next »

[PompiPompi]

POOP IS NOT PEE THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED CAN POMPI PLEASE ANSWER THE EVER-GROWING LIST OF THINGS HE HAS NOT ANSWERED NOW

Can you summerize it for me in one post?
Also, I am not entirely sure we are arguing on the same things.

This is like the fourth time I've posted this and it just continues to grow longer.

Questions Pompi has ignored:

1.  Are you going to cite your claim that most people don't really need jobs with any sort of facts?

2.  You know that macroeconomics and microeconomics are two entirely different things, right?

3.  Why is competing on the global market important?

4.  Do you think that even if America de-regulated everything and gave corporations 100% power they would be able to keep up with China that has literally a billion more people?

5.  If Ron Paul groped your ass and you didn't work for him, that is clearly his fault.  Why should it be different because you work for him?

6.  Why should a person who requires a job to live be at the mercy of someone not raping them; why does the raper get to make the choice to force someone to be molested or find a different job?

7:  (Monster King's)  why do you say "spending time with his family down the beach" like its a bad thing?

8:  Why shouldn't we move towards a system that reduces suffering in as many people as possible?

9:  Why is 'creating as much wealth as we can' more important than providing a decent life for people?

10:  Why should 'creating wealth' be the ultimate goal of our nation if the growing majority of that wealth only benefits an increasingly small portion of people?

11:  (Gizmonicgamer's, ties into the above)  Pompi, what do you think the PURPOSE of an economy is? please define. Please define why a stable and productive economy is good or meaningful.  (I'm aware you answered 'to make a country more competitive but you've yet to answer why that is important, so once you've established the basis for your reasoning we can take another crack at this)

1. That's not my claim.
2. Yes.
3. To become richer and more powerful than all the other countries.
4. Are you trying to put words into my mouth? It's not the fact that China has a billion people, it's the fact they work them in slave conditions, and do many other unethical things.
5. I never said that it's a woman's fault someone assulted her at the work place, I only said it is wise for her to quit her job. Regardless of whose fault this is.
6. He shouldn't, but there are bad people in the world. You can walk down the street and someone will murder you for not giving him a ciggarrete. Is that fair? No, but that's how things are in this world. Sometimes it's better being smart than being right.
7. I didn't say it's a bad thing. I ment that I wouldn't like a person that works hard and have less time for his family, will earn the same as someone who doesn't and don't need to work hard or didn't need to study for a few years to get education.
8. Because it's impossible. At least not without taking people's freedom. A person might inflict suffering to himself, would you prevent him from doing dangerous nonsense?
9. Because it's not fair that both people who work hard and both people who are less talented will get the same wealth. Apart from that, I believe a capitalist environment is better for generating more wealth.
10. There is a lot of middle ground between extreme high gaps, and extreme low gaps. It's good for everyone to be wealthier, but not at the price of not compensating talented hard working people.
11. Well, for the sake of the argument, I just neglected the purpose of the economy and just focused on what brings more wealth to the nation. Because you claimed that social-liberal is better than Capitalism in generating wealth.
If you agree that capitalism is better at generating wealth than socialist-liberal, then we don't have anything to argue about.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO TRY TO SIDETRACK INTO EVERY POSSIBLE SUBJECT JUST TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL GOOD ABOUT HOW "TERRIBLE" THE US IS AND HOW GOOD YOUR SOCIALIST-LIBERAL COUNTRIES ARE.

ALSO THANKS FOR ALL THE AD-HOMENION ARGUMENTS.

Now I have one simple question YOU didn't answer me.

1. Is capitalism better at generating wealth than social-liberal economy?

[Blademasterbobo]

 

[PompiPompi]

You didn't seem to answer my question, do I need to ask it again?

[Capntastic]

Give us two days.

[The Monster King]

5. I never said that it's a woman's fault someone assulted her at the work place, I only said it is wise for her to quit her job. Regardless of whose fault this is.
6. He shouldn't, but there are bad people in the world. You can walk down the street and someone will murder you for not giving him a ciggarrete. Is that fair? No, but that's how things are in this world. Sometimes it's better being smart than being right.

finally someone who understands! I too appreciate when humans live in fear. It gives them this spice!! if humans shape their behaviors according to those they fear then all will be well and i will be able to feast on their firstborn so that they incur not my wrath.

