Republican Judgement

[Minor Axis]

We (the USA) give billions to overseas interests for political influence, but can't afford to fix our problems at home.

 

[Tangerine]

Personally, I couldn't give a shit if some rich guy had to cut down from 3 to 2 Carrabian holidays a year

When the rich guy goes on those trips, who benefits from the money he spends?

Maybe some "poor" bartender who lost his job at the cruise lines because no one was taking any Carribean holidays? Or one of dozens of other people who have jobs involved in the process?

 

[Accountable]

you can mock us all ya like but if we locked down the borders and kept to ourselves then there would be a lot of whining.
too bad Ron Paul did not get elected to prove the point. The world hates us but sure loves our money

Paul isn't an isolationist. Why so many people equate advocating closing our bases on foreign soil with isolationism is beyond me.

by whom exactly? who would miss the crippling debts your IMF forces on other countries? Debts made out of money that was simply written into being through the fractional reserve system.

I'm sorry but you really need to see your country from the outside. It doesn't give, it just takes. The world would be a far nicer place without US Imperialism enslaving it.

This propensity of yours to define people's bad decisions as them being forced to behave that way by others is your largest negative almost overwhelming an otherwise likeable personality.

 

[edgray]

This propensity of yours to define people's bad decisions as them being forced to behave that way by others is your largest negative almost overwhelming an otherwise likeable personality.

Firstly, thanks

So you think it's ok for an entire nation to be penalised because one of their politicians became corrupted by an economic hitman/US Govt official?

You do realise what happens when they economic hitmen don't work, don't you?

Invasion. Look at South America and the Middle East. Are you suggesting this is somehow their fault?

So you can't offer someone a Hobson's choice (be corrupted or be dead) and then blame an entire nation for it.

 

[Accountable]

Firstly, thanks

So you think it's ok for an entire nation to be penalised because one of their politicians became corrupted by an economic hitman/US Govt official?

You do realise what happens when they economic hitmen don't work, don't you?

Invasion. Look at South America and the Middle East. Are you suggesting this is somehow their fault?

So you can't offer someone a Hobson's choice (be corrupted or be dead) and then blame an entire nation for it.

You seem to relieve everyone of all responsibility for any decision or action when it is in any way connected to a corporation or the US government.

 

[edgray]

You seem to relieve everyone of all responsibility for any decision or action when it is in any way connected to a corporation or the US government.

We're all to blame in the sense that we allow it to happen. In that sense we are all partly responsible for not changing the situation.

But the burden of blame truly lies in the system rather than the players involved. It's a travesty, no matter whether you live in the US, or another country, or if you voted for politician that was corrupted or not. Even if you work for a large US corporation, you're just following the rules of the game.

 

[Accountable]

We're all to blame ... [flip] ...But the burden of blame truly lies in the system rather than the players involved.

BULLSHIT!! To blame everyone is to blame no one. To blame "the system" gives everyone a free pass to act as unethically as they choose. After all, don't blame the person, he's just playing the game. When you start viewing responsibility as a macro-concept, accountability is lost.

Individuals make individual decisions to behave individually. No society can allow its citizens to behave however they wish without consequence. It will collapse. I know it is easier to rail about an evil system. Judging individuals is hard. They may not like you any more. But without that ability a society can't hope to survive long.

 

[edgray]

BULLSHIT!! To blame everyone is to blame no one. To blame "the system" gives everyone a free pass to act as unethically as they choose. After all, don't blame the person, he's just playing the game. When you start viewing responsibility as a macro-concept, accountability is lost.

Individuals make individual decisions to behave individually. No society can allow its citizens to behave however they wish without consequence. It will collapse. I know it is easier to rail about an evil system. Judging individuals is hard. They may not like you any more. But without that ability a society can't hope to survive long.

I see your point, but to blame everyone is admit our own responsibility, that we all play some part in this, it's the only way things will ever change. You can blame anyone person or entity, but that's just addressing a symptom, not the cause.

 

[Minor Axis]

When the rich guy goes on those trips, who benefits from the money he spends?

