Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

Harbinger wrote: The quality of life in the bottom rung is only poor when there is no limit to the height of the economic ladder. If the economy had only two rungs- employed and self employed- it would be harder to fall into poverty than it would to remain in the middle class.

There are two logical flaws in this statement:

1) There will always be unemployment.

2) You do not determine your own earnings.

I could work producing chairs, but if no one buys my chairs, I am not making money. I could be self-employed as an artist, but if no one buys my art, I am not making money. In Capitalism, you do not control how much money you make; the consumer does.

Harbinger wrote: Not even - there would only be a 10% difference in income!

The current minimum is only $10,712 a year. Prices are based on the spending habits of two income households earning anywhere from $40,000 to $80,000 a year- 400% to 800% more than the minimum wage! Such grossly inflated middle class incomes is what creates such grossly inflated prices and that is what makes life so much worse for those who make the least.

Regardless of the actual values, there will always be those that earn less, and those that earn more. However, goods are still provided to those are earn $10,000 a year, just as they are provided to those that earn $40,000 a year. While the quality, production, and price of those goods vary, the point is that goods are still provided.

Harbinger wrote: I'm not talking about directly dictating prices. I'm only talking about prohibiting business expansion. When a small business is successful, the owner can do whatever he wants with his profits accept increase the physical size of his business in an attempt to grab market share out from under everyone else. The owner can open another small business elsewhere (thus promoting competition), but he shouldn't be allowed to expand his current operation or franchise it.

Why not? It's his capital, so why doesn't he have the right to spend his money like the consumer does? To prevent the business owner from "attempting to grab market shares out from under everyone else" would prevent competition and the right to the company's own assets. As a business evolves, so does the market around that business. When one makes more money through corpratizing, that business now competes with other corporations, as well as small businesses. Basically, as a company grows, so does that company's competition.

Harbinger wrote: I would agree that excessive regulations are unnecessary and destructive. But, no regulations would be just as bad as too many. At least a handful of regulations is necessary to maintain an economy that is full of opportunity for anyone with the motivation and desire to succeed. Not just Harvard business grads.

Define "succeed".

Harbinger wrote: Huh?

To take off the top of the economic ladder is to set a maximum value on the price of labor; unless I am misunderstanding your claims.

Harbinger wrote: Small businesses create more jobs than large corporations do. That's why the rate of unemployment increases whenever a large business moves in and shuts a bunch of small businesses down. If all the big corporations that dominate the economy were replaced with small businesses, it would create a lot of additional jobs so, competition in the labor market would be better than it is now.

Then I suppose that it's a matter of what is more important, unemployment, or inflation?

Harbinger wrote: All the high paying corporate jobs would certainly be eliminated but, the promise of high income would prevail. With big corporations out of the way, individuals and families would have a maximum of opportunity to achieve financial success and independence by opening small businesses of their own.

Everyone already has that opportunity, what happens is that not everyone wants it. You ideas depend on everyone owning their own business to succeed, but you fail to realize that labor is the base service that anyone can provide, and most of the time that is the service that they provide. What's going to happen is that small businesses will grow, expand, and become big businesses. You'd be right back where you started ten years down the line.

Harbinger wrote: An economy filled with small business would be far more competitive than one with only a handful of corporations yet, I think it would be far less volatile and self destructive too.

Competitive only because there are more businesses and less capital. If there is less money, then there is also less goods being bought which would cause a sharp increase in supply, but a sudden drop in demand; causing the value of goods to drop below the cost of production, and then cause even less money, and eventually cause the collapse of the very system you were trying to save. Capitalism is not a stable economy, nor will it ever be, but the turbulent market is what keeps it going.

[LostSoul3412]

Harbinger wrote: People who earn minimum wage don't have any disposable income which is why they are barely even part of the consumer base. Increasing their wages would only allow them to buy essential things they cannot currently afford thus acting to expand the consumer base.

While increasing the cost of product. If you increase wage, you have to increase price as you already stated yourself. It wouldn't expand the consumer base at all, and would only give the impression of more money to those earning minimum wage, while punishing those who make more through higher prices of goods.

Harbinger wrote: producers cannot afford to loose business by increasing prices just to compensate themselves for a minor increase in the minimum cost of labor.

Doesn't matter. Better to lose some business than to lose money though every sale.

