|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Christianity the same as socialism
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It's yet again one of the reasons that people immigrate.
Or buy their ponds abroad and let others take care of them while they increase in value. (One British solution to the limited pond space problem)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Telepath
Ship's Steamer Trunk
# 3534
|
Posted
I think you'll find that America does in fact have a finite amount of productive land.
As for not liking it - I don't get why you would like it or even accept it. Why would you want to pay enormously inflated costs on every part of the production process, then watch your business go under as soon as the inevitable bust happens? Why would you enjoy paying rent to a landowner (whose privileges are reinforced by governmental might) even as you resent paying VAT and income tax on everything you produce?
I could, by virtue of being the first to arrive at your dinner party, eat all the food and guzzle all the punch and burp "if you don't like it, welcome to the world" at the other guests, but just because I can do something doesn't make it a good idea. And I see no sense in the idea that things must be a certain way.
I also think that there is such a thing as natural law; as a Christian, I don't think I can ignore that (bringing us back to the thread title), although ISTM neither could most conscientious individuals of whatever persuasion.
Like I said, I see no sense in the idea that things must be a certain way. We've been conditioned to assume that it's natural for landowners to monopolize the space and the rest of us to pay rent for access to that space, just as serfs paid tribute to the lords of their estates. If, instead, the landlord had to pay rent to the rest of us for the privilege of exclusive access to land which belongs to all the land's inhabitants by birthright, withholding land from productive use would become too costly for the landowner, rather than for the economy as a whole.
--------------------
Take emptiness and lying speech far from me, and do not give me poverty or wealth. Give me a living sufficient for me.
Posts: 3509 | From: East Anglia | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
If, instead, the landlord had to pay rent to the rest of us for the privilege of exclusive access to land which belongs to all the land's inhabitants by birthright, withholding land from productive use would become too costly for the landowner, rather than for the economy as a whole.
Now, that an idea I like. And it's fairer then the current system in which a tiny minority of a tiny minority get all the land and all the money and we are all supposed to look up to them whilst they screw us and feel sorry for them when the evil socialists say wasty things about them. How corrupt is that?
[ 07. May 2007, 17:36: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Telepath
Ship's Steamer Trunk
# 3534
|
Posted
Actually, I almost never hear socialists (or anybody) criticizing land speculators. But feel free to start, Papio ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Take emptiness and lying speech far from me, and do not give me poverty or wealth. Give me a living sufficient for me.
Posts: 3509 | From: East Anglia | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
I think you'll find that America does in fact have a finite amount of productive land.
Really? That’s quite fascinating as I was paving the United States with houses at my last job, and we just weren’t anywhere near running out of land. Like, for the next 100 years.
More seriously, look at a map of the U.S. and where the cities are and the thousands and thousands of miles between them. It’s simply beyond belief how much space we have. quote:
As for not liking it - I don't get why you would like it or even accept it.
Again, it is not a matter of like or dislike, it simply IS. You might as well try to stop the wind with your breath. Nearly every time somebody or worse somegovernment tries to defy human nature (good and bad) and tweak the market, they end up causing problems. Now some amount of tweaking is required I will admit, but not nearly the amount to which many think. quote:
Why would you want to pay enormously inflated costs on every part of the production process, then watch your business go under as soon as the inevitable bust happens? Why would you enjoy paying rent to a landowner (whose privileges are reinforced by governmental might) even as you resent paying VAT and income tax on everything you produce?
Because I don’t pay enormously inflated costs on every part of the production process and I have our rate of inflation to prove it!
I pay rent to a landowner actually. Because I am waiting for the right time to buy, not because of any shortage of land, or even money. There is plenty of both. I pay rent because at this particular moment the conditions make more sense to rent not to buy. Talk to me in about 12-24 months and that will have almost certainly changed.
The difference between rent, which I am choosing to pay, and VAT is that I have No CHOICE on the VAT. That is the difference. VAT is forcibly removed. Rent, I can buy away from and will, shortly.
Taxation and socialism removes choices. Under socialism I am required to use whatever doctor I am given. Or I am forced to wait on a treatment. Or whatever program issues they have. Currently, I can do whatever I want because I can choose to go to another doctor. Or I can pay to get the treatment. Or whatever. My options are for all intents not limited. quote:
I could, by virtue of being the first to arrive at your dinner party, eat all the food and guzzle all the punch and burp "if you don't like it, welcome to the world" at the other guests, but just because I can do something doesn't make it a good idea. And I see no sense in the idea that things must be a certain way.
I see more sense in that than I see in having some bureaucrat come to the party and tell me what to do, and then say “Welcome to the world!”. I can throw the house guest out. The bureaucrat will have me arrested. quote:
I also think that there is such a thing as natural law; as a Christian, I don't think I can ignore that (bringing us back to the thread title), although ISTM neither could most conscientious individuals of whatever persuasion.
Okay this is a new wrinkle….
Define “Natural Law” for me. What does that entail? Who enforces it? What would that “Law” look like? I honestly am not sure what you consider Natural Law. quote:
Like I said, I see no sense in the idea that things must be a certain way. We've been conditioned to assume that it's natural for landowners to monopolize the space and the rest of us to pay rent for access to that space, just as serfs paid tribute to the lords of their estates. If, instead, the landlord had to pay rent to the rest of us for the privilege of exclusive access to land which belongs to all the land's inhabitants by birthright, withholding land from productive use would become too costly for the landowner, rather than for the economy as a whole.
This actually lends well to a point I was going to make. We in the U.S. do not have this particular landlord problem you describe because A) We have too much land almost and B) We do not have a history of feudalism that rigged the system.
Many problems with the free market can be attributed to one of two things. 1) Bad businessmen and 2) Bad government, and it is amazing how often the former utilize the latter to get ahead and to cheat. Many if not most monopolies were formed by using the Bureaucracy to help them beat down their competition. It was government interventionism that makes this possible, and unfortunately it is government interventionism that is required to undo the damage the government caused in the first place. I mean really, a business can seldom hold onto some widget without government backing, right? Disney still holds the rights to Mickey Mouse because the government keeps extending the trademark to save Disney. Along with it, they are keeping thousands and tens of thousands of books and papers out of the public domain because they are protecting Disney’s monopoly.
It IS natural for landowners to own their land.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Many problems with the free market can be attributed to
unjust and unfair ownership of the means of production arising from inheritance rather than anything to do with merit and to buisness people with far too much power to the extent that corporations can ride roughshod over democracy.
Very, very few millionaires started off literally penniless. Most of them inherited substantial sums of money, like Richard Branson.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
There are 7.5+ million "millionaires" in the United States alone. I seriously doubt that even a majority of them started with substantial amounts of inherited money. There is a HUGE inheritance tax here.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I seriously doubt that even a majority of them started with substantial amounts of inherited money.
I don't. Even though I was talking about Britain.
Most people die in the social class that they were born into.
[ 08. May 2007, 00:40: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Papio, you can become a millionaire by simply putting $100/mo. for 30 yrs into a 401K account that invests in mutual funds and then digging ditches your entire life.
...and no one in my family (parents, siblings) is still in the "social class" they were born into. My father was born into a dirt-poor migrant farmer family that lived in tents when he was young. He died retired as an executive in a finance company. He didn't inherit anything but scars on his legs from the strap.
I inherited his watch.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I seriously doubt that even a majority of them started with substantial amounts of inherited money.
I don't. Even though I was talking about Britain.
Most people die in the social class that they were born into.
Not it America. Over 60% of the Forbes 400 Richest Americans are "self-made". Over half of the richest poeple in the world are American.
Now before we get into whether "Self-made" is a proper label or not, here is examples of what that means on the Forbes 400, Larry Page and his partner Brin launched Google out of his garage.
Warren Buffet started his career with $5000 (~$42,000 today) that he had saved from a newspaper route. At the age of 14! He made his money the old fashioned way. He penny pinched and purchased "glamorous" companies that make tighty whitie underware (Fruit of the Loom).
