income inequality

[Archaeopteryx]

Thank you! If we could get the government out of the market, they'd be unable to create the monopolies and unable to support them through corruption. Then natural market forces such as competition would limit profits. These imbalances in the market are not accidents or natural market fluctuations, they're the result of pressures the government exerts on the market.

Natural market forces are going to stop large corporations from using their superior economic muscle-power to frustrate potential competitors' efforts to gain access to "their" customer base? Cool. Let's start by removing those pesky laws about anti-competitive practices.

 

[childofGod1]

Pot kettle.

For a large portion of this thread you seem to think that if everyone doesn't agree with your political ideology, then they must be "envious", or "greedy", "lazy" and "whiny". What's the matter? Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Maybe you'd better go back and reread my posts. I've never said that disagreement translates into any of those things, but that certain actions and specific ideas are indicative of those sentiments. It's just like your assertion that making a profit indicates gtreed, except that I make more sense.

 

[heymikey80]

Natural market forces are going to stop large corporations from using their superior economic muscle-power to frustrate potential competitors' efforts to gain access to "their" customer base? Cool. Let's start by removing those pesky laws about anti-competitive practices.

It's pretty clear the government-installed monopolies are unsuccessful even by your measure. And it's pretty clear that's what you two agree on.

Why would there be an argument about something you agree on?

"Could it be ... politics?"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Maybe you'd better go back and reread my posts. I've never said that disagreement translates into any of those things, but that certain actions and specific ideas are indicative of those sentiments. It's just like your assertion that making a profit indicates gtreed, except that I make more sense.

In case you didn't notice, I was throwing your own words back at you:

You seem to think that if everyone doesn't agree with your political ideology, they must be hateful, lack compassion and be general idiots, and that you were placed on this earth tfor the sole purpose of pointing out your personal disapproval.

For a large portion of this thread you seem to think that if everyone doesn't agree with your political ideology, then they must be "envious", or "greedy", "lazy" and "whiny".

You don't like the taste of your own medicine.

 

[childofGod1]

ChildofGod, perhaps you hadn't noticed but the U.S. is among the richest nations on earth. Our per capita GDP has grown since the 1940's....so at what point do the poor start getting all these advantages?

(SOURCE).

The poor are already enjoying those advantages. Compare the living conditions of the poor in 1940 with the living conditions of the poor now.

You want to see "compassion"?

Look at this graph:

We have among the lowest expenditures on child poverty as a percentage of GDP in the OECD COUNTRIES.

Does this not horrify you?

Quite the opposite! Child poverty has been reduced so drastically that the costs of ameliorating it are much smaller than they are in many other nations. This is very good news indeed.



Actually, ChildofGod, I provide citations for my points precisely so that I am not making comments based solely on my gut feel.

I could be wrong as the day is long. I think the data I present backs up my points.

So you may wish that I was just here pontificating, but I'm providing support for my points.[/quote]

Your data rarely support your conclusions. See above: You've jumped to the conclusion that less spending on child poverty equals less compassion while ignoring the comparative levels of child poverty before and after spending. You need more than a few isolated numbers on a graph to understand the data and draw intelligent conclusions.

We are all already being judged.

The second graph up there is the best evidence for what we are. You are not required to care one whit what I say or think. That's why I provide citations.

Ignore me. Fine! But ignoring the data is a bit harder.

Evidence that we live in a prosperous nation? Let me just hang my head in abject shame for that sin against the proletariat, comrade.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The poor are already enjoying those advantages. Compare the living conditions of the poor in 1940 with the living conditions of the poor now.

What an interesting view of things. Have you ever had your heat shut off in November? I have. It's cold. (Yes it happens). Have you ever had to scrounge for money for food, maybe kite a few checks just to eat? I have. There's that "compassion thing" we talked about earlier.

Quite the opposite! Child poverty has been reduced so drastically that the costs of ameliorating it are much smaller than they are in many other nations. This is very good news indeed.

What an amazing job of twisting the facts and seeing something that is totally sick and ill as a "virtue".

You truly are an amazing human being.

There's only one way to look at that graph:

America has among the highest levels of child poverty of other developed OECD countries and we expend less per capita than any of these other countries on social programs and you somehow find this to be "good news".

