Loading...

Fine Art and the Capitalist’s Conundrum

0
1

Hi Cullen, I appreciated this post of yours. I reached the same question mark, for different reasons. Personally, I have been toying with this kinds of questions for some years now and have reached the conclusion that the current implementation of capitalism isn’t working. There are several realities that I look at for this:

– The world’s resources are not infinite, therefore the system has to scale and be sustainable inherently. It’s not the case today. It is possible and is happening, that few people acquire/control most resources and the others have no choice but to “compete” in order to survive, and many do just that, only survive;
– If we were all left somewhere in the desert, very quickly our first priority would be water; second would be food, and possibly dealing with wounds with may have; third is shelter; fourth is our way out; But in society, food is one of the lowest margin business to be in (I am talking about farmers, not agri-businesses and food consortiums). So somehow, capitalism has created a situation where less valuable products have a higher price. One is willing to pay $7 every day for a starbuck coffee, but cringe at the idea of paying $5 for 6 organic eggs once per week. THis discrepancy is a problem I think. We see it in the stock market, but that’s fine, because the underlying “product” is not a core need. But when it comes to food, shelter, water, healthcare and education, the system should implement some kinds of safeguards so that value and price is not as disconnected.

Anyway, these are my thoughts, but it’s so rare to meet anyone who is educated on this stuff and not dogmatic, that in the end, I find very few people with whom to debate and check my ideas and solutions.

Closed
Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Responses: 9)
Posted on 11/17/2017 3:51 AM
512 views
1
Private answer

Pete, It’s all about marketing. When was the last time you saw a promotion about a carton of eggs? Whole Foods sells free-range chicken eggs that bing in a lot more moolah because of marketing, not because they are better. Similarly, why would anyone pay hundred$ for shoes just because the name of a famous basketball player was on them? The number of ads on TV, Google, Facebook etc., should give you a hint that marketing/advertising must be worth the expense as it is a major player in our economy. Just because it is advertised is no reason to buy it. But if it is not advertised you can find it in the store.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/cost-of-marketing-what-is-the-average-budget

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 27, Responses: 283)
Answered on 11/17/2017 4:17 AM
0
Private answer

Jason Zweig has a mildly entertaining article in today’s WSJ about the “Salvator Mundi” painting. Based on what King Francis I of France is said to have paid for the “Mona Lisa” – then assuming (just for the purpose of this exercise) that the Mundi painting went for the same price 498 years ago, the average rate of return (at a continuously compounding rate – without interruption) comes to slightly under 1.35%. (The beginning number in the exercise was $575,000.)

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 21, Responses: 60)
Answered on 11/17/2017 3:23 PM
0
Private answer

HI Pete,

Nice thoughts. I always say that capitalism is the worst system except for all the rest (to twist a Churchill quote). I think capitalism is “working” exactly as it’s supposed to. It’s making owners very very rich and they are maximizing profits and production. In fact, you could argue that the reason for your food pricing example is because capitalists have mastered the art of producing food in such abundance that its price has cratered. At the same time, that food is often of lower quality than the more expensive organics you mention. I farm chickens for instance and I would NEVER pay for store bought eggs again in my life. I know and can taste the difference in organic eggs even though they cost me more to produce. But the Traders Joes down the street sells 12 eggs for $2 when my eggs would cost $8 in a store. Crazy.

So we circle back to the question of values. Capitalism is pulling record numbers of people out of poverty around the world, but what is the cost of that? Where else is it hurting? Americans are fatter than ever, but living better in many ways.

I guess I am rambling because I don’t really know how to respond to your thoughts. I agree that capitalism is failing in big ways (like the growing inequality), but it is also working wonders in many ways at the same time.

As you said, I try not to be dogmatic about things. I try really hard to be super objective, but I don’t know where I sit on this argument. The owner in me says everything is great. But the pragmatist in me knows that things aren’t all great and that the system is contributing to that in many ways. We are all playing that poker game and guys like me have too many chips. I know it. And I think it’s unfair and bad for the health of the game…..

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/17/2017 3:51 PM
1
Private answer

Steve,

Really fun piece by Jason. Here’s the link in case anyone else wants to read:

https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/11/16/is-da-vincis-salvator-mundi-worth-450-million-or-454680/

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/17/2017 3:51 PM
-8
Private answer

Cullen is a classic coast-dwelling liberal elite. Living in a multi million dollar coastal hacienda, mulling about inequality. Nice !!!

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/18/2017 12:57 AM
5
Private answer

Furion,

Don’t be a dick.

1) I’m not a liberal. I’m centrist. I'm pretty close to a libertarian on social issues and Keynesian on econ issues. Well, not purely Libertarian, but my basic view is that on most social issues the govt should stay out of our business and on some economic issues the govt has to be involved in our business because otherwise capitalists will take advantage of the system and take advantage of it for their own personal gain (sometimes at everyone else's expense).

2) I live in a district with Republican rep (Issa, a huge Trumper) and my house is modest by any means.

3) If the wealthy don’t fix inequality then it won’t get fixed.

But the biggest irony is that you’re a Trumper. You literally voted for a guy who shits into a golden toilet. A billionaire who will only make inequality worse. If you're remotely worried about inequality then Trump is the absolute worst person to be in charge. But you voted for him thinking he would grow the economy out of its inequality problem. It's a joke to hear a Trump voter accuse other people of having disingenuous worries about inequality....

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/18/2017 1:14 AM
3
Private answer

Furion, you’re an idiot if you think Cullen is part of the problem and not part of the solution. He’s one of the most thoughtful people writing about economics and finance.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 9)
Answered on 11/18/2017 11:22 PM
-4
Private answer

Ok. Several things to unpack here.

1. The word “Libertarian” is currently getting its meaning corrupted, much like what happened to the word “Liberal” way back. Far left elements are infiltrating the Libertarian party, advocating for policies such as open borders. Gary Johnson is a total leftist.

