Knicks · OT: Universal Basic Income? (page 2)

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
They will be really happy to escape evil capitalist America and enjoy glorious results of building the society fair for all...
Or wait, this countries never reached the incredible potential of socialism because of evil American militarists and imperialists.

GustavBahler wrote:

Vmart wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Vmart wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Vmart wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Your local fire dept, your police dept, your grandparent's social security check, is socialism. Most of the wealth created in this country goes to a very select few. We have military bases in over 100 countries not to make the world safe for democracy, but to make the world safe for American corporations to do business.

Many large American corporations pay no taxes, even get money back from the govt. The contribution of corporate America to the tax rolls is at its lowest point since the 1950s. That plus large scale tax avoidance from the one percent leaves poor and middle class Americans picking up the tab, while their wages have been flat for the better part of the last 40 years.

Is it communism to give the tens of millions of people who have suffered from these policies a fair shake? Who cares?

This country should commit to more than one way to serve the interests of all its citizens because too many people (through no fault of their own) are being left behind in an abject poverty. We have to decide what kind of country we want to be. Who does our government serve?

I don't think Corporations should pay taxes. I would rather they create jobs so the worker pay the taxes. That makes more sense. Why tax an entity that is made to help stimulate jobs and economy.

Because the economy will only benefit an even smaller slice of the population. You know why our roads and bridges are falling apart? Our schools are crumbling? Hospitals shutting down? Because some folks believe that the rich should be taxed at a lower rate than everyone else, or they believe that corporations should pay no taxes. What you are suggesting will only accelerate this country's path towards feudalism. Thats one "ism" this country can do without.

The reason it's falling apart is there is a lot of corruption in the NYC area. Everything cost 2x more in that area. I'm currently in the DFW area and they are building new highways and roads. There aren't any state taxes.

The country's one trillion dollar plus shortfall in infrastructure repairs isnt because of local corruption. Its because republicans wont allow any large scale infrastructure spending without a backdoor way of privatizing everything. Its because they dont want to raise taxes on the rich and large corporations to do it.

There are state taxes in your area, sales taxes, and that burden falls hardest on the poor and middle class who have to devote much more of their income to pay it than the wealthy.

Don't blame the republicans. This is a entire government problem. The government always gets their money it doesn't matter if they are corporations or rich. They get their money. If they don't tax them on the first shot they will tax them on the second. There are ten ways to skin a cat.

If you've read my posts on this subject over the years, you would know that I blame everyone. But on this subject in particular, republicans are the ones putting conditions on spending that would mostly benefit their wealthy donors. There is no way around that. Its a fact. Look at at their proposals.

Govt always gets some money, but not always enough to serve all its citizens equally. Its not that complicated. Corporations are chipping in less than they have since the 1950s. The result is that our country is in need major repairs, schools are underfunded, hospitals closing. Yes the money will come from somewhere, but who is it coming from? Not enough from those who have benefited the most. You just have to look at wages for the last 40 years to see that.

So how government based on evil politics of Republicans handing money to corporations?
By doing what?

JesseDark wrote:A guaranteed minimum basic income was something Dr King was organizing for at the time of his assassination. He was organizing a Poor People'a Campaign to have a march in Washington, DC. The march subsequently did take place and was led by Jesse Jackson, but ever had the impact without Dr. King.

I disagree. It had tremendous impact on US society.
The social help and equality made a giant steps forward since.
Not like it all hunky-dory now but its day and night.
We just need to continue enhance and improve social support so people will not be able to abuse it and get more and more targeted help.

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
They will be really happy to escape evil capitalist America and enjoy glorious results of building the society fair for all...
Or wait, this countries never reached the incredible potential of socialism because of evil American militarists and imperialists.

This is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. When you are unable to address a counterpoint you simply revert back to your propaganda.

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
They will be really happy to escape evil capitalist America and enjoy glorious results of building the society fair for all...
Or wait, this countries never reached the incredible potential of socialism because of evil American militarists and imperialists.

This is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. When you are unable to address a counterpoint you simply revert back to your propaganda.

Why you think I am doing this the same way as you?
I was not talking about uneven development among various US states and localities in this thread.
This is separate issue and very complicated one.
Poverty cannot be countered by force. It only can be slowly lowered by overall wealth grows in the whole country.
You can create work opportunities locally in pure areas but how you can engage the local pure people to take this jobs.
Especially if they will get compensation only slightly higher that social help total?

