boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"
- Thread starter Nonelitist
- Start date
Actually government answers to the people.....but these days they don't.
Well, you've not at least made clear whether you were being dishonest or dumb. Congratulations, perhaps you're not an idiot, you've just proven yourself to be a liar.
Once more for those keeping score at home:
Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Keep lying pal, but it's not very effective when the proof you're lying is readily available above, below, and all around your comments.
Also interesting to note you've yet to reply now to the substantive question of what point you were trying to make by, however erroneously, arguing there were a couple industrialized nations with even greater income inequality than the U.S.
"Hey Afghans, great news! We don't have to worry about fixing our health care anymore, we no longer have the highest infant mortality rate in the world, just the third highest! No problems here!"
Last edited:
Ooh, and you're back at it, keeping it difficult to discern whether you're lying or stupid with every post.
Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, they are not industrialized nations. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.
saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,878
- 11,043
- 2,030
Singapore appears on the list of industrialized AND developed nations. The US is post-industrialized. They should be off the list to begin with.
Toro
Diamond Member
I see that there is a debate raging on income disparity. I will post this graph. It is a decade old but I don't think things have changed too much.
What this graph says is that, yes, the income disparities between the richest and the poorest in America is the widest of all the richest countries in the world. But, interestingly, the disparity between the median income and the poorest is actually not that much wider than it is in Europe. In fact, the difference between the poorest and the median income in the US was slightly less than that in the welfare states of Sweden and Finland.
BTW, it is a specious argument to compare America to China and Mexico, but it is somewhat fair to compare the US to Singapore, although Singapore is a small city-state. Perhaps we should compare Singapore to Minneapolis.
What's the income disparity of Zimbabwe?
Your graph is really quite meaningless. The people below the median level of income in the U.S. have standards of living that not even kings had in the past. They have indoor plumbing, potable water, heat, air conditioning, big screen TVs, motor powered transportation, inexpensive food....all of which are the products of capital investment which made them widely available, relatively cheap, and cost effective to distribute.
Its meaningless to those who do not understand context.
One could make the same argument about social democracy and why high taxes produce a better society.
The people below the median level of income in Sweden have standards of living that not even kings had in the past. They have indoor plumbing, potable water, heat, air conditioning, big screen TVs, motor powered transportation, inexpensive food....all of which are the products of human capital investment which gave people a high level of education, great social mobility, and social insurance.
Si modo
Diamond Member
Look. You're a spineless idiot at this point. YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That is flat wrong. Suck it up and deal with it.
Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity of industrialized countries. That is also flat wrong.
Now, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.
Quit crying.
Toro
Diamond Member
Just a question here. When I think of this argument, I do not include Mexico nor China in the group of "industrialized" countries. The term "industrialized" used to mean "rich" when referring to economic advancement. Perhaps I am outmoded in my thinking, and we should we say "post-industrial" countries. Those countries, whether they are called "industrialized," "post-industrial" or "rich" are generally considered to be the countries of Western Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. You can't really put China and Mexico into that group because they are still quite poor by our standards.
My question is thus, compared to this group of countries, where does the US rank in income disparity?
Ooh, what fun hypocrisy.
You'll notice in my second post on the subject I admitted that yes, Hong Kong was an industrialized nation with greater income inequality than the U.S. My point was no less valid (the point not being that the U.S. had the greatest income inequality, but rather "To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene." and that for the lower and middle class to defend the right to receive those enormous bonuses while they fight for scraps, to defend their financial masters' exploitation, is "serf thinking" as was clear in my post... I've tried to debate that point with you now, oh, half a dozen times but you've routinely refused to engage on the substantive point and just want to bicker about whether we're #1, #2, or #3), but it was true that we were not #1 and I said as much immediately.
Meanwhile, you refuse to admit your own glaring and (unlike mine) repeated error.
YOU made a claim that China and Mexico were industrialized nations, while you and I kept both kept posting proof that that is flat wrong. While posting the evidence, I multiple times tried to explain it to you in objective terms using the criteria of the IMF, UN, and CIA, but like a programmed zombie wholly unaffected by external stimuli, YOU continued on with the same erroneous claim over and over.
It's like I said an adolescent isn't an adult and you said "MORON! An adolescent isn't a child, see! So it's an adult! Only an idiot would think otherwise." Just as a 13-year-old isn't an adult, China and Mexico aren't industrialized countries. You might do well to take your own advice. Unlike me, who did readily admit a minor error (we're not #1), you even now refuse to admit yours and press on with it, by now surely recognizing the error of your ways, either lying or vainly trying to save face.
So, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.
Quit crying.
Among the list of truly developed countries (there are 37 according to the CIA, 34 according to the IMF, China and Mexico on neither) which includes, as you said, Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the "Asian Tigers"
List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US has a Gini index of 45 and the only industrialized nation higher is Hong Kong at 53. Singapore, according to the CIA but not IMF, has a Gini as of 2008 of 48, when the CIA puts the US at 46.6. The IMF's last available data on Singapore is a decade old at 42.5
So to answer your question, we are either #2 or #3 for highest income inequality of industrialized or developed nations.
