American Politics in One Easy Lesson

[Apache]

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?

[Rockntractor]

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.

[Apache]

“It is not very unreasonable ...-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Gotta love that part... VERY... HAHAHAHAHA:biggrin:


NOT

[Wei Wu Wei]

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.

[Apache]

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....

[fettpett]

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?

[Wei Wu 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...

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.

[Apache]

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...

[Janice]

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.

[Wei Wu Wei]

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.