Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
retirement crisis in america
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="smapple" data-source="post: 1495558" data-attributes="member: 55535"><p>The incentive to work harder under capitalism is you gain more capital a la material wealth. There is a correlation between how hard you work and pay if you think in the long term and understand the mechanisms by which hard work is rewarded instead of only focusing on the hourly pay. As long as people are paid for the work done at the negotiated amount during the hiring process. Along with inflation I included market forces for setting a practical price on labor, I don't think you should leave that out. </p><p></p><p>This idea that the poor don't pay taxes is a myth. The only tax they might get off on is income taxes, but assuming they're not doing anything illegal they will be paying payroll and excise taxes which, unfortunately in most cases, were setup to fund specific government projects but then were spent on other projects. You can make the case that tuition funded colleges are a good deal for the poor but seems to me like you'd be letting the same problems that affect k-12 to also influence colleges, which are under achieving and trying to get more money either from tax revenues or corporations. </p><p></p><p>I'm assuming you've listened to enough Ron Paul to know the argument for free markets, so if after listening to him you still remain unconvinced then don't know how to help you there. </p><p></p><p>Not sure where you get that Thomas Sowell advocates corporate tyranny and anarchy. Corporations do not hate government, they love the fact that politicians are willing to sell out their constituents for pennies on the dollar. Corporations aren't tyrannies, they don't have a gun to your head coercing you to buy their products. Give the corps the middle finger and become a conscientious consumer, don't buy from them and go out of your way to buy from good sellers. Whatever problems corporations have, I say if you think it can be done better then go for it. If you think corporations are doing it wrong then start an S-corp or LLC and show people how to do it right. And before thinking up reasons why not to, I've tried it and quit because the major problems I had always involved my customers and the government (licenses, taxes, inspections, accessibility, etc.) not other businesses and it's less stress to just let others handle it. </p><p></p><p>America's not the only country that's been meddling in other countries. On 9/11 we'll just have to agree to disagree since the same statements are just being rehashed. </p><p></p><p>The government doesn't have to fund USPS, it just has to make it illegal to compete directly, which it is. And honestly, who doesn't like government when it makes them money? Which is why having politicians that won't sell out is important, but that's a different thread. </p><p></p><p>Corporations are allowed to influence k-12 because the DoE allows them to. Like I said, all that nonsense could be stopped immediately if the DoE bothered to care, because of money, and perpetuation of the department, yada yada. Might have to agree to disagree on this one too. </p><p></p><p>Orwell is a good writer, kind of skewed in his biases since he criticizes capitalism's vulnerability to fascism while at the same time watching socialism in Russia deteriorate into communism and self proclaimed socialists in Germany also talk about overthrowing capitalism and he never seriously addresses how to prevent that in the future as a socialist himself; he points out the faults of capitalism without addressing the same faults of socialism. Maybe if he lived longer he would have, so I look at his writings about politics as just a road stop.</p><p></p><p>In his later 1941 essay "Shopkeepers at War" during WWII he seemed to have a different gripe about capitalism:</p><p></p><p>"What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism – that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit – <em>does not work</em>. It cannot deliver the goods. This fact had been known to millions of people for years past, but nothing ever came of it, because there was no real urge from below to alter the system, and those at the top had trained themselves to be impenetrably stupid on just this point. Argument and propaganda got one nowhere. The lords of property simply sat on their bottoms and proclaimed that all was for the best. Hitler's conquest of Europe, however, was a physical debunking of capitalism. War, for all its evil, is at any rate an unanswerable test of strength, like a try-your-grip machine. Great strength returns the penny, and there is no way of faking the result."</p><p></p><p>He never addresses what would happen to a country that is both capitalist and unable to lose a war. So when he says things like, "If one collaborates with a capitalist- imperialist government in a struggle ‘against’ Fascism, i.e. against a rival imperialism, one is simply letting fascism in by the back door." he's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. By the same reasoning the case could be made that socialism let's communism in by the back door. </p><p></p><p>Not trying to invoke Godwin's law or compare Orwell to Nazis with the following quote, just pointing out that the people who Orwell called fascists called themselves socialists while being anti-capitalist. </p><p></p><p>"We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!" -Gregor Strasser</p><p></p><p>Personally I think if Orwell lived long enough he would've been a libertarian socialist. He'd still be wrong though. </p><p></p><p>Most people don't try to study and practice hermeneutics, so that might be the differential.