To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
an economic construct: what is it socially
I just went to The Foundation, which is a restaraunt which serves beer a bit later than some other restaraunts in my area. I went by myself with a book, so that I could eat and relax with a beer and my book after a hard day of work, but I got drawn into conversation.
I ran into some artist pals and they brought up some ideas regarding capitalism, which 2 of them felt has it's own seperate identity from our social identity as North Americans. These people felt that capitalism is divocred from democracy and that basically it should only be thought of as an economic construct and no more. They described it as being like a "pyramid scheme".
I'm interested by what they said and am non-comittal in my own opinion. I'm curious to see what others do with the scant information I provided above.
Let's chat.
I ran into some artist pals and they brought up some ideas regarding capitalism, which 2 of them felt has it's own seperate identity from our social identity as North Americans. These people felt that capitalism is divocred from democracy and that basically it should only be thought of as an economic construct and no more. They described it as being like a "pyramid scheme".
I'm interested by what they said and am non-comittal in my own opinion. I'm curious to see what others do with the scant information I provided above.
Let's chat.
Comments
To further my point, I came across a few quotes the other day that basically summed up my opinion on the question: That's a fantastic book, for those of you who have not read it. Highly recommended.
There's more to be said, but I'll save that for later.
People work hard and should be able to profit off that. Those who work harder, get rewarded and those who do nothing, should get nothing.
I hate how we have a tier tax system. Those who make more money have to pay more tax compared to those who make less? And for what reason? So if I decide I want to go to post secondary school, work my ass off, work my way up at my job, the government wants to take MORE money away from me compared to those who decide to just work at lower paying jobs? Why?
Or how about the bosses who profit entirely off of the labour of others, and do no actual work themselves? I'm entirely behind this notion of to each own, but I'd just like a universal standard. I take it you will agree? There's actually very simple reason for this. The rich owe more to society than the poor, hence they pay more tax. They profit more from all the perks of society (security, labour, raw resources etc) so in turn society asks that they give back a slightly larger portion of their earnings so that it may in turn raise the living standard of everyone, not just the rich.
And I am confused by your second complain. Just now you were talking about to each his own and all that, how we should reep what we sow. Now you complain that society asks you to pay a bigger tax because YOU chose to get amn education and a better job. Why are you blaming others, now, for your own decisions?
In any case, it seems very silly for you to gripe at all. The tax burden is on the poor as it is, and the rich all ready run the world, literally. That's why they pay no tax in fact, or next to none. Otherwise why are so many companies and individuals "based" in the Bahmas and the Caymans? I have some wonderful statistics for you if you'd care to dispute me.
So, I find this all very strange, your complaining. You get the world for nothing and you want still more? That's not greed, that's sociopathy. I suggest you seek immediate medical attention.
If someone was getting taxed 18% off $100,000 a year that is still contributing more than someone getting taxed 18% making $10,000 a year. The rich people still pay more in tax, but at least it is equal to those who are less rich. Everyone gets the same perks, healthcare, education system, roads etc so why should those who make more money and contribute to society, be forced to contribute even more. The rich who do not pay tax those who outsmart the shitty system. The system that is placed to make everyone more equal. Maybe you should live in a communist country, that might suit your needs. And my complaint is that those who work harder, get taxed more is unjust and unfair. How would you like it if you were earning $20 after working 5 years at some student job then the company decides that because you earn more, you should be taxed 50% and someone earning $10 an hour gets taxed 5%.
The lower class people just want things handed to them and they want it from the rich people.
Go ahead, I'm waiting. Other people's labour. Actually, no. Statistically speakinng the vast majority of the world's rich inherited their money, or were from all ready well to do families. So, once again, you're wrong. Again, more claims with no evidence. I really thought you had more to back up your argument than this garbage. This is what passes for intellectual proof these days? How pathetic. Where did you learn your politics? Watching "reality" tv? Yes, "decide" to drop out. Tell me, is the air always that thin up your own rectum?
I find it hard to believe that people who work their entire lives, usually two jobs, can by any measure be considered "leeches". Especially by people who only got their wealth by exploiting others, by simply moving stocks, and never actually doing any labour in and of itself, themselves.
Unless of course youd to prove me wrong. But you've all ready shown yourself to be incapeable of doing that.
