• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Real Wealth is Decreasing

jonny5 said:
No, its the individual. And it has nothing to do with creating the next generation. THIS society was founded to protect individual life and liberty. So that individuals could pursue a family or not.
Click to expand...

the liberal killed the Judeo/Christian family. We it see it most clearly in the black ghetto. A society without love and family slowly dies. Our Founders assumed JUdeo/Christian traditions so didn't say much about it, but its obviously its as central as democracy or separation of powers
 
phattonez said:
Entry into the air travel market is going to be costly no matter what. Or with utilities, having multiple suppliers of water and electricity would be wasteful. We really ought to be breaking up large companies that hold near monopolies to increase competition.
Click to expand...

competition is wasteful but not as wasteful as monopoly. This is why capitalism works and socialism does not
 
phattonez said:
It certainly is! If I have to have 4 different sets of power lines running by my house because there's competition, when I could instead of just one set of power lines running efficiently by a public utility, then to have the 4 sets is wasteful. It would be like having 4 freeways between two cities when 1 would work just fine.
Click to expand...

in some cases competition does create too much waste. 4 roads does not work for example but even then the road should be privatized and managed at competitive cost with other roads to prevent waste.
 
James972 said:
it has to be capitalist ie the prices they charge somehow have to be competitive prices, not monopoly prices
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

The wireless communication market is monopolistic competition.
 
jonny5 said:
The purpose of life is up to each person, not you. That why it says "pursuit of happiness" in our founding documents. The purpose of society is not to make having a family cheap, its to protect each individuals life and freedom so they can pursue happiness.

SO, money has nothing to do with libertarian ethics. What increases your liberty is a good thing. What you do with your liberty, whether that collecting property or giving it away, is a good thing.
Click to expand...
But are people who cannot afford basic life necessities really free? The resources a person is born with significantly determine what choices they are at liberty to make in the first place. If you are starving on the street, someone saying "well at least you are free" is like saying "let them eat cake."
 
>For almost all households, real wealth levels are about the same as they were in the early 1980s.

Oh, really?

Then what about these charts showing a very different appreciation of wealth accumulation in America:
us-wealth-inequality-chart.jpg


Note the timewise differences in Wealth Accumulation between 1998 and 2013. Whilst, one must presume, the Truly Poor are asked to wallow under the Poverty Threshold of $25K per year, largely because the minimum wage is a measly 7 bucks an hour.

Note also that the Top-10% possess 75% of the Total Wealth.

Must one assume that such is "fair and decent"? Methinks not ...
 
Last edited:
Lakryte said:
But are people who cannot afford basic life necessities really free? The resources a person is born with significantly determine what choices they are at liberty to make in the first place. If you are starving on the street, someone saying "well at least you are free" is like saying "let them eat cake."
Click to expand...

If we're talking about children who cant take care of themselves, thats a different issue. Their parents are free and make the decision to create more humans. The social contract we have in this society is to protect the life of every individual, so I have agreed that its my responsibility to care for those who through no fault of their own are born into starvation. They have the same rights to life and liberty as anyone else. As adults, it changes entirely. They have the ability to take care of themselves and there is absolutely no reason an adult in this country who isnt institutionalized or 100% disabled cant work. Thus they are free to choose not to, and to starve, yes.

And you are free to take care of them if you want to. You are not free to force me to.
 
James972 said:
the liberal killed the Judeo/Christian family. We it see it most clearly in the black ghetto. A society without love and family slowly dies. Our Founders assumed JUdeo/Christian traditions so didn't say much about it, but its obviously its as central as democracy or separation of powers
Click to expand...

That is societies right to slowy die. It has nothing to do with me, the individual, unless I want it to. As always we're talking about the role of force, as in if you think society needs love and family, can you force it?
 
jonny5 said:
There you go then. A private way for many competitors to share limited space.
Click to expand...

And what happens if only one company owned the only road between two cities?
 
James972 said:
the liberal killed the Judeo/Christian family. We it see it most clearly in the black ghetto. A society without love and family slowly dies. Our Founders assumed JUdeo/Christian traditions so didn't say much about it, but its obviously its as central as democracy or separation of powers
Click to expand...

We're also seeing it in white rural areas, where family formation is down, out of wedlock childbirth is up, and drug use is up. It wasn't just the liberal who did this. They were aided by corporations who slashed male wages, making family formation inaccessible to many ordinary working people.
 
Crovax said:
I think you misunderstood. Houses are more expensive because toys are cheaper. People are going to put everything they can afford into a house to have the biggest living space possible.

Average sq ft of a house in 1973: 1660

Average sq ft of a house in 2015: 2687
Click to expand...

Is that because people wanted bigger houses or was it about property taxes? Did localities only issue permits for larger homes? Permits cost a hundred grand in California. That adds that to the cost, which guarantees bigger property tax revenue.

Tiny houses are popular but illegal in most places unless you pay an apartments rent for a place to put it.
 
What if...? said:
Is that because people wanted bigger houses or was it about property taxes? Did localities only issue permits for larger homes? Permits cost a hundred grand in California. That adds that to the cost, which guarantees bigger property tax revenue.

Tiny houses are popular but illegal in most places unless you pay an apartments rent for a place to put it.
Click to expand...

Note also that he uses average and not median. Of course average is going to rise when inequality is increasing, but what about median? I know many people my age living in studios, 1 bedroom apartments, etc., and they're nearing 30. You better believe that square footage is well below the average, yet it doesn't get included, and home ownership is way down for this age group.
 
Kushinator said:
Wrong again.

The wireless communication market is monopolistic competition.
Click to expand...

there are several companies in wireless phone wi fi internet facebook whats app instagram etc so it is not really monopoly
 
Lakryte said:
But are people who cannot afford basic life necessities really free?
Click to expand...
wrong!! billions live at $1-2 a day. Someone who makes 100K may need 200K just as much as guy needs $2. for most no progress is like death. That is why communism killed 120 million. Do you understand?
 
Lafayette said:
largely because the minimum wage is a measly 7 bucks an hour.[/I]
Click to expand...
obviously if you make minimum $15 you make it illegal to hire anyone not worth minimum wage. Econ is far more complicated than Layfafette imagines
 
jonny5 said:
so I have agreed that its my responsibility to care for those who through no fault of their own are born into starvation. .
Click to expand...

not that easy of course, parents often kids so the kids will support them. you want to reduce poverty not increase it
 
jonny5 said:
if you think society needs love and family, can you force it?
Click to expand...

of course where do you think the idea of love and family came from?? And don't you think liberals used force to destroy it in the black community?? You can see how superior conservative thinking is to libertarian thinking.
 
phattonez said:
And what happens if only one company owned the only road between two cities?
Click to expand...
they would have a contract with state to operate it at competitive rate
 
phattonez said:
It wasn't just the liberal who did this. They were aided by corporations who slashed male wages,
Click to expand...

corporations must slash wages to beat competition and survive so they are 100% blameless. LIberal taxes unions deficits trade deals and 30 million liberal illegals are 100% responsible. Do you understand?
 
What if...? said:
Is that because people wanted bigger houses or was it about property taxes?
Click to expand...

mostly about people wanting biggest they can afford. Its natural its a sign of success.
 
James972 said:
there are several companies in wireless phone wi fi internet facebook whats app instagram etc so it is not really monopoly
Click to expand...

There are two large players, and 3 smaller players.

It is monopolistic competition.

Your mentality is pure failure.
 
phattonez said:
And what happens if only one company owned the only road between two cities?
Click to expand...

I imagine someone would build another road, or helicopter pads. The specialty of free markets is working around bottlenecks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom