Obama Wealth Spread
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuSMS17shAc[/ame]
Scary.
SAVE US FROM THE COMMYS
SOCIALISM SOCIALISM COMMUNISM COMMUNISM COLD WAR 2 COLD WAR 2
edited out because of faith in DJ
PUTIN IS COMING AFTER US
PUTIN IS COMING AFTER US
PUTIN IS COMING AFTER US PUTIN IS COMING AFTER US
PUTIN IS COMING AFTER US
OH NOES OH NOES OH NOES OH NOES
COMMUNISM SOCIALISM COMMUNISM SOCIALISM
and
BARAQ IS A TERRORIST COMMUNIST
TERRORIST COMMUNIST
Last edited by UDP; 10-15-2008 at 05:23 AM.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
-- perhaps like me you're just making fun of the situation
PS: Not only is he a terrorist communist, Barrraq is a
black terrorist communist
A black terrorist communist who is also a fake christian
Baraq Sodom Hussein Communist Terrorist Communist Terrorist Negro Antichrist
There, that's the bumper sticker. It's been fully derived.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I don't trust Obama. I has read about him. He's an Arab.
That so needs to be lolcat'd.Originally Posted by hellothere
He's a blatant socialist.
I'm sorry, but far left = big government socialism, and Barack Obama's actual record is literally 100% (that's one hundred percent) far left.
His comments to that plumber were scary, and many people are just refusing to see it.
a large portion of the world functions under socialism, somehow, somewhere.
asd
That is misleading, because governments who enact socialist policies can only afford to do so because of the capitalist free market. Otherwise, the inherent inefficiency of such systems becomes too expensive, and the government just collapses and/or starts opening its doors to a capitalist market. Even China learned this (the hard way).
What's your point?
That socialism is good and doesn't have countless irreconcilable flaws that were disproved centuries ago that its exponents tend to totally ignore.
I don't see how he's successfully making that argument. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's good, or efficient, or right. Many countries functioned under a monarch.
Nope. Every political party = big government socialism.
That's actually commuism btw (not that I think socialism any good, but it's also not completely infeasible (tho it may not be optimal)).That socialism is good and doesn't have countless irreconcilable flaws that were disproved centuries ago that its exponents tend to totally ignore.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Um.. Therefore, far left = big government socialism?Nope. Every political party = big government socialism.
They both amount to special interests v consumers.That's actually commuism btw (not that I think socialism any good, but it's also not completely infeasible (tho it may not be optimal)).
Oh sorry you're right, yes.
It's true that in a democracy probably two of the biggest problems are agency (namely that those who are in charge of the decisions often aren't directly affected by them) and the noisy minority - silent majority problem (which for example results in extremely large subsiding of agriculture). Somehow, though, a part of state-rulership seem to have a positive psychological effect on the members of the state itself, so that has to be taken into account in the equation to estabilish the optimal choice.They both amount to special interests v consumers.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Right.
Another example of socialism's weakness can be seen in the direct link between the various subsidies given to workers and unemployment.
It's "not fair" that some workers don't make as much money as others, so let's force the companies to pay them more. Sounds good in theory, right? Sure. But the problem is that the net effect of such laws makes it more expensive for companies to hire workers, thereby reducing net employment and encouraging companies to outsource.
It's special interests (i.e., one particular group of workers) vs other workers who can't find work.
And that's another example of special interests (farmers) winning out against every consumer in America, (and in other countries, I'm sure) who can't buy the cheaper imported dairy and meat products if it means that American farmers will go out of business. The higher prices we pay for such goods are in effect a subsidy of the livelihood of farmers.It's true that in a democracy probably two of the biggest problems are agency (namely that those who are in charge of the decisions often aren't directly affected by them) and the noisy minority - silent majority problem (which for example results in extremely large subsiding of agriculture).
Huh?Somehow, though, a part of state-rulership seem to have a positive psychological effect on the members of the state itself, so that has to be taken into account in the equation to estabilish the optimal choice.