7. I didn't say it's a bad thing. I ment that I wouldn't like a person that works hard and have less time for his family, will earn the same as someone who doesn't and don't need to work hard or didn't need to study for a few years to get education.

those are two different things, and the question is, why should you be advantaged for not spending time with your family? humans that spend time with their family contribute to a better environment and also make great snack-packs.

8. Because it's impossible. At least not without taking people's freedom. A person might inflict suffering to himself, would you prevent him from doing dangerous nonsense?

masochists aside how is someone who feels like they must hurt themselves free? if a man must suicide, do you not stop him? suicide deaths have 50% less flavor and are preferably avoided. i myself like tasty happy humans and make sure humans are tested and treated for depression before consumption.

9. Because it's not fair that both people who work hard and both people who are less talented will get the same wealth. Apart from that, I believe a capitalist environment is better for generating more wealth.

working hard and talent are two extremely different things


you look for wealth but you humans forget the moral of every movie, true wealth is in your hearts...

god damn things cost like a hundred monster-dollars a kilo or whatever my cool monster currency is. monster-dinars. monster-pesos.

hahah yes a predictable joke but a good one dont you think
except for the part that this isnt a joke your hearts are delicious


what is the use of wealth if its restricted to a few individuals though which is pretty much what capitalism creates

[BlueSweatshirt]

I don't see the point of discussing which system generates "more wealth".
The problem is that most people value a lot more than just money. Money is important, but for most people it is a means to an end, not an end to a means.

I'll play along anyway...

Okay, so, theoretically this argument should end after I make this point, but it probably won't, so fuck it.

Capitalism is about making profit. The very goal of capitalism is to make more more more more money. Theoretically, capitalism generates the most money, but the profit incentive nature of the system also supports a disparity of wealth, as seen. Certain members in society will make the most money and dominate to the top. In a capitalist system money is power, so it's not unheard of for the already rich people to try to manipulate law to help them make even more money, which is always at the expense of the general population.

Social liberalism, which is not exactly an economic system alone but ok, is about social equality/justice/morals. Not profit first and foremost. The values in a social liberal system are different. They primary, driving goal is not to make money, where in capitalism it is.

TL;DR: wealth is not necessarily the objective in a social liberal system.

[Capntastic]

I'd like to remind everyone that being capitalist or socialist or a dictatorial command economy has no bearing on the amount of wealth a nation actually 'creates', in the macroeconomics sense.

You can have a capitalist nation where everyone makes chairs to sell for a personal profit or a socialist nation where people make chairs because it's their job, and provided both nations export the same amount of chairs, their national output, their GDP, is the same.

The capitalist nation, though, would have you be punished economically if you were unable to make chairs (due to, say, being a schizophrenic or quadriplegic), while a socialist system would recognize you as a human being deserving of basic needs being fulfilled first, and your inability to be financially viable second.

It's also important to note that government is, inherently, not a business.  It's role is not to 'make the most money'.  Nor is competing with other nations in the world market a nation's actual goal.

So, to answer Pompi's question, yes, a socialist nation can create more wealth than a capitalist one, especially if the means of production (machinery, resources, education) are placed in the hands of people that want to use them, rather than kept out of use with financial barriers.  Example, there are over 18 million empty homes in the U.S., while we have less than 4 million homeless people.  Those are capital resources being wasted solely so someone can profit on the personal level.  Those are people living out in the cold, being denied the ability to have a stable life, so someone can make money.

If our goal as a nation was to produce the most wealth regardless of the well being of our citizenry, shouldn't we switch to a dictatorial command economy like Nazi Germany?  Not meaning to invoke Godwin's Law or anything, but they went from being in a completely devastated husk of a nation after WW1 to being a terrifying superpower waging war across all of Europe during WW2, in like 15 years.

Edit:  Or Fascist Italy, which went from being intimidated by Ethiopia to being a pretty hardcore economic machine.

[eclectocrat]

ron paul

[Capntastic]

ron paul

A prisoner is is transferred to a new cell on a new cellblock.  After dark, the other prisoners begin shouting out numbers to each other.  

"Ten!"  "Sixteen!"  "Five!"

These are met with gales of laughter from all but the new prisoner.

He asks his cellmate:  "What's the deal with these numbers?"