Harbinger wrote: Most employers pay well more than the minimum wage anyway so, it wouldn't hurt the economy at all.

Yes it would. If I'm making more than minimum wage, and the price of goods goes up because the cost of labor goes up, I'm being punished. From that, I have to buy less because cost is going up but my money is staying constant, meaning that I have no choice but to buy less. Because everyone else that makes more than minimum wage is in the same situation I am, and since a majority of people are now buying less, the market will slump.

[Harbinger]

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The quality of life in the bottom rung is only poor when there is no limit to the height of the economic ladder. If the economy had only two rungs- employed and self employed- it would be harder to fall into poverty than it would to remain in the middle class.

There are two logical flaws in this statement:

1) There will always be unemployment.

2) You do not determine your own earnings.

How are these logical flaws in my statement?

1) My statement makes no mention of eliminating unemployment.

2) My statement makes no mention of determining my own earnings.

Harbinger wrote:
I could work producing chairs, but if no one buys my chairs, I am not making money. I could be self-employed as an artist, but if no one buys my art, I am not making money. In Capitalism, you do not control how much money you make; the consumer does.

That depends on the quality if your work and the effectiveness of your advertising.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Not even - there would only be a 10% difference in income!

The current minimum is only $10,712 a year. Prices are based on the spending habits of two income households earning anywhere from $40,000 to $80,000 a year- 400% to 800% more than the minimum wage! Such grossly inflated middle class incomes is what creates such grossly inflated prices and that is what makes life so much worse for those who make the least.

Regardless of the actual values, there will always be those that earn less, and those that earn more. However, goods are still provided to those are earn $10,000 a year, just as they are provided to those that earn $40,000 a year. While the quality, production, and price of those goods vary, the point is that goods are still provided.

Um... ok.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
I'm not talking about directly dictating prices. I'm only talking about prohibiting business expansion. When a small business is successful, the owner can do whatever he wants with his profits accept increase the physical size of his business in an attempt to grab market share out from under everyone else. The owner can open another small business elsewhere (thus promoting competition), but he shouldn't be allowed to expand his current operation or franchise it.

Why not? It's his capital, so why doesn't he have the right to spend his money like the consumer does?

Just because you own something doesn't mean you have the right to do whatever you want with it. The state can and should set conditions, restrictions and prohibitions on what you can buy, how much you can buy and what you can and cannot do with your capital once you've purchased it. You can't buy cocain at all, you can't own a gun without a permit and you can't keep a box of dynamite or a keg of black powder in your appartment. Likewise, you can't drive a monster truck on public highways. The economy is like a public highway and businesses are like cars and trucks. In order to ensure safe access to the economic highway for everyone, the state must limit the physical size of every business. Otherwise, we end up with what we have now- gangs of corporate monster trucks who crush everyone in their path and leaving endless piles of twisted small business wreckage along the roadsides.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
To prevent the business owner from "attempting to grab market shares out from under everyone else" would prevent competition and the right to the company's own assets.

That's not what I meant. Small businesses can compete very aggressively within a limited geography. They don't compete with everyone in the entire economy at once. Allowing businesses to swell up like the Incredible Hulk is what enables them to compete on a larger geography and thereby capture market share from businesses they weren't competing with before. By limiting business size, the state can maintain small circles of healthy competition between existing small businesses while preserving opportunity nearby for new small businesses.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
As a business evolves, so does the market around that business. When one makes more money through incorporation, that business now competes with other corporations, as well as small businesses. Basically, as a company grows, so does that company's competition.

Growth is never proportional though. When businesses are allowed to grow, only a few will become large, some will grow a little before collapsing and the rest will just collapse. That is exactly what's been happening since the end of WWII and it's why our economy is dominated by big corporations today. It's totally unfair. It's not how a free market is supposed to work.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
I would agree that excessive regulations are unnecessary and destructive. But, no regulations would be just as bad as too many. At least a handful of regulations is necessary to maintain an economy that is full of opportunity for anyone with the motivation and desire to succeed. Not just Harvard business grads.

Define "succeed".

Becoming self employed. Running your own business(es) profitably, earning your own living and reaching retirement without the need for any financial assistance or welfare from the state.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Huh?

To take off the top of the economic ladder is to set a maximum value on the price of labor; unless I am misunderstanding your claims.