Maybe some "poor" bartender who lost his job at the cruise lines because no one was taking any Carribean holidays? Or one of dozens of other people who have jobs involved in the process?

You trying to play devil's advocate? It's better if thousands of middle class people take a cruise than one rich guy.

 

[Tangerine]

You trying to play devil's advocate? It's better if thousands of middle class people take a cruise than one rich guy.

The point is that it doesn't matter who spends money. Everyone benefits when cash flows through the economy. And the idea that the rich simply hoard cash under a mattress and don't put in back into the system is misinformed.

 

[Accountable]

You trying to play devil's advocate? It's better if thousands of middle class people take a cruise than one rich guy.

A. There's no devil in this scenario.
B. If thousands of middle class people took cruises, then hundreds if not thousands would likely be sacrificing in some other area, possibly even going into debt.

 

[edgray]

The point is that it doesn't matter who spends money. Everyone benefits when cash flows through the economy. And the idea that the rich simply hoard cash under a mattress and don't put in back into the system is misinformed.

It's a myth. The trickle-down theory has been shown to be nonsense time and time again. The rich getting richer does in no way benefit anyone but themselves. This financial crisis, like the ones before, have coincided with the rich earning a larger percentage than ever before. That money is essentially removed from normal circulation.

You think a rich person circulates as much as if that money would be divided between thousands of middle class families?

Furthermore, rich folk spend money on expensive stuff, small industries that only further line the pockets of other rich people.

Where I live, for example, the average wage is 1,100€ per month. Yet, we have more millionaires here than you can shake a stick at. This place is famous for it. Yet, there's unbelievable poverty because there simply isn't enough money circulating. Here's how it works:

1.) The rich spend their money in other people's rich shops - luxury goods and services.

2.) These luxury goods and services companies pay their few staff minimum wage. The rest lines their own pockets (back to point 1). Their bank accounts get fatter. Their properties get bigger. Never does that money go back into circulation except when they buy groceries.

3.) The small amount of money the staff receive in point 2 gets circulated. This is spent in regular shops that employ regular folk. And that small amount continues to circulate.

A rich person who's worth, say, 700 million doesn't spend that much more than a middle class family on normal things that keep money in circulation. They only buy so much food, use so many services etc. The rest of the money just sits there, maybe even gets invested into stocks and shares so they can take more money off the working man's back.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

What is it with rich people buying boats? I mean, a boat, really?

 

[Accountable]

It's a myth. The trickle-down theory has been shown to be nonsense time and time again. The rich getting richer does in no way benefit anyone but themselves. This financial crisis, like the ones before, have coincided with the rich earning a larger percentage than ever before. That money is essentially removed from normal circulation.

You think a rich person circulates as much as if that money would be divided between thousands of middle class families?

Furthermore, rich folk spend money on expensive stuff, small industries that only further line the pockets of other rich people.

Where I live, for example, the average wage is 1,100€ per month. Yet, we have more millionaires here than you can shake a stick at. This place is famous for it. Yet, there's unbelievable poverty because there simply isn't enough money circulating. Here's how it works:

1.) The rich spend their money in other people's rich shops - luxury goods and services. The shop owners are usually not considered rich - certainly not at the same level as their customers - so the money circulates outside the "rich circles". The shops employ clerks from even lower socio-economic levels, diverting yet more of the money to "lower" levels. These employees use their wages to buy goods, not at those same rich shops but at more modest establishments - establishments that employ not-rich people. None of the goods purchased at the "other people's rich shops" or any other shops are manufactured by rich people; those jobs belong to middle-class skilled workers and lower-class laborers.

2.) These luxury goods and services companies pay their few staff minimum wage. The rest lines their own pockets (back to point 1). Their bank accounts get fatter. Their properties get bigger. Never does that money go back into circulation except when they buy groceries. If you think the people that sell mink coats or clean marble floors are rich, you're dreaming. (back to point 1).