The definition of a leech is someone who profits from the toil of others. Since labour creates all wealth, how exactly do we qualify the employing class as anything but leeches? Because they take more, as I said. And you have yet to refute the point that the rich, in fact, pay little no tax in reality. In theory, we have a multi-tier tax system. In reality, the further up you go, the less you pay.
And I suggest you consider something else. If we take out the employer we still have the factory and the labour, society still functions, except it has to be organized differently (i.e. not top down). Take out the labour and you have bupkiss. So, who is the more important one again? The majority do that, so what exactly are you complaining about? That you're not smart enough to break the law? Or that our society has the audacity to demand appropriate compensation from each of its citizens? You find me one, and I'll move this instant. You still haven't proven that 1) they work harder or that 2) it is in any way "unfair". Uh, dumb example, first of all. But let's take your point anyway. Say IU'm making 20 bucks now, and my tax has increased accordingly. Fair enough, I'm not thrilled about it, but if the system works as it should the benefit is as such that 1) I am still making more money than before and 2) my taxes are going to improving the system/state/society as a whole which will benefit me personally in that it shall provide better and cheaper serivices for me. This is what a tax is. Sounds like a fair bargain to me. No, actually, the lower classes just want their due. 5% of the world's population own's 95% of the world's wealth, that's a fact. And you have the nerve to call the poor the leeches? What a sad and pathetic joke.
Even if it is inheritance, it had to come from somewhere. If you think moving stocks around, never doing any labour is so easy, why don't you do it instead of working two jobs? You think playing the stock market and knowing how to diverse your money is as easy as pushing a button? And who do you think creates those labour jobs? The rich people who buy the land to build houses on. Or wait, you think the people doing construction are those who own the land as well? How do they pay little no tax? Prove it to me? Show me a CEO who does not pay tax. Are you really that naive? Take out the CEO of the factory and you will have no factory. Who do you think will manage the company? I really see the cashier giving me my fries at McDonalds operating the budget of the place. A CSR at Royalbank works much harder than the manager...
Actually someone making $36,000 will make MORE money than someone making $37,000.
Your reading comprehension is lacking, I am not saying tax is bad. I am saying a different tier tax bracket system is stupid. Someone making $36,000 pays 15.25% tax while someone making $37,000 pays 22% in tax. Tell me what justifies a 6.75% tax increase? Because he makes $1000 more? In the end, he makes LESS. Does the person with $37,000 gain anything MORE than the person who makes $36,000? No, they both get the same health care, the same streets, the same parks. The person paying an extra 6.75% gets nothing extra out of it. They don't get anything better or anything less. Person A and person B is the same, except B pays more to the government. Why? What dues do they deserve? And show me the fact that 5% of the world own the other 95%.
And what "dues" do you want from the rich? The rich owe you money because they are rich? It seems you are rich enough to afford post-secondary education, maybe you should drop out of school and give that money to starving children in Africa. They want their dues. But you wont, because you are greedy just like everyone else. The poor are greedy and want money from the rich and the rich are greedy because they want to keep their money.
For really, if we're going to use the paper as a basis for the validity of your claim then we also have to conclude that human nature is inherently co-operative, and chairtable. Therefore, we could just as easily organize a social system that emphasizes those qualities as oppossed to greed.
I would have at least expected you to bring up something about the so called "selfish gene". Yes, it's called "dead labour". As in, the capitalist has money to invest because he exploited the labour of still prevaious labourers, the surplus value of the labour of others, for his own profit. In other words: "By turning his money into commodities that serve as the material elements of a new product, and as factors in the labour-process, by incorporating living labour with their dead substance, the capitalist at the same time converts value, i.e., past, materialised, and dead labour into capital, into value big with value, a live monster that is fruitful and multiplies."
As to where he (rather, his class of people) got any capital in the first place, we need look no further then where from the merchant class emerged from in the first place; government. That is to say, autocratic or monarchic governments that use force and coercion to intimidate, terrorize and steal from people.