If you're thinking of only the countries you named, those that have been rich or industrialized or developed for a long time now (so excluding the four "Asian Tigers" which are considered industrialized but may not fit into your older "rich" paradigm), we are #1.
Rather than continue to bicker with people who are unfamiliar with the terms they're using about this #1, #2, or #3 status, what I was hoping to discuss was that while America has an inarguably quite high gap between the rich and poor, it's a terrible idea to argue for the continued and further lining of the pockets of the wealthiest while the lower and middle class suffer through an economic crisis that elite are largely responsible for. The very rich, at this point, have made enough money, we should be focused on bringing up the employment, income, and economic advancement among the rest of the country who've been hit quite hard lately and can use (and deserve) the help much more.
Last edited:
Si modo
Diamond Member
Damn, you ARE stupid. SINGAPORE, not Hong Kong.
And, if you post a claim, make sure it is accurate. Your initial one was not and your whiney attempt at a correction to it was not either.
When I say idiot and stupid and moron, I mean it. Only idiots and morons and stupid persons make inaccurate yet easily verifiable claims AND don't support them.
See, if you actually provided references with your claims, you wouldn't be flat wrong so often. Youre excessive verbosity does not change the fact that your initial claim and your lame attempt at a correction are still wrong, either.
At this point and with your continued idiocy, I doubt you even know WHEN you should provide a reference.
Idiot.
Moron.
And, you are a pathetic person who has issues with admitting your OWN errors.
Trust me on this, I am dug in. You were and are wrong. Deal with it.
Hahahahaha, again the hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Over and over and over you claimed China and Mexico were industrialized nations while we both provided the proof they're not. You've yet to address this and instead went into a tailspin of deflection when it was finally proven via your own sources that you were wrong.
And you're even making new ones, Hong Kong's Gini index is 53.3 and it's an industrialized nation. Singapore's listing on the link you provided is 42.5, although as I said the CIA (but not IMF) now list it higher. According to your source, and one of the three major judges of income disparity, Singapore's is lower, according to one of the others, it's higher, so Singapore is questionable while Hong Kong, as I accurately stated and backed up, is definitively known as higher.
You've now made more factually incorrect assertions more times and refused to acknowledge them.
So according to your own standards, having repeatedly claimed that China and Mexico were industrialized, developed nations, you are an idiot and stupid and a moron, in fact, more of one even than you describe since you not only made an inaccurate and easily verifiable claim that you didn't support, you actually cited as support proof that you were dead ******* wrong. It doesn't get much stupider than that.
"And, if you post a claim, make sure it is accurate. Your initial one was not and your whiney attempt at a correction to it was not either... Only idiots and morons and stupid persons make inaccurate yet easily verifiable claims AND don't support them...See, if you actually provided references with your claims, you wouldn't be flat wrong so often...At this point and with your continued idiocy, I doubt you even know WHEN you should provide a reference...And, you are a pathetic person who has issues with admitting your OWN errors."
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Last edited:
bucs90
Gold Member
- Feb 25, 2010
- 26,545
- 6,041
- 280
Clever play on words there, but not consistent with what I said.
A big difference is as follows:
Gov't: Has men with guns, can write laws, can use violence to force us to pay them or obey them. Or both.
Coporation: Commerce is completely voluntary. Citizens have choice, and can live without any interaction with any company if they choose.
See, the government takes from the most successful, and gives to the least successful. Corporations do the opposite, thus, inspiring harder work and more productive people. Government has no competition, thus, can embrace inadequacy and inefficiency, thus breeding lazy, careless employees. Corporations survive only through competence and competitiveness.
Corporations employ hard workers, and pay dividends to those who work hard, save, and buy stock.
Government employs some hard workers, and some lazy leeches who want to be guaranteed a job. Gov't pays dividends, aka welfare, to the lazy.
Corporations can only ask for money, and hope you frequent their business.
Governments mandate taking our money, and do so by force.
And finally, frequenting a corporation or business is completely voluntary. The government can force us to pay taxes and obey laws, but they cannot force us to purchase any item from any private company........er, wait, until now.
Si modo
Diamond Member
Yup. HE posted an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then he posted an inaccurate claim again.So he provides links and you repeat your assertions and insult his intelligence?
In my book, that is what idiots do. It's not hard to be accurate when one supports their claim, from the start. It's just that simple.
I like accuracy. Others obviously don't.
Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,270
- 183
Forgive me for bringing up a three day old post that scanning through all the other pages shows it has been discussed ad nauseum but I just want to say this and didn't see where anyone else had said it.
I can agree that these people make far more than any human being has a right to make, it is not the place of President Obama, Congress or anyone else to dictate how much is too much.
Serf thinking or not, it is not my place to tell anyone that does not work for me that they make too much money.
Immie
You can tell when you realized you were probably wrong because you stopped posting support for your claim, since it didn't support it but disproved it, and started saying "vide supra"... "I don't have to support it, I already supported it... Yes, I did! Trust me! Just don't go looking for it and definitely don't click the link, take my word."
I like your obstinate argument, it damns you more than anyone else you're trying to insult. You are very clearly, by your own estimation, a big idiot. And that's funny.
masquerade
positivity
I wonder if Obama has told his buddies in Hollywood and in the media that there comes a point when they've made enough money.