2. For true classical liberalism, see Hans Hermann Hoppe.

3. Your article and the OP’s post are verbatim quotes from the communist manifesto.

4. You still have zero idea why Trump won.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/19/2017 3:58 AM
0
Private answer

Furion, you and I live in a different world. My world is not made of categorizations, judgments, labeling but of human beings and in fact, all living beings. When you dismiss an argument because of the categorizations you make, it says some about you, nothing about the other person. When you dismiss a person that is open and willing to engage in a respectful debate, it says a lot about the kind of person you are, and still nothing about the person being attacked.
And Trump won because there are 60 some million people out there that are very different than I am. Any other reason you may entertain in your mind is just interpretation of extremely complex society dynamics. Likely, such views won’t be processed well in a dualistic mind, there is way more nuance in everything we are talking about than you may want. And that’s ok by me.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Responses: 9)
Answered on 11/19/2017 4:06 AM
-4
Private answer

Cullen is advocating for far-left liberal policies, but is using the now-corrupted word Libertarian as a guise.

If your ideas cannot get implemented without government mandates, then you are fundamentally calling for your ideas to be implemented by force.

All government actions are, at its core, coercive acts undertaken at the point of a gun.

If you want me to change the way I live, but I refuse, and then you advocate government mandates to make me fall in line, then fundamentally you are undertaking acts of violence against my way of life.

You want to know why US politics are so polarized? Because this is the inevitable consequence of government. Because government is the use of violence and coercion. So political struggles are basically violent conflicts but without immediate bloodshed.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/19/2017 4:07 AM
0
Private answer

Now I am interested, I am starting to know more about what problems are important to you. And surprisingly, I don’t entirely disagree, I see the issue you are pointing at. However, there are a couple of things that you are not including in your views:
– Fundamentally, we are a group of people trying to organize ourselves. We don’t have a real choice, there are too many of us for living each of us alone. Every group of people, from sports teams, bands, political, government, corporations have rules related to the group. It is impossible to avoid.
– Rules are limits, boundaries, and in a healthy societies, individuals are allowed to break the rules without being rejected. However, there are consequences. This is currently not working in our society btw.
– Creating, agreeing on rules is not necessarily violent, nor in fact its enforcement.

I agree that our government is becoming more and more of an oppressive one, and uses violence, abuse and rejection as consequences, which is always wrong.

Now, if I understand you correctly (but I am not sure, so let me know), you are advocating for no rules, no government? Or less of it? The thing is, as I said, rules are inevitable and it is part of being a grown-up to live by the rules of life, and the rules of the society we live in. It does not make it that I have to agree, or not even fight against some rules. It just means that arguing that government should have a smaller size is not an argument in any specific rule proposal.

I want to live in a world that is healthy, with wilderness around me, no pollution, no chemically treated food…and that’s impossible today. But if another wants to pollute, put chemicals in my food, we have a problem. We can’t both have our ways.
An ideal government is not an “It” that has mysterious and negative powers, it is a group of humans that are working together to organize themselves. I agree, it has become more of an It. But we are not going to go anywhere by simply advocating no government, or less government. We may get somewhere by asking that our government acts more like a “I”, a “You” instead of an “It”.
Now one small pointer: the first paragraph has zero value to me, and I am not sure what value you see in it. Perhaps that’s what you can express directly? My interpretation is that you are saying that Cullen is wrong and part of the problem, but then, how come you are reading his stuff? If I think someone is not smart, I will find no interests in myself to give that person attention. So something seems incongruent to me and instead of coming up with fantasies, I prefer to ask you directly what your intent is with that statement?

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Responses: 9)
Answered on 11/19/2017 4:47 AM
0
Private answer

And one more thought here: in all your comments, I still have no idea what your thoughts are on the problem that Cullen writes about in his initial post, whether you see the problem as different or not. And nor do I have any idea what your thoughts might be on a solution. So again, what is your intent with you engaging here?

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Responses: 9)
Answered on 11/19/2017 4:52 AM
-2
Private answer

As I have said Cullen and Pete’s writings on inequality are verbatim quotes from the Communist Manifesto. Many otherwise very smart people throughout the centuries have independently come up with these conclusions. However as experience has proven, the policies resulting from such conclusions are universally disastrous. Think Soviets, Pre-capitalist China, Venezuela, Detroit, etc.

Both Cullen and Pete are for an alternative mechanism to the allocation of resources in society, ignoring the fact that there are only 2 ways of allocating resources in society. Capitalism aka the free market aka voluntary exchange, or the point of a gun aka involuntary exchange.

Ironically people who come to these communist conclusions tend to be well-off people who have not experienced the life of the plebs. In the case of Cullen literally recreationally farming chickens on the West Coast while wondering why the plebs are not living like him.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/19/2017 6:39 AM
2
Private answer

Furion, you didn’t support any of your arguments. If you’re going to make all these claims then support them.

The fact is, our govt is a representative republic. There is nothing coercive about it. Yeah, your side might lose now and then, but that doesn’t mean you were coerced. It means you were on the losing side of a fair vote. Trump won fair and square. I didn’t vote for him, but he wasn’t coerced on me.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/19/2017 10:26 AM
4
Private answer

Cullen,
I thoroughly enjoyed your opinion. It showed an acceptance of ambiguity – in this case, the ambiguity of accepting the “good” from different economical theories. You must realize by now, however, that some cannot accept ambiguity: it either has to be left or right; right or wrong; socialist or capitalist; etc. Furion would be one who accepts the statement, “Make a decision – right or wrong – but make a decision”. Sometimes one has to step outside the box and look in and realize that it’s not all black and white, but merely shades of gray (oft times too gray for those who cannot accept ambiguity). I felt you wrote an excellent article.
troll

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 19, Responses: 50)
Answered on 11/19/2017 11:40 AM
2
Private answer

HI Troll,

Thanks. And I think your comment is spot on. Political views exist on a spectrum which is why labelling is so dangerous and sometimes counterproductive. This is why I created my own label I guess – a pragmatic capitalist.

A pragmatic capitalist is someone who understands capitalism for what it is – a system that leverages the talents of individuals to produce for society. Good capitalists provide goods and services and benefit from that by earning a profit. But a pragmatic capitalist understands that as good as this system is, it has weakness and will veer towards inequality and monopoly. So you need to be mindful of this.

As I said in the piece, this can resolve itself in one of two ways – the capitalists can redistribute their wealth through charity. Or they can wait until the govt gets involved. I’d prefer more of the former than the latter, but I also know that that’s wishful thinking.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/19/2017 11:54 AM
0
Private answer

What’s quite amusing is that I did not propose any solution, or wealth redistribution. I talked about a problem that I see. Moreover, I never read much about communism and don’t care one bit if some words I use resemble those used by communism. Furion, find me that says that my views are exactly those of communism. then, find me the research that shows that these exact views have been implemented in a country, and then, find me the research that proves that that country failed because of that implementation. Remember, similarities don’t make two the same, correlation is not equal causation.
So at this point in the posts, I will allow myself one recommendation for you: see if you can make more room for the nuances we propose, without losing YOUR sense of self and what is important to you. See if you can hold both a little more for a little longer.
As to the problem at hand, for now, am I hearing you correctly that you do not see any other solution than the one Cullen is proposing?

And I will put on the table a solution I am toying with: putting a cap on wealth. Beyond a certain number, wealth has, in most cases, no incremental value to an individual or society. Some rare wealthy people do invest in highly challenging problems in highly innovative and bold ways, and it would be a downside of this solution because they would not have the funds required. I don’t buy into the argument that money accumulation is a necessary motivator and incentive for important jobs. I don’t believe that most people making millions and millions per year are so much more valuable to the economy and society than others. Steve Jobs, Einstein, Edison, and many other people that actually changed the world, did not do it for the money. You’ve got to do something you love, and if you commit to it, you’ll get good at it. If you are good at it, that’s how you’ll make the most powerful impact. If a banker CEO does not want to take the job for less, than fine, I’m sure someone else will step in.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Responses: 9)
Answered on 11/19/2017 12:43 PM
1
Private answer

Well, the big irony with Furion’s commenting history is that he’s mostly concerned about immigration. Specifically, he is a big fan of redistributing PEOPLE. Which is quite strange because of all the resources we could redistribute people are certainly the most valuable. So Furion and Trumpers pretend to be all free market, but when it comes to immigration they are staunchly anti-freedom.

Resource mobility is an absolute necessity in a capitalist system. This includes mobility of labor. Of course it needs to be regulated to some degree, but we’re seeing a dangerous movement towards closed borders policies which will help small parts of these domestic economies at the expense of the aggregate.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/19/2017 12:54 PM
2
Private answer

“But a pragmatic capitalist understands that as good as this system is, it has weakness and will veer towards inequality and monopoly. So you need to be mindful of this.” – Cullen. I would like to weigh-in on the causes of this “weakness” from hopefully an MR perspective.

There is a lack of understanding that our government is trying to create a “level playing field” for everyone through the use of laws, expenditures, and taxation. That is purely socialistic! Of course, people are not equal, so even on a level playing field, there will be successful folks and relatively useless non-contributors. But this effort is not “communistic”, nor “libertarian”. This is the “socialist” side of our capitalist country. If it does provide that “level playing field” then our socialist government is governing a capitalistic economic system, and this was a wonder to be proud of.

But (this is the big BUTT), if certain actors in the “society” force the government to mess up that level playing field and instead causes the government to give favors via laws, rules, graft, corruption, then the capitalist system will crumble. This has been proven over and over again during the last 200 years. Now it’s happening here. Every effort to change this trajectory is met with derogatory insinuations, calling democrats evil communists, and going against the will of God. BUTT this is our MR today. Ridiculous!

Reminds me of a song.

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need…

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 27, Responses: 283)
Answered on 11/19/2017 5:51 PM
2
Private answer

Sidestepping the bickering, I’ll donate my random comments on the original article.

Ok, I ditched almost everything I just wrote…it all boils down to your (Cullen) comment above, “I think capitalism is “working” exactly as it’s supposed to. It’s making owners very very rich and they are maximizing profits and production.”

The ultimate goal/measuring stick in any -ism system is baked right into its title. Capitalism’s apex objective is capital; Communism’s is the commune/the collective; Socialism society, et al ad nauseam.

On paper this is all well and good and straight ahead. Where things get messy is when you add Humans into the mix. The values of the system and the values of the users (aka people) will never mesh seamlessly. The system has a defined set of values; the values of people run the gamut and are all over the shop. So do we try and bend the system to fulfill the values of the users or do the users adapt to the values of the system? Or stumble forward always trying to tweak and evolve — but never perfecting? I actually don’t think there is a fix, it’s a far too complex problem of which we have (almost) lost control.

I’d say the wealthy understand and utilize the rules and values of Capitalism to a far greater degree than those of lesser (or little to no) wealth. As far as “valuing” a piece of vault-bound paper at $450MM, I’d argue that it’s only those Capitalists with that kind of money (and ego) who price said piece of paper at such a high levels; it’s no where near as valuable or pricey to the other 99.999% of the world’s population (just as 99.999% of We the Poor price mass-produced consumer goods like Beanie Babies and Superman #1 comics — or any other “collectable” item — much higher than their innate value).

Perhaps we shouldn’t be too concerned with the wealthy who price non-valuable things at such astronomical levels. It’s only when, as Pete listed, the price of entities such as “food, shelter, water, healthcare and education” (I’ll add ‘government’) is set by those same wealthy and becomes affordable to them and them only.

Final thoughts:
1. ‘Art as Capital’ was never a thing until the mid-20th century when a group of business people decided they could monetize art work. And boy did that scheme ever take off!