Highly ironic considering how much of a show Liberals and capitalists put on about hating government. You need government more than anyone else. It's the means by which you prepetuate your social-order, of course. Why don't I (and the general public) do it? Well, it's probably because we lack the capital to invest in the first place. We don't have the means or time to go gambling on the voliations of the rich. And secondly, why would I invest in a system that so exploits and corrupts humanity? Why would I invest in the misery of others? I think it rather sick and perverse, frankly. You misunderstand, o simple one. Let's put this idea of money aside for a moment. What does the capitalist actually do? What does he provide that did not exist before him? Land, tools, labour, time? It certainly isn't any of those. What forces does he bring to bear on the world that actually create anything? Seems to be, the only thing he brings to bear is the coercion of the state on the working class.
Because as I said, if we take out the boss, what has the worker ceased to be able to do? Certinaly not work. He is just able to labour and create as he was before. Except now, without a boss, he actually gets the full worth of his work. "Almost 2/3rds of US companies paid no tax between 1996 and 2000."
Source: General accounting office report, US Congress, 2004. Cited in "The Gruesome Acts of Capitalism" by David Lester, pg. 66.
"Mr. Bush's tax cuts reduced rates for individuals. Corporations have done even better over time. Federal revenue from corporate taxes has fallen from 6.4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services, in 1951 to a mere 1.5 percent to 2 percent of GDP in the last few years."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0314/p17s02-cogn.html
"Nearly one-third of the nation’s largest and most profitable corporations paid no federal income tax between 2001 and 2003—yet still received billions of dollars in tax rebates, according to a new study."
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/ns09222004.cfm
I got more if you want it. I suppose you've never heard of a co-op, have you? Better yet, here's an even more radical and contemporary example: http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2006-11/09trigona.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered_factory
http://americas.irc-online.org/citizen-action/series/12-factories.html
That's just today. I hope I don't have to go through the history of worker run operations with you, do I? In fact, here's a good local example: http://www.spartacusbooks.org/ Entirely volunteer run. This one too is worker run (not volunteers) and has three or four locations world wide: http://www.akpress.com/
That should suffice to prove my point for now. Again, there's more if you want it. More baseless hear-say. This is getting pretty lame, dude. Either back up your statments, or don't make them. If it won't fly in an essay, it won' fly with me. An unfortunate glitch in the system, and one that can be fixed with a little tweaking. In any case, the fundamental point stays the same. If the social services are adequate, you don't need as much pocket money (even though, by all means, if you can make more, who am I to stop you?). A good example of this is that per capita Americans make more money than Swedes. Yet Sweden absolutley trounces the US on every measureable standard of living indicator. Because of a mathematical blip in the tax system? The amount that Person B "loses" in taxes is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount that he actually loses by being forced into wage slavery. I really don't think you want to go down this road of debating, because you're opening up a can worms where your logic simply won't hold up. The dues of having created all the world's wealth? Unless you have one those iPods that Steve Jobs made by hand. Those are rare!
As for the claim, here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article661055.ece
2% own 50% of the wealth. Top 10% own 85%, give or take a percent or two. As I was saying. No, actually, we're talking about labour and wages, so no need to get red in the face. Let me use a graphic example because I think you might understand better:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83696,00.html
I have worked at RBC as a CSR. I can guarantee you that my manager worked MUCH harder than any CSR out there. Have you even ever managed anything? Have you even had a job? Seems like you are clueless about the work enviroment.
The gold old "it takes money to make money" story. Yes, youtube selling for 1.6billion, those 3 creators were real Richie Rich kids working out of their mom's garage. Grow up, with the internet, money is easy to obtain. But you don't want to go out and try because you don't "exploit" humanity. I sure hope you do not buy anything that is "made from China". The computer you are typing on was probably mass produced by labourers in Taiwan who get paid little to nothing. Stop being a hypocrite and thinking you are the next Mother Tearesa.
Oh so now when the tax brackets get divided, it's a glitch and a mathematical blip in the system. So how would you fix it if it's an easy tweak? Where do you draw the line saying if you make $1 over this amount, you must pay an extra 5.75% in taxes "just because".
You still haven't answered my questions. What is the justification on someone having to pay an extra 5.75% and 3% each bracket increase. Why? Because they make more money? If someone making 100,000 gets taxed 10% and someone making 10,000 gets taxed 10%, the person making more still pays more but fairly. I rather see everyone pay 40% tax, rich and poor than having ONLY the rich pay it.