I think the extent to which public consumption of corporate goods is truly voluntary is often exaggerated. For instance I lived for two years in an area that had only one internet service provider serving that community. If you wanted internet, you had to go through them. There's the argument that you could choose not to have internet if you don't want to do business with them and that's true, but when say your work requires you to have the internet and it's the primary means of business and personal communication, that's no longer really an accurate or reasonable reflection of the situation.
Let's go a step further and use an example you can't at all make the choice not to have: health care. Before all this government intervention, if you take someone with serious pre-existing conditions from a chronic childhood illness say, they are going to have a nearly impossible time finding coverage for their health. Insurance companies will raise their prices out the ass because that person actually has no other option and they know this. He can't choose not to do business with an unscrupulous corporation, because to do so puts him in mortal danger.
Even with things that don't immediately put you at risk of dying, the degree to which one can choose to opt out is unrealistically overstated. Oil companies for instance have recognized that much of the world runs on oil and in a modern, commuter society like America most people rely on transportation that consumes oil. So they fix their prices at the highest rate they think they can get away with to a customer base that without their product is rendered practically immobile. Public transportation isn't an option outside of cities for a lot of people. So while someone can theoretically opt out of dealing with gas suppliers if they choose to because they don't like their unethical behavior, they are left pretty much with walking, biking, or taming a horse which is obviously impractical.
The idea that all business interaction with corporations on the part of people is truly voluntary or that there are such a plethora of options that they can choose a corporation they like better that won't engage in unethical behavior is practically and in reality often a kind of fiction.
The "option" to not do business with any corrupt corporation if you so "choose" leaves you with alternatives that aren't really viable options at all. "If you don't want to deal with unscrupulous landlords, you can live out on the street" for instance isn't really a valid reflection of choice. And for that matter, if you truly want to remove yourself from the control of the U.S. government, you can either live far off the grid or even easier leave the country. Those should also not really be considered an equal and reasonable solution to bad government policy though, anymore than trying to live a life that doesn't rely to some extent on corporations is a reasonable solution to sleazy corporate practice. Both do have "choice" to some extent, but it's more an illusion of choice. "Gimme your money or I'll throw you in jail" is different but in the same vein of "I'm the only guy with water in this desert. Gimme your money or you can choose to dehydrate."
I think it's refreshing that you admit that corporations, by and large, take from those who have the least and give to those who have the most, but I disagree that that necessarily inspires harder work and productivity. It's often just demoralizing when you have so little to see it all go to those who already have so much because they're more powerful and can, say, gouge your rent (you need to live somewhere, homelessness is not a practical or reasonable choice), credit (if you can't afford those groceries but need to eat), etc. And I think that plays itself out among the lower class actually. You call poor people on welfare "lazy," but most of them work pretty stressful low reward jobs, and it's not going to make you more productive to realize that no matter how hard you work at the handful of jobs you can get, you're never going to crawl out of debt or even be able to provide for yourself. It's soul-crushing, not motivating, and the idea that anyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and succeed if they work hard enough is an even bigger fiction in our society.
On the government mandating we buy private insurance from their corporate donors, I'm with you that that's absolutely ridiculous and awful. It's also funny that it gets called socialism (single-payer would have been socializing health care), as government intervention by force to assure the benefit of a private corporation is an economic aspect of fascism.
I would consider myself anti-government, anti-corporate, I think enormous bureaucracies fueled primarily by maintaining or expanding their own existence and power are almost inherently detrimental to the people they come into contact with. I think where anti-government, pro-corporate people go wrong is often in not recognizing the degree to which corporations own the government and pay it to work for them, rather than the other way around. So much government malfeasance is simply government acting in the best interest of business against the best interest of its citizens.
Anyway, all that's to say I think it's not an entirely accurate or practical oversimplification to argue the difference between government and corporations is that interaction with or paying a corporation is entirely voluntary. In theory it is, but in practice we often aren't given sufficient options to make it true.
However, your point about the government having guns, having the ability to write laws, using direct force, those are all quite valid and considerable distinctions between government and corporations that demonstrate they are not interchangeable. They just aren't any of the points you were using in the post I parodied to argue a pro-corporate stance, since that hinged upon the fact that corporations are just made up of people, which is also true of government. My issue wasn't with your stance, but with the poor nature of your argument in defense of it. Now you're making a better case for it.
No worries, I agree with that too.
I believe, like Adam Smith,
Adam Smith said:
that progressive taxation is necessary for capitalism to function in a society. So my belief that certain people have made enough money justifies progressive taxation, that if you've made $100 million bonus this year, you should have to give a greater percentage of it to the country whose economy, protections, and services you enjoy than the guy who made $10,000 all year.
It doesn't justify and I don't believe in putting a cap on the amount someone can make, i.e. taking all of someone's wealth over a certain point because that's just too much money, because even though I feel at a certain point enough is enough, I don't believe anyone has the right to enforce that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
President Trump's Speech On Iran Offered Hope The War Will End Soon?
- Started by JimofPennsylvan
- Replies: 9
