looters and the victims live under
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,589
Reaction score
5,160
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
'Debt is Pushing the US Into Fascism'

Remember that time 'debt' barricaded those policeman in that building then set it on fire? Or that time 'debt' killed that ex-police commissioner and then looted his store?
Remember which economic system those looters and the victims live under
Capitalism by definition, is a system based on property rights.

It's impossible to have capitalism, if you don't have enforced property rights.

How can you and me, engage in voluntary exchange, if either you or me, do not have enforced rights to the property we own?

If people can just take what they want by force...... that by definition is not capitalism.

Under Socialism, people come and take what they want by force. If a large group decides that they want your house, and they kill you and start living in your house.... how is that any different than if government wants your house, and kills you and takes your house and gives it to political supporters?

It's not different, except that the politicians rationalize their murder and theft with self delusional justifications based on ideology.

But both socialism, and the common thug and criminal, both are simply taking what they want with force. The exact opposite of Capitalism, which is voluntary exchange.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,993
Reaction score
10,590
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
'Debt is Pushing the US Into Fascism'

Remember that time 'debt' barricaded those policeman in that building then set it on fire? Or that time 'debt' killed that ex-police commissioner and then looted his store?
Remember which economic system those looters and the victims live under
No, they live in blue cities. And they did those things because they hate capitalism.

So let's examine your argument.

Socialists are burning and looting because they want LESS capitalism and they will stop if they get their way? My God, man, you need help
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,101
Reaction score
2,691
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
That’s what you get when you switch over to commodity based money to Monopoly money that can be printed infinitely
Currency is a public monopoly.
The problems come in when a few greedy fascists want to control more than their fair share:


Richard D. Wolff - The U.S. Is Borrowing Its Way to Fascism | Brave New Europe

"Fascism merges private capitalism and the state. Political power then enforces capitalism’s basic rules: the economic dominance of the major shareholders and their top directors and managers.”
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,101
Reaction score
2,691
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Second, I would argue that your question is a logical impossibility because the word moral, or fair, or the definition of "distributes perfectly", are all subjective.
Morality is objective since moral claims are true or false about aspects of human interaction that involve the ideas of rights and obligations; fundamental moral maxims apply universally and reasonable people can agree on their truth. Which probably explains why capitalists believe the opposite.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,101
Reaction score
2,691
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
And lastly, yeah, your pre-tax money, is in fact rightfully yours, and mine is mine. You are just wrong, to suggest otherwise. By your dumb logic, we should be able to confiscate your house, because "You didn't build that". Required roads to get the trucks to build your house, and so we'll just take it from you, because you don't have a rights to what you earned.
You don't deserve your pre-tax income since it is the money an amoral market has gifted you. Conservatives regularly conflate the myth of ownership with real life. Taxation does not take from people what they already own; property rights are the product of a set of laws and conventions, so the fairness of taxes can't be evaluated by their impact of preexisting conditions.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
61,474
Reaction score
10,706
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
And lastly, yeah, your pre-tax money, is in fact rightfully yours, and mine is mine. You are just wrong, to suggest otherwise. By your dumb logic, we should be able to confiscate your house, because "You didn't build that". Required roads to get the trucks to build your house, and so we'll just take it from you, because you don't have a rights to what you earned.
You don't deserve your pre-tax income since it is the money an amoral market has gifted you. Conservatives regularly conflate the myth of ownership with real life. Taxation does not take from people what they already own; property rights are the product of a set of laws and conventions, so the fairness of taxes can't be evaluated by their impact of preexisting conditions.
You don't deserve your pre-tax income since it is the money an amoral market has gifted you.

You're a poor loser because you're too moral to accept a gift?

Conservatives regularly conflate the myth of ownership with real life.

Commies regularly dream they own things they never earned in real life.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,993
Reaction score
10,590
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
So when you say "prove the markets distribute income" fairly or perfectly... well logically that is impossible to prove since the market never distributes anything.
How can you possibly believe supply and demand have no effect on price?

o_O
SSaaaaawawwwwwiiiiissssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Ouch, Georgie punted that ground ball up into his own face. UGGGLLLYYYYYY.

You made his point, not yours. You completely flubbed that one.

Government distributes money by deciding who pays and who receives. They DECIDE who gets the money. The market is just continually evolving and we make our own bed, good or bad
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,589
Reaction score
5,160
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
So when you say "prove the markets distribute income" fairly or perfectly... well logically that is impossible to prove since the market never distributes anything.
How can you possibly believe supply and demand have no effect on price?

o_O
So what you just said is effectively.... markets distribute income fairly.

That's what YOU just said. Because supply and demand determining price, is just a round about way of saying voluntary exchange. Voluntary exchange, by it's very nature is fair. If you and me, negotiate on price, and come to the conclusion that I am willing to fix the roof of your house, for an agreed upon price for my labor.... That is fair. If you agree to it, and I agree to it, that is fair.

Unless you have a gun to my head, but then it wouldn't have the "voluntary" aspect of voluntary exchange.

If you agree to the terms, and I agree to the terms, and neither of us is defrauding the other, or making false claims..... that is a voluntary agreement to exchange labor for a price. Those terms are generally determined by supply and demand, because supply and demand is a function of voluntary exchange.

But if both of us agree to the terms, those terms are fair.

However, you said "distribute". You said "distribute income". Distribute implies a 3rd person present. It means there is someone "distributing". As if the market, is an individual, standing around going "Some for you, and some for you. Oh and a little bit for you, and more for you.".

There is no person, or entity that is the arbitrator that is distributing anything in a free market. Only in a socialist market.

But if you want to maintain that voluntary exchange is "distributing income"... then by your own standard, it is therefore fair. Because voluntary exchange, by it's nature, is fair.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,589
Reaction score
5,160
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
That’s what you get when you switch over to commodity based money to Monopoly money that can be printed infinitely
Currency is a public monopoly.
The problems come in when a few greedy fascists want to control more than their fair share:


Richard D. Wolff - The U.S. Is Borrowing Its Way to Fascism | Brave New Europe

"Fascism merges private capitalism and the state. Political power then enforces capitalism’s basic rules: the economic dominance of the major shareholders and their top directors and managers.”
First, your are the fascist.

Not a single CEO has harmed me, and every single left-winger like you has harmed me, and you promise to harm me in the future. You said yourself, that if people don't pay your ever increasing taxes, that you'll toss everyone in prison. That's fascist if I ever heard it.

"If you don't give me everything I want from you, I'll toss all of you in prison!" -Fascists tax and spenders.

Second, if capitalism is merged with the state.... then it isn't capitalism.

Third, you yourself just held up Sweden, as a model for the US to follow, pointing to the fact that more Swedes own more of the national wealth........... by being shareholders in corporations.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
19,589
Reaction score
5,160
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Second, I would argue that your question is a logical impossibility because the word moral, or fair, or the definition of "distributes perfectly", are all subjective.
Morality is objective since moral claims are true or false about aspects of human interaction that involve the ideas of rights and obligations; fundamental moral maxims apply universally and reasonable people can agree on their truth. Which probably explains why capitalists believe the opposite.
So I specifically used the left-wing ideological view, to blow up the left-wing ideological view. Left-wingers believe there is no absolute truth, no absolute morality. So I used that argument against you.

Now here you are, promoting the conservative view of morality. There is absolute truth? There is clearly defined right and wrong?

Ok. Then taking something that isn't yours, simply because you voted in support of thievery, is wrong.

It is morally wrong to take money from the people whom it rightfully belongs, and give it to people, who have not earned it.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top