Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[Geilinor]

Fris never said the government should own everything.

But it's what he believes.

He's not state socialist.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

But it's what he believes.

He's not state socialist.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said. My point is that Frisivisia and many social democrats like him complain about wealth inequality and money-hoarders and whatnot, but they believe in a central authority to control the money supply.

[Bythibus]

hahahahahahahhahahahhahahah that's cute. you're cute. in a bad way. you're the bad kind of cute because you're wrong. bad dog.

Have anything intelligent to say?

You can read up on what I've already said, be my guest.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I never said the third world was ravaged by capitalism. The old colonial powers switched to capitalism post-rape and capitalism has been a tool which, while helpful in letting poorer countries become somewhat less poor, was also instrumental in keeping them down.

That's kinda contradictory, no? How has capitalism kept 'them' down, and who is them?

Capitalism isn't a magic tool that brings money in stride, the only reason countries do better than others is resources.

This is a blatant lie. Of course resources can be an important factor in stimulating growth, but there have been hundreds of economies that have done well without sufficient resources. Hong Kong and Japan are the prime examples of this observation.

I dunno, I'm experiencing a distinct lack of source in your supposedly "fact-based" "argument".

Good point, good point. These are obviously biased sources, but you can refer to the facts contained in them.

On Botswana.
On Chile.
On Poland. And here's another one.

I know it's important to bring sauce to an argument, but many of these points are based on common knowledge that can be learned from a quick Google search.

[Viritica]

Have anything intelligent to say?

You can read up on what I've already said, be my guest.

It's not my job to find your arguments.

[Bythibus]

You can read up on what I've already said, be my guest.

It's not my job to find your arguments.

I already made my arguments, they're there to be seen. I don't care to make them again.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

It's not my job to find your arguments.

I already made my arguments, they're there to be seen. I don't care to make them again.

Basically you just attacked one of his points and couldn't be bothered to actually address them. The pinnacle of forum laziness.

[Llamalandia]

No it isn't, it's defined by property.

Isn't money property?

Actually money,. is more just a medium of exchange, it was created when bartering systems were found to be too complicated and inefficient to be practicable in a modern society. That's said, in many cases anymore, money isn't even physical at all but rather just entries in a ledger all stored electronically. (not than non-physical property doesn't exist just pointing that rich people don't actually have stacks of green piled up in giant vaults. )

[Bythibus]

I already made my arguments, they're there to be seen. I don't care to make them again.

Basically you just attacked one of his points and couldn't be bothered to actually address them. The pinnacle of forum laziness.

No, I already addressed the concerns of his peers to my comment. I made my argument and stated my case. If he doesn't want to review my case, that's his laziness. I have made my move and he's refusing to comply because he didn't watch me do it.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

I never said the third world was ravaged by capitalism. The old colonial powers switched to capitalism post-rape and capitalism has been a tool which, while helpful in letting poorer countries become somewhat less poor, was also instrumental in keeping them down.

That's kinda contradictory, no? How has capitalism kept 'them' down, and who is them?

Capitalism isn't a magic tool that brings money in stride, the only reason countries do better than others is resources.

This is a blatant lie. Of course resources can be an important factor in stimulating growth, but there have been hundreds of economies that have done well without sufficient resources. Hong Kong and Japan are the prime examples of this observation.

I dunno, I'm experiencing a distinct lack of source in your supposedly "fact-based" "argument".

Good point, good point. These are obviously biased sources, but you can refer to the facts contained in them.

On Botswana.
On Chile.
On Poland. And here's another one.

I know it's important to bring sauce to an argument, but many of these points are based on common knowledge that can be learned from a quick Google search.

Absolutely not. Capitalism is a market, not a singular force, and though it works for some countries, many countries are hampered and stymied by it. They are the developing nations of the world.

Hong Kong and Japan are manufacturing and capital centers, renowned for commerce. Human resources and capital are their resources and they are not models that can be copied worldwide.

Those are isolated points, show me a trend.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Absolutely not. Capitalism is a market, not a singular force, and though it works for some countries, many countries are hampered and stymied by it. They are the developing nations of the world.

What countries are stymied by it?