It's not so simple, really. I'm not going to make one of those long theoretical points you say you dislike, but just as a quick rewiev of your posts, if we take:
w = market equilibrium wage
w+t = minimum wage
c = costs of outsorcing
w(c) = outsoruced wage
then by definition we have that w<w(c)+c; as long as w+w+t<w(c)+c firms won't have an incentive to outsource, so that if we have w<w+t<w(c)+c companies will not be encourage to outsource. There's a margin for the government to maneuvre his policies. Problems need to be analyzed without ideologies restricting the thought-process.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Why didn't you just say that the cost of minimum wage doesn't always justify outsourcing?
Anyway, the minimum wage will nevertheless be passed on to consumers in some form, whether in fewer jobs or higher prices.
Why on earth do you care what that plumber is going through?
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Everybody has to buy products, but not everybody has to employ people - i.e. an increase in the minimum wage benefits the poorer parts of society, and businesses may have to become more efficient as a result. Also, If every business is obliged to pay their employees at least the minimum wage, this may mean that their employees have extra capital to spend on products.
BECAUSE OF A NIFTY WORD CALLED "EXTRAPOLATION"
So millions of people making the minimum wage of zero are a benefit to society?
I don't think a higher minimum wage necessarily means fewer jobs, because it is possible for companies to pay the higher-ups less.
According to wikipedia (oh dear) the UK has one of the highest gross annual minimum wages in the world. I'm not sure if there is a standard way of determining unemployment rates, but from a cursory search I get the impression that the US unemployment rate is slightly higher than the UK unemployment rate at the moment.
Last edited by Not A Communist Shill; 10-16-2008 at 12:29 AM.
Most minimum wagers aren't employed in companies with massive executive salaries. They're small business employees.
What's happening at the moment doesn't represent history. Over the last 10+ years, the U.S. has had a lower unemployment rate.According to wikipedia (oh dear) the UK has one of the highest gross annual minimum wages in the world. I'm not sure if there is a standard way of determining unemployment rates, but from a cursory search I get the impression that the US unemployment rate is slightly higher than the UK unemployment rate at the moment.
very interesting
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
You're stating the obivous -- higher wages means more money for those employed -- and ignoring any consequence of that. The costs of higher minimum wage gets past on to consumers, negating any preceived gain. You're just resetting the starting line, not making any actual economic gains.
That if you make over $250,000 a year your taxes might increase?
God forbid.
We all know in these tight, economic times (for which the Republicans are entirely blameless and it's all the Democrats fault - true story, I heard it from a conservative pundit and they're never wrong), $250k doesn't go very far. Good thing that 95% of Americans make nowhere near that amount of money and therefore will be spared this cruel and unusual economic raping.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Justify raising his taxes. How will it benefit him?
it is time for a celebration. obama killed mccain in the debate. i just watched it and... wow. i was expecting obama to do well on matters of the economy, but his performance was nothing less than flawless. his ability to explain himself in both detail and simplicity, and his understanding of economics, is really commendable. before tonight he had a significant lead in the polls. now there is no doubt. he will be the next president. on every topic, obama put a good idea fourth. but more then that, he explained his ideas in detail, and these details actually made sense and were concretely plausible. recognize how rare that is for a presidential candidate. mccain had maybe 2 or 3 good ideas, but each of them were overshadowed by obamas. on the rest of the issues, he kept it very vague. there were a couple points in the debate where he reverted to full out appeal to emotion simply because he couldn't answer the question in light of obama overpowering him. the only point, of the 15 or so, which mccain won, was perhaps the most irrelevant one: the issue of vouchers, and charter schools, checks and balances placed on teaching staff, and generally how they may improve the educational system on an everyday, law by law level. and you know what happened there? Obama actually agreed with mccain, other then on the issue of vouchers, which i am not familiar with.
mccains primary focus, the entire debate, as he had very few ideas to put fourth, was in attacking obamas ideas. obama dealt with these attacks with simplicity and clarity. this is the man we need for president, and there is no doubt about it.
he is morally obligated to assist those less fortunate than him. he should be honored he has the opportunity to do so. the bottom line is someone has to pay taxes, and you have to make a choice between who can pay them and who can't pay them. it's not a matter of complaining about freedom and equality in the name of selfishness and negligence, it's a matter of coming to grips with reality, and giving in to the need to harbor a sense of altruism. just as we are obligated, as the most powerful country on earth, to assist those countries around the world less fortunate than ourselves; to step in and stop ethnic cleansing in africa, or to assist in the fight against aids, in the same manner we are also obligated to help those less fortunate than ourselves in our own country. this is the moral burden of power, and it means living up to the highly celebrated but often times hollow ideal of being an american. imagine hearing someone say "justify the usa sending peacekeeping troops to africa. how will this benefit the usa?"
