Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 87
  1. #61  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Source your previous post #54 and don't ignore me Wei.
    Wei has no reasonable source that's why he's hiding. He's a lazy, no-good communist who wants to get what others have worked for. He thinks he's entitled to everything the rich have except the work it took them to get it. All business is one-sided, the owner's side. If he has good business model he will prosper and expand... Wei doesn't see it that way. Wei wants everything handed to him, because he was born...


    Ain't that right Wei?
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #62  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    Wei has no reasonable source that's why he's hiding. He's a lazy, no-good communist who wants to get what others have worked for. He thinks he's entitled to everything the rich have except the work it took them to get it. All business is one-sided, the owner's side. If he has good business model he will prosper and expand... Wei doesn't see it that way. Wei wants everything handed to him, because he was born...


    Ain't that right Wei?
    I have been over this with him before, he is to source his material.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #63  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    “It is not very unreasonable ...-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
    Gotta love that part... VERY... HAHAHAHAHA:biggrin:


    NOT
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #64  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Source Wei?
    Wolff, E. N. (2010). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze - an update to 2007. Working Paper No. 589. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

    I believe that paper uses official government data.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #65  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Wolff, E. N. (2010). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze - an update to 2007. Working Paper No. 589. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

    I believe that paper uses official government data.
    What? No link? Coward....
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #66  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Wolff, E. N. (2010). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze - an update to 2007. Working Paper No. 589. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

    I believe that paper uses official government data.
    why don't you just use the link when you first make the statement, is it really that hard?
    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #67  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    Wei has no reasonable source that's why he's hiding. He's a lazy, no-good communist who wants to get what others have worked for. He thinks he's entitled to everything the rich have except the work it took them to get it. All business is one-sided, the owner's side. If he has good business model he will prosper and expand... Wei doesn't see it that way. Wei wants everything handed to him, because he was born...
    This is exactly what the right-wing is fighting for. You summed it up nicely.

    The far-right views all business as one-sided, the owner's side. That means the economy, which is comprised of businesses, is also entirely one-sided, the side of owners.

    Since the top 1% (and to a lesser degree the rest of the top 10%) own far more assets than the bottom 80%, this means they believe the entire economy should be one-sided, catering to the top 5% or so while the vast majority of working people have no say, because after all, business is one-sided.

    The far-right wants all economic policies to be aimed at the top 5%, because they own most of the business assets. The plebish common workers don't have a say, and shouldn't.


    I, on the other hand recognize that the economy is structured around the conflicting interests between these mutually dependent groups. Owners need workers and workers need owners but their interests are conflicting. If any side gets too much power, the system begins to break down. My problem is that the system is inherently in the favor of owners, because of the way wealth is appropriated. I think a conservative position is to try to keep these forces in balance to keep the system running to the benefit of owners and workers. I think the more radical position is realizing that the system cannot be truley balanced and it will always bend more to the side of the workers so one should favor a new system all together.

    What the far-right is advocating is giving all economic power to the owners who are already at an enormous advantage, as well as giving them political power. This creates a form of plutocratic authoritarianism, where a small group of wealthy elites effective own and run the system the way they see fit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #68  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    This is exactly what the right-wing is fighting for. You summed it up nicely.

    The far-right views all business as one-sided, the owner's side. That means the economy, which is comprised of businesses, is also entirely one-sided, the side of owners.

    Since the top 1% (and to a lesser degree the rest of the top 10%) own far more assets than the bottom 80%, this means they believe the entire economy should be one-sided, catering to the top 5% or so while the vast majority of working people have no say, because after all, business is one-sided.

    The far-right wants all economic policies to be aimed at the top 5%, because they own most of the business assets. The plebish common workers don't have a say, and shouldn't.


    I, on the other hand recognize that the economy is structured around the conflicting interests between these mutually dependent groups. Owners need workers and workers need owners but their interests are conflicting. If any side gets too much power, the system begins to break down. My problem is that the system is inherently in the favor of owners, because of the way wealth is appropriated. I think a conservative position is to try to keep these forces in balance to keep the system running to the benefit of owners and workers. I think the more radical position is realizing that the system cannot be truley balanced and it will always bend more to the side of the workers so one should favor a new system all together.

    What the far-right is advocating is giving all economic power to the owners who are already at an enormous advantage, as well as giving them political power. This creates a form of plutocratic authoritarianism, where a small group of wealthy elites effective own and run the system the way they see fit.
    You are so educated that you've lost touch with reality. How is a business that benifits the owner a bad thing? It isn't. You, as a communist, can't see that. You want everything handed to you. You want someone to step in, take my hard work, and hand it to you. To that I say, FOAD. You want my intellectual property. You want my initial investment, my time, my reinvestment even though you did nothing. To that I say, FOAD. You want my sacrifice, my lost time with family to amount to a loss. What business survives working at a loss? Shall we ask Greece? Europe? Eventually our own government?


    Yes Wei, all business survives to suit the owner. They're the one's that created it, to better themselves, not you not society as a whole. Do you think Gates or Jobs invented the PC/MAC thinking:"Someday some snot-nosed little commie brat is going to deride my success using my product"... No fucknut, they said: I'm gonna be rich!" Wanna know something? They took a LOT of people with them...


    If you start now, and the tides are right, you could made Cuba by Sunday...
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #69  
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Wolff, E. N. (2010). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze - an update to 2007. Working Paper No. 589. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

    I believe that paper uses official government data.
    Welcome to socialism 101.
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #70  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    You are so educated that you've lost touch with reality. How is a business that benifits the owner a bad thing? It isn't.
    That's not what I said. Business always benefits the owner. What I'm saying is a business environment needs both owners and workers, and each of these groups have mutually opposed interests. If either side of this balance gets too much sway, the system tilts and begins to break. The system is never "in balance", but when it is close to it, owners and workers both benefit immensely (of course the owners always benefit more).

    If you want the system to be sustainable, you need to try to keep these mutually opposed yet mutually dependent forces in balance. This is not a communist argument or even an anti-capitalist argument it's actually extremely pro-capitalist. This argument says we should try to keep the forces in balance so that our economic system can keep going. An anti-capitalist argument would be to scrap the entire system and create a new one. This is why an argument for "balance" is actually a conservative argument, because it tries to preserve the capitalist economic system.


    You, as a communist, can't see that. You want everything handed to you. You want someone to step in, take my hard work, and hand it to you. To that I say, FOAD. You want my intellectual property. You want my initial investment, my time, my reinvestment even though you did nothing. To that I say, FOAD. You want my sacrifice, my lost time with family to amount to a loss. What business survives working at a loss? Shall we ask Greece? Europe? Eventually our own government?


    Yes Wei, all business survives to suit the owner. They're the one's that created it, to better themselves, not you not society as a whole. Do you think Gates or Jobs invented the PC/MAC thinking:"Someday some snot-nosed little commie brat is going to deride my success using my product"... No fucknut, they said: I'm gonna be rich!" Wanna know something? They took a LOT of people with them...


    If you start now, and the tides are right, you could made Cuba by Sunday...
    Does this ranting make you feel better?

    When you finish wailing on that strawman meet me back in reality for some grown-up talk. Putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you....stupid!" stops being impressive somewhere between the 5th and 6th grade. I'm totally willing to have a calm and cool discussion about this, and I do actually concede when other people make good points, but please don't act like a child.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •