The Goat Pen

PS...

Why would you want a system that will not permit everyone to succeed at the same time. Even if hypothetically everyone works hard and makes good decisions you're still going to have millions and millions in poverty. One of many things that point to horrible system design.

That ultra-egalitarian, "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" scheme, with a giant all-powerful centralized government making the decisions about "need" and "ability," sounds really great. But the problem is, it was tried out for nearly a century, in countries all over the world. Instead of the enchanted utopias it promised, it created nothing but a series of shitholes, starting with the Soviet Union, continuing with Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, and Pot's Cambodia. It remains in a few remaining places today, like Kim's North Korea and Maduro's Venezuela.

Tree, take the Professor Tiger challenge; move to Venezuela, a place that is still practicing the very kind of economic system you love so much.

You won't last a week.

eCat wrote:

Tree wrote:

Except the whole class is not scoring 90%. A large part of the class is doing things that are virtually guaranteed to score an F - dropping out of high school, never even trying to gain a marketable skill, earning a criminal record, having multiple children without getting married... That's a recipe for personal disaster no matter what your race is.

You guys are missing the point. Why would you want a system that will not permit everyone to succeed at the same time. Even if hypothetically everyone works hard and makes good decisions you're still going to have millions and millions in poverty. One of many things that point to horrible system design.

I think you're missing the point. You're hypothetical isn't a reality therefore the system works

Shit that's right. I forgot about the rule in political debate where if your analogy isn't 100% perfect the other side wins automatically. Damn. Thought I had you too.

Professor Tiger wrote:PS...

Why would you want a system that will not permit everyone to succeed at the same time. Even if hypothetically everyone works hard and makes good decisions you're still going to have millions and millions in poverty. One of many things that point to horrible system design.

That ultra-egalitarian, "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" scheme, with a giant all-powerful centralized government making the decisions about "need" and "ability," sounds really great. But the problem is, it was tried out for nearly a century, in countries all over the world. Instead of the enchanted utopias it promised, it created nothing but a series of shitholes, starting with the Soviet Union, continuing with Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, and Pot's Cambodia. It remains in a few remaining places today, like Kim's North Korea and Maduro's Venezuela.

Tree, take the Professor Tiger challenge; move to Venezuela, a place that is still practicing the very kind of economic system you love so much.

You won't last a week.

Do you ever think for yourself?

Tree wrote:
Shit that's right. I forgot about the rule in political debate where if your analogy isn't 100% perfect the other side wins automatically. Damn. Thought I had you too.

so your logic is to base your justification on a hypothetical that isn't possible.

yea, go with that, it makes perfect sense

Just heard this yesterday, and it is brilliant:

If California and liberal cities can declare themselves "sanctuary states/cities," and simply ignore federal immigration law with impunity, then can Texas and and Alabama declare themselves "baby sanctuary states," declare they will no longer accept Roe v Wade, and forcibly close every abortion clinic in their states? Can Mississippi and South Carolina just declare themselves "traditional marriage sanctuary states," nullify Obergefell v Hodges, and refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples?

If not, why not?

eCat wrote: the reality of capitalism is in order for it to work, there has to be losers, there has to be economic classes

I would say Henry Ford and Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are examples of winners..please list the losers that were created by these guys....

It's not fair that Michael Jordan was the best in the world at what he did. Worse, he greedily profited from the fact that he was more innately talented and worked harder than his peers to achieve his place in history.

The only just and sustainable thing to do would have been to give all the other NBA players extra points so that their numbers would be equal to Jordan's. And then tax everything Jordan made above the league average, and give it to all the players so that they wouldn't feel marginalized.

Capitalism (not perfect) is always conflated w/extortion by the zero-sum advocates....these (extortionists) are guys like Jessie Jackson and Al Gore....and of course the Clintons.

Capitalism for all its flaws worked okay for close to 200 years during the period when labor pay went steadily up and there was a decent bit of profit sharing. For the last 40 years as these things have been increasingly diminished we have seen the true nature of capitalism and it's not what Milton Friedman said it would be.

Toemeesleather wrote:

eCat wrote: the reality of capitalism is in order for it to work, there has to be losers, there has to be economic classes

I would say Henry Ford and Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are examples of winners..please list the losers that were created by these guys....

While I believe that Capitalism works, its supply and demand. If 80% of the kids in America went to college to be Electrical Engineers - Capitalism isn't going to support that model, just like Capitalism doesn't support an art history major and they are working at Starbucks.

If you don't want to call them a loser in the sense they aren't high income earners in the economy, that's fine - they made the choice and certainly the option to choose a more in demand lucrative route was there for them, but none the less, they are playing a role in capitalism and that is filling the need of an entry level job that provides low cost services to people that can afford $5 coffee. Other "losers" in the capitalism are the non-skilled labor like immigrants and high school drop outs. Its all about choice, but in reference to Tree " we should have a system where everyone is a winner", is a reliance on technocrats to measure the economy, to understand what and where the GDP must be addressed. Not to mention the concept that the "winners" in Capitalism must cover the difference in standard of living for the losers. That disincentivises both classes to achieve.

Its an impossible task.

That is what I meant by loser in Capitalism.

To me the real issue is the cost of these capitalism losers to society as a whole. Currently its up to the government to provide the income security necessary to provide a standard of living -which results in deficit spending, tax increases and a stigma associated with those receiving aid, when it should be on the business sector to provide an environment where someone working a standard work weeks is capable of earning enough for a living.