2. The original painting most likely cost $0. It was bought 12 years ago for $10,000 but required very extensive restoration before being sold for $450MM. As Wiki puts it, “capital consists of anything that can enhance a person’s power to perform economically useful work”, thus it’s not so much the “piece of paper” that’s commanding this price, it’s the value of restoring a unique piece of art to its original 500 yea-old state. Kudos to those craftsmen — the real Capitalists — whose work produced a 140% return/year. Not only that, but if the buyer does ever reveal himself, his art work purchase is now stuff of legend and fame, and we all know the kind of opportunities granted to famous people. Thus this financially ‘value detached’ move might just be a single move in a bigger game to “enhance [this] person’s power to perform economically useful work”. Further more, said buyer will most likely have to spread even more of their economy-stimulating capital via security, insurance, taxes, etc.

3. @Pete — again, “when it comes to food, shelter, water, healthcare and education, the system should implement some kinds of safeguards so that value and price is not as disconnected.” There already exists a disconnect. Things we absolutely need to live, like food and water, have become so abundant in modern life that both their perceived value and real price have plummeted (the real value never changes). The West is a culture of massive waste, especially of these two resources. When the price of something becomes so low that it causes almost no hardship if that resource is wasted…the disconnect lies with the users. I’d feel safe in saying we also do fine job of wasting shelter, healthcare, education, and government.

4. It’s very high-horsed and somewhat bizarre to vilify a hyper-wealthy person (or persons, or corporations, or county…we don’t know who the purchaser is) for willingly pricing a piece of paper at that astronomical amount within the very accepted free market, yet we’ll stand by and let someone like Mugabe lay economic waste to a once powerful country, for 30 years running. That says a lot more about our value system.

Thanks for the mucho space.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 20, Responses: 23)
Answered on 11/19/2017 7:38 PM
0
Private answer

Dennis, you say: “on a level playing field, there will be successful folks and relatively useless non-contributors”, and as that contradicts the point I was making, I was wondering if you’d elaborate so I understand how your statement fits with the one I am making?

Because I think it’s a nice myth that is held as a pride by many, and it’s just not true in reality. Case example, me: successfull business manager for a large corporation, making a large salary and considered successful by people around. They would say: this kind is a success story. Then, I changed course, became a somatic psychotherapist. If I took a regular job, working for my community, being overbooked with an inflow of clients in very difficult situations, I would fetch a nice salary of about 27k annual. Then, I tell my story to women when I try to ask them on a date, and guess what: not successful. He only makes 27k, so he is not a useful person to society. BUT I know for a fact that I am much more useful to society. In fact, I went pro-bono for a while because I had savings and investment income. And I change people’s lives forever, in ways that my old job never, EVER got even close. My previous job, I created value for my CEO, for shareholders, but very little value to the reality of humanity. So that’s wrong, that millions of counselors are employed today and looked as useless by you and others.
Because of that, I’ve come to completely abandon any idea that someone with money is either intelligent, successful, hard working. The most that can be said about people with money is that they are willing to conform to the system and are committed to that. Some, they do it and it is aligned with who they are. Others, not so much. Until you address this issue, then capitalism has little to do with saying who is or is not successful. It is, like Cullen says, about creating capital. making owners rich, and maximising profits. Not about rewarding those that are useful or not.
I write all this and would welcome any counter-arguments, as I often hear people who dislike what I say but present no arguments. So I don’t feel necessarily confident that I am not missing something.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Responses: 9)
Answered on 11/20/2017 3:37 AM
0
Private answer

Scott, just wanted to comment on your point 4: I personally do not vilify the wealthy, but perhaps I do vilify those that believe they are better people than those less wealthy. And also, I rarely hear of someone that is pro-Mugabe, I don’t think he has a better rep at all then hyper-wealthy. Once again, it’s not black and white, I can have criticism for both.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Responses: 9)
Answered on 11/20/2017 3:39 AM
-2
Private answer

Wow. Didn’t expect so much response !

First of all, contrary to what Cullen said, I am not against immigration. However I am vehemently against illegal immigration. It is now politically incorrect to use the term “illegal immigration”. The only politically correct thing to do is to pretend at all costs to not know the difference between legal and illegal immigration, which shows how far USA has degenerated.

Cullen: “the capitalists can redistribute their wealth through charity. Or they can wait until the govt gets involved.” This is the whole point of Marx’s On Capital.

Pete: “putting a cap on wealth.” Wow. Just Wow. You are not satisfied with a 40% estate tax. You want a 100% living tax. This is the definition of Communism. It is sad that Communist ideals have become so thoroughly normalized in the U.S.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/20/2017 5:39 AM
1
Private answer

Furion, what is your point? You say my comment resembles Marx’s thoughts. Yeah, they resemble Keynes as well and he HATED socialism. So why the sleight of hand and implication that my comment is Marxist when I’m so obviously not an advocate of Marxism?

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/20/2017 5:42 AM
-2
Private answer

Government intervention is the greatest cause of inequality.

Minimum wage laws have made it impossible for low skill US workers to compete with the Chinese.

Meanwhile, Cullen is an advocate of the minimum wage (as per past posts), while also against banning imports from China (as per past response to my thread).

So, let me ask you. If you are against low-wage manufacturing jobs in the USA, why do you have no problem buying iPhones made by equally low wage workers in China?

Why is it that you rather let the Chinese workers make the money, and American workers to have no jobs?

Just one of many examples to show how do-gooder policies concocted by disconnected elites actually do far more harm than good.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/20/2017 6:05 AM
0
Private answer

By the way, “traditional Libertarians” aka “Classical liberals” are:

-Against the minimum wage

-Against all forms of government intervention

-Against all forms of “wealth” redistribution

-Understand that government intervention is the greatest cause of inequality

-Understand that inequality is a central feature of the human condition. Equality of opportunity means inequality of outcomes. Equality of outcomes means inequality of opportunity.

-Understand that multiculturalism is harmful, and that the economic division of labor can take place among peoples living in disparate geographical locations (Hans Hermann Hoppe).

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/20/2017 6:50 AM
2
Private answer

Well, I have not heard any real arguments against what I said, nor what Cullen said, other than that you think we are wrong, that we belong in such and such categories of people, and that others have written the words you say.

