Poll: Govt Should Fight Income Inequality

Poll: Govt Should Fight Income Inequality


do the american people get it net you
know we’ve gone terrible income disparity in this
country well it turns out they do get it uh… when ast sixty one percent say the world
disparity between the rich and poor is larger than it’s been historically so that’s a big number uh… in any
clues thirty seven percent america’s that say that it is much larger that
disparity between the rich and poor uh… so you know i actually go to very
graphic twenty-two here because it turns out of course that they are right the disparity between the rich and poor
between ninety six seven two thousand five actually rose twenty percent their factually correct you have that
sense and that sense is backed up by the numbers in fact let me give you another
graphic your brother number one its gives you a larger type from from
nineteen thirteen all the way to two thousand mainly gives you a sense of
they commit the disparity this is for what percentage of total pretax income
went to the top one percent so you see a spice up there in nineteen
twenty eight to almost twenty four percent so one percent has twenty four percent of the inc what happens in nineteen twenty eight
and afterwards the great depression great crash depression then we fix it
and we have income equality in this great golden years
between the nineteen forties and nineteen eighty in fact in nineteen
seventy six without one personally uh… own eight point nine percent of
income so income equal uh… inequality has
gone down dramatically great and in fact that is considered the golden years
including by conservatives right and then what has happened in the last
thirty years usa income disparity growing and growing and growing and now
we’re back to in two thousand seven almost the exact same number we were at
nineteen twenty eight that’s a twenty three point five percent what happens
next and other crash uh… the feeling that american people
have that there is something wrong the big gap between the rich the poor grown is absolutely empirically correct i think the most important part of this
is what to do about well they ask him that question as well and americans who think the government
should pursue policies to reduce the disparity well that number is sixty percent in
favor thirty five percent against this to me is a better indication of how progress
of the country is than almost any other number should the government do something about
income disparity in this country and overwhelming sixty two thirty five margin says salute lee the government studio something there is no better indication of how
progress in this country is so when they tell you i love there could
be able to allow twelve redistricting our american people and all the way that you should do class
warfare are covered with they’re not there anymore nation class warfare but
they say hey you know what we get it may resist terrible disparity and we should
do something about it by for example charging attack affair taxable rach they’re paying an incredibly low tax
capital gains that is is that what fifteen percent why the richest people
in the country paying less taxes than low class that is unfair it makes no sense an
american people by huge margins say that they want the government took pics that so when they tell you is a conservative
country don’t believe the height there’s an exact numbers showing you but that is
not the case this country is solely progress

Author: Kennedi Daugherty

100 thoughts on “Poll: Govt Should Fight Income Inequality

  1. @FreedomsReigning
    Fraud? I'm talking lobbying. You can not deny politicians get paid off by various interests.

    No one is stealing anything either.

    The super rich are the people you're defending, when in fact they're the ones who own the politicians. Yet you insult and complain about those who have been manipulated and are at a disadvantage.

    Good logic there.

  2. @FreedomsReigning
    lol. So you'll defend the people who are rigging the system?

    No one is stealing anything from anyone. That's just more bullshit insane libertarian propaganda talk.

    Maybe if you keep insulting me you'll make your god ron paul happy.

  3. @FreedomsReigning
    What are they looting? They haven't looted anything. You're defending those who poison the political system.

    What scares the super rich is having no ability to bribe politicians, which you don't have a problem with.

  4. @BusinessIDBAI But, see, they're NOT more permanent; they're JUST as flimsy as union contracts and whatnot. People NEED to be more active; if they aren't, we will continue to fall into inequality and unsustainability. And people are capable of being more consistently active; in much of Latin America, for instance, the public has created worker cooperatives and similar grassroots organizations and has been actively promoting them for decades.

  5. @BusinessIDBAI As far as multinationals moving jobs overseas, they'll do this in response to regulatory laws they don't like as well, so I don't really see how that supports your position any more than mine. Actually, my position can better deal with that; our government can't force Mexico to pass regulations, but our unions CAN help build similar unions in Mexico, so that corporations will face the same grassroots pressure there as here, and have no incentive to move.