Mark Cuban, Infamous owner of the Dallas Mavericks, also started young selling trash bags. He worked his way through college onlt to do bartending. Lastly he formed a software company. Of course the rest is history.
I could go on and on. Your bias against the Rich mostly inheriting their money is a cultural artifact from your country. Probably happens in other countries, but I KNOW it happens in yours, from talking to your countrymen.
No economist in the world questions that America is an economic powerhouse. We convert lower and middle class people to billionaires like no other country ever has. It's happening right now. The percentage of self-made billionaires on the Fortune 400 has grown every year since it was started.
You can advocate all you want for socialism or whatever, but nothing you can say will take away our billionaires that earned their money the hard way. They worked for it. Your simply wrong about that.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Warren Buffet started his career with $5000 (~$42,000 today) that he had saved from a newspaper route. At the age of 14!
You have to realise that Buffet is not a household name in the UK. Never has been. So I don't know loads about him.
That aside, I find it almost impossible to believe that a 14 year old kid had already managed to save the equivalent of approx £21, 000 from a paper round. That sets off my bullshit detector somewhat. (And, no, I am not accusing you of lying).
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
That aside, I find it almost impossible to believe that a 14 year old kid had already managed to save the equivalent of approx £21, 000 from a paper round. That sets off my bullshit detector somewhat. (And, no, I am not accusing you of lying).
That's a bit ageist of you isn't it Papio? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Maybe you'll believe the BBC more readily? It looks like he's been amazingly generous too. According to other articles, he's given away something like $35 million. Sheesh!
And I really wish that I'd been the one to have this idea!.
Some people just have the skill, I guess!
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I find that hard to believe Papio. He's the second richest man in the world and recently gave away much of his fortune to Bill Gates Foundaition.
Here's a recent story in the UK. And the bigger one.
The rest of the stories I told are simply history. You simply do not understand, or don't care. People work HARD to make their money here. Work. Not inherit. Even those that inherit work hard a lot of the time. The hardest. Just ask Ivanka Trump.
There's a reason we are the richest nation in the world. Not because we inherit it, but because we work for it. We believe in the American Dream and it happens to many.
Not that there is anything wrong with the way other countries do their thing necessarily. I just am saying that your assumtions were grossly incorrect.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
That's a bit ageist of you isn't it Papio?
No. It isn't. To say that one can make that amount of money by doing a paperround for a few years is bullshit. The end. I won't believe that he did so no matter how many links Geo cites. Sorry.
And, Geo, what you fail to understand is that whether he worked hard or inherited it, no-one deserves to have hundreds of millions of dollars. The end. Full stop. Simple as. I don't give a flying fuck how inventive he is or how much harder you claim he worked than anyone else (what? Harder then the average theird world farmer? Don't make me laugh!) he doesn't deserve to have that amount of money.
And, as far as I am concerned, it is that simple. It really is.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
The problem with the Great American Dream, is that for every 1 that makes it, 10,000 get trampled underfoot and you don't hear about those.
Big wealth can be made easily where there exists big differentials in wages. I just checked the US min wage. In Kansas it's $2.65 an hour. That's disgusting. But hell yeah, anyone can fill a factory full of minions paying them $2.65 an hour and get rich. I'm surprised you don't have more millionaires, not less.
I'd rather not have the chance to make big money and know that my fellow countrypeople are paid a living wage - people on unemployment allowance here receive more in a week that most of the US on the minimum wage. And they don't have to sell their house if they become sick to pay for medical expenses.
quote:
There's a reason we are the richest nation in the world. Not because we inherit it, but because we work for it. We believe in the American Dream and it happens to many.
Yes, your billionaires work for it. But others work very hard for very little, for your billionaires.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
That's a bit ageist of you isn't it Papio?
No. It isn't. To say that one can make that amount of money by doing a paperround for a few years is bullshit. The end. I won't believe that he did so no matter how many links Geo cites. Sorry.
Well, I gave you a link as well. He had enough money to buy shares when he was 11. He had enough to buy land at 17. I'm sure he did more than have a paper round - his shares alone will have brought extra money in - but I think MadGeo's point was that he worked hard to develop the raw material he clearly had as an entrepreneur.
