Trump Effects

[Phi for All]

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

Don’t let capitalism become a religion. 

Sorry, but it's far too late for that, imo. The priests have had the pulpit to themselves for quite a while now. Love, kindness, compassion have been replaced by money, power, control in the liturgy. Forget "Judge not lest ye be judged". It's OK to judge someone if you have a lot more money than they do.

The Pope golfs a LOT. 

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Sorry, but it's far too late for that, imo. The priests have had the pulpit to themselves for quite a while now. Love, kindness, compassion have been replaced by money, power, control in the liturgy. Forget "Judge not lest ye be judged". It's OK to judge someone if you have a lot more money than they do.

The Pope golfs a LOT. 

"Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie"

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Above is the nut of our differences. A capitalist economy is far too spontaneous for your comfort.  There is no stopping the fact that some will succeed more than others in a capitalist economy. Your goal to ensure the system isn't rigged, that rules are written and enforced equally just sets the rigging bias on those you prefer.  They also slow economic growth.  Prosperity requires economic growth.  Why slow it down?  

You're so close to understanding our position, I hope you'll bear with me and really think about this next argument. Please.

You speak of "a capitalist economy". That's automatically rigged, by definition, in favor of those who are good at making money. That's only a portion of the population. When we blend some socialist solutions in with the capitalist ones, we highlight and support those who are good at other things we need, besides making money. We can even talk about reasons why we might let our government own resources, and add some communism into the mix, which will favor even more skills and professions.

Our current brand of capitalism is too heavily rigged to wealth. The top 500 wealthiest people in the world made over $1T more in 2017 than they did just one year ago, while so many hard-working Americans struggle as what little support they have is shifted away from them. We've made some very elegant arguments that a smarter mix of economic formulae is needed. Do you disagree?

Thanks for reading this far, if you did.

[waitforufo]

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You're so close to understanding our position, I hope you'll bear with me and really think about this next argument. Please.

You speak of "a capitalist economy". That's automatically rigged, by definition, in favor of those who are good at making money. That's only a portion of the population. When we blend some socialist solutions in with the capitalist ones, we highlight and support those who are good at other things we need, besides making money. We can even talk about reasons why we might let our government own resources, and add some communism into the mix, which will favor even more skills and professions.

Our current brand of capitalism is too heavily rigged to wealth. The top 500 wealthiest people in the world made over $1T more in 2017 than they did just one year ago, while so many hard-working Americans struggle as what little support they have is shifted away from them. We've made some very elegant arguments that a smarter mix of economic formulae is needed. Do you disagree?

Thanks for reading this far, if you did.

First, i get a little tired of the smarmy comments like your last one.  Disagreement is not an indication of reading ability, comprehension or understanding a counter argument .   I just think you are wrong.

This blue marble has been spinning in the universe for some time now.  Many governments have existed in the history of mankind. Maybe you could give me an example of even one that met or came even close to your ideal.  Then perhaps compare that to the benefits provided by the history of capitalism.  Also,perhaps you should be a bit more honest about the human wreckage caused through history by those promoting your path. 

As I said to iNow, I believe your goals are good and genuine, but there results of your path will always have poor results. Don't you think results matter?

 

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

This blue marble has been spinning in the universe for some time now.  Many governments have existed in the history of mankind. Maybe you could give me an example of even one that met or came even close to your ideal. 

 

Can you provide an example of one that has sustained, however powerful they were?

22 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Also,perhaps you should be a bit more honest about the human wreckage caused through history by those promoting your path. 

Do you imagine capitalism isn't guilty of causing human wreckage? In fact, I think you'll find the answers to your questions in the people/governments of those that capitalism destroyed in your country.

27 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

As I said to iNow, I believe your goals are good and genuine, but there results of your path will always have poor results. Don't you think results matter?

The point is neither system produce results, in terms of sustainability, maybe an amalgamation (the middle ground) is the way to go if you want your children (descendants) to enjoy what you have.

[waitforufo]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Can you provide an example of one that has sustained, however powerful they were?

Do you imagine capitalism isn't guilty of causing human wreckage? In fact, I think you'll find the answers to your questions in the people/governments of those that capitalism destroyed in your country.

