Screw 'em if they hate us

POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 09:13
VIEWED: 19860
PAGE 29 of 30

PREV PAGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But hey... whenever you're interested in having an honest discussion let me know.

Or you could start by answering all my points above, instead of crying GINI about everything.

Quote:
The reason WHY so many governments have instituted high minimum wages and social welfare reforms is to create a kind of "capital recirculation pump"... putting $$ back into the hands of people who will go out and spend.

Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Austria have no minimum wage - it's set by collective bargaining, just like unions do here (Maybe more folk here should unionize?). Canada has no national minimum wage, with each province setting its own, which range above and below US (which also allows States and localities to enforce higher minimums - Up to $15.00/hr in some places). France is pretty high at 7.61 euro/hr but the workweek is limited to 35 hours. Got any higher?

Quote:
Money can be put back into the hands of the consumer thru several means: high wages and active income redistribution, credit, or speculation.

Income redistribution. That's where the government takes money from me because I'm better at earning it, and give it to you, who isn't, right?

Quote:
Economists... even well-respected institutional economists... are talking about "the worst since the Great Depression".

Maybe that's why they call it "The Dismal Science". If I'd ever seen any accurate economic forecasts by more than a few economists I might be more interested.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:52 PM

"You have such an profound assumption that capitalism is perfectly self-regulating and always leads to a "happy ending" that you just can't see the essential conundrum at its base... a conundrum we meet with every economic collapse.

Social welfare keeps capitalism running, not the other way around. W/o it, capitalism collapses. Our older generations learned that lesson from Herbet Hoover (who was a profound tax cutter and a great believer in "trickle down" policy). And thanks to GWB- who did a fine job of kicking apart the system that kept the economy from collapsing- we get a chance to learn that lesson all over again.

But yanno what? I'm not going to convince you. Events will speak for themselves, and if you're smart you'll learn from them.

---------------------------------
WOOO HOOO!!! Let's party like it's 1929.

GEEZER

Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You have such an profound assumption that capitalism is perfectly self-regulating and always leads to a "happy ending" that you just can't see the essential conundrum at its base...

Hardly. But I'm not willing to scrap it for the pig-in-a-poke you're offering.

Quote:
Social welfare keeps capitalism running, not the other way around.

Proof would be nice. Otherwise that's just an assertion.

Quote:
But yanno what? I'm not going to convince you.

Nor I you. But it's interesting to discuss. More so if you, and especially Rue, wouldn't get so upset when anyone disagreed with you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:06 PM

Quote:
The reason WHY so many governments have instituted high minimum wages and social welfare reforms is to create a kind of "capital recirculation pump"... putting $$ back into the hands of people who will go out and spend.-Signy

Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Austria have no minimum wage - it's set by collective bargaining, just like unions do here- Geezer

And what about social welfare, which you deliberately ignore?

Quote:
Although there are no state-mandated minimum wages one can say that something similar exists. Everyone has a right to Sozialhilfe (social welfare) which is defined very well. No matter whether you are employed or not, you always have the right to a (very limited) income. If you work for less, you will get the rest from the local Sozialamt, the social welfare administration, run by the city or county government. Sozialhilfe for a family of four is a little less than 2000 DM per month, excluding rent. The rent for a reasonable (and often subsidized) apartment is payed by the government on top of this.

See, this is what I mean by you being dishonest. My point was the the EU nations instituted a whole host of social welfare reforms, not just minimum wages, which redistribute income downwards... as I said, a capital recirculation pump. Now you can nitpick and say they don't have "minimum wages" in some nations, but they do in others AND they actively transfer wealth downwards thru a variety of mechanisms. The visible, undeniable result of that capital recirculation pump is a more even income distribution and a lower Gini. Now, we could have had an interesting discussion on any number of topics: Is it better to move money downwards thru welfare or minimum wages? How much money do EU nations push towards the bottom compared to the USA? Does it do any good?

But- no. You plug your ears and hum loudly, pretending that the EU nations "don't". You nitpick, change the topic, ad hominem the other poster, and in general enagage in a whole repertoire of disinformational tricks. Now, I can bird-dog each rhetorical trick down to the facts but really... since you have no interest in having an honest discussion what's the point?

So I don't get upset when people disagree with me. Fletch2 and I have had many honest and productive disagreements about the economy. It's just when they're dishonest. And you, friend, practice just about every form.

Quote:
Social welfare keeps capitalism running, not the other way around.-SignyM
Proof would be nice. Otherwise that's just an assertion.-Geezer

What do they say about learning from history?

"Our older generations learned that lesson from Herbet Hoover (who BTW was a profound tax cutter and a great believer in "trickle down" policy). And thanks to GWB- who did a fine job of kicking apart the system that kept the economy from collapsing- we get a chance to learn that lesson all over again. But yanno what? I'm not going to convince you. Events will speak for themselves, and if you're smart you'll learn from them."

-------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

GEEZER

Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And what about social welfare, which you deliberately ignore?

In that particular comment perhaps, but I've mentioned taking money from those able to earn a lot of it and giving it to those who aren't several times. For example, this from a few posts ago:

"That still doesn't change the fact that you want to penalize the people who are able to make money so you can subsidize the spending of those who aren't.

What's strange to me is that you don't realize that you can do this within a capitalist economic system just as effectively (or even more effectively, since there's more money moving around). Sweden is actually a pretty good example. Just tax the hell out of the rich corporations and capitalists and upper-middle class, and send the money down the line to the poor in the form of subsidized services or government jobs. If you don't make it too onerous to the rich folk, you can milk them for enough to keep your social welfare government cranking."

Quote:
Although there are no state-mandated minimum wages one can say that something similar exists.