I don't understand why this upsets you so much, but I think such natural skill is amazing. To me it isn't any different from, say, a skill at painting or playing a musical instrument or engineering. Some people just seem to instinctively know which financial decisions are going to bring the best return. He's clearly given a lot of people work in his lifetime and he's decided to give away billions.
*sigh* I wouldn't mind having that kind of money. Not that it would change me, obviously.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Geo cited the guy as an example of someone who started out penniless, which is clearly bullshit.
There is a moral difference between being a billionaire and being an excellent guitar player. I'm sorry, but there just is.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
The problem with the Great American Dream, is that for every 1 that makes it, 10,000 get trampled underfoot and you don't hear about those.
Again, there are 7,500,000 millionaires in the US. By your math there are 75 billion trampled souls. Seeing as how there are only (what?) 8 billion people on the planet... I think you're stretching things a bit.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
...I don't understand why this upsets you so much, but I think such natural skill is amazing...
Obviously Warren Buffet signed his soul to the devil when he began to rent pinball machines to barber shops as a kid. He just doesn't deserve to be wealthy.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Geo cited the guy as an example of someone who started out penniless, which is clearly bullshit.
Not quite. He was making the point that the man is 'self-made', as opposed to dependent upon inherited wealth. He's right about the general British aversion to inherited wealth as well, and of course he's right about the socialist aversion to wealth period. No matter that the wealthy businessperson creates jobs. I'm sure you cann't deny that Richard Branson has created jobs can you? Yet he is an entrepreneur and a rich one (though clearly nowhere near the level of rich the likes of Buffet has achieved).
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyB:
The problem with the Great American Dream, is that for every 1 that makes it, 10,000 get trampled underfoot and you don't hear about those.
Then you are unfamiliar with American social history.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I just think is absolutely fucking obscene, beyond the nth degree of disgusting, for anyone to have that much money in this world. Not to mention that the argument that you can tell how hard someone works by looking at their bank balance is just bullshit.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
ummm.. OK. How much money can I make and not become obscene? $10K/yr? 20? 50? 250K? Where's the moral line in Papioland?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Oops. Yer. I was exaggerating. But 7,500,000 millionaries - we've got those too. Every single homeowner in the north western suburbs (of which I am one), because every single house is worth over a million bucks now.
[ETA: Damn. I'm exaggerating again - not every house is worth over a mill, but you get my point I hope]
[ 08. May 2007, 06:53: Message edited by: Jimmy B ]
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Not to mention that the argument that you can tell how hard someone works by looking at their bank balance is just bullshit.
That was never the argument, Papio. The argument was that such people are self-made - they've worked hard to get there; they haven't relied on inherited wealth. Other people work their butts off and don't get stupendously rich. Me, for instance. We're in the majority. But I don't resent the minority who happen to combine hard work with everything else it takes to make stupendous amounts of money. It's a bonus when they decide to give it all away.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I'm sure you cann't deny that Richard Branson has created jobs can you?
Why does that mean that I have to admire him, want to be like him and see him as some sort of folk hero? Which seems to be what the pro-super-rich are suggesting. That worship of such people is mandatory. I don't like Branson, or Trump, or Buffet or Gates etc. Sorry but I am entitled to dislike them.
Why does that mean I have change my mind about anything I have said on this thread?
I can do good work with something without having any right to have it in the first place.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Jimmy B--
FWIW, I think that the Kansas rate is a typo.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
littlelady:
But I don't resent the minority who happen to combine hard work with everything else it takes to make stupendous amounts of money. It's a bonus when they decide to give it all away.
Actually I can admire them and in fact unceasingly praise them if it can be shown they made their money without exploiting others.
I can think of one person who made money while trying to care for his workers, at the mo: the original founder of the Sidchrome factory (high quality Australian tools). He did such things as give the workers shares in the factory and organised holiday villas for their use. I expect he's long gone now, and I have a vague memory that Sidchrome now base their operations in China.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[ETA: Gawd, GK, I would be relieved to hear that! Even $5 is still low though and a 40 hr week on that is less than what an Australian with family receives on Unemployment allowance]
[ 08. May 2007, 07:09: Message edited by: Jimmy B ]
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Why does that mean that I have to admire him, want to be like him and see him as some sort of folk hero? Which seems to be what the pro-super-rich are suggesting. That worship of such people is mandatory. I don't like Branson, or Trump, or Buffet or Gates etc. Sorry but I am entitled to dislike them...