  6. @JuanVoyce Yes, but you kind of agreed with me by identifying an unbalance that distorts the market, namely capital is much more mobile then labor. Maybe this should be fixed to make markets more efficient. Remember, a global market exists if one price is adequate (or optimal, what's the right word?) in every location, so the labor market hasn't really globalised.

  7. what a pile of bullshit

    the main reason for income inequality is the fact that America has lost it's manufacturing base to Asia. Higher taxes on the rich will not reverse that but rather it would reduce by substantial amounts the venture capital available for innovation and new high tech industries.

    progressives favor higher taxes because they're more interested in new social programes rather than economic growth. Nanny state giveaways bolster their voting base.

    progressives are asses

  8. @genie0390 If it's the case that the loss of manufacturing base is the reason for the US's internationally high income inequality, why isn't Western Europe experiencing income inequality at anything close to the level the US is? Europe doesn't have its manufacturing base either.

    Clearly the loss of manufacturing base does not explain this.

  9. @AmericanNohbuddy I said it because I am trying to make the point that when the rich get powerful and the powerful get rich, the poor get angrier and angrier until they rebel…

  10. @HannuMarijarvi

    I guess you don't know that Germany, the main player by far in europe, leads the world in manufacturing and exports

    Europe has great many old money families with tremendous wealth, europeans don't constantly wage this kind of class warfare we see in America

  11. @tubester4567

    two things really bother me, people talking about "social justice" and paying "fair share" of taxes. I have never seen these defined! So tell me, what in hell is a fair share? if we raised taxes, Obowma would simply spend it by adding to social spending, national debt would still rise and we would go deeper into the sewer hole

    corporations have a legal duty to earn as much as possible for their shareholders, it's NOT greed

    oil industry helps canada, not regulations

  12. @JUDALATION Companies will pay the least they can get away with. Lowering taxes will not lead to any benefits for the employees, but rather just lead to more money being take out as payments for owners and CEO's. Increasing taxation on precisely those transactions will lead to job creation, as money are used for expanding production instead. The neo-con idea of tax cuts down to nothing is damaging to any society.

  13. @UtubeMyAccountName Please spare me. I think it was clear that by 'free' I meant that those things are covered by taxes, like they are in most European countries. There are no EXTRA fees for it and it is affordable to everyone. In the end day the middle class in those countries has more money left in the wallet because they don't have to take loans or go bankrupt to afford a college or to afford health care. Nor do they have to spend thousands of dollars a month in health care premiums.

  14. @JUDALATION And by insulting me you have invalidated your entire argument. Good day sir I don't converse with the lower brow.

  15. @SupaAmi No it was not clear. 'Free' has a specific meaning, and services that are funded (see: payed for, not 'covered by') thru taxation do not meet the standard. It is intentionally misleading (see: deceptive) language.
    There is an honest argument to be made (though it is wrong) that socializing the cost of healthcare is beneficial, but to say that it is 'free' is not honest. Also health insurance is not health care, just like home insurance is not home care (maintenance).

  16. @jamesspencerful – Just wait until conservatives find out that Thomas Jefferson supported wealth redistribution downward. Lol!

  17. @romanmir01 Okay, maybe the Fed shouldn't have been established, that's a different question than regulation in general. Income taxes help to reduce inequality, so I don't see how that supports your point. The example about Nixon is also not about regulation or lack of regulation. That's monetary policy.

  18. @Bellita1 lol….grant/protect….semantics. Whatever. So am I to assume that income inequality is a right that the constitution protects? Let me get this straight, everyone at the top "earns" their income, right? So we are going to ignore patterns of legislation and economic activity that have directed wealth and income to the top where it stays centralized? Kind of like if I went into your home and stole all your money, then when you ask for it back I say "sorry, no redistributing wealth!"

  19. @tubeboy8 – Exactly. The Democrats are not the saviors and neither are the Republicans. I don't think most Americans quite get it yet: NO ONE (including people like Elizabeth Warren) is coming to save the day. It's up to We The People. Expecting a politician to save the day is like what you said above.