In regards to the minimum wage, any wage below the living wage of the area the worker lives in is nothing else than a form of slavery. So you are basically saying that for your way of life and your form of capitalism to survive, slavery is needed. Nice.
Are you willing to work for $3 per hours? If not, don’t ask someone else to. You’ve not responded to any of my arguments here and so it’s pointless to harping at a dogmatic.
Differences are a central feature of the human condition, inequality is a central feature of the current system that we have to organize ourselves. Inequality was not even a concept before there was any semblance of an economy, so before making, what I can only call, idiotic statements, think a bit. Or maybe a lot.
Multiculturalism is harmful is like saying that diversity of hair color is harmful. What I hear there is whining. Oh..I don’t want to be told what to do..ever! I don’t want to pay taxes ever! I want to do whatever I want, always, forever! If a child could speak.
3 options for you: a) go in the woods and learn what life is about, b) volunteer with poor people for several years, c) get therapy.

I won’t engage further with you, don’t need to hear any more statements regurgitated to attack or dismiss ideas. Am mostly only interested in exchanging, not lectured.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Responses: 9)
Answered on 11/20/2017 7:27 AM
-1
Private answer

You are unable to tell the difference between voluntary labor contracts and involuntary kidnapping and servitude. Nice.

All your arguments are basically the same as those that the Soviet and Chinese communists made. Particularly those parts about capping wealth, goods being priced not according to their value, etc. If you haven’t read literature from those times, go read some. Conclusion is that they tried it and failed miserably.

“I don’t want to be told what to do..ever!”. True. I do not want my life be dictated by communist ideas.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/20/2017 8:23 AM
1
Private answer

Furion, you said:

“Minimum wage laws have made it impossible for low skill US workers to compete with the Chinese.”

This would be true regardless. If the USA didn’t set a minimum wage then workers in the USA would still demand higher wages for equal work because American workers are, on average, higher skilled workers. This is always going to be a problem no matter what. If wages rise in China to equal US wages then corporations will move their operations to Malaysia or Vietnam. There will always be a less skilled more impoverished relative workforce that is willing to work at a lower wage than a large developed economy’s workers.

Yes, I do think there should be a minimum wage because if there wasn’t then capitalists would control all the pricing power over wages. We know what this does because we know that inequality in the USA was even higher before 1938 when the minimum wage was implemented. These are FACTS. But more importantly, this isn’t an economic argument. It is a moral issue. Paying someone a wage that doesn’t even allow them to buy basic necessities is just taking advantage of them. As a society we shouldn’t let employers do that any more so than we should allow employers to dump oil in our public waterways. This is just basic common sense. And if you run a company that can't pay people a living wage then good riddance. Fire those workers, resize and let the market compete you out of business as companies that can hire those workers drive you out of the market. That's competition at work right there.

I am in favor of labor mobility and freedom. I think corporations should be allowed to move where they please. If they want to use low wage workers to produce lower cost goods so they can sell them in the USA then great. Why should a big developed economy keep trying to make cheap trinkets using labor that is too skilled? That makes no sense. It’s like paying engineers to lay concrete rather than design how the concrete needs to be laid. I’m not a free trader though – I think you have to have fair trade with certain countries and I will totally agree with you that China takes advantage of the USA in many ways. That trade relationship needs a lot of work as do other Asian trade agreements.

Lastly, the US economy is changing. It’s become a big developed economy and we’re transitioning from a manufacturing and industrial economy into more of a serviced based economy. That’s 100% normal. Let low wage foreigners do the dirty work and let Americans focus on higher paying higher skill work. That’s how it should be and it’s how the economy is evolving. This isn’t “do gooder” economics. It’s just the reality of the world. Look at the stone cold facts. The USA isn’t losing total jobs. Globalization is GROWING the US workforce as we evolve into different jobs.

You and the Trumpers want to bring back low wage manufacturing jobs, but you fail to realize that those jobs left because the US workforce doesn’t actually want to do those jobs. They’re gone and they’re never coming back. Look at the facts and stop buying into the propaganda:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/20/2017 2:15 PM
0
Private answer

Pete, My understanding is that success in the USA means being able to fund you and your family’s needs and wishes and still have the time to enjoy life. So it’s a pretty low bar. It’s not attached to being rich, but being rich in time for doing what you wish to do. Alternatively, some folks have serious disabilities, for example after being shot while burglarizing, then ending up in jail after crime after crime. These folks are obviously non-contributors.

I envisioned that Obama was trying to rake off some the rocks and sticks from the playing field that are impediments to a modicum of success for some, at least to some degree. What we have now is one party tossing boulders on the playing field, crushing some and providing stepping stones for the unscrupulous among us.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 27, Responses: 283)
Answered on 11/20/2017 2:59 PM
0
Private answer

“This would be true regardless.” Then why must government mandates be involved? All government mandates are ultimately backed up by the barrel of a gun. Why are guns necessary to enforce something that would happen regardless?

“capitalists would control all the pricing power over wages” They always do. You cannot make capitalists pay a worker higher than his productivity. Bankruptcy would result. Minimum wage makes low skill workers unemployable.

“Paying someone a wage that doesn’t even allow them to buy basic necessities is just taking advantage of them.” Another freedom is slavery argument. Voluntary labor contracts is not slavery. A low wage worker can freely change jobs. They are not conscripts. Again no one will be paid higher than his productivity.

“Why should a big developed economy keep trying to make cheap trinkets using labor that is too skilled” Wow. Your hubris in thinking that you know better than the free market is just remarkable.

The sad part is, these control freak proposals made by disconnected elites (like you) would not be implemented without the support of the people who are most harmed by these policies.

Those who work and make little money would still qualify for welfare for the lacking income? You rather have someone inject opiates and live totally off welfare, than to work and earn and live partially off welfare. Population control to eliminate conservative rednecks?

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/20/2017 10:00 PM
2
Private answer

Furion,

There’s no need for all this extremist rhetoric. This isn’t 4chan or your usual Trump website. That shit doesn’t convince anyone here of anything so cut out the talk about guns and scaremongering. It’s useless. Try to use actual facts for once.