You are entitled to remain as dirt-poor as you desire. When you claim some moral high ground by condemning those who choose to be otherwise, it sounds a bit strident. No one has suggested making worship of the wealthy mandatory. You are pointedly ignoring the "self-made" argument that was being discussed.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Per the "Latest Numbers" table in the center of the page, the Federal Minimum Wage is $5.15/hr. The State Minimum Wage has to be at least that much. In some states, it's higher.
And no, you can't really live on it.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I'm sure you cann't deny that Richard Branson has created jobs can you?
Why does that mean that I have to admire him, want to be like him and see him as some sort of folk hero?
I didn't suggest you should. I just asked whether you can deny he has created jobs and therefore, by implication, had some useful outcome arise from his skill as an entrepreneur.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Per the "Latest Numbers" table in the center of the page, the Federal Minimum Wage is $5.15/hr. The State Minimum Wage has to be at least that much. In some states, it's higher.
Well, that's about the same as the minimum wage in the UK. We have higher sales tax than anywhere in the States I think (17.5% nationally), so what we gain on you guys in the hourly rate we probably lose once we purchase anything.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Mm, just searched on the Sidchrome guy I mentioned - he was still going 2 years ago, John Siddons.
There is something ironic in that this guy, who put into practice what I consider to be ethical and Christian-centred practices with regards his workers, is actually a thorough-going rationalist who has written a book (The Immortality of Goodness on a religion/God-free morality!
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Papio, btw: Branson began his life as an entrepreneur as a teenager, so I do think there is something about being an entrepreneur that is a natural skill.
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
quote:
littlelady:
But I don't resent the minority who happen to combine hard work with everything else it takes to make stupendous amounts of money. It's a bonus when they decide to give it all away.
Actually I can admire them and in fact unceasingly praise them if it can be shown they made their money without exploiting others.
Well, I'm sure most of us would like it that others were not exploited in the process. I've no idea how that would be proven. Historically, Britain had quite a few rich individuals who treated their employees with care, but these days many Brits look down upon their approach as being 'paternalistic'.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I just think is absolutely fucking obscene, beyond the nth degree of disgusting, for anyone to have that much money in this world. Not to mention that the argument that you can tell how hard someone works by looking at their bank balance is just bullshit.
I am inclined to agree with this, although I would express things differently. The problem is that, when you say that it is obscene, etc., to have umpty-billion dollars, you leave yourself open to an argument of Gort's type -- how much is too much? For some people, after all, to have $1000 dollars in the hand would be wealth beyond imagining.
The answer to the `how much is too much' question must surely be something along the lines of `when you have more than is necessary to satisfy your reasonable needs'. Of course, we then get side-tracked into a discussion of what is `reasonable' here.
The problem is that when we ask `how much wealth is too much?' we are using the strongly capitalist concept of wealth (personal, proprietory wealth), which presupposes that an answer can be found within a capitalist system.
It can't.
In a system where personal, proprietory wealth is the fundamental driver for all economic activity, there simply is no such thing as `too much'.
So, in my view, what is `obscene' is that we have allowed society to develop so far in this direction, in which material self-improvement is the only important goal and the mediator of all human activity.
For my part, I neither envy nor despise the super-rich. If people want to work their arses off to accumulate wealth, well, we live in a society where this is considered a good, and the best of luck to them. And if people are fortunate enough to inherit wealth, I don't see they are more to be despised than people who are fortunate enough to inherit good looks, or high intelligence, or a good singing voice. Best of luck to them, to.
But whatever the merits or otherwise of individuals, the system stinks of shit.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
...But whatever the merits or otherwise of individuals, the system stinks of shit.