3.) The small amount of money the staff receive in point 2 gets circulated. This is spent in regular shops that employ regular folk. And that small amount continues to circulate. Have you ever researched what this "small amount of money" is? You seem to imply the employer keeps the lion's share, when that is not likely the case. I would be interested to see the typical luxury shop's profit margin, after purchasing the wholesale merchandise, paying the employees, taxes, and all the overhead. I think you would be pleasantly surprised how little shopkeepers make.

A rich person who's worth, say, 700 million doesn't spend that much more than a middle class family on normal things that keep money in circulation. They only buy so much food, use so many services etc. The rest of the money just sits there, maybe even gets invested into stocks and shares so they can take more money off the working man's back. No money "just sits there". Do you imagine stacks of cash stuck under the short table leg to keep it from wobbling? Maybe a cash room the rich person can go into daily just to wallow in piles of the stuff while laughing maniacally?? Money invested in a bank is invested for the bank's profit. Money invested directly into the stock market is no different from buying and selling on E-Bay. For each purchase there is a seller who either profits or loses from the sale. Each transaction comes at a price paid to the broker, who has similar overhead and staffing costs as a shopkeeper.
I invest, and I am not remotely in the "rich" category. In fact, I don't think I qualify as anything higher than middle-class.

I agree with you that taxes should not actively promote a trickle-down economy. I submit that no government should set up their tax system to benefit one citizen more than another.

 

[Accountable]

What is it with rich people buying boats? I mean, a boat, really?

Buying boats employs boat builders.

 

[Tangerine]

Buying boats employs boat builders.

And boat salesmen who sell them, and truck drivers who deliver them, and repair shops who maintain them, and construction workers who build boathouses, and advertising agencies who market them, and marina workers who sell fuel and other accessories... and... the list goes on and on.

 

[Tangerine]

A rich person who's worth, say, 700 million doesn't spend that much more than a middle class family on normal things that keep money in circulation. They only buy so much food, use so many services etc. The rest of the money just sits there, maybe even gets invested into stocks and shares so they can take more money off the working man's back.

This is where you lose touch with reality. Invested money takes money off of the working man's back? How? In what world? Invested money is the fuel that drives the economy! There ARE NO WORKING MEN if someone doesn't provide capital to start and finance business. Where do you think the billions and billion of dollars in the stock market are? Sitting in vaults? NO. That money is the lifeblood of all business around the globe.

If you really want to look at all of the biggest economic booms in our lifetime, track them alongside the state of the stock market. Market up? Economy Good. Market down? Economy Bad. Have you noticed that since the last "recession", we really haven't had much improvement in employment, the housing market is as shitty as it ever was, yet people are saying and feeling that we have come out of the recession. What is the ONE thing that HAS come back to pre-recession levels? The stock market. What do you think that TARP, the auto bailouts, and the "stimulus" money were really designed to do? Push the stock market back to health.

 

[edgray]

This is where you lose touch with reality. Invested money takes money off of the working man's back? How? In what world? Invested money is the fuel that drives the economy! There ARE NO WORKING MEN if someone doesn't provide capital to start and finance business. Where do you think the billions and billion of dollars in the stock market are? Sitting in vaults? NO. That money is the lifeblood of all business around the globe.

this just simply is not true. Most businesses are started by few people. By the time companies are floated and invested in, which is when the wealthy join the game, they're already up and running and to get to that point, successful and employing people.

Have you ever worked in a company that's been floated before? That's been invested in? I have, and I've seen that coupled with redundancies, cut backs and all sorts to make sure the investors make money.

And that money they make back gets hoarded or used in more investing. The working man doesn't benefit in the slightest. There might be a short period of growth for the company, but eventually the money the investors take inevitably leads to downsizing as profits have to be maximised for the investors.

If you really want to look at all of the biggest economic booms in our lifetime, track them alongside the state of the stock market. Market up? Economy Good. Market down? Economy Bad. Have you noticed that since the last "recession", we really haven't had much improvement in employment, the housing market is as shitty as it ever was, yet people are saying and feeling that we have come out of the recession. What is the ONE thing that HAS come back to pre-recession levels? The stock market. What do you think that TARP, the auto bailouts, and the "stimulus" money were really designed to do? Push the stock market back to health.