But you said "high minimum wages and social welfare reforms." I don't argue the social welfare systems, but I checked the high minimum wage part and it is just not correct.You wouldn't want to present incorrect information, would you?

Quote:
My point was the the EU nations instituted a whole host of social welfare reforms, not just minimum wages, which redistribute income downwards.

Then perhaps you should actually say what you mean.

Quote:
Is it better to move money downwards thru welfare or minimum wages?

Why just welfare or minimum wages? Can't you think of any other options?

Quote:
Social welfare keeps capitalism running, not the other way around.-SignyM
Proof would be nice. Otherwise that's just an assertion.-Geezer
What do they say about learning from history?

"Our older generations learned that lesson from Herbet Hoover (who BTW was a profound tax cutter and a great believer in "trickle down" policy). And thanks to GWB- who did a fine job of kicking apart the system that kept the economy from collapsing- we get a chance to learn that lesson all over again.

Sorry, Siggy. That's not proof, just another assertion.

And I see you're using the "You're not saying what I want you to say so you're being deceitful" crap again. When you make assertions I look to see the truth of these statements. Since I can't read your mind I have to take your statements at face value. If you say countries use high minimum wage AND social welfare programs, and I don't argue with the fact that social welfare programs are used, all I'm gonna check out is the minimum wage claim. If I find data which indicates it may be wrong, I'll point it out. Not sure how that's deceitful.

Just out of curiosity, do you want government to penalize the people who are able to make money so they can subsidize the spending of those who aren't?

Not expecting a straignt answer, BTW.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 29, 2008 5:46 AM

Siggy,

You're never really going to get anywhere with us libertarian types until you address the core difference in worldviews. Socialism holds that the interests of the group outweigh the rights of the individual as a baseline. I'm not willing to sign up for that. I suspect Geezer isn't either.

Sure, there's gotta be some balance, and everyone has some interest in the welfare of the community in which they live. But when you start with the assumption that the fruits of a mans labor are the property of the state - well, you've lost me right there. If that's the case, then I'll be damned if there'll be any "fruits". Not from my hands, anyway.

Let me ask you this. Have you checked up on Geezer's avatar? That might be a place to start.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

GEEZER

Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:12 PM

Okay. Here's the thing.

In order to have redistribution of wealth you first gotta have...WEALTH.

State controlled business economies, i.e. classic socialism, have never been able to create or accumulate wealth very successfully. The only things that the Soviet Union ever exported successfully were weapons and vodka. In a free market, folks looked at the other goods they produced and said 'no thanks'. The only place they could sell most of their stuff was in the countries they controlled.

China is now making money only by dropping their central planning micro-management and embracing capitalist business practices which allow folks who know business to pursue profit and gain personal income from it (including partnering up with or selling to capitalist corporations). Same with a lot of the other Socialist countries who are now divesting themselves of their industries so they can be run more efficiently by businesspeople who expect to profit from them, thus providing more income to tax and redistribute (or put into Swiss bank accounts).

Most all countries which have successful social welfare systems designed to redistribute wealth get that wealth from having capitalist, free market, profit-oriented business economies they can tax.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:07 PM

Sarge- Geeezer is not a Libertarian. You haven't heard a single peep out of him about how "government" should w/draw it's blanket protection from corporations, have you? He's also a profound believer of USA intervention overseas.. He will defend every instance that our troops stepped on foreign soil, including Vietanm and Iraq. I thought foreign entaglements was anathema to Libertarians. He's also rather protective of police. How could you confuse him as a Libertarian? Unless you yourself are confusing pro-corporatism with Libertarianism?

AFA you w/holding the fruits of your labor... Fine. Do it. I'm sure everyone else will get along w/out you just fine. Just don't use anything that's socially provided and you won't be thought of as a parasite, 'kay?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:08 PM

Quote:
Okay. Here's the thing.

So now you're changing your story again. It's not about "penalizing" the wealthy, or about me being "jealous", or whether the EU countries have minimum wages, or whether capitalism is a self-sustaining sytem, or the Gini index... it's all about wealth creation? Yanno, I brought that point up about... oh, 20 posts ago.

Pardon me if I don't follow you down the bunny trail. You've strawmanned, ad hominened, shapeshifted, innuendoed, and in general disinformationalized so often you've lost my interest. Here's one example:

Quote:
My point was the the EU nations instituted a whole host of social welfare reforms, not just minimum wages, which redistribute income downwards.-Signy
Then perhaps you should actually say what you mean. -Geezer

The funny thing, that's exactly what I said:

Quote:
The reason WHY so many governments have instituted high minimum wages and social welfare reforms...

Her's another:

Quote:
Show me, in numbers, what percentage of the economy the upper upper centile has here as opposed to there (the EU).- Signy
Why bother?- Geezer

Nothing like standing behind your point, eh? You realized you were on shaky ground, and decided to attack me instead of discussing the point.

Since you seem to have a "dishonesty reflex" I have no interest in anything you might say.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:41 PM

I'll let Geezer speak for himself. But libertarians don't have a problem with police. They have a problem with stupid laws.

And I'd guess the Geezer might have some sympathy for removing corporate perks if convinced the effort wasn't a foil to attack free markets in general. That's one reason I've been trying to encourage you to see the common ground, rather than the different aims.

It's unlikely that either of our 'sides' will achieve any of our utlimate goals. But we can at least agree on some of the elements of the status quo that could be changed for the better. If your goal is to reduce excessive corporate influence over our government, you'll get more support from libertarians and conservatives by pointing that ways that current law violates free trade principles - not by holding up corporate power as an example of the inherent evils of free trade.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

PREV PAGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NEXT PAGE