Hong Kong and Japan are manufacturing and capital centers, renowned for commerce. Human resources and capital are their resources and they are not models that can be copied worldwide.

Any country can create resources like these. They are hubs of commerce because they've opened their nations up to trade. Marketisation has benefited countries like these tremendously.

Those are isolated points, show me a trend.

1
2
3
4

TL;DR: higher levels of economic freedom very positively correlates with higher growth rates, higher standards of living and higher net income per capita.

[The Sotoan Union]

Basically you just attacked one of his points and couldn't be bothered to actually address them. The pinnacle of forum laziness.

No, I already addressed the concerns of his peers to my comment. I made my argument and stated my case. If he doesn't want to review my case, that's his laziness. I have made my move and he's refusing to comply because he didn't watch me do it.

Your just a big bag of fun aren't you.

[Bythibus]

No, I already addressed the concerns of his peers to my comment. I made my argument and stated my case. If he doesn't want to review my case, that's his laziness. I have made my move and he's refusing to comply because he didn't watch me do it.

Your just a big bag of fun aren't you.

I like to imagine myself as a big bag of nails. Most people avoid me cause I hurt, but some people find me useful. Usually carpenters.

[Nazi Flower Power]

<stuff>

Have you ever thought that maybe a class system should exist, it should just be far less pronounced than it is here in America? That the corruption and flaws in the U.S. class system has made you believe in something illogical as a response?

I mean I see the reward of additional money and consumer goods. I want my doctors, my scientists, my inventors, etc, to be rewarded more than the guy who scrubs the toilets. The problem though is that the people who are rewarded the most tend to have private islands, and the people who are rewarded less tend to have nothing at all.

Couldn't you see a system where we can have incentives for hard work, but we still give enough for the poorer to have great, fulfilling lives? A system where people can make more money by doing a better job and getting promoted, but if they fuck up the Government gives them another chance and doesn't make them live out on the street?

I would love to see something like that, where everyone has basic food, shelter, medical care, etc.; but if people want more than the basics they have to earn it.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Have you ever thought that maybe a class system should exist, it should just be far less pronounced than it is here in America? That the corruption and flaws in the U.S. class system has made you believe in something illogical as a response?

I mean I see the reward of additional money and consumer goods. I want my doctors, my scientists, my inventors, etc, to be rewarded more than the guy who scrubs the toilets. The problem though is that the people who are rewarded the most tend to have private islands, and the people who are rewarded less tend to have nothing at all.

Couldn't you see a system where we can have incentives for hard work, but we still give enough for the poorer to have great, fulfilling lives? A system where people can make more money by doing a better job and getting promoted, but if they fuck up the Government gives them another chance and doesn't make them live out on the street?

I would love to see something like that, where everyone has basic food, shelter, medical care, etc.; but if people want more than the basics they have to earn it.

We already get that from market price systems.

[Geilinor]

I would love to see something like that, where everyone has basic food, shelter, medical care, etc.; but if people want more than the basics they have to earn it.

We already get that from market price systems.

Everyone doesn't have basic food, shelter, and medical care through the free market.

[Brickistan]

I did make a bit of a generalization - guilty as charged.

As far as I recall, it's something like 95% of the recovery post-2008 went to the one percent with the rest going mostly to the upper middle class.

As for wealth equality, I would strongly disagree with you. Complete and utter equality would result in problems, true. But high inequality is even worse as it tends to lead to civil unrest and high crime rates as the poor get increasingly desperate.

People often draw that conclusion but I don't think that's strictly true. For instance if I live in a country where 95% of the population earn £100,000 a year and 5% of the population earn £1 Million a year then do you seriously think those at the bottom would be committing crime or feel desperate?

You get civil unrest and high crime rates when the level of poverty is too high not because the difference is too high. I know I don't speak for everyone but as someone who grew up in low income household and now living as a poor student, what bothers me isn't that the rich are way richer than me its that my living standards are low because of poverty.

Point taken.

However, I would suggest that in most (if not all) historical cases where extreme inequality has been seen, it has been because the difference was much greater than that. And it is that difference that creates the poverty in the first place. There's only so much wealth to go around (well, you could just start the printing press, but then you'd soon run into very serious problems with inflation) so the bigger the difference - i.e. the more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elite - the more poverty you will see among the rest of the population.
And worse, this is a spiral in which the wealthy will increasingly suck up the remaining wealth while the rest of the population will get poorer and poorer. And as that happens, crime-rates and unrest goes up.