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
They will be really happy to escape evil capitalist America and enjoy glorious results of building the society fair for all...
Or wait, this countries never reached the incredible potential of socialism because of evil American militarists and imperialists.

This is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. When you are unable to address a counterpoint you simply revert back to your propaganda.

Why you think I am doing this the same way as you?
I was not talking about uneven development among various US states and localities in this thread.
This is separate issue and very complicated one.
Poverty cannot be countered by force. It only can be slowly lowered by overall wealth grows in the whole country.
You can create work opportunities locally in pure areas but how you can engage the local pure people to take this jobs.
Especially if they will get compensation only slightly higher that social help total?

Because my point wasn't about uneven development. You WERE talking about capitalism being the only way to create wealth. So I am asking you how it's possible that in the RED states it's creating poverty instead?

arkrud wrote:

JesseDark wrote:A guaranteed minimum basic income was something Dr King was organizing for at the time of his assassination. He was organizing a Poor People'a Campaign to have a march in Washington, DC. The march subsequently did take place and was led by Jesse Jackson, but ever had the impact without Dr. King.

I disagree. It had tremendous impact on US society.
The social help and equality made a giant steps forward since.
Not like it all hunky-dory now but its day and night.
We just need to continue enhance and improve social support so people will not be able to abuse it and get more and more targeted help.

Ok, in my mind I compare the Poor Peoples Campaign, which I think took place in "59, to the '63 March on Washington, which was seminal. We also still don't have a guaranteed minimum wage.

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
They will be really happy to escape evil capitalist America and enjoy glorious results of building the society fair for all...
Or wait, this countries never reached the incredible potential of socialism because of evil American militarists and imperialists.

This is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. When you are unable to address a counterpoint you simply revert back to your propaganda.

Why you think I am doing this the same way as you?
I was not talking about uneven development among various US states and localities in this thread.
This is separate issue and very complicated one.
Poverty cannot be countered by force. It only can be slowly lowered by overall wealth grows in the whole country.
You can create work opportunities locally in pure areas but how you can engage the local pure people to take this jobs.
Especially if they will get compensation only slightly higher that social help total?

Because my point wasn't about uneven development. You WERE talking about capitalism being the only way to create wealth. So I am asking you how it's possible that in the RED states it's creating poverty instead?

Capitalism is economical system based on supply and demand law with some regulations to minimize negative effects of this system.
It is not perfect but so far yelled the best results comparing to socialism which is based on forceful plan economy.
Bending the laws of nature and human societies does not work for long.
Socialism works while wealth collected by generations is available. When it all used up the socialist society getting all it can from all people, then tried to lower their life standard, and finally killed a lot of people to satisfy the remaining bunch. Pattern is always the same.
Capitalism is not a magic which will make everyone prosper overnight.
It is a setting for those who can use their brain, hands, and grit to earn and collect wealth.
Not every one can do this... And this who cannot need support we are discussing in this thread.
People are equal only in the grave.

arkrud wrote:

Welpee wrote:Whether people want to admit it or not, we live in a "haves and have not" society. In order for the "haves" to feel good about what they "earned" we have to limit subsidies to the "have nots," i.e. "how can I feel good about working hard and getting a good job that provides decent health insurance if the guy down the street who can't keep a job also has decent health insurance?" What I find interesting is how many get up in arms about funds going to help people but seem to give the billion dollar corporations a pass when it comes to government assistance.

Government assistance came from taxes, taxes mostly from high paid workers.
So more working places and better pay for professionals provides more money for government help.
Upper middle class is the main source of help for pure.
Let corporations invest to generate more employment and pure will be better off.
We need grows of wealth not redistribution.
Redistribution destroy wealth and hit pure people the most.

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
They will be really happy to escape evil capitalist America and enjoy glorious results of building the society fair for all...
Or wait, this countries never reached the incredible potential of socialism because of evil American militarists and imperialists.

This is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. When you are unable to address a counterpoint you simply revert back to your propaganda.

Why you think I am doing this the same way as you?
I was not talking about uneven development among various US states and localities in this thread.
This is separate issue and very complicated one.
Poverty cannot be countered by force. It only can be slowly lowered by overall wealth grows in the whole country.
You can create work opportunities locally in pure areas but how you can engage the local pure people to take this jobs.
Especially if they will get compensation only slightly higher that social help total?