The point is neither system produce results, in terms of sustainability, maybe an amalgamation (the middle ground) is the way to go if you want your children (descendants) to enjoy what you have.

This is a science forum. Science is supported by by data.  I asked for data from history that supports you government ideal. i'm not surprised that you can't do it.  In the mean time capitalism is supplying innovation, surplus and prosperity wherever it is implemented. 

Your ideal intentionally holds people back because some win more than others.  What gives you, or the government the right to limit the success of others?

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

This is a science forum. Science is supported by by data.  I asked for data from history that supports you government ideal. i'm not surprised that you can't do it.  In the mean time capitalism is supplying innovation, surplus and prosperity wherever it is implemented. 

7

Are you really so naive? What makes you think you're any different to those that enjoyed the spoils of the Roman or British Empires? 

15 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Your ideal intentionally holds people back because some win more than others.  What gives you, or the government the right to limit the success of others?

"All animals are equal"...

Quote

The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equalit      oftheir citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.

 

2

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

This is a science forum. Science is supported by by data.  I asked for data from history that supports you government ideal. i'm not surprised that you can't do it.  In the mean time capitalism is supplying innovation, surplus and prosperity wherever it is implemented. 

Your ideal intentionally holds people back because some win more than others.  What gives you, or the government the right to limit the success of others?

Why does it have to be a dichomitistic argument? There are areas of society that are not conducive to capitalism and the same with socialism.

[Ten oz]

58 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

  Disagreement is not an indication of reading ability, comprehension or understanding a counter argument .   I just think you are wrong.

Everything isn't up for debate though. You may disagree with various conclusions but if you distort facts and ignore empirical evidence to get there it is a problem. You have the right to believe whatever you want but should be honest enough to acknowledge when those beliefs cannot be support by evidence. Billions of people believe in ghosts yet there is no evidence for ghost. Lots of people think a lot of things but that doesn't make all things thought equal. 

 

11 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

This is a science forum. Science is supported by by data.  I asked for data from history that supports you government ideal. i'm not surprised that you can't do it.  In the mean time capitalism is supplying innovation, surplus and prosperity wherever it is implemented. 

Where on earth is capitalism anything more than a component of govt policy? Capitalism is not absolute anywhere. It the U.S. we have between Medicare and the VA over 50 million people receive govt managed healthcare, we have over 50 million kids in public schools right now, public built transportation infrastructure, 60 million people receive Soc Sec, public funded criminal justice, and etc, etc, etc. It is the govt with public money that secures the treaties and trade deals that enable U.S. products to be sold around world and U.S. companies to obtain foreign resources. Pure Capitalism DOES NOT EXIST. Your question, which you claim no one can answer, makes no sense.  If you believe that the levels of capitalism in the U.S. are best than you believe in is socializing numerous parts of society. It is govt spending that developed turbine engines,  jet flight, satellites, the internet, nuclear power, and other technological achievements that currently drive society.  

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Why does it have to be a dichotomistic argument? 

1

Because one side has more and wants to keep it...

Edited December 30, 2017 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you really so naive? What makes you think you're any different to those that enjoyed the spoils of the Roman or British Empires? 

Being any different isn't part of the equation; enjoying the spoils is. The U.S. govt spends billions of dollars building aircraft carriers and missile defense systems. More money on defense than the next several superpowers combined yet waitforufo is arguing that it is capitalism which has led to USA's global prominence. Military might is not a byproduct of capitalism. Free Markets did not defeat Nazi Germany in WW2 despite it being in their best interest to do so.

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

.... It is govt spending that developed turbine engines,  jet flight, satellites, the internet, nuclear power, and other technological achievements that currently drive society.  

Yes, it's government-funded research that does the majority of the time consuming, wasteful dirty-work in innovation and invention then commerce milks it. The tax payer pays twice.

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Because one side has more and wants to keep it...

Yep. I read in Reuters the other day  that there is over a trillion dollars squirreled away by American  entities abroad. Guess where the excess money from 'trickle-down  economics is going to go.