So, here are the actual facts.

1. The economy doesn’t operate like your econ textbook. In the textbooks workers should earn more when their productivity rise. But this is not what happened in the USA over the last 50 years. Despite rising profits labors share of those profits declined. In other words, the capitalists had more pricing power over labor so they took more of the profits. This is the main driver of inequality in the USA.

2. The textbooks say that raising the minimum wage should hurt employment, but again, this isn’t what’s happening. The research shows that the impact is fairly minimal. See:

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/01/restaurant-industry-unharmed-modest-minimum-wage-hikes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-raising-the-local-minimum-wage-doesnt-hurt-local-businesses/2016/02/26/4d6cabd0-dbed-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html?utm_term=.d91f00cd79ba

These are the facts. If you can dispute them without resorting to Trumpian fake news then please be my guest. That’s what the forum is for!!!! But try to keep your comments more friendly. All this “liberal coastal elitist” talk is a distraction to the facts at hand.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/20/2017 11:32 PM
-2
Private answer

Just answer this: You rather have someone inject opiates and live totally off welfare, than to work and earn a starvation wage and live partially off welfare?

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/21/2017 12:05 AM
2
Private answer

I don’t think anyone would choose for people to be on drugs and financing it with welfare. But that isn’t relevant to the conversation. The opioid crisis is the result of a healthcare industry that issues way too many painkillers. It literally has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/21/2017 12:16 AM
1
Private answer

FL, I have several Libertarian acquaintances that espouse the exact same themes as you do. Each has grounded his opinion on sound history that can’t be disputed, but these events are cherry-picked to support the negative. These folks are not that much fun because their lives are lived with a clear disrespect for their fellow man/woman. The issue for them is that there are so many weak minded actors in our society that we can not trust our government’s civil servants, let alone our next door neighbor.

For you, this is a basic issue that may be somewhat reasonable today. But one, whose desire is to be a complaining hermit, and not be committed to making things better for the general population, is a fool. If you are not part of the solution, then you are the precipitate.

Attachments:
Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 27, Responses: 283)
Answered on 11/21/2017 2:42 AM
0
Private answer

Dennis, I second most of your comment here, other than being a hermit does not have to mean that you do not think others are as worthy, as valuable, as deserving than you.
I am not a libertarian but I do feel oppressed, by a general dumb level of thinking, immature and childish. That would be my reason for becoming a hermit, and I would still very much care about those that suffer (including those dumb childish adults, because they are clearly suffering..only suffering makes on bully another, or belittle him, it’s only a way to say: I am suffering, I am scared, I am unhappy).

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 2, Responses: 9)
Answered on 11/21/2017 3:38 AM
-1
Private answer

Minimum wage is a form of communism, and a very evil one at that. It forbids, at gunpoint, consenting adults from making 100% voluntary labor contracts. It makes large swathes of the population unemployable. It forbids healthy adults from living off their own labor, instead forcing them to rely on government dole.

Cullen: “And if you run a company that can’t pay people a living wage then good riddance.” Note that Cullen as usual is advocating for the government to mandate which businesses shut down. This shows total contempt for small business. Cullen is happy that minimum wages cause small business to shutter their doors and all their employees to lose their jobs.

If there are other businesses willing to offer higher wages, why are the employees not resigning in droves and moving over? Are they being kidnapped and enslaved? Why would anyone stay at a low paying job, if better jobs are available?

The root cause of the opioid crisis, the massive incarceration of blacks, etc. is due to the minimum wage making large swathes of the population unemployable.

Wake up and take a deeper look, only then will you find the root cause!

Communism takes on many forms. It is disguised behind ostensibly good intentions. It equivocates by assuming different names.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/21/2017 7:03 AM
-1
Private answer

You see, Interventionists want action. I want to make you do this. I want to ban you from doing this. However, libertarians (real libertarians, not Cullen Libertarians) want inaction. I do not want regulation. Do not stop me from doing this.

Just as in investing where there is always a compulsive need to do something, in society the interventionists always get their way. Because doing something feels better than doing nothing. Dictating how healthcare should be done feels better than just leaving healthcare as it was. Dictating a minimum wage feels better than not interfering in wages. Taking away people’s guns feels better than letting people keep their guns.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/21/2017 12:19 PM
0
Private answer

The whole concept of pricing power is retarded.

Price is the point at which the market clears.

By using violence to dictate a price, the market does not clear.

Simple as that.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/21/2017 12:20 PM
3
Private answer

Furion, you’re just saying things without supporting them with any actual evidence. For instance, you said the opioid crisis was caused by the minimum wage. This is absolute horse shit. Almost any medical professional will agree that the opioid crisis is the result of excessive painkiller issuance.

You also said:

“It makes large swathes of the population unemployable. It forbids healthy adults from living off their own labor, instead forcing them to rely on government dole.”

I literally just provided links to research showing that all of these claims are inconsistent with actual evidence. Did you even read them? Do you actually read research on this or do you just read economics theories by “free market” academics and then conclude that “the market” needs to dictate everything?

You are just making things up to confirm your own biased conclusions.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/21/2017 1:08 PM
3
Private answer

I should add – your free market response is exactly why there is a minimum wage. The evidence shows, overwhelmingly, that wages are too low in large part because minimum wages are lower. In other words, capitalists have pricing power over workers at the negotiating table and they are using that leverage to keep wages low. This is why there’s been no wage growth for 40 years. Capitalists are earning more of the total pie and workers are earning less. The evidence is not even controversial on this point.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/21/2017 1:20 PM
-1
Private answer

“But this is not what happened in the USA over the last 50 years.”

Correct. Since the dollar has been decoupled from the last vestiges of the Gold Standard, the Federal Reserve Note has been printed in ever increasing volumes. The resulting boom in government has created ever greater regulatory burden, along with ever growing bureaucracy which sucks the productivity gains out of society to pay for them.

Federal money printing has profoundly benefited the vested interests, driving consolidation of regulated industries, such as banking, with ever greater political control by said vested interests.