Because my point wasn't about uneven development. You WERE talking about capitalism being the only way to create wealth. So I am asking you how it's possible that in the RED states it's creating poverty instead?

Capitalism is economical system based on supply and demand law with some regulations to minimize negative effects of this system.
It is not perfect but so far yelled the best results comparing to socialism which is based on forceful plan economy.
Bending the laws of nature and human societies does not work for long.
Socialism works while wealth collected by generations is available. When it all used up the socialist society getting all it can from all people, then tried to lower their life standard, and finally killed a lot of people to satisfy the remaining bunch. Pattern is always the same.
Capitalism is not a magic which will make everyone prosper overnight.
It is a setting for those who can use their brain, hands, and grit to earn and collect wealth.
Not every one can do this... And this who cannot need support we are discussing in this thread.
People are equal only in the grave.

See? I am asking you why capitalism isn't doing what it's supposed to do in the places where it's allowed to run in it's purest form. Red States in the US are arguably the best places for capitalism to thrive in the world and yet it fails to do the core thing your propaganda talks about "wealth creation".

All you can do is use socialism as a strawman. This isn't an argument. You lost before you even started, don't take it personally.

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.

Bonn1997 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.

Those countries have guaranteed minimum incomes?!

They absolutely have it. Only it is less that most pure people in US have.

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
They will be really happy to escape evil capitalist America and enjoy glorious results of building the society fair for all...
Or wait, this countries never reached the incredible potential of socialism because of evil American militarists and imperialists.

This is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. When you are unable to address a counterpoint you simply revert back to your propaganda.

Why you think I am doing this the same way as you?
I was not talking about uneven development among various US states and localities in this thread.
This is separate issue and very complicated one.
Poverty cannot be countered by force. It only can be slowly lowered by overall wealth grows in the whole country.
You can create work opportunities locally in pure areas but how you can engage the local pure people to take this jobs.
Especially if they will get compensation only slightly higher that social help total?

Because my point wasn't about uneven development. You WERE talking about capitalism being the only way to create wealth. So I am asking you how it's possible that in the RED states it's creating poverty instead?

Capitalism is economical system based on supply and demand law with some regulations to minimize negative effects of this system.
It is not perfect but so far yelled the best results comparing to socialism which is based on forceful plan economy.
Bending the laws of nature and human societies does not work for long.
Socialism works while wealth collected by generations is available. When it all used up the socialist society getting all it can from all people, then tried to lower their life standard, and finally killed a lot of people to satisfy the remaining bunch. Pattern is always the same.
Capitalism is not a magic which will make everyone prosper overnight.
It is a setting for those who can use their brain, hands, and grit to earn and collect wealth.
Not every one can do this... And this who cannot need support we are discussing in this thread.
People are equal only in the grave.

See? I am asking you why capitalism isn't doing what it's supposed to do in the places where it's allowed to run in it's purest form. Red States in the US are arguably the best places for capitalism to thrive in the world and yet it fails to do the core thing your propaganda talks about "wealth creation".

All you can do is use socialism as a strawman. This isn't an argument. You lost before you even started, don't take it personally.

It is not personal at all. Just truing to understand your logic.
So if some places never get the investments to be developed this represents that all country failed?
In fact we may not need so much land any more to support agriculture and production.
So Red states may get depopulated as people will move to the costs to more developed areas.
And a lot of young and talented people do move out already.
I think it is just organic development. Who cares if some places will downsize or disappear.
Capitalism is not working in some specific place - it is global economical system.
A lot of places in the world will never be developed. Why it is a problem?

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
They will be really happy to escape evil capitalist America and enjoy glorious results of building the society fair for all...
Or wait, this countries never reached the incredible potential of socialism because of evil American militarists and imperialists.

This is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. When you are unable to address a counterpoint you simply revert back to your propaganda.

Why you think I am doing this the same way as you?
I was not talking about uneven development among various US states and localities in this thread.
This is separate issue and very complicated one.
Poverty cannot be countered by force. It only can be slowly lowered by overall wealth grows in the whole country.
You can create work opportunities locally in pure areas but how you can engage the local pure people to take this jobs.
Especially if they will get compensation only slightly higher that social help total?

Because my point wasn't about uneven development. You WERE talking about capitalism being the only way to create wealth. So I am asking you how it's possible that in the RED states it's creating poverty instead?

