Rich People Don't Create Jobs...

I've stepped over many a homeless person while walking down the street, and while I did care, it mostly had to do with the inconvenience of having to step over them.

Is this caring too much?

 

Not at all. It's just enough caring, because after all you could have suffered a groin injury while stepping over them . . . or at least have gotten fleas from them. It pays to think about such issues.

Oh . . . and because one needs a disclaimer . . . I'm kidding people! Just kidding.

 

I never made that claim, so your reductio ad absurdum is predicated upon a logical fallacy. My actual argument is related to the idea that entrepreneurs who take risks and start business should be rewarded if successful, especially considering they are responsible for absorbing the consequences should their business fail.

Socialism inevitably leads to laziness. That's why it will always fail. In your hypothetical scenario, some people are not going to want to work at all, for themselves or for their community. You'll appoint them to a position and they will do a terrible job at it, yet they will be compensated the same as someone else who works really hard. That causes the hard worker to become lazy because why would he bother? He gets paid the same either way.

So much for your transparent claims of opposing authoritarianism.

Requiring people to work if they want to be able to afford life's necessities isn't exploitation, it's just life. There are limited resources and endless wants, so there needs to be a way to control the distribution of those finite resources. I think the system of capitalism controls this very well, as those who acquire the most capital have access to more than those who have less. You apparently think Government is better at this than the free market, despite your claims of hating Government. Even in the most ideal commune you can conjure in your mind, there are going to be leaders and followers. The leaders will comprise the role of Government, and will make sure the distribution is equitable for all.

A truly capitalist society wouldn't go bankrupt because it would live within its means. We have countries like Greece going bankrupt primarily because of the socialist policies they've implemented, and the rampant debt that they've accumulated for themselves. Governments can last longer than individuals when it comes to living beyond their means, but it still catches up to you, eventually.

I disagree with the entire premise of that "principle". If I start a business and I offer someone $8 dollars an hour, and he/she is willing to take it, that's not exploitation. That's a mutual agreement between two people at arms length. You, as a 3rd party, ascribe some arbitrary value on that person's labor and make the argument that since I'm not paying x dollars, I am exploiting that worker, but your opinion on what I should be paying is, like I said, arbitrary, and meaningless. All that matters is that I have made an agreement with someone else to work for me for $8.00 an hour.

Dodge noted.

Just a few weeks ago you were talking about how the Scandinavian model is what you wanted the US to look like, and that that's the reason you supported Bernie Sanders. Sounds like you're brand new in your beliefs and still trying to figure things out. Maybe this is why?

Keep in mind I was replying to a rather substanceless one-liner of yours.

Poverty has decreased 71% in China during the last 3 decades. Their economy grows at more than 10% per year, and has for 30 years, so their poverty levels will likely keep decreasing. How is such a big drop in poverty levels not helping to alleviate suffering?

They're entitled to the money they earn by producing goods and services in the market place. I was referring, of course, to people who grow up, do nothing, and feel entitled to the money earned by others.

There is no straw man, I was giving my perspective.

The majority of millionaires in the US were self-made. They came from nothing, and then worked, invested, saved money, and by the time they reached their 50's and 60's, they had wealth.

If you start a Roth IRA in your early 20's and put 5,500 away each year until age 65, if you get a 7% return on your money, you'll have 1.3 million dollars. Of course, you may not get a 7% return. Even at 3%, you'll have double the money that you put in.

Calling it "mythical" apparently makes it so.

No, there are double digit percentages of young millenials and minorities not working and living off the Government. Millions of others on disability and other forms of welfare. We have a welfare state. It's real.

But it should raise some red flags. When you're seeing their ideas and agreeing with many of them, you should analyze yourself.

Marxism isn't a "new system". And there's no guarantee each new system is more efficient and less cruel.

Why does competition scare you so much?

But I don't believe that, based on your previous statements. Just last week you said you'd prefer a Marxist-Leninist based society to the one we have now. That's not really an indication of anarchist belief.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of caring enough to bother walking amongst them. I mean, after all, I walked over them because I was willing to spend my money that I earned with stores that didn't bother cleaning up the human refuse on the sidewalk outside of their establishments.

I should have stayed away. If they can't clean the garbage off their own sidewalks, then really, they should do without my business.

 

The demand for that which no one can afford is zero. Regulation adds to price some one has to pay the people who try to make sure the company is in compliance with litterally thousands if not tens of thousands of state, federal, and local regulations. For every federal, state, and local bureaucrat writing rules there will be another in the market place trying to interpret those rules and regulations and sort out which take precedence and which of two mutually exclusive rules written by the same governing body are applicable in the given circumstance. Add to this the fact that government doesn't operate on the same timetable as business and an answer that Mr. Businessman needs ASAP can take weeks or months to sort out, even if the answer wouldn't, in the real world, take more than a couple of hours. And given that the government's favorite language seems to be some variant dialect of high obfusquese sometimes no one can tell what the regulation is talking about except maybe the original author and he's been dead for half a decade.