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="smapple, post: 1495558, member: 55535"] The incentive to work harder under capitalism is you gain more capital a la material wealth. There is a correlation between how hard you work and pay if you think in the long term and understand the mechanisms by which hard work is rewarded instead of only focusing on the hourly pay. As long as people are paid for the work done at the negotiated amount during the hiring process. Along with inflation I included market forces for setting a practical price on labor, I don't think you should leave that out. This idea that the poor don't pay taxes is a myth. The only tax they might get off on is income taxes, but assuming they're not doing anything illegal they will be paying payroll and excise taxes which, unfortunately in most cases, were setup to fund specific government projects but then were spent on other projects. You can make the case that tuition funded colleges are a good deal for the poor but seems to me like you'd be letting the same problems that affect k-12 to also influence colleges, which are under achieving and trying to get more money either from tax revenues or corporations. I'm assuming you've listened to enough Ron Paul to know the argument for free markets, so if after listening to him you still remain unconvinced then don't know how to help you there. Not sure where you get that Thomas Sowell advocates corporate tyranny and anarchy. Corporations do not hate government, they love the fact that politicians are willing to sell out their constituents for pennies on the dollar. Corporations aren't tyrannies, they don't have a gun to your head coercing you to buy their products. Give the corps the middle finger and become a conscientious consumer, don't buy from them and go out of your way to buy from good sellers. Whatever problems corporations have, I say if you think it can be done better then go for it. If you think corporations are doing it wrong then start an S-corp or LLC and show people how to do it right. And before thinking up reasons why not to, I've tried it and quit because the major problems I had always involved my customers and the government (licenses, taxes, inspections, accessibility, etc.) not other businesses and it's less stress to just let others handle it. America's not the only country that's been meddling in other countries. On 9/11 we'll just have to agree to disagree since the same statements are just being rehashed. The government doesn't have to fund USPS, it just has to make it illegal to compete directly, which it is. And honestly, who doesn't like government when it makes them money? Which is why having politicians that won't sell out is important, but that's a different thread. Corporations are allowed to influence k-12 because the DoE allows them to. Like I said, all that nonsense could be stopped immediately if the DoE bothered to care, because of money, and perpetuation of the department, yada yada. Might have to agree to disagree on this one too. Orwell is a good writer, kind of skewed in his biases since he criticizes capitalism's vulnerability to fascism while at the same time watching socialism in Russia deteriorate into communism and self proclaimed socialists in Germany also talk about overthrowing capitalism and he never seriously addresses how to prevent that in the future as a socialist himself; he points out the faults of capitalism without addressing the same faults of socialism. Maybe if he lived longer he would have, so I look at his writings about politics as just a road stop. In his later 1941 essay "Shopkeepers at War" during WWII he seemed to have a different gripe about capitalism: "What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism – that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit – [I]does not work[/I]. It cannot deliver the goods. This fact had been known to millions of people for years past, but nothing ever came of it, because there was no real urge from below to alter the system, and those at the top had trained themselves to be impenetrably stupid on just this point. Argument and propaganda got one nowhere. The lords of property simply sat on their bottoms and proclaimed that all was for the best. Hitler's conquest of Europe, however, was a physical debunking of capitalism. War, for all its evil, is at any rate an unanswerable test of strength, like a try-your-grip machine. Great strength returns the penny, and there is no way of faking the result." He never addresses what would happen to a country that is both capitalist and unable to lose a war. So when he says things like, "If one collaborates with a capitalist- imperialist government in a struggle ‘against’ Fascism, i.e. against a rival imperialism, one is simply letting fascism in by the back door." he's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. By the same reasoning the case could be made that socialism let's communism in by the back door. Not trying to invoke Godwin's law or compare Orwell to Nazis with the following quote, just pointing out that the people who Orwell called fascists called themselves socialists while being anti-capitalist. "We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!" -Gregor Strasser Personally I think if Orwell lived long enough he would've been a libertarian socialist. He'd still be wrong though. Most people don't try to study and practice hermeneutics, so that might be the differential. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
retirement crisis in america
Top