Capitalism is economical system based on supply and demand law with some regulations to minimize negative effects of this system.
It is not perfect but so far yelled the best results comparing to socialism which is based on forceful plan economy.
Bending the laws of nature and human societies does not work for long.
Socialism works while wealth collected by generations is available. When it all used up the socialist society getting all it can from all people, then tried to lower their life standard, and finally killed a lot of people to satisfy the remaining bunch. Pattern is always the same.
Capitalism is not a magic which will make everyone prosper overnight.
It is a setting for those who can use their brain, hands, and grit to earn and collect wealth.
Not every one can do this... And this who cannot need support we are discussing in this thread.
People are equal only in the grave.

See? I am asking you why capitalism isn't doing what it's supposed to do in the places where it's allowed to run in it's purest form. Red States in the US are arguably the best places for capitalism to thrive in the world and yet it fails to do the core thing your propaganda talks about "wealth creation".

All you can do is use socialism as a strawman. This isn't an argument. You lost before you even started, don't take it personally.

It is not personal at all. Just truing to understand your logic.
So if some places never get the investments to be developed this represents that all country failed?
In fact we may not need so much land any more to support agriculture and production.
So Red states may get depopulated as people will move to the costs to more developed areas.
And a lot of young and talented people do move out already.
I think it is just organic development. Who cares if some places will downsize or disappear.
Capitalism is not working in some specific place - it is global economical system.
A lot of places in the world will never be developed. Why it is a problem?

Now you are saying that local economies where unfettered capitalism is practiced are collapsing and people are fleeing in hordes? Finally something we agree on
Before you can make reasonable arguments you need to find data that support it - otherwise it's just noise. As far as I can tell you have never provided any data to support anything you say. What you have is not a rational thought process, it's a faith based belief system.

djsunyc wrote:what are your thoughts on this:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...

read the full article but here's a little snippet:

Their paper analyzes three different models for a universal basic income:

1. A full universal basic income, in which every adult gets $1,000 a month ($12,000 a year)
2. A partial basic income, in which every adult gets $500 a month ($6,000 a year)
3. A child allowance, in which every child gets $250 a month ($3,000 a year)

They find that enacting any of these policies by growing the federal debt — that is, without raising taxes to pay for it — would substantially grow the economy. The effect fades away within eight years, but GDP is left permanently higher. The big, $12,000 per year per adult policy, they find, would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent — or about $2.5 trillion come 2025. It would also, they find, increase the percentage of Americans with jobs by about 2 percent, and expand the labor force to the tune of 4.5 to 4.7 million people.

The main opposition against this will be centered around how this money will be wasted on drugs and why people will quit working. While neither claim can be supported by data it will create enough opposition to ensure it never sees the light of day.

Distribution mechanism
Instead of that they should create a system where people can choose how to spend this money on multiple buckets - Education, Food, Rent, Gas and other basic necessities. Then the govt. needs to distribute the funds via some mechanism where you can only spend it on the buckets you elected. It needs to be handled electronically not by giving people cash. Kind of like FSA cards but with more restrictions - use at any unauthorized merchant should flag an alert.

Paying for it
While this will be a very unpopular position I am in favor of paying for this by raising the debt. All the doom and gloom stuff about sovereign debt is somewhat overblown. A lot rides on our ability to service debt for sure, but our ability to service debt is not constrained by anything other than the threat of inflation. The benefit to the GDP growth and velocity of money will sufficiently offset the risk - inflation is "Good" when the actual economy is growing, it's "Bad" when only prices increases and wages stay flat

Vmart wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Your local fire dept, your police dept, your grandparent's social security check, is socialism. Most of the wealth created in this country goes to a very select few. We have military bases in over 100 countries not to make the world safe for democracy, but to make the world safe for American corporations to do business.

Many large American corporations pay no taxes, even get money back from the govt. The contribution of corporate America to the tax rolls is at its lowest point since the 1950s. That plus large scale tax avoidance from the one percent leaves poor and middle class Americans picking up the tab, while their wages have been flat for the better part of the last 40 years.

Is it communism to give the tens of millions of people who have suffered from these policies a fair shake? Who cares?

This country should commit to more than one way to serve the interests of all its citizens because too many people (through no fault of their own) are being left behind in an abject poverty. We have to decide what kind of country we want to be. Who does our government serve?