 

No but it does make sense to buy a machine whose cost you can write off that produces more widgets with one guy than you used to be able to do with three. And that's what has been happening for the last fifty years. Government policy has made equipment cheaper than people. And lets not forget there are a hell of a lot sales from corporation A to corporation B.

 

This presumes that money is wealth. It is not. All products are bought with products. Money is just a means of easing the transactions and storing value. Without production and investment, there is no way to consume. Consumption is the end result of production, not the other way around.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you ever thought about creating such a community through peaceful means, rather than the violence of the police powers of the state? What stands in your way?

 

Well it is true that if you had one man left on the planet...that one man couldn't invest except towards himself to survive. He is his own consumer. But if you have 20 men with no money with one being the entrepreneur, the entrepreneur would be setting up a bartering system and offering things for what the others already have.

In short...there are always consumers. And there will always be the entrepreneur as long as we don't stifle them out by killing their motivation.

 

fact is, giving a tax cut to a few worth billions doesn't increase jobs, giving it to millions that make less then 100k, does

 

forgive me for interrupting this lively debate, but this caught my attention.

in history, it was the navel gazing or 'laziness' inspired by socialism which afforded common men the time and opportunities to invent or innovate much of the luxuries that we enjoy today.

capitalism has its place to exploit and improve upon those inventions for profits through efficient means of managed competition in an open and fair free market, but today it has shown it has long run its course for the near future at least. there is nothing left for them to exploit but the wealth of the middle class which they have already stolen quite a bit of.

big corporations operate with little to no competition in a crony capitalist closed environment, offering no innovation much less good jobs to the people under the protection of outdated unfair patent laws, which they themselves purchased in a corrupt electoral system.

 

It is true even if you employ 187,000 people to manufacture and sell 2.39 million cars a year. No incentives or investment will make you build 2.5 million cars unless you think there are consumers who will buy them.

 

Consumption doesn't create jobs, investment does. If those millions invest the savings, then that will create jobs.

- - - Updated - - -

And, yet, it's not demand that drives supply. Are you familiar with Say's Law?

 

worth billions? You do know, of course, that taxes are based on income, and not wealth. If you have a quintillion tons of gold in the basement, that's not really taxable. The government doesn't need to know about it, right?

So you can be worth as much as you want, and the government can do nothing about it.

It's like understanding that a hammer is not a screwdriver.

Want to start again?

 

Reality. Survival trumps individual rights in the grand scheme of things, and the use of force to ensure survival is perfectly justified - this precedent exists everywhere - this is why taking civilian lives in warfare is perfectly justified if it ensures that the defending nation survives.

Key word though is survival, not "luxury" - socialized services are perfectly justified if they're limited to basic necessities - the problem is when the government misuses taxpayer dollars on frivolous pursuits, unnecessary wars, or allows individuals to abuse the system despite being totally capable of providing for themselves.

Anarcho-capitalism has never and will never work on a large scale because it ignores that our biology isn't really that different from 50,000 years ago - the only way it would ever work is for humans to evolve into a completely new species, and that will take 10,000s of years if it ever happens. Biologically like it or not, people are social animals - while they're competitive to a degree, they're hardwired to be cooperative with those who they're in proximity with.

So the better question is - what's stopping you or people you know from moving to an island somewhere and living away from civilization like Robinson Crusoe - because that's the only way an anarchist utopia will ever happen - talking about it on the internet won't change it, ever. It's as much pure idealism as Marxism is.

 

talking about tax cuts going to those making over 250k a year

much better to get them to people that need them making less then 250 k a year

- - - Updated - - -

if they already have billions, that is nothing, that same $$$ will have much more effect if given to the bottom 80%

 

LoL wtf??

In my experience, poor people are the world's greatest entrepreneurs. Every day, they must innovate in order to survive. They remain poor because they do not have the opportunities to turn their creativity into sustainable income.

Muhammad Yunus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

To make this post on topic..it is a circle of economics in my limited experience. You work for boss, boss works for owner, owner works for stock holder/investors, investors work for consumers, consumer buy product sold by worker, etc.

 

Any consumer is going to buy something. The invester will use his or her time and money to research the market to see what should be developed and sold. For instance...if the market is down, you would focus sales on a budget car with limited bells and whistles. But it takes capital and resources in place to research what you should develop and expand in and it takes money to create and invest in a strategy to acheive goals based on your research. If a person has the resources...and a sense of security---they can expand in a variety of different ways to meet the needs of the market. Be honest....even people on food stamps and welfare are buying new cars, tv's, microwaves, beer, food etc.

I work with a discount grocery warehouse that competes against Walmart, higher-end grociers and other price cut grociers. They flourished in the down economy as people looked to cut costs--sacrificing quality brands for savings. With the additional profits, they remodeled all their stores with a better presentation of their products setting themselves up for a stronger future when the economy gets better and people are tempted to go back to high priced higher quality goods.

It was meeting the consumer needs that created the profit....not the consumers themselves. And now they are getting ready to meet the consumer needs in the future.

The customer buys what is available. The business owner makes it possible for them to buy. If the market was not intruded on by government---the natural and healthy ratio of business invester and consumer would occur.

 

Then it's the capitalists vs. the socialists.

Hope you guys are well armed, because there will be no quarter given. And guess who has all the prisons and police...

 

Rich people don't create jobs, connected democrats with unions create jobs

 

They can't grab onto those opportunities because of the endless legal hoops they'd have to jump through in order to start a business, as well as the minimum income that's required of the state. And by "minimum income," I mean by all the regulations that standardize all living expenses, making a bottom living a 21st century luxurious one. The artist is unable to rent a lower-than-government-standard apartment and run a basic little business. The state has to ruin it. Damn shame.

 

No it's just the anarcho-capitalists versus everyone else, because everyone believes in "socialism" in the most basic sense of the word including the American Founders - by anarcho-capitalist logic even the military is a socialist institution.

Not to mention the anarchos don't have a problem using publicly subsidized services on a daily basis - I seriously doubt they "avoid" using publicly funded roads when they drive themselves to work. So no the only true "anarcho" capitalist is Robinson Crusoe, or Tom Hanks in "castaway" - the others are just posers or social non-contributers, like Ayn Rand on Medicare

Not following you - it's the "socialists" who have the military and the police, not to mention that by your definition of the term 99.99% of the population is "socialist" - so it's your head who will be under the guillotine, right?

 

Why do you think we're (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing? If there were any other option, we'd be enjoying the sweet utopia instead of bickering with you.

Though we secretly like the bickering.

 

Yes, but what some people tend to forget is that wealthy people also have LOTS of money to spend, which creates a vacuum that creates jobs...you can make a thousand Lamborghinis, but if people don't have the money to buy them then you can't sell them...
I own a small business, all of my customers are multi millionaires and I can assure you that they DO create jobs, and they DO spend A LOT of money. In almost all of these places I, along with most of the other people that work there, have got "carte blanche", just do whatever you feel needs to be done and send the bill to this address...One place I picked up this spring was just purchased by a big time NY banker and his wife who is a big time NY real estate agent. they bought two adjoining propertys, basically bulldozing them and building 2 "estates", one for them and the other will be a guest home. They told the general contractor not to make any plans for the next TEN YEARS. that doesn't include my time there, the pool guys, the electricians, painters, plumbers etc. the last time I was there I was talking to the guy that was digging a new well for them. I said "I guess they are putting in a new well" He said " yea, one here for the house, another for the irrigation system, and one more to feed the 5000 square foot man made pond they are having installed in the back yard. then they want me to drill 3 more over on the other property." Thats probably about $60,000 in wells alone. over all they are hoping to keep around a 12 million dollar budget, most of which will go to blue collar middle class families. thats just one account, and by far, not even one of my wealthiest places. Just to put things into perspective, James Murdoch (Ruperts son) is one of my accounts. There are times when I pull up to one of these accounts and just look around at the activity...pool guys doing maintenance, house cleaners, gardeners, lawn guys cutting the grass etc. and it hits me that this guy is spending more money today to maintain his weekend house then I'll make in the next 2 weeks. The care taker at one of my accounts told me that he has a weekly budget of $23,000 for maintenance...$23,000 that goes directly to the middle class worker every week...anyone that tells you that wealthy people don't create jobs, haven't ever spent any time around wealthy people. I Thank God every day for putting me into a position where I can work for wealthy people.

 

The most successful economic models for the middle is market capitalism with a shot of socialistic principles. Capitalism if not guided will only create a sliver of a middle a few in the upper class which is extremely rich and most being in the lower class, the working poor.

The Nordic nations proved the mixed models work well, and our own nation used to have our capitalism structured to create a large middle class. Our current model, from the GOP neoliberalism has hollowed our our middle, gutted our nation of its primary job creation engines, in order to see more of the income to the top. This is extending the trickle down principle.

The very growth that Reagan saw, was in large part coming from our economy finally adjusting to the tripling of the cost of energy. AND that economic sector that experienced the growth, left for first mexico and then china. So we can never see that sort of growth for as long as we continue on not making what we consume.

 

Did you actually watch the video or you just responding to the dumb title of the video?