'You Didn't Build That'
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:38:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  'You Didn't Build That'
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Author Topic: 'You Didn't Build That'  (Read 7763 times)
Foucaulf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2012, 03:33:46 PM »

It astounds me why people still care so much about Obama's "anti-business agenda", as if people forgot checks and balances exist - or that the vast, vast majority of Americans, no matter their political stripe, have never lived under an anti-business state. At the same time, to reject an argument in favour of some consideration for the collective is stereotypically American.

Oh well, at least we now know neoliberalism can't be truly defeated until we give different names to the 5 subtypes of capital out there.

So Obama is telling a business owner, let's say a paint store owner for argument sake, that the roads weren't built by his business?!  Then where did the money come from to build the road if not from tax revenue generated through sales and employees of the business?

If you're going to use logic like that, you may as well say God built everything.
Logged
Return of the Mack
TexasMack
Rookie
**
Posts: 25
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2012, 03:54:37 PM »
« Edited: July 24, 2012, 03:57:23 PM by Return of the Mack »

So Obama is telling a business owner, let's say a paint store owner for argument sake, that the roads weren't built by his business?!  Then where did the money come from to build the road if not from tax revenue generated through sales and employees of the business?

If you're going to use logic like that, you may as well say God built everything.

Look, in Texas, we believe in spending on infrastructure, which is why Texas’ infrastructure is ranked #Uno out of all the 57 states:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47818860/Texas_Is_America_s_Top_State_for_Business_2012

But, we understand we built our infrastructure to serve all individuals, not just the business owners.  So it makes no sense to lecture just the business owners by accusing them of being 1) no smarter and no harder working than the less successful, and 2) getting a free ride on the  nation’s  infrastructure...and so therefore they should give up more of their capital, which they are putting to use effectively, in order to transfer that capital to the less effective.

In a capitalistic society, when capital is redirected from effective use to ineffective use, jobs are destroyed, not created.  Which is why “redistributing the wealth” never creates jobs, what creates jobs is finding effective utilization for the available capital.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2012, 04:02:12 PM »

I don't think anybody disputes that. What we're disputing is what constitutes effective or preferable utilization.
Logged
Return of the Mack
TexasMack
Rookie
**
Posts: 25
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2012, 04:13:48 PM »

I don't think anybody disputes that. What we're disputing is what constitutes effective or preferable utilization.

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2012, 04:14:53 PM »

That's all a matter of ideological point of view, jmfcst.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2012, 04:24:44 PM »

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.
Logged
Return of the Mack
TexasMack
Rookie
**
Posts: 25
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2012, 04:29:31 PM »

That's all a matter of ideological point of view, jmfcst.

No, it's a matter of understanding how capital flows function, Heinrich.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2012, 04:32:21 PM »

That's all a matter of ideological point of view, jmfcst.

No, it's a matter of understanding how capital flows function, Heinrich.

There's no fundamental reason why capitalist ownership on the particular hierarchical model that is for the most part currently followed would be necessary for capital flows to work, except for just enjoying the hierarchical model on its own merits.

I don't think any of us are denying the necessity of some semblance of a market.
Logged
Return of the Mack
TexasMack
Rookie
**
Posts: 25
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2012, 04:40:03 PM »

There's no fundamental reason why capitalist ownership on the particular hierarchical model that is for the most part currently followed would be necessary for capital flows to work, except for just enjoying the hierarchical model on its own merits.

Ever been to school?  Don't all the students start each semester with a clean slate?  Yet some excel while others struggle.  Why is that?  Isn't part of the reason is that some are smarter and/or work harder than others and therefore are more effective at school?

So it is in life - if you redistributed all the wealth evenly and then left the individuals to their own merits, after a relative short period of time, you'd end up with roughly the same distribution as you currently see.  The only way to keep the wealth evenly distributed is to hold back the more effective.

Every semester you were in school taught you that lesson.  Apply it.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2012, 04:46:39 PM »
« Edited: July 24, 2012, 04:49:23 PM by Nathan »

There's no fundamental reason why capitalist ownership on the particular hierarchical model that is for the most part currently followed would be necessary for capital flows to work, except for just enjoying the hierarchical model on its own merits.

Ever been to school?  Don't all the students start each semester with a clean slate?  Yet some excel while others struggle.  Why is that?  Isn't part of the reason is that some are smarter and/or work harder than others and therefore are more effective at school?

So it is in life - if you redistributed all the wealth evenly and then left the individuals to their own merits, after a relative short period of time, you'd end up with roughly the same distribution as you currently see.  The only way to keep the wealth evenly distributed is to hold back the more effective.

Every semester you were in school taught you that lesson.  Apply it.

I'm actually extremely good at formal education, but they don't give me control over the livelihoods and grades of the C students on that basis. Social stratification isn't usually meritocratic, and even when it is what's being rewarded with control of work is not always skill at the type of work being controlled. Not every analogy works.