Edited December 30, 2017 by StringJunky

[iNow]

This conversation seems to be going something like this:

P1: A well balanced diet is critical to good health. 

P2: Your problem is you think vegetarianism is the only valid path.

P1: No, I don’t. I think it’s important to balance ones diet and include both vegetables and meat. Each have a place in good health.

P2: You can’t even name one society that’s survived on vegetables alone. Meat makes us stronger! When will you realize this?

P1: Sigh. Never mind. You’re not even addressing my actual comment. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Being any different isn't part of the equation; enjoying the spoils is.

 

For most, I'd agree but for a small minority it very much is part of the equation and a fundamental part that changes everything; Gandi, Mandella, Martin Luther etc... 

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

This conversation seems to be going something like this:

P1: A well balanced diet is critical to good health. 

P2: Your problem is you think vegetarianism is the only valid path.

P1: No, I don’t. I think it’s important to balance ones diet and include both vegetables and meat. Each have a place in good health.

P2: You can’t even name one society that’s survived on vegetables alone. Meat makes us stronger! When will you realize this?

P1: Sigh. Never mind. You’re not even addressing my actual comment. 

That about sums it up. We're arguing against fundamentalists.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

This conversation seems to be going something like this:

P1: A well balanced diet is critical to good health. 

P2: Your problem is you think vegetarianism is the only valid path.

P1: No, I don’t. I think it’s important to balance ones diet and include both vegetables and meat. Each have a place in good health.

P2: You can’t even name one society that’s survived on vegetables alone. Meat makes us stronger! When will you realize this?

P1: Sigh. Never mind. You’re not even addressing my actual comment. 

Now that's a balanced summary +1

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

First, i get a little tired of the smarmy comments like your last one.  Disagreement is not an indication of reading ability, comprehension or understanding a counter argument .   I just think you are wrong.

If you only disagreed, I wouldn't have made the smarmy comment. Again you miss the point, because the point is you rarely acknowledge the legitimate arguments. You ignore them, and pose red herrings and strawmen of your own, so it makes it look like you don't read them at all.

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

This blue marble has been spinning in the universe for some time now.  Many governments have existed in the history of mankind. Maybe you could give me an example of even one that met or came even close to your ideal.

I've mentioned the Eisenhower administration before. We had a much more evenly distributed base of opportunity with Ike. He was Republican, but he understood that a marginal tax rate on the highest earnings was one of the keys to building a great economy. His policies ensured that the wealthy kept their wealth invested in the economy, invigorating it, instead of hording it and benefiting only themselves. 

Please look at these arguments on their own merit, individually, and stop judging them based only on a "You must be wrong because you're a liberal" basis. I'm asking you to reach beyond the black and white crayons, and consider there's a reason why there are so many other colors at our disposal.

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

As I said to iNow, I believe your goals are good and genuine, but there results of your path will always have poor results. Don't you think results matter?

I don't quite understand what you mean, the way you put this, but it seems like you're pre-judging our "path", and condemning it in a way that makes talking about it with you inherently futile. You have a "path" in your imagination, you've made it purposely horrible, and you've placed us all upon it without considering any of our reasoning. It's your standard tactic, arguing against a strawman of our positions so you can revile them. It sucks, because you're not stupid, you're just not someone who is likely to give me any real insights into yours or my own stance. It's like trying to talk tennis with someone who only wants to berate me for being big enough to be a football player.

[Butch]

On 12/28/2017 at 5:57 PM, swansont said:

Oh please do pay attention. We were discussing your claim that consumers pay corporate taxes. Money mocves in a cycle. Putting that on the consumer is arbitrary.

 

 

I am saying that taxes of any kind get passed down to the consumer.

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, Butch said:

I am saying that taxes of any kind get passed down to the consumer.

And we're trying to gently point out to you that another part of the cycle is where the consumer gets to decide if something has been priced too high for the market. Decisions of any kind about market share get passed along to the corporation. You keep repeating only one part of the cycle, like a mantra, or like you were brainwashed by someone who didn't want you to understand the whole picture.

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And we're trying to gently point out to you that another part of the cycle is where the consumer gets to decide if something has been priced too high for the market. Decisions of any kind about market share get passed along to the corporation. You keep repeating only one part of the cycle, like a mantra, or like you were brainwashed by someone who didn't want you to understand the whole picture.

It's protectionist market in the US anyway. The idea that it runs on free market forces is a joke. Look at the pharmaceutical industry. Can the government medical agencies negotiate drug prices? No. You guys actually pay more for your US made drugs than we do. Our NHS is allowed to negotiate, as are other countries. Big Corps focuses on lobbying and buying politicians rather than reacting to the market. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

I am saying that taxes of any kind get passed down to the consumer.

And back to the businesses, and back to the consumer, and so on. It's arbitrary. Just a meaningless talking point to make you feel better about your opinion.

plus, as I pointed out earlier, some people are corporations. Your idea would allow them to get out of paying taxes.

[EdEarl]

My doctor took his daughter to Mexico to have a gastric bypass operation, because it was safer and less expensive than the same operation in the US.

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, Butch said:

I am saying that taxes of any kind get passed down to the consumer.

You're just not getting it, are you?

Everyone benefits from paying taxes even the greedy, but you are willing putting your kneck under the foot of those who have more fear than reason or more want than need or who see the starving and vomit to eat more. TBH I pity you all, to live life in fear of tomorrow or salvation is not something I'd wish on my worst enemy.

Edited January 1, 2018 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And we're trying to gently point out to you that another part of the cycle is where the consumer gets to decide if something has been priced too high for the market. Decisions of any kind about market share get passed along to the corporation. You keep repeating only one part of the cycle, like a mantra, or like you were brainwashed by someone who didn't want you to understand the whole picture.

This is common among conservatives in my opinion. Single points or slogans shape entire world views. Trump won the primaries and national election using 140 characters at a time after all. Average people pay for products and thus pay for anything and everything which impacts a products price is simple . It is a short and easy to digest concept. Never mind is in both inaccurate and absent of important caveats. 

 

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It's protectionist market in the US anyway. The idea that it runs on free market forces is a joke. Look at the pharmaceutical industry. Can the government medical agencies negotiate drug prices? No. You guys actually pay more for your US made drugs than we do. Our NHS is allowed to negotiate, as are other countries. Big Corps focuses on lobbying and buying politicians rather than reacting to the market. 

The fact U.S. made drugs sell in Canada at all is an important. When carrying on about taxes in the U.S. people often forget that the free market they are carrying on about is global. From Apple to Walmart all large corporations both buy and sell products globally. Not only that but they buy and sell from each others. Walmart doesn't build there own computers they buy them from industries that specialize in business solutions. Apple doesn't own their own fleet of truck they pay companies for distribution. Large companies pass costs on as they see fit exploiting regulations and and consumers bases around the world at their discretion. Plus not all companies deal in markets where they are selling to anything other than corporations. Boeing sells aircraft to govts around the world. Only a portion of their business deals with airlines like Southwest and Delta that cater to U.S. civilian consumers. How much average U.S. citizens pay to fly from Dallas to Las Vegas isn't a concern when Boeing is finalizing a $37 billion deal to sell 300 planes to China. General Electric supplies Boeing their jet turbines and got $3.5 billion out of that same deal. It is simply naive to believe that the corporate tax rate determines that cost of a consumer product. The iphone sells in 40 countries around the world and Apple has sold over a billion of them. Energy cost at an Apple plant in China impacts the iPhone's cost retail in the U.S. much at taxes do.  

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're just not getting it, are you?

Everyone benefits from paying taxes even the greedy, 

Indeed!!! Govt money developed jet powered flight, computers, nuclear power, put satellites in orbit, and etc. Companies have profited into the trillions off of technology the govt created with tax dollars. People inaccurately give the free market credit for technology in the modern world but it is govt funded research and development that created supersonic flight, GPS, the internet, and so on.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

This is common among conservatives in my opinion. Single points or slogans shape entire world views.

It may be the case, since the GOP is closer to being monolithic, so that slogans at the expense of other groups is more effective.

But I'm guessing that some of that is confirmation bias.