War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Truthseeker420]

Mitt Romney was not smart enough to beat Barack Obama. The war is not on the rich it is on the politicians that give the rich a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

 

[Boss]

Don't be retarded, prices are (mostly) set by supply and demand, a gigantically unreasonable raise like you suggest would just result in inflation and an eventual stabilization with people being poorer then they began. It is shameful that the government must step in and mandate a minimum wage when your economic theory suggests that wages naturally keep pace with the cost of living but they have not. Why is that? Don't say "the government" because they have a real interest in taxing more income.

Another example of how you are economically illiterate. Prices are NEVER set by supply and demand. Prices may go up or down due to supply and demand, but they are never set by that. They are determined through analysis by the capitalist of cost to produce the product or service while realizing a profit margin.

Now you hit the nail on the head with why it's stupid to have a large unreasonable increase in minimum wage, but the same dynamic applies on smaller more reasonable raises as well. Any increase in the baseline cost of labor will have inflationary effect on all prices.

Wages don't keep pace with the cost of living because you've baselined labor with a minimum wage, I covered this already. Capitalists actually LIKE having a baseline on labor, it helps them in formulating a successful plan because they no longer compete for labor in a free market system. Labor cost becomes a "known quantity" and it doesn't matter about inflation or cost of living.

Now you will fire your cannons at the rich by demanding an increase in the minimum wage, but once again, we discover that you've merely blown another hole in the hull of your ship. You never even touched the rich, but you killed plenty of your own in the continuing war you can't win against the enemy you'll never defeat.

 

[zeke]

These people are saying that the union worker who wants a bigger share of the pie is Satan, but the Rich man who wants a bigger share of the same pie is God.

that's the bottom line.

Agreed. These shitheads think that IF a person inherited a few 100 million, they earned every dime. And are divine. Not to be expected to contribute more than they are even though they didn't earn their wealth beyond an accident of birth.

 

[jillian]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

A proven lie.

False....

every two bit banana republic has a concentration of wealth in the top percentage of society.

so yes, what you're saying is a proven lie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

.

Notice that Boss likes the crazy idea of wealth being infinite if the Rich are accumulating it for themselves, however, in his mind,

wealth becomes extremely finite when the idea that the working class might get a bigger share of it rears its ugly head.

lol, classic rightwinger idiocy.

 

[rightwinger]

Don't be retarded, prices are (mostly) set by supply and demand, a gigantically unreasonable raise like you suggest would just result in inflation and an eventual stabilization with people being poorer then they began. It is shameful that the government must step in and mandate a minimum wage when your economic theory suggests that wages naturally keep pace with the cost of living but they have not. Why is that? Don't say "the government" because they have a real interest in taxing more income.

Another example of how you are economically illiterate. Prices are NEVER set by supply and demand. Prices may go up or down due to supply and demand, but they are never set by that. They are determined through analysis by the capitalist of cost to produce the product or service while realizing a profit margin.

Now you hit the nail on the head with why it's stupid to have a large unreasonable increase in minimum wage, but the same dynamic applies on smaller more reasonable raises as well. Any increase in the baseline cost of labor will have inflationary effect on all prices.

Wages don't keep pace with the cost of living because you've baselined labor with a minimum wage, I covered this already. Capitalists actually LIKE having a baseline on labor, it helps them in formulating a successful plan because they no longer compete for labor in a free market system. Labor cost becomes a "known quantity" and it doesn't matter about inflation or cost of living.

Now you will fire your cannons at the rich by demanding an increase in the minimum wage, but once again, we discover that you've merely blown another hole in the hull of your ship. You never even touched the rich, but you killed plenty of your own in the continuing war you can't win against the enemy you'll never defeat.

Economics for dummies

Whyy we can't trust economic decisions to conservatives. The rules do not apply

 

[Boss]

Or do you really mean to say that the CEO's of our minimum wage based corporations are such fuck heads that IF they have to pay minimum wage workers more money then the CEO's have to raise the prices for everybody so that the CEOs multi million dollar bonus doesn't get affected.

That I can believe. Cause that's what you are talking about. If Walmart pays a higher wage, their profits would decline and the multi billionaire Walton's would have a little less money. They all ready got more than they could ever spend. The company is making big money. But paying their workers a little more is beyond them to do.

And you are a big supporter of that level of greed. Fuck that.

No, I am saying you are a fuckhead. A total economic illiterate who doesn't even understand basic principles of free market capitalism. You live in some fantasy delusion of a world where CEOs are going to fork over a portion of their compensation to pay the "little guy" and everyone will be happy and content, even when you know that never happens. It takes a special kind of stupid, it really does.

All capitalist business in the United States which requires labor is "minimum wage based." They may not pay minimum wage, but whatever they pay is directly figured with the baseline of the minimum wage.

 

[occupied]

Don't be retarded, prices are (mostly) set by supply and demand, a gigantically unreasonable raise like you suggest would just result in inflation and an eventual stabilization with people being poorer then they began. It is shameful that the government must step in and mandate a minimum wage when your economic theory suggests that wages naturally keep pace with the cost of living but they have not. Why is that? Don't say "the government" because they have a real interest in taxing more income.

Another example of how you are economically illiterate. Prices are NEVER set by supply and demand. Prices may go up or down due to supply and demand, but they are never set by that. They are determined through analysis by the capitalist of cost to produce the product or service while realizing a profit margin.

Now you hit the nail on the head with why it's stupid to have a large unreasonable increase in minimum wage, but the same dynamic applies on smaller more reasonable raises as well. Any increase in the baseline cost of labor will have inflationary effect on all prices.

Wages don't keep pace with the cost of living because you've baselined labor with a minimum wage, I covered this already. Capitalists actually LIKE having a baseline on labor, it helps them in formulating a successful plan because they no longer compete for labor in a free market system. Labor cost becomes a "known quantity" and it doesn't matter about inflation or cost of living.

Now you will fire your cannons at the rich by demanding an increase in the minimum wage, but once again, we discover that you've merely blown another hole in the hull of your ship. You never even touched the rich, but you killed plenty of your own in the continuing war you can't win against the enemy you'll never defeat.

Why must you fill such a dry subject as economics with so much rage? I do not demand a minimum wage increase, although I generally support it as a policy I know it is not The Answer to what ails our economy, merely a band-aid on a hemorrhage. The Answer is to change how we think about the super-rich. They cannot be trusted to do the right thing any more than a powerful politician, people as powerful as them must be held accountable or they will do anything. In your world, how is unaccountable power acceptable in America?

 

[BluesLegend]

Mitt Romney was not smart enough to beat Barack Obama. The war is not on the rich it is on the politicians that give the rich a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

The "rich" pay most of the taxes how is that a free ride on the backs of taxpayers? We pump $1 trillion dollars a year now into state and federal welfare programs, cry me a freaking river.

 

[occupied]

Mitt Romney was not smart enough to beat Barack Obama. The war is not on the rich it is on the politicians that give the rich a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

The "rich" pay most of the taxes how is that a free ride on the backs of taxpayers? We pump $1 trillion dollars a year now into state and federal welfare programs, cry me a freaking river.

Making the bulk of total income naturally requires the rich to pay the bulk of taxes. If that income were spread around more we would have a broader tax base and perhaps they would not be so "oppressed".

 

[Boss]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

.

Notice that Boss likes the crazy idea of wealth being infinite if the Rich are accumulating it for themselves, however, in his mind,

wealth becomes extremely finite when the idea that the working class might get a bigger share of it rears its ugly head.

lol, classic rightwinger idiocy.

It's not crazy, wealth is infinite. You're crew has already had to admit it's not finite. Now "wealth is infinite" does not mean there is a great big unlimited pile of it somewhere for the taking. It means the ability to acquire wealth is unlimited. It's infinite, it still has to be acquired.

What you are calling the "working class" aren't going to ever get a bigger share. If you increase their share, the prices of goods and services rise and the amount of everyone's shares increase all the way down the line, so the "working class" end up with exactly the same share relative to everyone else. The only way a "worker" can get a bigger share is if you re-introduce free market capitalist principles and have capitalists compete for labor again. We're obviously not going to ever do that, so it's an academic point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

.

Notice that Boss likes the crazy idea of wealth being infinite if the Rich are accumulating it for themselves, however, in his mind,

wealth becomes extremely finite when the idea that the working class might get a bigger share of it rears its ugly head.

lol, classic rightwinger idiocy.

It's not crazy, wealth is infinite. You're crew has already had to admit it's not finite. Now "wealth is infinite" does not mean there is a great big unlimited pile of it somewhere for the taking. It means the ability to acquire wealth is unlimited. It's infinite, it still has to be acquired.

What you are calling the "working class" aren't going to ever get a bigger share. If you increase their share, the prices of goods and services rise and the amount of everyone's shares increase all the way down the line, so the "working class" end up with exactly the same share relative to everyone else. The only way a "worker" can get a bigger share is if you re-introduce free market capitalist principles and have capitalists compete for labor again. We're obviously not going to ever do that, so it's an academic point.

The way the worker can get a bigger share is if the non-workers take a smaller share, with no effect on costs or prices.

 

[BluesLegend]

Mitt Romney was not smart enough to beat Barack Obama. The war is not on the rich it is on the politicians that give the rich a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

The "rich" pay most of the taxes how is that a free ride on the backs of taxpayers? We pump $1 trillion dollars a year now into state and federal welfare programs, cry me a freaking river.

Making the bulk of total income naturally requires the rich to pay the bulk of taxes. If that income were spread around more we would have a broader tax base and perhaps they would not be so "oppressed".

If they are paying the taxes then what the hell does the left have to complain about?

 

[Boss]

These shitheads think that IF a person inherited a few 100 million, they earned every dime. And are divine. Not to be expected to contribute more than they are even though they didn't earn their wealth beyond an accident of birth.

I don't think anyone is divine, whether they earned wealth or inherited it. The actual number of so-called "wealthy" people who inherited their wealth is very small. Nearly every one of them had to pay inheritance tax which was about half the wealth they inherited. So we automatically take half their money if they inherit it, but that still isn't enough for your greedy little ass, is it?

 

[occupied]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

.

Notice that Boss likes the crazy idea of wealth being infinite if the Rich are accumulating it for themselves, however, in his mind,

wealth becomes extremely finite when the idea that the working class might get a bigger share of it rears its ugly head.

lol, classic rightwinger idiocy.

It's not crazy, wealth is infinite. You're crew has already had to admit it's not finite. Now "wealth is infinite" does not mean there is a great big unlimited pile of it somewhere for the taking. It means the ability to acquire wealth is unlimited. It's infinite, it still has to be acquired.

What you are calling the "working class" aren't going to ever get a bigger share. If you increase their share, the prices of goods and services rise and the amount of everyone's shares increase all the way down the line, so the "working class" end up with exactly the same share relative to everyone else. The only way a "worker" can get a bigger share is if you re-introduce free market capitalist principles and have capitalists compete for labor again. We're obviously not going to ever do that, so it's an academic point.

You sound like a broken record "wealth is infinite" you say? So what? Wealth is an abstract concept. What is real are things like GDP and the supply of raw materials and the energy supply etc. which are not infinite, It is the great tragedy of humanity that resources are not scattered evenly around the world and the people you worship as blameless gods of commerce exploit scarcity for their own profits. Wealth may be infinite because it is an artificial construct but real things that raise humans above abject poverty are not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The wealth of any nation is finite. The more of it the rich concentrate in their own hands, the less there is left for everyone else.

Wrong! Wealth is NOT finite, it is infinite. People generate wealth through their labor, creativity, talents, etc. This is your key problem, the failure to understand wealth is not finite. When you believe such a fallacy, it causes you to think the wealthy should only become so wealthy else the poor can never become wealthy. It makes you believe there is only so much wealth and the wealthy have it all.

.

Notice that Boss likes the crazy idea of wealth being infinite if the Rich are accumulating it for themselves, however, in his mind,

wealth becomes extremely finite when the idea that the working class might get a bigger share of it rears its ugly head.

lol, classic rightwinger idiocy.

It's not crazy, wealth is infinite. You're crew has already had to admit it's not finite. Now "wealth is infinite" does not mean there is a great big unlimited pile of it somewhere for the taking. It means the ability to acquire wealth is unlimited. It's infinite, it still has to be acquired.

What you are calling the "working class" aren't going to ever get a bigger share. If you increase their share, the prices of goods and services rise and the amount of everyone's shares increase all the way down the line, so the "working class" end up with exactly the same share relative to everyone else. The only way a "worker" can get a bigger share is if you re-introduce free market capitalist principles and have capitalists compete for labor again. We're obviously not going to ever do that, so it's an academic point.

The average McDonald's franchise makes 500,000 to a million a year in profits.

What is a McDonald s franchise s profit Ask.com

Take the midpoint, $750,000 a year.

What if the franchise made 600,000 a year, and the 150,000 difference went to the workers in the form of better wages and/or benefits.

Did the workers gain? Yes. Did prices have to be increased? No.

 

[Boss]

The way the worker can get a bigger share is if the non-workers take a smaller share, with no effect on costs or prices.

Wow, you actually got something right for a change, but I don't think you realized how! Yes, if we could somehow eliminate the workers having to pay for welfare recipients and people who think they are socially entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, they could make more! No effects on costs or prices. It's a little cold-hearted but that would certainly work.

 

[occupied]

Mitt Romney was not smart enough to beat Barack Obama. The war is not on the rich it is on the politicians that give the rich a free ride on the backs of taxpayers.

The "rich" pay most of the taxes how is that a free ride on the backs of taxpayers? We pump $1 trillion dollars a year now into state and federal welfare programs, cry me a freaking river.

Making the bulk of total income naturally requires the rich to pay the bulk of taxes. If that income were spread around more we would have a broader tax base and perhaps they would not be so "oppressed".

If they are paying the taxes then what the hell does the left have to complain about?

Because the "captains of industry" foolishly crashed the economy ship into the rocks and now they have the gall to complain about what lifeboats and hull patches cost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The way the worker can get a bigger share is if the non-workers take a smaller share, with no effect on costs or prices.

Wow, you actually got something right for a change, but I don't think you realized how! Yes, if we could somehow eliminate the workers having to pay for welfare recipients and people who think they are socially entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, they could make more! No effects on costs or prices. It's a little cold-hearted but that would certainly work.

That's not who I was referring to.

 

[Boss]

You sound like a broken record "wealth is infinite" you say? So what? Wealth is an abstract concept. What is real are things like GDP and the supply of raw materials and the energy supply etc. which are not infinite, It is the great tragedy of humanity that resources are not scattered evenly around the world and the people you worship as blameless gods of commerce exploit scarcity for their own profits. Wealth may be infinite because it is an artificial construct but real things that raise humans above abject poverty are not.

Well, wealth is certainly not an abstract concept. It's not a tragedy of humanity that resources aren't evenly distributed around the world, it's just a fact of nature and life. What is a tragedy is that a country as wealthy as ours, with as much going for it as ours, with the potential we have here for wealth acquisition and such, that we are inundated with absolute moronic idiots who have no clue about how even the most rudimentary capitalist system works.