This is exactly the point. The stock market, which simply makes rich people richer, goes up and up and up as the wealthy pocket more and more of society's money. Then there comes a point it cannot go on like that because the society the stock market is feeding off runs out of money. The market crashes and takes the economy down with it.

Put like this, society CAN function and be successful without the stock market. The stock market is a parasite that cannot survive without it's host society. As I pointed out, the far majority of businesses are started ground up, not from the top down. That will still happen without the stock market, without investors etc etc.

 

[edgray]

The shop owners are usually not considered rich - certainly not at the same level as their customers - so the money circulates outside the "rich circles". The shops employ clerks from even lower socio-economic levels, diverting yet more of the money to "lower" levels. These employees use their wages to buy goods, not at those same rich shops but at more modest establishments - establishments that employ not-rich people. None of the goods purchased at the "other people's rich shops" or any other shops are manufactured by rich people; those jobs belong to middle-class skilled workers and lower-class laborers.

I do understand what you're saying. Of course some of their money gets recirculated, but the point is it's simply not enough to maintain society. The people in the chain they're supporting don't get paid enough themselves to put lots of money into circulation. There's only a finite money supply and the richer are taking more, and their wealth is increasing, it stands to reason there's going to be less money going around.

As I keep pointing out, this financial crisis has coincided with the wealthy taking the highest percentage of the earnings since the previous bust. Is that just a coincidence? Of course not, it's simply the nature of the way money moves in a capitalist system. It does not trickle down. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We several hundred years of recorded history that proves this point.

If you think the people that sell mink coats or clean marble floors are rich, you're dreaming. (back to point 1).

Marble floors are no indication of wealth, by the way, I have them, and I'm dirt poor :24:

Yes its true, they do use the services. Most of which are minimum wages services. Rich people do not pay well. That is a fact.

But if you ever go to fashion boutiques, the really high end ones, they're not big employers. They're not like a supermarket or something.

Have you ever researched what this "small amount of money" is? You seem to imply the employer keeps the lion's share, when that is not likely the case. I would be interested to see the typical luxury shop's profit margin, after purchasing the wholesale merchandise, paying the employees, taxes, and all the overhead. I think you would be pleasantly surprised how little shopkeepers make.

I've seen it first hand. I used to maintain this guys Apple setup. He was a terrible payer for one thing, like getting blood out of a stone. A multimillionaire from a couple of small businesses. Had a gigantic house in Marbella with a couple of minimum-wage staff. His businesses are take away food. He employs a few minimum wage staff.

There are shops run by non rich people. But they are not the kind of shops rich people shop in. Everyday folk shop in them.

No money "just sits there". Do you imagine stacks of cash stuck under the short table leg to keep it from wobbling? Maybe a cash room the rich person can go into daily just to wallow in piles of the stuff while laughing maniacally?? Money invested in a bank is invested for the bank's profit. Money invested directly into the stock market is no different from buying and selling on E-Bay. For each purchase there is a seller who either profits or loses from the sale. Each transaction comes at a price paid to the broker, who has similar overhead and staffing costs as a shopkeeper.
I invest, and I am not remotely in the "rich" category. In fact, I don't think I qualify as anything higher than middle-class.

And not all money gets invested and it seldom gets invested by rich people into a shop. Corporations are invested in, and the working man sees none of that other than a wage, and low one at that. You look at everything in a very nice small-town way, which is great. But we're talking about much larger scales in the real world.

The stock market, for example, is just the top of a giant pyramid scheme. And we all know why pyramid schemes are illegal, it's because the people at the bottom inevitably get screwed. It's the very nature of the system.

 

[Tangerine]

The stock market, for example, is just the top of a giant pyramid scheme. And we all know why pyramid schemes are illegal, it's because the people at the bottom inevitably get screwed. It's the very nature of the system.

It's impossible to have a reasonable, educated debate against such an utterly misguided, ill-informed mindset as this. If you believe this, no amount of fact or truth will sway you.