There is no maximum. The actual value of labor is precisely determined by the wages that employers agree to pay. Just as the value of any product is precisely determined by the prices that consumers agree to pay. It's all governed by supply and demand. Of course small employers can't afford to pay as much as big employers, so keeping all businesses small would indirectly reduce average wages, but it wouldn't eliminate competition in the labor market.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Small businesses create more jobs than large corporations do. That's why the rate of unemployment increases whenever a large business moves in and shuts a bunch of small businesses down. If all the big corporations that dominate the economy were replaced with small businesses, it would create a lot of additional jobs so, competition in the labor market would be better than it is now.

Then I suppose that it's a matter of what is more important, unemployment, or inflation?

How would it cause inflation when it increases competition and lowers average income?

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
All the high paying corporate jobs would certainly be eliminated but, the promise of high income would prevail. With big corporations out of the way, individuals and families would have a maximum of opportunity to achieve financial success and independence by opening small businesses of their own.

Everyone already has that opportunity,

Maybe a lemonade stand on a small uncharted island.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
...what happens is that not everyone wants it.

I believe most people do.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
You ideas depend on everyone owning their own business to succeed, but you fail to realize that labor is the base service that anyone can provide, and most of the time that is the service that they provide.

Nonsense! I'm not failing to realize anything and I don't expect everyone to be successfully self employed. Anyone who prefers to work for others can still do so. They at least won't end up in poverty from it.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
What's going to happen is that small businesses will grow, expand, and become big businesses. You'd be right back where you started ten years down the line.

Not if it's prohibited by law.

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
An economy filled with small business would be far more competitive than one with only a handful of corporations yet, I think it would be far less volatile and self destructive too.

Competitive only because there are more businesses and less capital. If there is less money, then there is also less goods being bought which would cause a sharp increase in supply, but a sudden drop in demand; causing the value of goods to drop below the cost of production, and then cause even less money, and eventually cause the collapse of the very system you were trying to save. Capitalism is not a stable economy, nor will it ever be, but the turbulent market is what keeps it going.

Oh please! There would only be less capital per business, not less capital in the overall economy. A decrease in average wages would certainly decrease consumer spending resulting in a temporary period of deflation but, you have no basis for assuming that the effect would be 'sharp', 'sudden' or cataclysmic in any way. Some businesses wouldn't be effected at all. Some would take a loss, some would break even and some would still make a small profit even after significantly reducing prices. It all depends on their profit margins. Regardless, all losses would be limited to the differences between expected and actual returns on a limited amount of inventory. Afterwords, wages would be lower, prices would be lower and everything would balance out.

[Harbinger]

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Most employers pay well more than the minimum wage anyway so, it wouldn't hurt the economy at all.

Yes it would. If I'm making more than minimum wage, and the price of goods goes up because the cost of labor goes up, I'm being punished. From that, I have to buy less because cost is going up but my money is staying constant, meaning that I have no choice but to buy less. Because everyone else that makes more than minimum wage is in the same situation I am, and since a majority of people are now buying less, the market will slump.

The market doesn't slump from increases in the poverty wage. None the less, what you're saying is that you would rather that others live in poverty just so you can afford to buy a few more things. :cry:

Why do I even bother? :?

[Ek0nomik]

Harbinger wrote:
There is no maximum. The actual value of labor is precisely determined by the wages that employers agree to pay. Just as the value of any product is precisely determined by the prices that consumers agree to pay. It's all governed by supply and demand. Of course small employers can't afford to pay as much as big employers, so keeping all businesses small would indirectly reduce average wages, but it wouldn't eliminate competition in the labor market.

Could you clear this viewpoint up? I like a lot of what you said, but I find this to flow the complete opposite direction from what you posted earlier?

[Harbinger]

Ek0nomik wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
There is no maximum. The actual value of labor is precisely determined by the wages that employers agree to pay. Just as the value of any product is precisely determined by the prices that consumers agree to pay. It's all governed by supply and demand. Of course small employers can't afford to pay as much as big employers, so keeping all businesses small would indirectly reduce average wages, but it wouldn't eliminate competition in the labor market.

Could you clear this viewpoint up? I like a lot of what you said, but I find this to flow the complete opposite direction from what you posted earlier?
I looked at all my posts, I don't see any conflicts.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

LeopardPM wrote: employers are not 'getting away' with paying $2 -
do you see engineers or architects working for $10/hour?