Last edited by crazedrat; 10-16-2008 at 05:00 AM.
Bull.
He's not morally obligated to assist anyone, and neither is the U.S. morally obligated to assist the rest of the world.
Taxes are about where money ends up being put to the best use: In the hands of the government or the hands of those who earn it. The government has increasingly spent more compared to GDP and done increasingly little. What has benefitted the entire nation and the world, specifically those in most of need, has been cold, hard capitalism. Capitalism has made living standards much higher for everyone, lifted millions out of poverty, and brought peace to much of the world.
The Federal government is not suppose to the nations keeper. It's role is suppose to be that of protecting the nation so that citizens can pursue their own needs.
the accumulation of excessive and irrelevant power is not without a price. it is from the lower class which the upper class draws their wealth; and the lower class is a servant of the upper class. when the spread between the lower and upper class extends too far, as it has in america, it is your duty to your fellow man, and to those who put you into your place of favor to begin with, to return to that which has granted you so much benefit. the idea of the accumulation of power and wealth is intrsically flawed to begin with, and is the driving force behind global destruction. In the strictest logic, he is morally obligated to sell all his unnecessary possessions, as are every one of us.
Capitalism has not brought peace to the world. It has driven the world to the brink of collapse, no different than a petri dish of bacteria polluting its environment and wiping out the entire colony- a natural cycle which can be observed again and again, and is occuring on a global economic scale. This is apparent to anyone who opens their eyes. The united states has the greatest wealth spread of any nation. Capitalism actually creates a further potential for poverty. With higher standard of living comes the implied maintenance of this standard of living, which actually ends up complicating and making life more top heavy and maintenance oriented than before. The benefits of capitalism are an illusion which can't be understood by someone stuck within its grips. If you moved to new zealand or some desert island you might come to understand
Meanwhile, here in Australia, beer, sunshine and well........no that's about it. Love this place ^.^
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Neither class is servant to the other. It's symbiotic: All of their exchanges are mutually benefitial, otherwise they wouldn't be making them. Your understanding of the world is fundamentally wrong.
People are, in no way, obligated to sacrifice for one another.
You're very wrong. Nations that used to hate each other now tolerate each other, because their economies are interconnected. You need to explore history a little more. The world used to be a much more violent place before global trade came about.Capitalism has not brought peace to the world. It has driven the world to the bring of collapse, no different than a pool of bacteria polluting its environment and wiping out the entire colony- a natural cycle which can be observed in nature, and observed on a global scale by anyone who opens their eyes. The united states has the greatest wealth spread of any nation. With higher standard of living comes the implied maintenance of this standard of living, which actually ends up complicating and making life more top heavy and maintenance oriented than before.
Stop updating your post
Last edited by Drommel; 10-16-2008 at 05:37 AM. Reason: He updated my post; I'm responding to his.
global economics have been the underlying driving force behind every war since the french revolution. i think it is you who need to study history more, my friend. google a fellow named rothschild, learn about the banks of england, and the business cycle. all facts, and all stuff you need to learn before we continue talking
And it is from the upper class which the lower class draws their salary.
Employer/employee.
Who's logic? Who has the right to "morally obligate" one individual into doing something against his will when no laws have been broken nor rights of others violated?
employee/employer is another word for slave/master. My argument is not as extremist as it could be. I am only arguing it is the duty of the master to treat the slave with civility. The Master has benefited from this slaves productivity. From what you are arguing, if the slave gets sick, he can die. The slave only exists for the benefit of the master, and the master picks and chooses when to take responsibility for its slaves. This is a one sided and stunted relationship. The master is a parasite. The relationship is not symbiotic.
God, you're a dumbass.
Enlighten me: How was the French revolution caused by global economics?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote