Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are far more examples of my being right than your being right. Free education... education has never been free and lately education costs much more than the previously largest investment any American could make: their house. So fly that flag somewhere else. It's not flying here.
H
I was poor and went to school for free.. In fact I was paid to go because by time all the grants were processed it created a surplus. that education has allowed me to become self sufficient.
May not have been free to society, but it sure in hell was free to me.
Since that time I've returned to school numerous times and the expense has never come close to what I spend on housing. If you choose to spend more to go to an ivy league college rather than a local community one, dont blame me for your mistake.
No, in the "real world" decisions like that are made every day, only it is the investors winning while the employees are the losers.
Public companies have an obligation to investors. Employees, on the other hand, are subject to processess such as individual development plans, job descriptions, quality work, and other metrics that govern how they are paid. By suggesting that employees should be showered with "extra" money for simply being an employee is not how it works in America. Further, employees are not bound to any particular job. If they don't like the pay, and believe they are worth more, it's their prerogative to leave to acquire that better pay. The impetus is on the employee to better themselves, not the employer.
The beauty of it all is that you're more than welcome to start your own business and shower your employees with as much money as your heart desires. Until you go bankrupt, that is.
It doesn't because it has nothing to do with pricing power by elimination of competition.
Actually it did because Ford paid more in order to lock out the competition for labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
If you don't believe in the effects of monopolies vs the effects of market competition there is no point in continuing the conversation. We can't possibly agree. To me its just magical thinking in some primitive Piagetian stage, not to mention its the same plaque of government run agencies you rail about as if some nominal identity is cause. The cause is monopoly which is inherent in government agencies. I don't think making people pay $100 to read Doc formats is making anyone rich except Microsoft.
We're not talking about monopolies, try to follow along. Microsoft isnt even close to a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
But again if you don't believe monopolies exist, I see little point in any discussion of economics. Money does not just automagically just grow markets and convincing me otherwise isn't going to happen.
That sounds like your problem, but then maybe you can answer the question I've presented to buzz numerous times since they refuse to..
During periods of recessions, where does the wealth go? If wealth is finite, it must go somewhere, and since you claim its finite, you'll be back to educate me on where it goes.
Tell me where the wealth went during the recession gwyn.. You left wing kooks always show your inability to do any real economics because recessions and economic booms create and take away wealth constantly. if wealth was a finite asset, something you guys continue to argue, then that money goes somewhere..
where?
That's your problem right there. Money is a relative measure of wealth. If one class losses 10% nominally while the other loses 20% nominally there is a shift of wealth. Since the poor have no wealth, its kind of hard to lose more unless you figure in future wages which looks to me like they are going to stay poor.
I also have no idea on what basis you consider me a left winger. Never voted for a democrat in my entire life.
oh brother, your back with that dribble.. I note you didnt answer my question last asked to you, so let me ask you again.
During periods of recessions, where does the wealth go? According to you, wealth is a finite resource so it must go somewhere..
Paper wealth, stock values, housing values, are just that paper. Their anticipated value rises and fall based on the recent sale of similar stocks or properties.
The $50,000 profits are finite. Most peoples wealth is finite and the value only grows when they add more to it or the market value goes.
Until you sell into cash, the value of worth wealth is speculative at best. The only way to be sure exactly to the dollar what your wealth is worth is for it to be in cash. Nice try.
Last edited by buzzards27; 02-01-2012 at 01:28 PM..
Actually it did because Ford paid more in order to lock out the competition for labor.
OK changing words again as usual to mean what you fancy them to mean. He out competed for labor. Did he have anyone beat up or anything?
Quote:
We're not talking about monopolies, try to follow along. Microsoft isnt even close to a monopoly.
Of course not because that would actually be the answer to your mythologies that rich people never make anyone poorer. I mean when someone is mugged, the pie just gets bigger.
They have a monopoly on Doc format and several closed protocols. But go ahead and keep telling me how my profession works while knowing nothing. Tell you what, you go and fetch that Doc format RFC for me.
Quote:
That sounds like your problem, but then maybe you can answer the question I've presented to buzz numerous times since they refuse to..
During periods of recessions, where does the wealth go? If wealth is finite, it must go somewhere, and since you claim its finite, you'll be back to educate me on where it goes.
Let's say I am an employer and have $50,000 in unexpected profits.
I can give it to my minimum wage, working poor, employees as a bonus or I can give it to my wealthy investors as dividends.
When I give it to my workers instead on the investors did the investors lose out on potential income? Are they poorer because of my choice to reward my workers? The investors don't have as much as they could have had because someone else won and they lost.
So yes, when someone takes a bigger slice of a finite income pie, everyone else gets less.
Ahhh...the fundamental disagreement.
Liberals see a "finite" pie and want to slice it up.
Conservatives want to grow the pie so there's more for everyone.
[quote=Speleothem;22804024]Ahhh...the fundamental disagreement.
Liberals see a "finite" pie and want to slice it up. Conservatives want to grow the pie so there's more for everyone.[/quote]
That's me, but not the republicans.
We have the fundamental false dichotomy of welfare liberalism and crony capitalist.
OK changing words again as usual to mean what you fancy them to mean. He out competed for labor. Did he have anyone beat up or anything?
I didnt change any meaning, I simply showed how Ford helped others create more wealth by paying them more, which ultimately resulted in him becoming even more wealthier. Your refusal to acknowledge this doesnt mean I changed the meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Of course not because that would actually be the answer to your mythologies that rich people never make anyone poorer. I mean when someone is mugged, the pie just gets bigger.
The question wasnt if some rich people can make others poor, the question is are the poor because the rich are rich. We arent talking about specific examples, the OP is discussing in general. Ford became rich at the expense of buggy whip manufacturers but this doesnt mean Ford is to blame or that Ford had to make othes poor in order for him to become rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
They have a monopoly on Doc format and several closed protocols. But go ahead and keep telling me how my profession works while knowing nothing. Tell you what, you go and fetch that Doc format RFC for me.
Then dont use the doc format According to your argument ebay has a monopoly on ebay.com, or McDonalds has a monopoly on the Big Mac, thus people are poor.. get real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Capital and assets don't go anywhere.
If it doesnt go anywhere then why did people lose values in their homes? Again, according to left wing kooks, wealth is finite, and one gets rich at the others expense, so when you lose value in your home, it means someone else gains.. Who gained?
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Paper wealth, stock values, housing values, are just that paper. Their anticipated value rises and fall based on the recent sale of similar stocks or properties.
Paper wealth is wealth Thanks for FINALLY admitting you are wrong..
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
The $50,000 profits are finite. Most peoples wealth is finite and the value only grows when they add more to it or the market value goes.
But thats not the question, is it? According to you, your value only grows if someone elses drop. So when my home lost $50,000 in value, who gained that value?
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Until you sell into cash, the value of worth wealth is speculative at best. The only way to be sire exactly to the dollar what your wealth is worth is for it to be in cash. Nice try.
No, whats nice try is you total ignorance to pretend that paper money isnt real money. Thats one of the stupidiest things I've ever heard.
Are you telling me Buffet and Gates arent the richest people in america? Their wealth is ALL paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
That's your problem right there. Money is a relative measure of wealth. If one class losses 10% nominally while the other loses 20% nominally there is a shift of wealth. Since the poor have no wealth, its kind of hard to lose more unless you figure in future wages which looks to me like they are going to stay poor.
I also have no idea on what basis you consider me a left winger. Never voted for a democrat in my entire life.
If wealth is finite, your 10% loss cant take place without someone else gaining that value. Who obtained it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to your argument ebay has a monopoly on ebay.com, or McDonalds has a monopoly on the Big Mac, thus people are poor.. get real.