...and smells of roses compared to the rotting corpse of regimented totalitarianism that some of the hanky-squeezing socialist bleeding hearts would shackle us with.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
...But whatever the merits or otherwise of individuals, the system stinks of shit.
...and smells of roses compared to the rotting corpse of regimented totalitarianism that some of the hanky-squeezing socialist bleeding hearts would shackle us with.
Devising a system for a planned economy that is immune to falling into totalitariansim is, indeed, a challenge. And if you impose such a system by bloody revolution -- which seems to be the case more often than not -- I imagine it is an insurmountable challenge.
But if the best that can be said of capitalism is that it is less stinky than some other horribly stinky thing, that's not much of a recommendation.
[ 08. May 2007, 08:54: Message edited by: CrookedCucumber ]
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
they've worked hard to get there.
My point is - even if that is so, so what?
There are two parts to my answer: (a) I firmly believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to exploit their particular skill(s) if they wish to do so, and (b) I respect someone who works hard at what they do (even if it isn't their first choice of work). Others may give a different answer to your question, but that's mine fwiw.
PS: I don't resent inherited wealth either, but the point under discussion is wealth achieved through work rather than inheritance.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Telepath
Ship's Steamer Trunk
# 3534
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
The difference between rent, which I am choosing to pay, and VAT is that I have No CHOICE on the VAT. That is the difference. VAT is forcibly removed. Rent, I can buy away from and will, shortly.
You will be "choosing" to pay rent on your home until you complete a period of indentured servitude with a mortgage lender. After that, you may become a net receiver of rent rather than a net payer; until then, you don't in fact have a choice. A bailiff would remove you from your home, which I personally would find no more palatable than a bureaucrat's having me arrested.
Even after you have paid off your mortgage and bought your freedom, whenever you buy a product, part of the money you pay for it is imputed to each producer of every part of that product as rent. Speculation in land drives the rent disproportionately high. In addition to that, both they, and you, presently have to pay tax on everything that goes into the product. I resent both of these constraints, whereas you only resent the tax on production. Guess I out-resent you.
quote:
It IS natural for landowners to own their land.
That's as may be. However, I don't see any reason why it should be any more "natural" for the rest of us to pay the landowners for access to land on which to exist, than it would be for those landowners to pay the rest of us for their own exclusive access to that land.
--------------------
Take emptiness and lying speech far from me, and do not give me poverty or wealth. Give me a living sufficient for me.
Posts: 3509 | From: East Anglia | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Per the "Latest Numbers" table in the center of the page, the Federal Minimum Wage is $5.15/hr. The State Minimum Wage has to be at least that much. In some states, it's higher.
Well, that's about the same as the minimum wage in the UK. We have higher sales tax than anywhere in the States I think (17.5% nationally), so what we gain on you guys in the hourly rate we probably lose once we purchase anything.
£5.52/hr = $11.04hr at recent exchange rates.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I suspect the buying power of the $5 odd US is higher than what the raw exchange rate would indicate. Nevertheless, given that I wouldn't like to try to manage on the UK minimum wage, I can't imagine trying to do it on the US one.
On the plus side, the US had it first.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stars
Shipmate
# 10804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Stars:
This kind of ‘trade’ has an entirely different kind of nature, yet the left miss this distinction in their determination to prove black is white and that capitalism itself is evil.
In which way do "the left miss this distinction" between land ("real property") and personal property? It is a commonplace on the left. John Locke made it. Its even in the bloody Communist Manifesto IIRC.
The left miss the distinction between land and capital and the right miss the distinction between land and capital. The left talk about 'personal property', but that concept is not the distinction between land and capital. Notice, in this thread how you have claimed things that aren't land are the same as land and in general the left attempt to argue that everything is land; the right do the same in the opposite direction..they claim that even land isn't land; that nothing is land. Both sides are confused
quote:
The people who miss the distinction are those so-called-libertarian conservatives who try to claim that different forms of property all arise naturally and inevitably from personal property, or from human biology, or from natural morality.
They are nearly right. Lets put it this way, they are as right as most of the left
Posts: 357 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Stars:
Consumption is pleasing to the individual, work is not; this is not some artefact of bourgeois values, it is a simple human fact.