I don't think Corporations should pay taxes. I would rather they create jobs so the worker pay the taxes. That makes more sense. Why tax an entity that is made to help stimulate jobs and economy.

It only makes sense in a vacuum. Most jobs created over the last 25 years are low wage jobs that would create very little tax revenue. Taxation of the labor component will never suffice when the wealth is being accumulated via capital gains. The assumption that corporations will use their money to create jobs is not supported by data. Most corporations are using their money to consolidate power and trying to establish monopolies in circuitous ways skirting around the law. More money has been used for share buybacks than for job creation. Start taxing stock buy backs and acquisitions - then you'll see tax revenue jump

Here's a great video on this subject with real data
https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-...

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
They will be really happy to escape evil capitalist America and enjoy glorious results of building the society fair for all...
Or wait, this countries never reached the incredible potential of socialism because of evil American militarists and imperialists.

This is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. When you are unable to address a counterpoint you simply revert back to your propaganda.

Why you think I am doing this the same way as you?
I was not talking about uneven development among various US states and localities in this thread.
This is separate issue and very complicated one.
Poverty cannot be countered by force. It only can be slowly lowered by overall wealth grows in the whole country.
You can create work opportunities locally in pure areas but how you can engage the local pure people to take this jobs.
Especially if they will get compensation only slightly higher that social help total?

Because my point wasn't about uneven development. You WERE talking about capitalism being the only way to create wealth. So I am asking you how it's possible that in the RED states it's creating poverty instead?

Capitalism is economical system based on supply and demand law with some regulations to minimize negative effects of this system.
It is not perfect but so far yelled the best results comparing to socialism which is based on forceful plan economy.
Bending the laws of nature and human societies does not work for long.
Socialism works while wealth collected by generations is available. When it all used up the socialist society getting all it can from all people, then tried to lower their life standard, and finally killed a lot of people to satisfy the remaining bunch. Pattern is always the same.
Capitalism is not a magic which will make everyone prosper overnight.
It is a setting for those who can use their brain, hands, and grit to earn and collect wealth.
Not every one can do this... And this who cannot need support we are discussing in this thread.
People are equal only in the grave.

See? I am asking you why capitalism isn't doing what it's supposed to do in the places where it's allowed to run in it's purest form. Red States in the US are arguably the best places for capitalism to thrive in the world and yet it fails to do the core thing your propaganda talks about "wealth creation".

All you can do is use socialism as a strawman. This isn't an argument. You lost before you even started, don't take it personally.

It is not personal at all. Just truing to understand your logic.
So if some places never get the investments to be developed this represents that all country failed?
In fact we may not need so much land any more to support agriculture and production.
So Red states may get depopulated as people will move to the costs to more developed areas.
And a lot of young and talented people do move out already.
I think it is just organic development. Who cares if some places will downsize or disappear.
Capitalism is not working in some specific place - it is global economical system.
A lot of places in the world will never be developed. Why it is a problem?

Now you are saying that local economies where unfettered capitalism is practiced are collapsing and people are fleeing in hordes? Finally something we agree on
Before you can make reasonable arguments you need to find data that support it - otherwise it's just noise. As far as I can tell you have never provided any data to support anything you say. What you have is not a rational thought process, it's a faith based belief system.

I do not believe in statistics. Numbers can be arranged as one with specific agenda want them to be arranged.
The size of the data we have is too small to make any mathematically correct conclusion.
My "faith based belief system" based on my experience and intuition which I value more that "rational thought process".
Surprisingly most of the time it reflects the reality better that "rational thought process" which always based on data which is not big and correct enough to support it.
In general I am just curious why you are so determined to prove that capitalism is bad for majority of American people. And what in you view should be good for them?
Which system you propose instead? Like socialist republic, or Empire, or Islamic caliphate, or may be confederation of free cities?

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Vmart wrote:Seems like communist ideology.

Communism is based on distribution of wealth and capitalism on creation of wealth.
Poverty should be used as source and motivation for grows.
Communism destroyed the wealth and make everyone pure except of those who are in charge of distribution.

[Sic] the benefits of capitalism

Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisianna, New Mexico, North and South Carolina and Texas have the highest poverty rates of any state. Each is above the combined US rate.

Must be the Communists!!!!!

Move this pure people to Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
They will be really happy to escape evil capitalist America and enjoy glorious results of building the society fair for all...
Or wait, this countries never reached the incredible potential of socialism because of evil American militarists and imperialists.