So Steve Jobs is a devil because he created Apple, created jobs for "the exploited labourers" and has paid more in taxes then you will ever in your life time. Get real.
You are the biggest hypocrite ever. If you are truly against capitalism and do not want to support it, you would not be wearing the clothes you wear, typing on the computer you are using and using the internet that was provided to you. Knock off the hippie shit, this isn't the 80s anymore.
Your image is funny. Basically you are against any management. So why don't you and your friends start up a company and pay everyone at your company the same wage to work different jobs. Oh wait you can't right? Because you need that initial investment. Do you think people will risk money without getting any benefits? What happens if the company folds, do you think the workers are the ones that are screwed? No, they go to a different company. The OWNER loses everything. The more the risk, the more the reward.
Again I ask you to prove me wrong on you not being greedy and work 40 hours a week then donate every penny to a poor person on the street. Please, be a humanitarian.
Not everyone wants to manage a multi-million dollar company. Most of us just want enough money to put food on our table, a roof over our heads, and some money to save should we become ill, or if we want to put our kids through school.
I do not desire to be wealthy as it breeds more greed.
And YouTube is a bad example as that was a lucky break. It's like saying that people who win the lottery can represent the rest of us...
I not saying everyone should or needs to manage a multi-million dollar company. Some people enjoy being in the middle class, while others enjoy being in the upper or lower. To each their own. What bothers me is how those who decide that they want to be in the higher, get taxed more.
Now what meesiah is saying is that those are the top are all bad people, and deserve to be taxed more and owe more to society because they get more out of it, which is not true. The rich person's kid goes to the same school as the poor person's kid. The rich person goes to the same hospital as the poor person. They get the same benefits, they should pay the same amount of % in taxes. Still, the person who makes more money will end up paying ALOT more than the person that is not, but it's more fair because it's an equal % based off earnings, not based off status.
And please, show me a person who enjoys being in the lowerclass.
Would you suggest we take away private schools? Meesiah. She is against everything that makes someone above another and if someone is above another, they are against humanity.
And I do not suggest we take away private schools. My point was addressing your claim that the poor and the rich share the same facilities like schools and hospitals. Please do not twist my words, but reread your own statement and then my response. I won't be "suggesting" anything, but stating it quite clearly, so don't worry about that!
Additionally, if post-secondary education is a luxury that people cannot afford, how can the middle-class or poor possibly become upper-class? Apart from creating You-Tube or playing the lottery? It is through education that we get somewhere, you alluded to this when you claimed that lower-class people choose to drop out of school in the homelessness thread. I realize that you may know some people who managed to scramble up from the bottom, but the rare accomplishments of a few certainly do not identify a system that will work for everyone.
So: if you can't afford university, you can't get a high paying job, you are stuck at a wage that barely rises with inflation, you are paying rent to someone because you can't purchase your own home... and thus your children cannot go to university either, repeat cycle. Is this accurate?
What about families who are thrown into poverty because a child is born with an illness that takes up time and money? Or if your house burns down with all your stuff in it? Or a family member needs a new kidney? All of these things and more can throw people straight into poverty. Is it just "too bad, so sad"? There must be some sympathy in your heart for these people?
Middle-class and lower-class can afford post secondary education. I know I had to work full time while going to high-school and I had to take a two years off just to be able to afford it. There are also student loans and scholarships out there for assistance.
If someone is living off paycheque to paycheque and know they cannot afford to support another child, I would not want them to have any children. So people should think about investing in contraceptives to prevent this from happening. Yes, they are not 100% proof and sometimes life is not fair, but that is how it works and if stuff like that happens, then maybe they should consider working two jobs, not paying for cable, a car, etc.
Also why can't people get a higher paying job? There are tons of jobs out there in Canada (jobs that are there because of people investing in companies and creating positions, which Meesiah is against). Construction, customer service, sales etc. There is tons of opportunities.
When I identify things, you say that it is only a rare accomplishment of a few and that does not identify a system that will work for everyone. The same can be said when you say things like a child is born with illness or a house burns down. Yes, it happens, just like the same as someone working from the ground up.
Secondly, don't cite Fox News at me. Just don't. You look like an ass doing it. Secondly, don't cite AN EDITORIAL.
Thirdly, yeah 46 companies...which happen to be the biggest in the world and just so happen to have economies bigger than most states in the world.
This is sad though. I bring academic proof. You bring a Fox News op-ed piece. Wow. Listen, judging by how you "deabte" you couldn't manage yourself out of a paper bag. Yes, I've had a job, yes, I've "managed" things. Your personal experience are nothing more than annecdotal evidence.
Tell you waht, I can provide some of my own. My mother happens to work for one of the biggest drug companies in the world. She works 15 hour days on a regular basis, travels all the time. Her "managers" and superiors almost to a tee are all clinically retarded. She had a guy email her today, one of her bosses, and ask her to not send him such long emails in future because it "confuses" him.
That's just annecodtal evidence. It has no bearing on our deabte. You've shown amply enough to be incapeable of actually defending what you say. You mean those three rich kids that used to work for PayPal and went to Stamford? Yeah, real rags to riches tale there. What a joke. So, why exactly are you still sitting there wasting your time in university, on an internet forum? I mean, by all counts you should be bathing in money by noew if it's so easy? I know you don't realize this, but every single person on this forum sees you as either an idiot or a socipath after this statement. Yes, that Messiah, what a twit -- not wanting to knowingly contribute to the misery of others! What a fool!
I have no illusions about the hypocrisy of the modern world as it is run under capitalism. But I'm not about to sit there and not do anything about. I can't help but be co-opted by this system most of the time, but where I can resist, I will. The fact that you embrace it is more than disturbing. It's called a gradual incline, heard of it? You know, incriments of 1% or less, as opposed to 5.75%. Wht a novel god damn concept that is, eh? You still haven't provided proof of a single one of your statements. As I've all ready demonstrated, it is in fact the rich who are the only ones who DO NOT pay. Stop lying, you look like an idiot. Uh...what? You're the one who started talking about taxes. I simply pointed out that Steve Jobs has never done anything to merit his worth. Dispute me, I implore you. You keep running your mouth but the best you've come up with is an op-ed piece from Fox News, which would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. LOL! Oh, wow...here let me help you at least try and insult me. The hippies were from the 60s, okay? The 80s were symbolized by the "yuppies". Can you handle that? Is that too much for you? Too many numbers?
As to why I am a hypocrite for wearing clothing or having a computer, I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Are you implying that I am free to leave the capitalist system? Would you like to point out how exactly?
Better yet, explain to me why working from within a system to topple it is not a sound strategy for change? I mean, other than the fact that it makes you look like a blathering imbicile. Once again, statistically this is false, and logicially it is a lie. Also, it has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You implied we "needed" managment. I showed this to be just more lies. I suggest you don't change the subject in future, it makes you look like a coward.
In any case, the statistics clearly show that even the CEOs and execs of failed companies are back at the helm of still more companies, sooner rather than later. It's called the revolving door of the private/public sphere.
Logicially speaking though, how do you figure that someone who has enough money to start up a company stands to lose more than a worker? The worker loses his job, he loses everything -- he means of survival. The capitalist, even losing his whole company, still keeps the wealth he made and saved. How often do you hear about the like of Rockerfeller or the Bush clan ending up destitue and poor because any one of their ventures folded, like in the case of both? For workers it is an everyday reality. I like how you keep changing definitions, that's a nice tactic. Nice and wormy. So, now it is greed to not be a hermit in essence, a saint? To have material possesions? Oh my, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a single definition that will verify that claim.
I suggest you try and wrap your head around a simple concept, that was even mentioned in that article you brought in. Greed is a disorder. Attempting to provide a safe, and at least pleasant exsistance for myself and my family is not greed, it is natural facet of being a living being.
Rational self-interest and greed are two different things. I take it you've never read Smith? Self-love vs. greed? Ringing any bells?
For the record, I'm a dude. I'm not quite sure how you figure me a woman from a handle like "Messiah".
I throw fox-news at you because you cited wikipedia. How laughable is that? Show me someone who makes $37,000 that does NOT pay taxes. Prove it to me. You keep saying "prove this and prove that". Prove yourself. You talk out of your ass but don't back up your facts.