I would ask you what kind of "Christian" that makes you but I'm afraid you'd actually have an answer!

Your data rarely support your conclusions. See above: You've jumped to the conclusion that less spending on child poverty equals less compassion while ignoring the comparative levels of child poverty before and after spending. You need more than a few isolated numbers on a graph to understand the data and draw intelligent conclusions.

Again the graph is pretty straightforward. Let's just focus on the y-axis shall we? We have the highest rate of child poverty of any other OECD country.

I am pretty sure we are about the richest of those countries.

Let's look at the x-axis: We spend less per capita than any of the other OECD countries. Again, who do you think is richest?

Looks like we are second only to Luxembourg.

Evidence that we live in a prosperous nation? Let me just hang my head in abject shame for that sin against the proletariat, comrade.

You tell me my points are rarely supported by my data, well, at least I provide data for you to make that judgement on. But oh do tell me how this last sentence works. If we are so prosperous you could make a joke at my expense on this, then tell me why we have the highest rate of childhood poverty? Why do we spend the least amount per capita on social programs?

I just got back from Europe. You and your buds on the right need to get passports and travel. Honestly, get out of your little town and see the world. You don't know what "taxation' actually looks like and you don't know what a social democracy looks like.

 

[dlamberth]

Natural market forces are going to stop large corporations from using their superior economic muscle-power to frustrate potential competitors' efforts to gain access to "their" customer base? Cool. Let's start by removing those pesky laws about anti-competitive practices.

Are you suggesting breaking up monopolies?

.

 

[lordbt]

What an interesting view of things. Have you ever had your heat shut off in November? I have. It's cold. (Yes it happens). Have you ever had to scrounge for money for food, maybe kite a few checks just to eat? I have. There's that "compassion thing" we talked about earlier.

You can be as compassionate as you want. What you cant do is be compassionate with other peoples property. You do understand what it means to say that something doesnt belong to you, right? Or is that something we need to go over?

What an amazing job of twisting the facts and seeing something that is totally sick and ill as a "virtue".

You truly are an amazing human being.

There's only one way to look at that graph:

America has among the highest levels of child poverty of other developed OECD countries and we expend less per capita than any of these other countries on social programs and you somehow find this to be "good news".

I would ask you what kind of "Christian" that makes you but I'm afraid you'd actually have an answer!

You treat compassion as a blank check--so long as you do something in the name of the poor or the needy, anything goes. Christians, and those who respect the rights of others, have to seek moral ways of achieving moral goals. You dont seem to burden yourself with such things.

Again the graph is pretty straightforward. Let's just focus on the y-axis shall we? We have the highest rate of child poverty of any other OECD country.

I am pretty sure we are about the richest of those countries.

The wealth in America belongs to individuals, not the collective. So your point here is irrelevant.

You tell me my points are rarely supported by my data, well, at least I provide data for you to make that judgement on. But oh do tell me how this last sentence works. If we are so prosperous you could make a joke at my expense on this, then tell me why we have the highest rate of childhood poverty? Why do we spend the least amount per capita on social programs?

I just got back from Europe. You and your buds on the right need to get passports and travel. Honestly, get out of your little town and see the world. You don't know what "taxation' actually looks like and you don't know what a social democracy looks like.

Actually, we do. And we dont want it. If you want it so bad, move there.

 

[dlamberth]

You can be as compassionate as you want. What you cant do is be compassionate with other peoples property. You do understand what it means to say that something doesnt belong to you, right? Or is that something we need to go over?

It's "tax dollars" that's being used. Your just making excused not to help the poor and those in need.

You treat compassion as a blank check--so long as you do something in the name of the poor or the needy, anything goes. Christians, and those who respect the rights of others, have to seek moral ways of achieving moral goals. You dont seem to burden yourself with such things.

No one is taking away your rights.

The wealth in America belongs to individuals, not the collective. So your point here is irrelevant.

"WE" are all in this together. We are no longer a "me" society. It's "us".

.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You can be as compassionate as you want. What you cant do is be compassionate with other peoples property. You do understand what it means to say that something doesnt belong to you, right? Or is that something we need to go over?

I would rather not share a society with people who appear to not care about other human beings.

You treat compassion as a blank check--so long as you do something in the name of the poor or the needy, anything goes.