His cellmate tells him, shrugging: "We've all told each other the same jokes so often, we all know them by heart, so we've assigned them numbers.  It's much quicker this way."

The new prisoner, hoping to fit into the new cellblock, calls out the first number to pop into his head:  "Eleven!"

No one laughs.  There is a very heavy silence.

The prisoner turns to his cellmate and asks:  "What's the deal?  Isn't that one of the jokes?"

His cellmate tells him, shrugging:  "Well, some people just don't know how to tell a joke."

[eclectocrat]

You are very accepting and encouraging, your kind words fill me with a sense warmth and tenderness. God bless you little angel.

[PompiPompi]

Capitalism is also about texation and how to treat corporates and about free market. A socialist-liberal country that will sacrfice the same corporate structure, the same free market and the same taxation as the US, will make less wealth. Of course there might be somehwere around the world a capitalist country that is less wealthy than some other country around the world that is socialist-liberal.
The point is, will the US generate more wealth as a socialist-liberal or as a capitalist.
My claim is that the US will generate more wealth as a capitalist.

Do you agree to that or not?

[PompiPompi]

finally someone who understands! I too appreciate when humans live in fear. It gives them this spice!! if humans shape their behaviors according to those they fear then all will be well and i will be able to feast on their firstborn so that they incur not my wrath.

It's not about fearing, you are putting words in my mouth and have too many "fallacies" in your arguments.
Regardless if you fear your attacker or not, in order to avoid damage the smartest thing might be to run away.
Someone is assulting you, what will you do?
A) Try to run away and avoid being beaten up, stabbed with a knife etc. Use force only when there is no choice and in order to give you an option to run eventually.
B) Shout at the attacker! "You have no right to attack me you monster! I have my right to live without fear!" And wait for the attacker to agree with you and leave you with no harm.

Edit: Also, I am sorry to say this, but now you are being daft.

[Mikademus]

Capitalism is also about texation and how to treat corporates and about free market. A socialist-liberal country that will sacrfice the same corporate structure, the same free market and the same taxation as the US, will make less wealth.

Sweden, Norway and Denmark have lower corporate taxes than USA (28% vs 39%). The EU on average has a lower corporate tax than USA (~22%). USA has one of the world's highest corporate tax levels, together with Japan. (2005 figures.) At the same time corporate income taxes represented 2.4% of Sweden's GDP, 8% of Norways's and 2.9% of Denmark's versus USA's 1.8%, which means that in spite of the highest corporate income tax level on the planet the same companies contributes less to the country finances.

Do you understand the implications and significance of this?

[PompiPompi]

Capitalism is also about texation and how to treat corporates and about free market. A socialist-liberal country that will sacrfice the same corporate structure, the same free market and the same taxation as the US, will make less wealth.

Sweden, Norway and Denmark have lower corporate taxes than USA (28% vs 39%). The EU on average has a lower corporate tax than USA (~22%). USA has one of the world's highest corporate tax levels, together with Japan. (2005 figures.) At the same time corporate income taxes represented 2.4% of Sweden's GDP, 8% of Norways's and 2.9% of Denmark's versus USA's 1.8%, which means that in spite of the highest corporate income tax level on the planet the same companies contributes less to the country finances.

Do you understand the implications and significance of this?

No, I don't understand, explain to me please.

[Dragonmaw]

You say capitalism and "socialist-liberal" (whatever the fuck that means) like they are mutually exclusive, when you can have a capitalist system with socialism aspects. This is how the socialist states in Europe function, and is known as a mixed economy. A well-planned mixed economy is far more stable than an economy that leans more to one side or the other.

Also, there is no such thing as "generating wealth." Not in modern economies. Especially in capitalism. Economic growth is about redistribution of wealth, and in a capitalist system this redistribution is favored towards the rich by a large margin. In a socialist system, it's favored towards the middle class, and in a communist system it's favored towards the government.

Edit: Also, do you honestly believe investment bankers and venture capitalists are "talented, hardworking people?" Because I'll tell you who are talented hard-working people: the people who fix your sinks, repair your cupboards, and tune up your car. And they are increasingly being victimized by a little something called wage theft.

You are basically just repeating the same nonsense about "job creators" and "hardest working people" that the rich repeats about itself.