Wal-Mart's business model was - until they bowed to pressure (and I'm not sure its changed that dramatically) that government subsidies would close the gap in an employee living wage. And to me there is a huge difference when you are the worlds largest employer versus a mom-n-pop corner grocery with 8 employees. Wal-Mart and a host of other business wanted to say they were the same as the mom-n-pop's in justifying the low wage for the job description, while earning hundreds of millions in profit for the stockholders and core family owners.

To me the closest we can come to having a fair system of capitalism across the board is to push for business owners to pay a living wage - with the resulting costs passed on to customers or resolved by innovation, where a defacto minimum wage is established not by some random government mandate but by market forces.

And the easiest way to address that in the short term is to cut off immigration at the knees, deport thousands of illegal workers and introduce a merit based immigration system.

Life would be better if you didn't have to work at all...

eCat wrote:

Toemeesleather wrote:

eCat wrote: the reality of capitalism is in order for it to work, there has to be losers, there has to be economic classes

I would say Henry Ford and Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are examples of winners..please list the losers that were created by these guys....

While I believe that Capitalism works, its supply and demand. If 80% of the kids in America went to college to be Electrical Engineers - Capitalism isn't going to support that model, just like Capitalism doesn't support an art history major and they are working at Starbucks.

If you don't want to call them a loser in the sense they aren't high income earners in the economy, that's fine - they made the choice and certainly the option to choose a more in demand lucrative route was there for them, but none the less, they are playing a role in capitalism and that is filling the need of an entry level job that provides low cost services to people that can afford $5 coffee. Other "losers" in the capitalism are the non-skilled labor like immigrants and high school drop outs. Its all about choice, but in reference to Tree " we should have a system where everyone is a winner", is a reliance on technocrats to measure the economy, to understand what and where the GDP must be addressed. Not to mention the concept that the "winners" in Capitalism must cover the difference in standard of living for the losers. That disincentivises both classes to achieve.

Its an impossible task.

That is what I meant by loser in Capitalism.

To me the real issue is the cost of these capitalism losers to society as a whole. Currently its up to the government to provide the income security necessary to provide a standard of living -which results in deficit spending, tax increases and a stigma associated with those receiving aid, when it should be on the business sector to provide an environment where someone working a standard work weeks is capable of earning enough for a living.

Wal-Mart's business model was - until they bowed to pressure (and I'm not sure its changed that dramatically) that government subsidies would close the gap in an employee living wage. And to me there is a huge difference when you are the worlds largest employer versus a mom-n-pop corner grocery with 8 employees. Wal-Mart and a host of other business wanted to say they were the same as the mom-n-pop's in justifying the low wage for the job description, while earning hundreds of millions in profit for the stockholders and core family owners.

To me the closest we can come to having a fair system of capitalism across the board is to push for business owners to pay a living wage - with the resulting costs passed on to customers or resolved by innovation, where a defacto minimum wage is established not by some random government mandate but by market forces.

And the easiest way to address that in the short term is to cut off immigration at the knees, deport thousands of illegal workers and introduce a merit based immigration system.

Auto workers, road construction, tire makers...etc imo, all made more money, thus built a bigger healthier middle class, than the saddle makers, horse shoe makers and livery stable operators they replaced.

Capitalism is the best economic system ever devised by man, but it does need some guard rails. Leftism, left to its own devices, consistently produces Soviet Unions and Venzuelas. But pure Capitalism, left to its own devices, consistently produces conditions described in Dickens novels, e.g. children working 100 hours a week in dirty and dangerous factories, and if the machine tore their arm off, they were fired with no compensation and instantly replaced.

Thank God for laws against child labor, unfair compensation practices, dangerous workplaces, and for the right to collectively bargain.

but it does need some guard rails..

I don't totally disagree w/this....BUT we all are very aware what gubment guard rails can lead to....by trying to make sure EVERYONE should be able to afford a house a crisis was created. Regulating the regulators is just as important as guard rails.

Toemeesleather wrote:but it does need some guard rails..

I don't totally disagree w/this....BUT we all are very aware what gubment guard rails can lead to....by trying to make sure EVERYONE should be able to afford a house a crisis was created. Regulating the regulators is just as important as guard rails.

we have a safety net already

the government currently attempts to provide shelter, food and education for anyone not capable of doing it for themselves - and that definition is pretty loose.

That is why there isn't more pressure on minimum wage and business to provide a living wage.

eCat wrote:we have a safety net already

the government currently attempts to provide shelter, food and education for anyone not capable of doing it for themselves - and that definition is pretty loose.

I’m going out on a limb here, but I think we can all agree that we don’t want an America where people are allowed to starve or freeze to death or die of whooping cough; i.e. what we have right now. But we certainly have the right to vigorously tighten up those “pretty loose definitions.”

nope, but my point is the safety net is in place - and its become part of the business model for service sector business

Agreed.

To listen to the Left, you’d think millions of Americans ARE starving in the streets. I shop a lot at Walmart, along with all the other Deplorables. It sure looks to me like the lower income class is EXTREMELY well fed somehow. Those scooters appear that be groaning under the weight of some of them.

I wish you were groaning underneath the weight of one of those scooters...

Your game is struggling sir.