This is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. When you are unable to address a counterpoint you simply revert back to your propaganda.

Why you think I am doing this the same way as you?
I was not talking about uneven development among various US states and localities in this thread.
This is separate issue and very complicated one.
Poverty cannot be countered by force. It only can be slowly lowered by overall wealth grows in the whole country.
You can create work opportunities locally in pure areas but how you can engage the local pure people to take this jobs.
Especially if they will get compensation only slightly higher that social help total?

Because my point wasn't about uneven development. You WERE talking about capitalism being the only way to create wealth. So I am asking you how it's possible that in the RED states it's creating poverty instead?

Capitalism is economical system based on supply and demand law with some regulations to minimize negative effects of this system.
It is not perfect but so far yelled the best results comparing to socialism which is based on forceful plan economy.
Bending the laws of nature and human societies does not work for long.
Socialism works while wealth collected by generations is available. When it all used up the socialist society getting all it can from all people, then tried to lower their life standard, and finally killed a lot of people to satisfy the remaining bunch. Pattern is always the same.
Capitalism is not a magic which will make everyone prosper overnight.
It is a setting for those who can use their brain, hands, and grit to earn and collect wealth.
Not every one can do this... And this who cannot need support we are discussing in this thread.
People are equal only in the grave.

See? I am asking you why capitalism isn't doing what it's supposed to do in the places where it's allowed to run in it's purest form. Red States in the US are arguably the best places for capitalism to thrive in the world and yet it fails to do the core thing your propaganda talks about "wealth creation".

All you can do is use socialism as a strawman. This isn't an argument. You lost before you even started, don't take it personally.

It is not personal at all. Just truing to understand your logic.
So if some places never get the investments to be developed this represents that all country failed?
In fact we may not need so much land any more to support agriculture and production.
So Red states may get depopulated as people will move to the costs to more developed areas.
And a lot of young and talented people do move out already.
I think it is just organic development. Who cares if some places will downsize or disappear.
Capitalism is not working in some specific place - it is global economical system.
A lot of places in the world will never be developed. Why it is a problem?

Now you are saying that local economies where unfettered capitalism is practiced are collapsing and people are fleeing in hordes? Finally something we agree on
Before you can make reasonable arguments you need to find data that support it - otherwise it's just noise. As far as I can tell you have never provided any data to support anything you say. What you have is not a rational thought process, it's a faith based belief system.

I do not believe in statistics. Numbers can be arranged as one with specific agenda want them to be arranged.
The size of the data we have is too small to make any mathematically correct conclusion.
My "faith based belief system" based on my experience and intuition which I value more that "rational thought process".
Surprisingly most of the time it reflects the reality better that "rational thought process" which always based on data which is not big and correct enough to support it.
In general I am just curious why you are so determined to prove that capitalism is bad for majority of American people. And what in you view should be good for them?
Which system you propose instead? Like socialist republic, or Empire, or Islamic caliphate, or may be confederation of free cities?

That I don't know. countries like Sweden are successfully employing models that mix capitalist and socialist policies, something like that should work better. Wealth accumulation is not wealth creation, and paper wealth created by leverage is evil. It can and does get completely wiped out when the math stops working to keep the unlimited borrowing going. I would definitely want to get back to a gold standard or something similar.

arkrud wrote:I do not believe in statistics. Numbers can be arranged as one with specific agenda want them to be arranged.
The size of the data we have is too small to make any mathematically correct conclusion.
My "faith based belief system" based on my experience and intuition which I value more that "rational thought process".

You can manipulate the subjective WAY easier than manipulating data and you're relieved of the burden of having to justifying it. Honestly it sounds more like a cop out for saying you want to believe what you want to believe in spite of reality.

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:I do not believe in statistics. Numbers can be arranged as one with specific agenda want them to be arranged.
The size of the data we have is too small to make any mathematically correct conclusion.
My "faith based belief system" based on my experience and intuition which I value more that "rational thought process".

That is such a revealing admission. So numbers can be arranged to suit one's agenda, but "faith based belief systems," one's "experience" and "intuition" leads to a more rational thought process? Huh?

You can manipulate the subjective WAY easier than manipulating data and you're relieved of the burden of having to justifying it. Honestly it sounds more like a cop out for saying you want to believe what you want to believe in spite of reality.