I'll provide a short example of this type of behavior occurring.
I was hired in Michigan to go down to Florida to work on the development of the F-119 fighter jet engine at pratt-whitney.
The average rate of pay for Designers was $25-30 an hour here in Detroit, they were offering $28 an hour plus benefits.
The cost of living was much cheaper so I elected to make the move along with my wife & her daughter.
After about two months of working, one Friday afternoon the boss came along and handed out a slip of paper telling all Designers that they should sign this agreement if they wished to report for work on Monday.
Apparently a Vice-President had recently retired and formed a contract house for employee's.
He was awarded an exclusive contract for ALL Designers and this so-called agreement spelled out in plain terms that you would agree to transfer employment from who we were contracted to over to this new company, accept a 50% pay reduction and 50% reduction in benefit package.

So, over 500 Designers were to immediately begin working for $14 an hour rather than $28 an hour.

Due to greed, that project went into the tank and pratt-whitney lost their contract to supply the engine for the F-119.

About 90% of the Designers refused to sign that contract and left for other employment opportunities,
I was stuck in Florida, having moved my family down in pursuit of happiness.
We eventually had to move back to Michigan.

To a Designer with 10+ years of experience, $14 an hour was 'minimum wage'
and they thought they could get away with it so, they tried.

[ubikk]

LostSoul3412 wrote:

Productivity does not change with the price of labor, only value. The economics effects are positive because the economy is generating more money... Productivity and consumption remain the same, but the amount of money being traded increases; which is what actually creates the false increase in the economy.

You're missing the point. I said that when you push up minimum wage, it encourages producers to increase productivity and reduces the wasteful use of labor.

LostSoul3412 wrote: If I am a chair maker, earning $6.50 under current wage laws, and the chairs I make sell for $7.00; each chair earns a 50 cents profit for my employer. However, if I am now paid $7.25, those chairs I make will now cost $7.75 to make sure my employer earns the same profit margin...On top of that, I still have to work two hours to buy the same chair; meaning that I am actually not making any more purchasing power, leading only to inflation.

Again you are missing the point. If I raise your wage then the producer is encoraged to invest in ways to allow you to make more chairs per hour.

There are now more chairs in the economy, and the worker has more money to spend and by spending that money creates additional jobs elsewhere in the economy.

This actually happens, and it is one reason why raising the minimum wage has never been shown to cause economic decline but usually is followed by economic growth.

[yojimbo22]

has anyone heard of the argument that minimum wage doesn't have much effect on the costs of firms... there have been studies showing this in England, I was wondering whether the same can be said for the US...

[ubikk]

Quote: Yes it would. If I'm making more than minimum wage, and the price of goods goes up because the cost of labor goes up, I'm being punished. From that, I have to buy less because cost is going up but my money is staying constant, meaning that I have no choice but to buy less. Because everyone else that makes more than minimum wage is in the same situation I am, and since a majority of people are now buying less, the market will slump.

Raising minimum wages compresses the whole lower end of the wage scale. People making $8, now make $9, people making $9 now make $9.80, people making $10, now make $10.75...etc.

You are forgetting that the all people making minimum wage and up through the median are going to be buying more products and there are a lot more of them.

Back to the chair analogy: no matter how rich you are, you're only going to buy so many chairs. Give all the people below you ar raise, and they're all going to be buying more chairs, and you're going to be selling more to them. So you can't just look at one side of the equation as most anti-minimum wage people do. You have to balance both sides.

[LostSoul3412]

Harbinger wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The quality of life in the bottom rung is only poor when there is no limit to the height of the economic ladder. If the economy had only two rungs- employed and self employed- it would be harder to fall into poverty than it would to remain in the middle class.

There are two logical flaws in this statement:

1) There will always be unemployment.

2) You do not determine your own earnings.

How are these logical flaws in my statement?

1) My statement makes no mention of eliminating unemployment.

2) My statement makes no mention of determining my own earnings.

You argued only two levels: employed, and self-employed. On top of that, you assumed that you control how much money you make. That, or I misunderstood your argument, and I ask that you clear it up.

Harbinger wrote: That depends on the quality if your work and the effectiveness of your advertising.

I would have the best product in the world, and spend more on advertising than any of my competitors, but if no one buys my chairs, I'm not making money.

Harbinger wrote: Just because you own something doesn't mean you have the right to do whatever you want with it.

