A good analogy

[RaleBulgarian]

If you can't see it, it may be effecting you, too.

I’m sensing that you are the one who’s overly sensitive.

 

[Bullseye]

I’m sensing that you are the one who’s overly sensitive.

LOL, playing the "I know you are, but what am I?" card, eh? And you ask "what desperation?" :lol:

 

[Logical1]

The rich also profit massively from the labors of their employees.

But the employees have a good paying job, so everyone is happy.

 

[Logical1]

Ready, shoot, aim. I only hope I live long enough for all the crap about the trump administration comes out in public. However, with trumps delaying defensive team (which the 85 bears are even jealous of) it may take years I don't have. I have never in all my years seen the right become so willfully blind and ignorant. Sad.

We are still waiting for all the crime and corruption to be revealed from the Obama admin.

 

[americanwoman]

That's a good one!


Another one.

10 people eat a restaurant.

When the check comes, the vote is 9-1 that the rich guy pay the bill.( pretty much how our income tax system is)

Eventually the rich guy is either going to stop coming or quit working hard to make money since he only ends up giving to the other 9

Another bad analogy.

You can't vote to make a certain person pay at a restaurant.



But I guess y'all can just make up weird scenarios that are not even possible and claim analogies. :lol:

 

[RaleBulgarian]

LOL, playing the "I know you are, but what am I?" card, eh? And you ask "what desperation?" :lol:

You were the one to first imply (falsely) desperation. Get your timeline straight.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

But the employees have a good paying job, so everyone is happy.

Who’s complaining?

The rich profit mightily and are expected to put back into the country that gives them so much. Totally just.

 

[JasperL]

If there was a vote at the pig pen, the pigs would always vote for the person that feeds them. That is true because they dont understand that person will slaughter them the next day. That is the way socialism works also.

Actually that's a dumb as hell analogy. When and how are the voters being slaughtered by liberal policies? Are old people on SS and Medicare getting killed off? How about retired military on the socialist VA system?

 

[JasperL]

HE does not benefit disproportionately. Other way around. He gets the same meal as the other 9, but he has pay for his meal AND theirs.

The other 9 benefit disproportionately. THey pay nothing and get a meal.

You've got to be kidding. The wealthy don't get the "same meal" as everyone else. They system has been set up from the beginning to protect the interests of the wealthy, above all else, starting with....slavery!

Our military protects foreign investments, has at times explicitly gone to war for the benefit of the wealthy, the court system enforces their contracts, police protect their property, jail those who misbehave, we provide them special tax breaks, provide patent protections, copyrights. Trump's businesses (and others, obviously) can go bankrupt and he walks away from the debt. They get a clean slate, thanks to federal bankruptcy laws. Corporate and LLC etc. rules prevent creditors from going after that owner's personal assets. And much, much more. Many of those things are good - bankruptcy protection encourages risk taking, which is great IMO. But look, the wealthy control the levers of power and of course have designed a system that works beautifully for them. That is, again, fine, but you don't get to pretend that's not the case.

FWIW, I'd suggest that progressive taxation and social welfare benefits paid for with taxes are the cost of a capitalist system that simply DOES massively reward those at the top. Those systems don't survive if the proles are starving, can't get healthcare, can't afford housing, etc.

 

[KLATTU]

You think big businesses’ only responsibility to Americans is to pay their employees?

No.they should maximize the wealth of the owners ( shareholders).

 

[Deuce]

If there was a vote at the pig pen, the pigs would always vote for the person that feeds them. That is true because they dont understand that person will slaughter them the next day. That is the way socialism works also.

‘Everyone who votes different than me is less than human’
-right wingers

 

[JasperL]

‘Everyone who votes different than me is less than human’
-right wingers

Sounds about right, but you forgot, "and hates America!"

 

[RaleBulgarian]

No.they should maximize the wealth of the owners ( shareholders).

You’re confusing responsibilities and priorities.

 

[Deuce]

No.they should maximize the wealth of the owners ( shareholders).

This is the fundamental limitation of capitalism. The horrible oversight of American conservatives, missing this. Business seeks only profit. That isn't inherently evil or good, but it does have consequences.

 

[KLATTU]

You've got to be kidding. The wealthy don't get the "same meal" as everyone else. They system has been set up from the beginning to protect the interests of the wealthy, above all else, starting with....slavery!

Our military protects foreign investments, has at times explicitly gone to war for the benefit of the wealthy, the court system enforces their contracts, police protect their property, jail those who misbehave, we provide them special tax breaks, provide patent protections, copyrights. Trump's businesses (and others, obviously) can go bankrupt and he walks away from the debt. They get a clean slate, thanks to federal bankruptcy laws. Corporate and LLC etc. rules prevent creditors from going after that owner's personal assets. And much, much more. Many of those things are good - bankruptcy protection encourages risk taking, which is great IMO. But look, the wealthy control the levers of power and of course have designed a system that works beautifully for them. That is, again, fine, but you don't get to pretend that's not the case.

FWIW, I'd suggest that progressive taxation and social welfare benefits paid for with taxes are the cost of a capitalist system that simply DOES massively reward those at the top. Those systems don't survive if the proles are starving, can't get healthcare, can't afford housing, etc.