Not sure what "reasoning" you used to derive that point from the posted point I had put up there, but OK.

Actually, I just think it is quite telling how little we actually care about our children and how much we actually care about our money.

I don't have kids and I don't love my money so much, so maybe I'm weird. I'd rather see all American kids have a better lot in life.

Hey, they're not my kids, but sadly I'm stuck in a society with them. Actually in all reality I'd rather see all the poor inner city kids helped than one single penny of my taxes go to support anything that helps your kids or ChildofGod's kids. But I can't control where those taxes go. So money gets spent on police in your neighborhoods, caring for your kids and money goes to public schools that serve your kids and I simply have no control over that.

Christians, and those who respect the rights of others, have to seek moral ways of achieving moral goals. You dont seem to burden yourself with such things.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? (I mean other than the fact that you disagree with me...how do you arrive at the fact that I am not relying on some sort of "morality"? )

Besides, I've already, at length described to you my "ethics" (utilitarianism is closest). So you've already heard it, you just couldn't be bothered with reading all the words...too many words bores lordbt...hard to read too much! Too much "detail"!)

The wealth in America belongs to individuals, not the collective. So your point here is irrelevant.

So the individuals owe nothing to the society? We are all just independent operators? The ultrawealthy just happened to make money out of thin air?

Good for them.

Actually, we do. And we dont want it. If you want it so bad, move there.

Ya know, for all the posts of yours and ChildofGod's that I've read I'm going to have to go with your level of belief and say you allegedly have traveled to social democracies in Europe. You talk so big about the horrors, but I don't ever see you describe your experience with them. As I've done numerous times, I've explained to you what I see every month when I go.

Most Americans do not have passports. In fact according to the U.S. government's State Dept. only about 12 million Americans have passports (SOURCE). That's only about 4% of the population.

Hmmm, people who do nothing by kvetch about creeping socialism, never talk details about what they've seen in social democracies, complain bitterly about taxation up against about a 96% chance of not being among the Americans who do have passports.

Wonder what conclusion I should draw from that. Hmmmmm.

(Oh and if you like, I actually have tried to get jobs in Europe. I actually like it quite a bit there. Only problem is, they put teeth in their 'hire citizens first' type of rules, so it's hard. But you'd know that if you actually knew "details" about much of anything outside of whatever little burgh you run your pest control or whatever kind of biz in. Allegedly. The world's a big place, lordbt. Doesn't look good to have such a non-grasp of details. Also, you could use for posting a few more citations like I do. If your point is anything more than your personal opinion maybe you can find support for it somewhere?)

 

[dlamberth]

You can be as compassionate as you want. What you cant do is be compassionate with other peoples property. You do understand what it means to say that something doesnt belong to you, right? Or is that something we need to go over?

How about dropping bombs and killing people with our top of the line military killing machine? Can people's property be taken away from them as food for the killing machine?

.

 

[heymikey80]

I would rather not share a society with people who appear to not care about other human beings.

Wow, talk about hypocrisy. Then appear not to share your society with us.

So the individuals owe nothing to the society? We are all just independent operators? The ultrawealthy just happened to make money out of thin air?

OK, let's go for this. Why is it your individuals don't owe it to society not to patronize people they disagree with?

These guys don't get rich by theft-by-taking. They get rich because they supply people who pay for their investments.

It would accomplish precisely what you wish for individuals to simply stop patronizing these people or the companies they invest in.

Go t' town.

 

[Viren]

Are you suggesting breaking up monopolies?
.

Hey, what a novel idea. Can we start with the oil companies?

 

[heymikey80]

Hey, what a novel idea. Can we start with the oil companies?

Go for it.

Step 1: define "monopoly".
Step 2: observe the "mono" part of "monopoly".
Step 3: observe the competition among multiple oil companies.

Step 4: jump right in & compete. Go ahead. Nobody's stopping you.

Oh. don't have capital?

So what do you want to do? Rob the oil companies of their capital?

Their property?

Their contracts?

What?

 

[Viren]

Go for it.

Step 1: define "monopoly".
Step 2: observe the "mono" part of "monopoly".
Step 3: observe the competition among multiple oil companies.

Step 4: jump right in & compete. Go ahead. Nobody's stopping you.

Oh. don't have capital?