Your mom's little story. Her managers are probably not trained in that specific area. That is why they have people like your mom doing that line of work while her managers do the financial side. If your mom is so good, why doesn't start her own company? Oh wait, you think starting a company is evil. Maybe you should tell your mom to stop working for the devil then. Do you think McDonalds really cares about their hamburgers? They own the most land in the world. Their goal is not to make the best Big Mac for you, but it is to own the most land. I bet the owner doesn't even know what goes on a Big Mac, but that doesn't make him lazy or stupid. His specialty is with real estate.
You think that every CEO does not "merit" themselves to the income they make. Stop crying for Robin Hood to save you. You just want your "dues" handed to you on a silver platter. It is people like you that are beg for money from society's upper class. Stop crying for tax breaks and more taxes on the rich and earn your own money. "Merit" it yourself.
And no, I have never changed my definition. You want a world where the rich and poor are equal, yet you won't give to anyone more poorer than you. You are selfish which proves my point of humans being greedy.
Ever heard of sole proprietorship? Learn it. You can even wikipedia that.
Like I said, if you hate the rich getting richer, stop buying items from big corporations.
If you can't handle people being better than you, don't cry and get them to be at your level, work up to be at their level. Oh wait, you don't want to be "inhumane".
If you are so against corporations, why do you support them?
If you are going to reply with your nonsense again, I will point out 4 points that I want you to answer.
1) Why should the poor people get free things from the rich
2) What justifies someone making more than $37,000 getting taxed 5.75% more than someone making $36,999
3) Prove to me that a the cashier at McDonalds deserves more money than the G.M
4) In a perfect world, how would you see it? I have already said capitalism is the best. What is YOUR theory?
Also, if you are so keen on making me prove things. When you bring up words like "statistically", it would help if you showed the statistics.
I do, however, find it ironic that you are asking for donations on your website, call yourself a "poor college student" and then think that the poor are lazy and wanting hand outs. Mmhmm.
My family isn't wealthy, so it's hard to understand. My parents work in factories, have been for 20+ years in order to provide a decent living standard for their children. Taxing the poor more could mean the difference between having food on the table, or going to a soup kitchen.
For the rich, it's the difference between getting a large yacht, or a slightly smaller yacht.
You need to stop thinking about everything in mere dollars and cents, and just how much people earn. There are many things to take into account besides how much a person earns.
Bryan: just a question, what do your parents do? May have been answered already, but I don't feel like sifting through again.
And again once again, stop changing the topic everytime you get caught in a lie. You never asked for me to show someone making $37,000 didn't pay taxes (37k is also rather, rather poor). You specifically asked me to demonstrate that CEOs and the rich do not pay taxes. I proved this.
You asked me to prove there was no need for managers, I proved this also. I have disproven your claim about "human nature" as well. I suggest you put a sock in it.
I never claimed my Mom was "so good" nor did you. You wanted to prove to me that managers worker harder through a annecdote, I provided one of my own that showed just the opposite. Quit changing your story. More unproven, uncited driven. PROVE IT. Your little stories mean jack all to me because for all I know you're lying, and I could be as well about, for example, my Mother's experience. There's a reason why debates happen using actual sources. You have sourced nothing because there is nothing to cite. You're full of crap, and you know it.
I've run circles around you, and frankly I'm getting a little bored with your idiocy. No, I've proven this actually. Or at least that most do not. That's the difference between you and me: I back up my claims. I do, but clearly you can't read. Do you even understand how a capitalist makes his money? Do you? Are you aware of the existence of surplus value?
And how incredibly ironic is it that you're accusing me of wanting tax breaks? I never said anything of the sort. In fact, it is you who has this whole time been bitching about taxes. And further more, if we look at the tax breaks that have been given over the past few years, the vast, vast majority have disproportionally profited the rich and super rich.
Talk about hypocritical leeches. No, actually you ASSUME that I don't give the poor and those worse off than me anything. The idea that I should give up EVERYTHING however is unreasonable. Greed is defined as:"excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=greed&x=0&y=0)
How in the hell is me not giving up EVERYTHING I own greedy? Should I maybe shoot myself in the head so I don't use up anymore oxygen? Who says I don't? It just happens unfortunately, Bryan, that not all of us can afford to shop at Organic Markets all the time, and buy our clothes from designers themselves. But I guess that's our own fault right? It's our fault that 99% of everything around us is owned by huge multi-nationals. Better than me? Bryan, you can't even string together a coherent thought, never mind be "better" than me at anything, except maybe the douche-a-thon 2007.