All part of the " you didn't build that " flawed thinking, brilliantly exposed by the tale of 2 commuters.

gine two commuters living equidistant from a downtown city law firm. One is an attorney at the firm, the other is her secretary. Each drives to work, thereby obtaining some value from the use of public roads. Each, in turn, imposes a roughly equal amount of depreciation on those roads, the cost of which must be defrayed via taxes. But what about the value “built” by each of them once they reach their office?

The attorney will almost certainly command a far higher salary than will her secretary. Insofar as these salaries emerge from a competitive market for labor, they reflect, at least within an order of magnitude, the respective marginal products of these commuters’ labor. But, crucially, the attorney’s higher salary is not attributable to a greater consumption of public goods. She traversed the same roads on the way to work as did her secretary. The two of them rely on the same police and fire departments. They may have even attended the same local public K-12 schools. The attorney’s higher salary is instead attributable to her command over a set of skills and human capital, which are more scarce —and more valuable—on the market than are secretarial skills. The salary differential, and the difference in productivity it reflects, cannot be explained by differential public goods consumption. In each case, some degree of public goods and services may be a necessary complement to these employees’ labor, but they are not sufficient to explain their differential success in earning taxable income. In what way is society justified in expropriating a greater percentage of the attorney’s income because her labor is more productive and therefore commands a higher salary?


The Troubling Logic of "You Didn't Build That" - Foundation for Economic Education

 

[KLATTU]

This is the fundamental limitation of capitalism. es.

Limitation? It's the straw that stirs the drink.

That's why people start businesses-to make money.

 

[bongsaway]

We are still waiting for all the crime and corruption to be revealed from the Obama admin.

? The GOP had control of all branches for two years didn't they look?

 

[Deuce]

Limitation? It's the straw that stirs the drink.

That's why people start businesses-to make money.

Yes, I'm aware.

This can sometimes be at odds with the interests of the nation and its people. Capitalism doesn't solve poverty. Capitalism doesn't solve environmental pollution. Doing so is not profitable.

 

[JasperL]

All part of the " you didn't build that " flawed thinking, brilliantly exposed by the tale of 2 commuters.

gine two commuters living equidistant from a downtown city law firm. One is an attorney at the firm, the other is her secretary. Each drives to work, thereby obtaining some value from the use of public roads. Each, in turn, imposes a roughly equal amount of depreciation on those roads, the cost of which must be defrayed via taxes. But what about the value “built” by each of them once they reach their office?

The attorney will almost certainly command a far higher salary than will her secretary. Insofar as these salaries emerge from a competitive market for labor, they reflect, at least within an order of magnitude, the respective marginal products of these commuters’ labor. But, crucially, the attorney’s higher salary is not attributable to a greater consumption of public goods. She traversed the same roads on the way to work as did her secretary. The two of them rely on the same police and fire departments. They may have even attended the same local public K-12 schools. The attorney’s higher salary is instead attributable to her command over a set of skills and human capital, which are more scarce —and more valuable—on the market than are secretarial skills. The salary differential, and the difference in productivity it reflects, cannot be explained by differential public goods consumption. In each case, some degree of public goods and services may be a necessary complement to these employees’ labor, but they are not sufficient to explain their differential success in earning taxable income. In what way is society justified in expropriating a greater percentage of the attorney’s income because her labor is more productive and therefore commands a higher salary?


The Troubling Logic of "You Didn't Build That" - Foundation for Economic Education

No offense, but I made my point, you ignored it, then moved the goal posts. I'm not debating that way. :shrug:

 

[JasperL]

Limitation? It's the straw that stirs the drink.

That's why people start businesses-to make money.

That's right, and one could maximize profits by poisoning the environment, shifting the costs from the polluter to the public at large, which is what happens with air and water pollution for example. So government's role in those cases is to put a cost to the polluter on the pollution it generates, either directly or through regulation that prevents that cost -shifting. See, negative externalities.

They also maximize profits by letting others pay for road, ports, airports, police, fire, public education including colleges, etc. so we levy corporate income taxes on them so they pay an appropriate share of those costs of the commons.

 

[KLATTU]

Yes,
. Capitalism doesn't solve poverty. e.[/I]

What does?

Capitalism doesn't 'solve' it but its done a stunningly remarkable job of eliminating it!

 

[KLATTU]

Y Capitalism doesn't solve poverty. le.[/I]

you know what most assuredly does NOT solve poverty?

Big Govt.,central planning, and redistribution.

 

[ataraxia]

If there was a vote at the pig pen, the pigs would always vote for the person that feeds them. That is true because they dont understand that person will slaughter them the next day. That is the way socialism works also.

A good analogy: Trumpsters are like a stupid angry bull at the rodeo. There are a couple of "red velvet cape" words that will get them to charge in any direction you want: "socialism", "atheists", colored people, etc... You can get them to charge to their own demise if need be if you just wave those capes in front of them. All it takes is a good matador.

Look at them getting slaughtered in the process. They don't know what they're charging at until it's too late and they have a sword sticking out their back:



So you keep charging at that red velvet cape of "socialism". You are amusing and entertaining your audience of the Koch brothers. Just keep ignoring those swords that are piling up on your back.

 

[JasperL]

you know what most assuredly does NOT solve poverty?

Big Govt.,central planning, and redistribution.

And you know what doesn't promote prosperity? Anarchy!

If you want to create a false either/or propositions, then you have to examine both sides of this false dichotomy.

 

[KLATTU]

And you know what doesn't promote prosperity? Anarchy!

y.

who said it did???