And indeed, that's currently the case in America where the inequality is absolutely massive.


And speaking as someone who also grew up relatively poor (though you never get really poor in a welfare state like Denmark) what really riles me up is the fact that the rich are rigging the game. If we all had a chance at success, then I would not begrudge those who succeeded and got wealthy - it's been well and truly earned. But when see the rich elite, particularly in America, buying politicians and constantly lobbying to the point where the rest of the country is entirely ignored, then we have really big issues. How can you succeed when the game is rigged so thoroughly against you?

[Divair2]

Have you ever thought that maybe a class system should exist, it should just be far less pronounced than it is here in America? That the corruption and flaws in the U.S. class system has made you believe in something illogical as a response?

I mean I see the reward of additional money and consumer goods. I want my doctors, my scientists, my inventors, etc, to be rewarded more than the guy who scrubs the toilets. The problem though is that the people who are rewarded the most tend to have private islands, and the people who are rewarded less tend to have nothing at all.

Couldn't you see a system where we can have incentives for hard work, but we still give enough for the poorer to have great, fulfilling lives? A system where people can make more money by doing a better job and getting promoted, but if they fuck up the Government gives them another chance and doesn't make them live out on the street?

I would love to see something like that, where everyone has basic food, shelter, medical care, etc.; but if people want more than the basics they have to earn it.

So.. social democracy?

[Viritica]

I would love to see something like that, where everyone has basic food, shelter, medical care, etc.; but if people want more than the basics they have to earn it.

So.. social democracy?

That's... Not social democracy.

[Divair2]

So.. social democracy?

That's... Not social democracy.

Yes, it is.

[Bythibus]

That's... Not social democracy.

Yes, it is.

Riveting exchange going on right here.

[Viritica]

That's... Not social democracy.

Yes, it is.

How is it social democracy?

[Geilinor]

Yes, it is.

How is it social democracy?

Social welfare + mixed economy + representative democracy + human rights = social democracy

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Point taken.

However, I would suggest that in most (if not all) historical cases, it has been because the difference was much greater than that. And it is that difference that creates the poverty in the first place. There's only so much wealth to go around (well, you could just start the printing press, but then you'd soon run into very serious problems with inflation) so the bigger the difference - i.e. the more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elite - the more poverty you will see among the rest of the population.

Mercantilist populist nonsense. Wealth is not money, wealth is goods and services and resources and consumer items, and more of it is created all the time. The global poor control a very small slice of the economic pie - a pie that is expanding in size all the time. Surely it is better for a poor man to be better off amongst millions of other individuals than it is for a poor man to be worse off with control of more of his nation's wealth?

And worse, this is a spiral in which the wealthy will increasingly suck up the remaining wealth while the rest of the population will get poorer and poorer. And as that happens, crime-rates and unrest goes up. And indeed, that's currently the case in America where the inequality is absolutely massive.

Again, these assertions are totally false. In the last three decades, the American poor have gotten much richer, not poorer. The creation of wealth benefits everybody. And I believe that general crime rates in America have been declining since the 90s.

And speaking as someone who also grew up relatively poor (though you never get really poor in a welfare state like Denmark) what really riles me up is the fact that the rich are rigging the game. If we all had a chance at success, then I would not begrudge those who succeeded and got wealthy - it's been well and truly earned. But when see the rich elite, particularly in America, buying politicians and constantly lobbying to the point where the rest of the country is entirely ignored, then we have really big issues. How can you succeed when the game is rigged so thoroughly against you?

If you want to stop 'the rich' (which in itself is an extremely vague term) from rigging the game, then you'd push for the abolition of government. Everyone has a chance at success, even in the contemporary corporatist climate.

Will provide sources when I get back to my computer.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

How is it social democracy?

Social welfare + mixed economy + representative democracy + human rights = social democracy

Social democracy involves the repression of human rights, not the stimulus of it. Stealing half of someone's income to give to others is compromising the individual's natural rights to self-ownership.