Don't blame me because you have a one track mind that qualifies human worth with how much they own. And don't blame me because even in a capitalist society people deem you a sociopathic freak. You sure have a funny notion of what "support" means. I guess to someone like you rape is a loving relationship. I never claimed anyone should get anything for free, which is why I took objection to your original claim that the rich "earn" what they own. I have shown this to be nothing more that garbage, like the rest of your posts. This has been addressed as being easily remedied with a a gradual tax incline. Again, a claim that I never made. More lies, more strawmen attacks. I simply claimed that the cashier should be paid what she makes. If she makes 50 dollars worth of sales, she should be paid 50 dollars, or as close as possible accounting for costs to keep the restaurant open and such, not 6.50. Anti-capitalist, horizontalist, directly democratic, syndicalist, worker managed. Every claim you have asked me to verify, I have done so and will continue to do so because unlike you, I base my opinions on facts, not bullshit.
You're nothing more than two-bit hypocrite, Bryan. You'd think being so wonderfully rich and successful as you are, you would have learned to at least trounce little old socialist me in a debate. Didn't have time for book learning, eh son?
And Malakaii put it exactly: You're full of crap boy, and I'm done wasting my time with. Though if you keep making BS statements like you have here, I'll be happy to put you in your place. You can get away with this trash in your Econ and Business classes maybe, in those glorified circle jerks. But not, not with me.
I make a hobby of embarrassing self-absorbed chumps like you when you start to believe the none sense that comes out of your mouth. I suggest you stick to reading Ayn Rand "novels", they're more on your level.
See ECON 103 textbook, written by doug allen
page 28 of ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES:. Seven Ideas for Thinking ... About Almost Anything
www.sfu.ca/~allen/6ed_chap1-2.pdf
PRINCIPLE #1
Maximization: All individuals are always motivated by greed.
However, as Allen stated, this is only an assumption in which all micro economist agree. It is an assumption only, yes, assumption. It does not have valid proof, but yet if you deny this assumption you cannot think like an economist.
Well. Even though Bryan's idea reflects economist's idea of world works, economists do, indeed, never agree with each other. The reason is that every economist holds a different view on what is more important and what is less important in the world (Macroeconomics, R.E. Halls and Marc Liberman, page 7 to 10). An illustration of this can be demonstrated through asking an economist the following question: "Should government decreases taxes for the rich?"
Some economists would agree this view, saying that such an action motivates rich men to make more investment, and which in turn, generate more wealth for the economy and the GDP per person raised -- which means an increase in living standard.
Some other economists, however, would disagree with this view, saying that such an action would lower the government income, and which in turn, putting the government into a budget deficit. A budget deficit would result the government borrowing more money from the loanable fund market and decreases investment by firms(see Fiscal policy for detail). The decrease in investment would then result the output decreased, and GDP per person(living standard) would rather fall.
From this we can see that economics is all about how one views a question -- in this case, whether motivation to investment brings the society more benefit than budget deficit benefits. There is no one correct answer.
Also more important, remember that economics used to be a branch of the study of moral philosophy!
Let's take an example from the Utilitarian view of morality.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Person A $90 $129 $20
Person B $80 $11 $20
Person C $10 $10 $20
Which way do you think that society should work?
J.S Mill(also an economist) believes Case 1, since "it maximizes the greatest for the greatest amount of people:. The total output in the society is $180
J. Rawls believes Case 2, since "the poorest in the society is not so worse off from the middle class"
Communists believe case 3, where "everyone is equal", even though the total output the society has produced, $60, is the lowest, and people live in a harsh standard of living
Other views may also include Lebniz's optimistic, where he thinks that "We are living in the best of all possible world. We should not try to change it. Simply because if any thing better can be done we would done it already.
Thus, A conclusive summary is that, similar to the fact that there is no agreement on how morality is defined and such a topic depends on only one views the topic subjectively, both Bryan and Messiah's arguments are correct, but they differ in their view of what is more important in the world.