“the capitalists had more pricing power”

This is a false statement. The VESTED INTERESTS AND GOVERNMENT REGULATORS have more pricing power.

Again, and again, and again, nothing you say is a condemnation of Capitalism. Every abuse you cite is an abuse by GOVERNMENT.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/21/2017 9:53 PM
0
Private answer

“But this is not what happened in the USA over the last 50 years.”

That’s because the “Great Society” and lots of government intervention slowed the pace, but even then, workers are earning today much more than workers in the past, when median income and purchasing is compared. And that’s despite all the Fed’s destruction of PP of the dollar.

And that is despite minimum wage laws that reduced the number of people who could be employed – this, and not capitalism by itself, is what restricted job supply which in turn reduced the wages offered. That’s how, by the way, the corporate friends of leftists in power became more powerful than workers. The main driver of inequality is, therefore, government, not capitalism.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/21/2017 9:54 PM
0
Private answer

Furion, have you been to tooo many movies? Here is one you would like.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/shadow-world-full-film/

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 27, Responses: 283)
Answered on 11/21/2017 10:02 PM
2
Private answer

Furion,

That narrative makes no sense. If the govt were “printing” so much money since 1970 then inflation would have risen and wages would have risen as well. The exact opposite has happened though.

The evidence doesn’t support this theory of yours.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/22/2017 12:36 AM
2
Private answer

Cullen, The Libertarian mind is stuck in reverse. It’s a waste of time trying to correct a million misconceptions. Plus, they NEVER stop talking, EVER.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 27, Responses: 283)
Answered on 11/22/2017 1:20 AM
0
Private answer

Dennis, ha. Most Libertarians don’t understand that the libertarian stance on economics makes very little sense. Hence why I say I’m basically Libertarian on social issues and Keynesian on econ issues.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/22/2017 1:27 AM
1
Private answer

Cullen, I beg to differ. You are not “Libertarian on social issues”. I read your posts and adsorbed your underlying feelings for YEARS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism (QED)

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 27, Responses: 283)
Answered on 11/22/2017 3:29 AM
2
Private answer

Far be it for me to suggest what you are or are not. That is completely for you to noodle out. See if you relate at all to this: https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/janfeb-2015/why-a-second-progressive-era-is-emerging-and-how-not-to-blow-it/

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 27, Responses: 283)
Answered on 11/22/2017 4:08 AM
0
Private answer

Yeah, I’m not really sure to be honest. I agree with a lot of the social issues here and mostly disagree to some degree with all the economic issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Libertarian_Party.htm

I’m definitely not a pure Libertarian….and definitely nothing close to the crazy type.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/22/2017 5:19 AM
-2
Private answer

how government works:
breaks your legs
sells you a wheelchair at ten times actual cost
taxes that wheelchair
regulates your use of that wheelchair
assures you that without government you wouldn’t be getting around so well

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/22/2017 7:40 AM
1
Private answer

The govt doesn’t sell wheel chairs. In the US healthcare system you’d actually have to buy it from a corporation. But that’s a nice scary story you told.

😁

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/22/2017 2:33 PM
-2
Private answer

“Paying someone a wage that doesn’t even allow them to buy basic necessities is just taking advantage of them.”
But it’s far better than not paying them anything and using governmental complications to make it far harder for them to work out a deal with a potential employer. Your way removes the bottom rung off the ladder that they Could have temporarily used to climb upward away from their bad situation.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/23/2017 12:28 AM
-2
Private answer

People who take seriously their legitimate individual rights to self-ownership; personal liberty; peacefully-acquired private property regardless of the type and amount; privacy; self-defense; freedom of thought, speech, and conscience; and the aforementioned rights, must arm themselves and stop government employees from interfering in matters, including mutually voluntary employer/employee relations, that are not their rightful concern.
If they should refuse to refrain from interfering, if they insist on initiating their aggression and interfere, they deserve to be shot and killed on the spot.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/23/2017 12:30 AM
-1
Private answer

You can’t figure out that your definition of wealth, in nominal terms, simply IS a number, and nothing more. It provides access to the real wealth of good and services only to the extent those are produced and made available.
A rare painting may be “worth” a half a billion dollars, but to a hungry person who cannot sell it, it is worthless. It is the creation of surplus credit/debt that is denominated in TERMS of money (but in the strictest sense is NOT money) that drives up the nominal “worth” of all assets, and that you are counting as wealth. That could be cut in half in a matter of days, and probably will be, at some point.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/23/2017 12:31 AM
-2
Private answer

People like you are utterly incompetent to accurately define “wealth,” let alone define “excess” by any objective standard, or to figure out a way where redistribution takes place according to actual need rather than according to one’s ability to game the system and simply TAKE what one wants.
Yet suckers like y ou keep on believing and buying your own pipe dreams.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/23/2017 12:32 AM
-1
Private answer

“As I said in the piece, this can resolve itself in one of two ways – the capitalists can redistribute their wealth through charity. Or they can wait until the govt gets involved.”

Does it hurt being that ignorant? Do you always think in black and white? Your world must be very, very simple.
Of course there are more than two ways things can be worked out, as capitalists create jobs and provide goods and services that consumers demand. In your world though it’s all Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. Such is the mind and outlook of a child.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/23/2017 12:35 AM
1
Private answer

So many angry comments. So little evidence to support those angry comments….

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/23/2017 12:41 AM
-1
Private answer

So I gather YOU consider YOUR opinions as suitable to recognize who should be the authority that arbitrarily decides how to prioritize needs, and take from some and give to others?

In case you haven’t noticed, such authorities have a great record of favoring the rich over the poor, the exact reverse of the supposed moral imperative they are to follow.

Why do you hate the poor?

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/23/2017 12:52 AM
0
Private answer

Regardless, we can easily affirm that governments have committed mass atrocities that probably no man reliant upon voluntarism ever could.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/23/2017 12:52 AM
0
Private answer

“then inflation would have risen and wages would have risen as well”

Which is exactly what has happened.