Balls. I enjoy my job - designing web pages - but I still get rewarded for it.
Good for you - you're one of the very few that actually enjoy their job. Most of us don't have that luxury. We just have to do what we can.
I guess I am quite lucky. But my point was simply that Stars was artificially dividing activity into work-as-hardship and consumption-as-indulgence. As in the following example:
quote:
quote:
Conversely, as an athsmatic, I'm obliged to take medicines that I dislike.
No you're not. You have decided that taking the medicines is better for you than not taking them - no-one has forced you to take them. In this sense you are in the same boat as all of us who have to do jobs we dislike because the consequences of not doing them are worse.
Of course - which was also the reason I took this job. Liking it is a bonus. But you correctly observe that taking the medecine is equivalent to doing any other task I dislike - even though I also pay for the perceived privilege. Stars seems to think that consumption is never like this.
quote:
quote:
I'm sorry you clearly dislike your job so much. Perhaps a socialist government might be able to find you one more suited to your skills?
Ha. HAHAHAHA!!! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
No, seriously. Do you honestly think a socialist government would be able to give everyone a job they'd enjoy doing? What kind of trip are you on, exactly?
The first reaction was the right one. I was being sarcastic - in fact, I think that a command economy in the labour market (which is what this would be) would be an appalling thing, and it's one of a number of things which marks me out as not being a hard socialist at all. The point is that this evidently caricaturish suggestion is no more sensible that Stars' countervailing argument that all labour is hardship, and that that is why we expect rewards for it.
quote:
For the record, there's no job in the world I'd enjoy doing. Maybe there are some I'd like more than others, but as long as I had to turn up every day I'd hate it eventually. And not many jobs allow you to only turn up when you feel like it...
You're an anarchist at heart, I guess. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
Speculation in land drives the rent disproportionately high.
Can you explain how this works? I thought it was more a function of supply and demand.
For instance, where I live right now you can buy land comparatively cheaply compared to a year ago: the population is growing rapidly and speculators started developing subdivisions etc.
The supply got ahead of the demand and properties that had been selling briskly are now sitting waiting for buyers. If I wanted, I could purchase some lots for literally half what they were asking a year ago.
Some speculators right now wish very much they could make the prices go up!
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stars
Shipmate
# 10804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You assume that there is a fixed supply of ponds. In business, that is the exception not the rule. A better analogy would be that people come in and dig hoels and build ponds and take out the monopolist. THAT's business.
There are a fixed supply of some things, one of them is locations. The supply of land is as fixed as if there were only a certain number of cars allowed in America or a certain number (qouta) of shoes. The number of shoes, that may be used may even vary by government dictate but the supply of shoes is still fixed; if all the supply were opened to use simultaneously, the supply would still be fixed. Secondly, you are missing something even more important; the fixed nature of the supply of land is more importantly qualitative than quantitative; it resides within the essential nature of land itself. Land absolutely cannot be moved, and the supply implications of this for are best illustrated by pointing out that land is in fixed supply everywhere and that there is a regional supply monopoly or cartel in land in every single region. There is nothing even slightly contentious about this, geo. The right generally don’t argue that land is not in fixed supply (because it self evidently is); rather, the right tends to argue that, yes land is in fixed supply, but that somehow land owners deserve to own a cartel ownership of a fixed supply which labour cannot replace or avoid.
Politically, that fact that real estate has become a form of welfare for the middle classes (who have been sold on the notion that they become rich without creating wealth and that this is how a free market works) has meant that reform is tricky. In the UK, the lower middle classes are just about (again) to have themselves repossessed and their real estate based pensions torn to shreds by the inevitable coming real estate crash. Perhaps this event will be an opportunity to point out the obvious. The free ride of real estate is not sustainable for the very reason that it attracts everyone to jump on board. In non fixed supply markets a rising price encourages production, which lowers the price, but, with land, a rising price encourages monopolisation and speculation which drives the price yet higher, which encourages yet more hoarding..(you see where this is going?) Eventually the speculated price is pushed higher than production can take, and the economy folds - companies move abroad, people are laid of or cannot afford access to the real estate they need to do work and so they become unemployed, wages lower and production reduces. And so a rising price of real estate actually discourages production. One important thing to note is that, all the feed back and monopolisation would not matter a jot to the average Joe, if access to land were not necessary for his right to exist, his liberties, and to be a productive member of the community. It is rather like a stock exchange where everyone, by law, needs access to a certain value of share certificates in order to exist freely and posses their liberties. Speculation in the rising price of stocks, under those circumstances, becomes speculation in the rising market price of human liberty itself and so inflicts costs on those who have in no way, at any time, consented to those costs being inflicted upon them.