So what do you want to do? Rob the oil companies of their capital?

Their property?

Their contracts?

What?

I think largest companies should be broken up to increase competition. 5 companies control 60% of the market after thousands of mergers over the past 20 years.

If you want to see a competitive market just look at natural gas. That's what the oil market should look like. There's a reason it's 50-75% cheaper.

 

[Grizzly]

These guys don't get rich by theft-by-taking. They get rich because they supply people who pay for their investments.

They also use alot of the infrastructure that we the people built. Roads, bridges, the electric grid, rails, sewage, etc. And they use it at a disproportionate rate. Same with our legal and judicial system. Successful businesses don't just spring forth. They rely on a stable and equitable government and a functioning society to prosper.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Wow, talk about hypocrisy. Then appear not to share your society with us.

How is it hypocritical? Social creatures take care of their own, people who think it somehow a "virtue" that we have the highest childhood poverty level of many of our developed nation peers and we expend the least amount on social programs indicates we are not talking about a "society". We are talking about people banded together with less care about each other than a pack of wild dogs. At least wild dogs seem to actually care about their pack. We don't.

 

[childofGod1]

Consumed by envy? A freed slave who notices that he is being paid considerably less than a white man for identical work and recognises that this is unfair is consumed by envy? And if he dared speak out against these conditions he is "whining"? I suppose Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement were just "whining" because they were so bitter and absorbed by their covetousness of the white man, right? It seems to me that whenever you use the words "envy" and "whining" you do so only as an excuse for dismissing a person's complaints (without even examining whether their grievance is legitimate) and for maintaining the status quo.

I hoped that you would read what I wrote, but, as usual, you've misread it. I said that Jourdan was not CONSUMED by envy. One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not covet..." There is no exception for some covetousness. Christians are told not to be covetous because it stops us from appreciating what we DO have and making the most of it. Jourdan didn't allow bitterness, envy, and anger to dictate his behavior and destroy the opportunities he had or his family. INSTEAD of whining, he went to work improving his life. He could have spent his time raging against his circumstances, but as bad as they were, he rose above. When faced with difficulties and unfairness, whatever the source, I hope I can behave as admirably as this former slave did. I have no idea why anyone wouldn't find his story inspiring.

 

[childofGod1]

Natural market forces are going to stop large corporations from using their superior economic muscle-power to frustrate potential competitors' efforts to gain access to "their" customer base? Cool. Let's start by removing those pesky laws about anti-competitive practices.

Those oversized corporations with ten thousand different divisions in different markets and different industries are definitely not immune to competition. Yes, left alone, market forces will break them up over time.

 

[childofGod1]

What an interesting view of things. Have you ever had your heat shut off in November? I have. It's cold. (Yes it happens). Have you ever had to scrounge for money for food, maybe kite a few checks just to eat? I have. There's that "compassion thing" we talked about earlier.



What an amazing job of twisting the facts and seeing something that is totally sick and ill as a "virtue".

You truly are an amazing human being.

There's only one way to look at that graph:

America has among the highest levels of child poverty of other developed OECD countries and we expend less per capita than any of these other countries on social programs and you somehow find this to be "good news".

I would ask you what kind of "Christian" that makes you but I'm afraid you'd actually have an answer!



Again the graph is pretty straightforward. Let's just focus on the y-axis shall we? We have the highest rate of child poverty of any other OECD country.

I am pretty sure we are about the richest of those countries.

Let's look at the x-axis: We spend less per capita than any of the other OECD countries. Again, who do you think is richest?

Looks like we are second only to Luxembourg.




You tell me my points are rarely supported by my data, well, at least I provide data for you to make that judgement on. But oh do tell me how this last sentence works. If we are so prosperous you could make a joke at my expense on this, then tell me why we have the highest rate of childhood poverty? Why do we spend the least amount per capita on social programs?

I just got back from Europe. You and your buds on the right need to get passports and travel. Honestly, get out of your little town and see the world. You don't know what "taxation' actually looks like and you don't know what a social democracy looks like.

I live here in America. I know what poverty looks like. I've lived it. Don't tell me that kids on welfare with two hundred dollar tennis shoes and designer clothes are too poor to get food. If their parents are mismanaging the welfare check, the answer definitely isn't giving them more money.