Did you ever have study buddies or lab partners? I actually didn't, usually, because I'm not that good with people, but I'm told most people have.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2012, 08:42:29 PM »

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

I know plenty of left-wing people who understand economics. None of them would ever make a statement that ridiculous.

yeah cause to you Paul Krugman is the end-point of the 'respectable' left-wing.  there is another left out there, one you should pay attention to, one the most brilliant minds that have been have paid attention to -- at stake, is your soul.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2012, 08:44:31 PM »


I don't think any of us are denying the necessity of some semblance of a market.

why offer this?  in the New World, there will be football games, and people will bet on them, and others still will book the bets.  markets always and ever take the place of where the human mind cannot reach.  when time runs out, turn to markets; otherwise, compassion and intelligence and empathy Save the Day.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2012, 12:35:53 AM »


I don't think any of us are denying the necessity of some semblance of a market.

why offer this?  in the New World, there will be football games, and people will bet on them, and others still will book the bets.  markets always and ever take the place of where the human mind cannot reach.  when time runs out, turn to markets; otherwise, compassion and intelligence and empathy Save the Day.

A market's just any mechanism to actually distribute stuff, in any way other than top-down (or center-out). Of course it should be run according to principles other than make-a-buck-quick.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: July 25, 2012, 01:52:46 AM »

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

I know plenty of left-wing people who understand economics. None of them would ever make a statement that ridiculous.

yeah cause to you Paul Krugman is the end-point of the 'respectable' left-wing.  there is another left out there, one you should pay attention to, one the most brilliant minds that have been have paid attention to -- at stake, is your soul.

Well, I prefer my societies to be without mass-slaughtering or mass-starvation. I guess that makes me non-brilliant to some of you.

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: July 25, 2012, 02:14:37 AM »

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money

No, they do it because if they don't they will die.  Money is just a method for coercion, Vosem.


They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die. (And even if you do, if you are careless with it you can waste it quite quickly -- as I recall some music singer spent $55 million in six months? Can't remember who, though).
How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.

Everybody having the same amount isn't fair, though. At all. And, no, of course they wouldn't've for absolutely no short-term gain.
As opposed to one man having all the stuff and doing no work?
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: July 25, 2012, 02:34:58 AM »

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

I know plenty of left-wing people who understand economics. None of them would ever make a statement that ridiculous.

yeah cause to you Paul Krugman is the end-point of the 'respectable' left-wing.  there is another left out there, one you should pay attention to, one the most brilliant minds that have been have paid attention to -- at stake, is your soul.

Well, I prefer my societies to be without mass-slaughtering or mass-starvation. I guess that makes me non-brilliant to some of you.

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.
Nice generalization.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: July 25, 2012, 03:29:34 AM »

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.

The point I was trying to make was germane to regulation and to how we socially conceptualize markets, not to what a market's necessarily actually 'doing' at its core. I think we probably had different ideas of what jmfcst's point was supposed to be.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: July 25, 2012, 04:56:05 AM »

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

I know plenty of left-wing people who understand economics. None of them would ever make a statement that ridiculous.

yeah cause to you Paul Krugman is the end-point of the 'respectable' left-wing.  there is another left out there, one you should pay attention to, one the most brilliant minds that have been have paid attention to -- at stake, is your soul.

Well, I prefer my societies to be without mass-slaughtering or mass-starvation. I guess that makes me non-brilliant to some of you.

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.
Nice generalization.

Without markets and democracy, that's what you get. There's no point in beating around the bush there.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: July 25, 2012, 04:57:11 AM »

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.

The point I was trying to make was germane to regulation and to how we socially conceptualize markets, not to what a market's necessarily actually 'doing' at its core. I think we probably had different ideas of what jmfcst's point was supposed to be.

You seemed to be saying that we can decide what motives drive actors in the market, but that's pretty dubious. But it's possible that I misunderstood you.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: July 25, 2012, 11:12:36 PM »

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: July 25, 2012, 11:14:52 PM »

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: July 25, 2012, 11:29:02 PM »

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.

How am I free if somebody can just come and take things I need?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: July 26, 2012, 01:43:23 AM »

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.

Private property is pretty much a necessity for a functioning economy. But I don't expect  left winger to understand that though. Tongue
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: July 26, 2012, 02:40:16 AM »

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.

The point I was trying to make was germane to regulation and to how we socially conceptualize markets, not to what a market's necessarily actually 'doing' at its core. I think we probably had different ideas of what jmfcst's point was supposed to be.

You seemed to be saying that we can decide what motives drive actors in the market, but that's pretty dubious. But it's possible that I misunderstood you.

He'll correct me if I'm putting the wrong words in his mouth, but I think what Nathan was getting at with that comment was that we should have some regulation to muzzle the market and try - to the extent that it's possible  - to harness the maximum positive and reduce the negative effects of a free market system.

I mean, let's say taxes may reduce the incentive to earn, but that still doesn't make it okay for a modern country not to have tax-funded public healthcare, and so on.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: July 26, 2012, 06:35:25 AM »

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.

The point I was trying to make was germane to regulation and to how we socially conceptualize markets, not to what a market's necessarily actually 'doing' at its core. I think we probably had different ideas of what jmfcst's point was supposed to be.

You seemed to be saying that we can decide what motives drive actors in the market, but that's pretty dubious. But it's possible that I misunderstood you.

He'll correct me if I'm putting the wrong words in his mouth, but I think what Nathan was getting at with that comment was that we should have some regulation to muzzle the market and try - to the extent that it's possible  - to harness the maximum positive and reduce the negative effects of a free market system.

I mean, let's say taxes may reduce the incentive to earn, but that still doesn't make it okay for a modern country not to have tax-funded public healthcare, and so on.

Oh, then I just misread him. That part sort of goes without saying, in my opinion. I got the impression that he views markets as a social construct that could be anything and I disagree with that assessment.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 12 queries.