“The exact opposite has happened though.”

Bald faced lie.

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

I’m left wondering what you pretend is your “evidence” which you have not cited.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/23/2017 12:54 AM
1
Private answer

Furion, you’re arguing that the minimum wage causes the opioid crisis and inequality. Okay. I’m willing to listen. But stop ranting angrily and start showing me actual empirical evidence. Leaving these ranting name calling comments is pointless. No one here is stupid enough to be convinced of your argument because you screamed a bunch of ideological bs. I’m trying to give you an opening to make your case and appear credible but you need to start citing some evidence and supporting your case.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/23/2017 1:08 AM
0
Private answer

Cullen, It’s no use replying to this guy.

FL: “Regardless, we can easily affirm that governments have committed mass atrocities that probably no man reliant upon voluntarism ever could.”

There is no way to refute this. See the movie I suggested, before bothering to continue. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/shadow-world-full-film/

Our political reality rules. The MR concepts that you are helping us to understand do not overlap with FL’s issues. His points are soooo off topic.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 27, Responses: 283)
Answered on 11/23/2017 5:06 AM
-2
Private answer

Except your assertion is not supported by facts. You know about facts, right? Those little pesky things that show that individuals in the US donated $258.51 billion to charity in 2014, an increase of 7.1 percent increase from 2013. This exists despite the fact that government already redistributes up to 50% of an individual’s income and robs people of 2-10% of their income through inflation.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42

But no. In your simplified black-or-white, Darth Vader vs. Luke Skywalker world the people who provide jobs and demand goods and services through voluntary transactions are the evil ones and the state is the good one.

You may want to try pulling your head out.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/23/2017 5:39 AM
0
Private answer

FL did you know that “in 2016, as an estimated $390 billion was given to charitable causes … $122.94 billion, went to Religious organizations”. These are called “tax expenditures”. Uncle Sam lets us submit a “tax deduction” from our taxes that would otherwise be paid. The 501(c)3 rule is a huge ripoff. $267 BILLION not sent to the churches is HUGE. [data from “Giving USA 2017, the Annual Report on Philanthropy”.]

Where did it come from and where did it go?

Let us look at our POTUS Trump’s very own 501(c)3 called the Trump Foundation. The money it gets is not taxed from the giver since it’s a “donation”. Trump worked on promotions for the WWE and was “paid” $4 MILLION that came from the WWE and went into Trump’s Foundation rather than his “income” and much of that was thereafter donated to Citizens United’s taxable 501(c)4.

Your comment is yet again is off topic, but I have made it relevant.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 27, Responses: 283)
Answered on 11/23/2017 6:10 AM
5
Private answer

Cullen, stop entertaining an extremist and ban this idiot already. Its like trying to prove to a flat earther that the Earth is a sphere with the laws of science when they themselves don’t believe in it.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 41, Responses: 53)
Answered on 11/23/2017 8:53 AM
-2
Private answer

I know how the real modern economy works. There are thieves, such as you people, who create money from nothing and use it to buy other people’s wealth. The government is no different from a counterfeiter. Neither produces wealth. They simply create money out of thin air.

It seems very odd to me that a guy would one minute be saying that the workers are suppressed, and the next minute be sticking up for those who would rob them of their wealth.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/23/2017 11:29 AM
4
Private answer

Furion,

Stop accusing people of being “thieves” and calling everyone names. One more time doing that and I will ban you.

I am going to ask one more time – please provide us with some evidence that the minimum wage caused the opioid crisis and falling wages.

If you can’t provide evidence then just stop talking. There’s no point ranting angrily about everything without providing a shred of evidence to support your argument.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/23/2017 11:42 AM
-2
Private answer

That’s funny coming from a man who advocates Socialism which is Government people Forcing their way on other people and helping themselves to other people’s money.

Do you realize how silly your claims sound, Cullen?

Those in government–sociopaths all–have no rightful, legitimate business to “redistribute” because they are no one’s rightful masters, and no one is their slave. The employers and employees are mutually voluntary parties to their work relationship; they both have private property rights and the rights to freedom of association and freedom of contract.

People who take seriously their legitimate individual rights to self-ownership; personal liberty; peacefully-acquired private property regardless of the type and amount; privacy; self-defense; freedom of thought, speech, and conscience; and the aforementioned rights, must arm themselves and stop government employees from interfering in matters, including mutually voluntary employer/employee relations, that are not their rightful concern.

If they should refuse to refrain from interfering, if they insist on initiating their aggression and interfere, they deserve to be shot and killed on the spot.

Marked as spam
Furion Lfg Posted by (Questions: 6, Responses: 40)
Answered on 11/24/2017 2:57 AM
1
Private answer

Cullen, you’ve been very patient with Furion on this thread, but perhaps he/she has crossed the line with “they deserve to be shot and killed on the spot”. Furion seems to believe that a Libertarian utopia is what is in order. Dream on, Furion, it’s not going to happen.

Our government is far from perfect, but not all of those in government are sociopaths. When I see somebody making such over-the-top comments – repeatedly – I find it hard (if not impossible) to take them seriously.

Marked as spam
Posted by (Questions: 21, Responses: 60)
Answered on 11/24/2017 10:42 AM
2
Private answer

Furion,

It's totally inaccurate to call people "socialist" because they support some level of govt. If that's your definition then everyone is a socialist in every country in the world. You can't view the world thru such an extremist lens.

Further, your advocacy of violence is dangerous and ignorant. I've been nothing but generous with you and have tried to give you an opportunity to present your argument and support it. This is a free website and you live in a representative republic. We voluntarily vote for these representatives and the Democratic process is nothing remotely close to slavery. You really need to spend some time better understanding the US govt. When you’ve done that then maybe you can come back and make relevant arguments. As for this discussion, the second you invoke the need for violence you lost the debate and all credibility. If you decide to comment here in the future do not ever invoke violence and hatred again. Not ever.

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by (Questions: 10, Responses: 1800)
Answered on 11/24/2017 12:50 PM