Why not? I own it.

Harbinger wrote: The state can and should set conditions, restrictions and prohibitions on what you can buy, how much you can buy and what you can and cannot do with your capital once you've purchased it.

:roll:

The state should be destroyed; and it can take Socialism with it.

Harbinger wrote: You can't buy cocain at all, you can't own a gun without a permit and you can't keep a box of dynamite or a keg of black powder in your appartment.

Just because I legally can't, doesn't mean that I rightfully shouldn't.

Harbinger wrote: Likewise, you can't drive a monster truck on public highways.

Why not? A monster truck is a mode of transportation should be allowed to drive anywhere.

Harbinger wrote: The economy is like a public highway and businesses are like cars and trucks. In order to ensure safe access to the economic highway for everyone, the state must limit the physical size of every business.

:roll:

"Physical size" of a business means nothing in modern economics. On top of that, it is better to be free than fair. The government should have no place in the economy.

Harbinger wrote: Otherwise, we end up with what we have now- gangs of corporate monster trucks who crush everyone in their path and leaving endless piles of twisted small business wreckage along the roadsides.

I would recommend education. Small businesses operate, grow, and expand like any other asset (hopefully) would. A corporation is another step in natural business evolution.

Harbinger wrote: That's not what I meant. Small businesses can compete very aggressively within a limited geography. They don't compete with everyone in the entire economy at once. Allowing businesses to swell up like the Incredible Hulk is what enables them to compete on a larger geography and thereby capture market share from businesses they weren't competing with before.

So?

Harbinger wrote: By limiting business size, the state can maintain small circles of healthy competition between existing small businesses while preserving opportunity nearby for new small businesses.

:roll:

By limiting business size, the government can effectively ruin our economy.

Harbinger wrote: Growth is never proportional though.

You're right, some are more successful than others. Should we be punishing success?

Harbinger wrote: When businesses are allowed to grow, only a few will become large, some will grow a little before collapsing and the rest will just collapse.

Again, I would recommend and economics course.

Harbinger wrote: That is exactly what's been happening since the end of WWII and it's why our economy is dominated by big corporations today.

I would also recommend a history course.

Harbinger wrote: It's totally unfair. It's not how a free market is supposed to work.

Free does not mean fair.

Harbinger wrote: Becoming self employed. Running your own business(es) profitably, earning your own living and reaching retirement without the need for any financial assistance or welfare from the state.

Why do I have to be self-employed, or own a businees, to do that?

Harbinger wrote: There is no maximum. The actual value of labor is precisely determined by the wages that employers agree to pay. Just as the value of any product is precisely determined by the prices that consumers agree to pay. It's all governed by supply and demand. Of course small employers can't afford to pay as much as big employers, so keeping all businesses small would indirectly reduce average wages, but it wouldn't eliminate competition in the labor market.

But they would now be competing for less. How does that help the worker?

Harbinger wrote: How would it cause inflation when it increases competition and lowers average income?

You're right, it would cause deflation...

Which leads to a depression.

Harbinger wrote: Maybe a lemonade stand on a small uncharted island.

Lemonade stand, international trade organization, technology firm, same difference.

Harbinger wrote: I believe most people do.

Never assume you know what other people want.

Harbinger wrote: Nonsense! I'm not failing to realize anything and I don't expect everyone to be successfully self employed. Anyone who prefers to work for others can still do so. They at least won't end up in poverty from it.

Define "poverty".

Harbinger wrote: Not if it's prohibited by law.

So you're not only to punish success, but you're also going to prevent success from ever happening? If I can't grow my business, what's the point in starting one?

Harbinger wrote: Oh please! There would only be less capital per business, not less capital in the overall economy.

Then you'd create a lot of new jobs for your sprawling bureauacracy.

Harbinger wrote: A decrease in average wages would certainly decrease consumer spending resulting in a temporary period of deflation but, you have no basis for assuming that the effect would be 'sharp', 'sudden' or cataclysmic in any way.

I'm bringing home $80.00 a week to feed my family. Now I'm bringing home $50.00 a week. How is that not sudden?

Harbinger wrote: Some businesses wouldn't be effected at all.

Right, the unsuccessful ones.

Harbinger wrote: Some would take a loss,

Some? You're going to take assets away from any business that has ever expanded.