Posts: 357 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stars
Shipmate
# 10804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
That's as may be. However, I don't see any reason why it should be any more "natural" for the rest of us to pay the landowners for access to land on which to exist, than it would be for those landowners to pay the rest of us for their own exclusive access to that land.
Or to put it another way; it is no more natural to pay owners for access to land than it is for 'owners' to pay government for the possession of the governmental privilege of being able to exclude others from land. The owners, after all, did not add or provide the land to users, anymore than government does.
The political right take what is essentially a governmental privilege (the legal ability to tell others to clear off) and insist that it is an example of non government or a natural market. Such a privilege is clearly and obviously example of GOVERNANCE over territory. It is indeed the principle special operation of government.
Posts: 357 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I don't have time to all the posts I'd like to (Yet) but this was so full of crap I have to address it:
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy B:
The problem with the Great American Dream, is that for every 1 that makes it, 10,000 get trampled underfoot and you don't hear about those.
This is so much of a lie that I won't bother to debunk it other than to say that the press would be publishing that statistic every fucking day on Page 1 if it was true. quote:
Big wealth can be made easily where there exists big differentials in wages. I just checked the US min wage. In Kansas it's $2.65 an hour. That's disgusting. But hell yeah, anyone can fill a factory full of minions paying them $2.65 an hour and get rich. I'm surprised you don't have more millionaires, not less.
This proves you don't know anything about our system. The federal min wage is $5.15 an hour. We get the higher of the two wages. So the min wage is Kansas means dick. Precisely dick. California's is HIGHER than the federal wage. Always has been as far as I know. quote:
I'd rather not have the chance to make big money and know that my fellow countrypeople are paid a living wage - people on unemployment allowance here receive more in a week that most of the US on the minimum wage. And they don't have to sell their house if they become sick to pay for medical expenses.
If we implemented your sociliast helath care system here it would be a disaster. Full stop. The reasons for this is legion. I will not bother to get into that either as it would derail but suffice it to say we will be trying it soon, and you heard it here first that it will suck duck butter. quote:
quote:
There's a reason we are the richest nation in the world. Not because we inherit it, but because we work for it. We believe in the American Dream and it happens to many.
Yes, your billionaires work for it. But others work very hard for very little, for your billionaires.
Whatever. Economics shows the lie. But then your non-analysis of the minwage did my work for me.
[ 08. May 2007, 15:15: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If we implemented your sociliast helath care system here it would be a disaster. Full stop. The reasons for this is legion. I will not bother to get into that either as it would derail but suffice it to say we will be trying it soon, and you heard it here first that it will suck duck butter.
I'll bite. What's so terrible, and so difficult, about healthcare - especially emergency healthcare - that's free at the point of use?
T.
ETA: Spelig
[ 08. May 2007, 15:23: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I don't want to go through that discussion again. Suffice it to say that our other governmental systems run so well ( ) that I have no faith in the future Universal Healthcare that is inevitable as a train wreck. Just look at how well the money is being spent to repair Iraq or how shitty out elementary education system is. Multiply that times 300 milllion Americans. Shake well. One shit cocktail to go.
It helps to remember that the bigger the population, the bigger the government, the shittier it gets. Our Population is 5 times yours and spread out over 40 times the area. Logistics alone are a money hole. Blah Blah Blah.
It doesn't matter. Just remember, 10 years from now, you heard it from Mad Geo first.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
So implement it at a state level?
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