Harbinger wrote: some would break even

Some? You're going to take assets away from any business that has ever expanded.

Harbinger wrote: and some would still make a small profit even after significantly reducing prices.

Only the unsuccessful ones.

Harbinger wrote: It all depends on their profit margins.

If I have a profit, I'm now losing money. If I'm breaking even, I'm now losing money. If I'm in the red, suddenly, I'm making money.

Harbinger wrote: Regardless, all losses would be limited to the differences between expected and actual returns on a limited amount of inventory.

And what happens when I expect to lose money per sale, because the cost of making a product is more than the price I can get for it?

Harbinger wrote: Afterwords, wages would be lower, prices would be lower and everything would balance out.

You're right, it would balance out into a significantly lower standard of living, poorer quality goods, less income per family, less education, less services because of less taxes, and we would all live in poverty. But hey, at least we'd all be equally poor.

[LostSoul3412]

Harbinger wrote: None the less, what you're saying is that you would rather that others live in poverty just so you can afford to buy a few more things. :cry:

Save your tears, greed is a part of humanity. Why should I be concerned with someone else being unsuccessful?

[LostSoul3412]

ubikk wrote: You're missing the point. I said that when you push up minimum wage, it encourages producers to increase productivity and reduces the wasteful use of labor.

Or just employ less labor.

ubikk wrote: Again you are missing the point. If I raise your wage then the producer is encoraged to invest in ways to allow you to make more chairs per hour.

And the easiest way to do that is to fire me, and buy a production machine.

ubikk wrote: There are now more chairs in the economy, and the worker has more money to spend and by spending that money creates additional jobs elsewhere in the economy.

There are more chairs, but now I'm out of a job.

ubikk wrote: This actually happens, and it is one reason why raising the minimum wage has never been shown to cause economic decline but usually is followed by economic growth.

Again, it is a false growth caused by inflation.

[ubikk]

LostSoul3412 wrote: ubikk wrote: Again you are missing the point. If I raise your wage then the producer is encoraged to invest in ways to allow you to make more chairs per hour.

And the easiest way to do that is to fire me, and buy a production machine. ... There are more chairs, but now I'm out of a job.

That's an exaggerated way to look at it. I might just as easily keep most of the people and upgrade my machinery to make them more productive.

The point you're missing is that now my employees are making more stuff and earning more money, and they will go out in the economy and spend that money creating additional jobs somewhere else. On top of that, the guy who makes the production equipment I just bought made a profit, maybe he'll hire an extra guy to increase his production.

LostSoul3412 wrote: ubikk wrote: This actually happens, and it is one reason why raising the minimum wage has never been shown to cause economic decline but usually is followed by economic growth.

Again, it is a false growth caused by inflation.

Not really. More chairs being produced IS the definition of growth.

I've also freed up people I no longer need to make chairs to go make something else. Some other entrepreneur now has more experienced labor to take advantage of.

But you bring up another interesting point, the relationship between growth statistics and inflation. That's a topic for another thread.

[LeopardPM]

Harbinger wrote: The market doesn't slump from increases in the poverty wage.
I am guessing that your label of the 'poverty wage' is a way to propogandize the minimum wage, nevertheless, the overall economy does take a hit from increasing the minimum wage - those in the lowest income brackets are hit hardest with greater unemployment.

Quote: None the less, what you're saying is that you would rather that others live in poverty just so you can afford to buy a few more things. :cry:
again with the appeal to emotion... I do not cause others to be in poverty, my success does not cause others to be in poverty, the actions and/or circumstances of those impoverished are the culprits. Don't try to make those people who have figured out how to get and keep a decent job out to be some kind of evil slavers - these folks should be role modeled and their actions duplicated by the impoverished - they should not be penalized for being successful!

Quote: Why do I even bother? :?
hopefully, 'you bother' because you are trying to learn something or perhaps spread your own viewpoint - nothing wrong with that... except that your view is incorrect and the results from the actions you advocate would bring about the exact opposite of to sincere goals. Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game, each and everyone of us humans has the ability to do it - the 'trick' is to figure out what other people desire, and to figure out how best to provide for one's future. The 'problem' with those impoverished is that they have a high time preference - they are 'now' oriented and not future oriented - they do not see the value in saving as a method of capital generation which results in higher productivity - thereby increasing one's earning power which helps to enable folks, rich or poor, to better their financial situation. For instance, if a poor person choose to cancel his cable bill ($50-$100), not buy anything on credit, and put his savings towards: (1) his education, (2) purchasing capital goods (ie: lawn mower to start a landscaping business, etc) - He could change the circumstances of his situation and, if not vastly improve his condition, if not only for himself, but also for his offspring. It IS a choice to be poor - I have choosen it myself in the past, and I also have chosen to not be poor as well - it takes effort, savings, and some thought into what actions to take.

[Kindred]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Harbinger wrote: None the less, what you're saying is that you would rather that others live in poverty just so you can afford to buy a few more things. :cry:

Save your tears, greed is a part of humanity. Why should I be concerned with someone else being unsuccessful?

Because compassion and cooperation are also 'part of humanity'.

[LeopardPM]

Kindred wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Harbinger wrote: None the less, what you're saying is that you would rather that others live in poverty just so you can afford to buy a few more things. :cry:

Save your tears, greed is a part of humanity. Why should I be concerned with someone else being unsuccessful?

Because compassion and cooperation are also 'part of humanity'.

yes they are - but there is no such thing as 'forced' compassion or cooperation - insert force into the equation and you have a version of slavery.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned with your fellow man, trade with him, give him charity if you desire - but do not advocate to steal from person C to give to person B!

[Kindred]

LeopardPM wrote: Kindred wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Harbinger wrote: None the less, what you're saying is that you would rather that others live in poverty just so you can afford to buy a few more things. :cry:

Save your tears, greed is a part of humanity. Why should I be concerned with someone else being unsuccessful?

Because compassion and cooperation are also 'part of humanity'.

yes they are - but there is no such thing as 'forced' compassion or cooperation - insert force into the equation and you have a version of slavery.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned with your fellow man, trade with him, give him charity if you desire - but do not advocate to steal from person C to give to person B!

And that is why I personally advocate a Land Value Tax, combined user pay fees, and taxes on environmentally harmful industry. All of these taxes compensate people for losses derived from market transactions; rather than punishing third parties, it makes consenting parties accountable for their actions; it is true cost economics. I believe such taxes would generate enough wealth for a basic healthcare system, a welfare system whilst having the benefits of pushing the market towards productive use of land and environmentally friendly buisness.

[LeopardPM]

Kindred wrote:
And that is why I personally advocate a Land Value Tax, combined user pay fees, and taxes on environmentally harmful industry. All of these taxes compensate people for losses derived from market transactions; rather than punishing third parties, it makes consenting parties accountable for their actions; it is true cost economics. I believe such taxes would generate enough wealth for a basic healthcare system, a welfare system whilst having the benefits of pushing the market towards productive use of land and environmentally friendly buisness.
so interesting that such a 'system' is founded and necessitates a coercive government to run it, as all forced 'tax' schemes do. There is a flaw in such an ointment, inherent in the ointment itself - force.

Why is 'being friendly' to the environment some sort of holy goal? The environment is much less friendly to us, in fact, it continually plots our demise! The universe is not a friendly place and it is the nature of life itself to adapt/change/alter the universe to fit our desires for our own survival.

[Kindred]

LeopardPM wrote: Kindred wrote:
And that is why I personally advocate a Land Value Tax, combined user pay fees, and taxes on environmentally harmful industry. All of these taxes compensate people for losses derived from market transactions; rather than punishing third parties, it makes consenting parties accountable for their actions; it is true cost economics. I believe such taxes would generate enough wealth for a basic healthcare system, a welfare system whilst having the benefits of pushing the market towards productive use of land and environmentally friendly buisness.
so interesting that such a 'system' is founded and necessitates a coercive government to run it, as all forced 'tax' schemes do. There is a flaw in such an ointment, inherent in the ointment itself - force.

Why is 'being friendly' to the environment some sort of holy goal? The environment is much less friendly to us, in fact, it continually plots our demise! The universe is not a friendly place and it is the nature of life itself to adapt/change/alter the universe to fit our desires for our own survival.

Being 'environmentally friendly' is being friendly to current and future generations. We rely on the life support systems the environment provides us with; if we destroy or damage them we inextricabley destroy and damage ourself and future generations.

If there must be force to enforce justice, then so be it. If coercion is bad even when rectifying past actions which harmed, or concurrently harm others, then surely any system of law and order, prviate or public, cannnot be defended.