  20. It's not fair that top 1%ers like Sergey Bri n and Larry Pag e (Google) Jeff Bezos (Amazon) Michael Dell (Dell) Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates get to hog so much of America's income. It's just not fair for the rest of us 99%. We should be allowed to make those billions instead of them.

    Greedy fat cats should not be allowed to make billions just because they develop the personal computer or sell half a billion iPods, iPhones, or iPads.

    Let's pursue policies to reduce this unfair disparity!

  21. @JUDALATION you have a terrible reading comprehension. I claim, that lowering taxes wont create jobs, which i where you are wrong. Good jobs are created through educated and organised labor. You have been fed alot of talking points, so please don't call it -your- solution. Those companies you mention got started and prospered for all together different reasons than taxes. It has to do with a concentration of qualified labor and companies which create a synergy effect.

  22. @UtubeMyAccountName You're just being disingenious at this point. In my original post I said: "and with all those taxes you pay you still don't get free healthcare or free college", which CLEARLY implied that the taxes should fund healthcare and college and by 'free' I meant no extra fees or tuition.

  23. @SupaAmi Funny, you're the one making untrue statements, but I'm the one being disingenuous. Sure.
    Socialized costs are just that, socialized. You & many others 'say' free when discussing taxpayer subsidized services to give a false impression. People from places where costs are institutionalized are constantly on these videos crowing that they pay little to nothing for medical care, college; how they've conquered poverty, etc.
    They are blatant & intentional liars, or they are complete fools.

  24. @UtubeMyAccountName I really don't understand what you're still bitching about. I made it very clear that healthcare and college in my country is funded by taxes. I've repeated it over and over. As far as I'm concerned this discussion is over. I live in a country where taxes fund these important things, while you live in a country where people pay nearly as much taxes as we do, but still have to pay thousands of dollars in premiums every month for health care.
    That's reality. Deal with it.

  25. @SupaAmi More fallacious statements. The discussion can be over whenever you stop lying (mostly to yourself).
    No one pays health care premiums in this country, people pay health insurance premiums. Your societies sink themselves into debt & mediocrity per capita far faster the U.S. precisely because you have socialized all your 'important' costs. The U.S. is following fast behind you because it has self-destructively adopted much of your unsustainable socialist model.
    That is reality.

  26. @SupaAmi
    Had to pay for my own collage, books, transportation, dorms you name it. Me and my parents had to pay for everything when it came to my education.

  27. @Dasconscripts
    Believe it cause it is true, the actual amount was $798.43. If you add up all my expenses for the months minus rent. So Netflix, Xm serius, cable-vision, car note, cell phone, gas for the car once every week, and coned, i pay about $600 per month. Its a shame really, im making 55k a year, i cant afford to be giving anybody $800 because i did overtime. If i did not do the overtime the govt would have taken $400 roughly… wtf?
    This is why people go crazy and do f'ed up shit.

  28. You wanta fix the economy make it so that any multi million dollar company has to pay there employees $10 an hour minimum wage there problem solved…!

  29. @UtubeMyAccountName

    this is grossly misleading…and untrue. I'm in Canada and our health care is over all very effective. You should watch the video again. with the sound on.

  30. @UtubeMyAccountName Being disingenious again.Oh, really? You want to compare the Swedish debt to America's debts? Really? Sweden is one of the countries who have survived this economic crisis best. Frankly I find it unbelievable that you would assume my country is doing worse than yours when you don't even KNOW which country I live in. Arrogant much?
    And you have deregulation and corruption to blame for your downfall. Not socialism. You are extremely right wing, even under Obama.

  31. @UtubeMyAccountName Oh, and running out of arguments so you resort to nitpicking my words. You pay HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS so that it may cover your HEALTH CARE. I obviously chose to express myself in shorter terms because of the character limit here. You're just getting more and more ridiculous. Why not just own up to the fact that you pay nearly as much taxes as we do but all the tax money goes to wars, while we get health care and free college for our tax money? I feel sorry for you.

  32. @darkzq Your human health care isn't even as good as a dogs . You should check the statistics of your own country.

  33. @SupaAmi First, I am apolitical, I am not one of you partisan drones. For me the argument between socializing & individualizing costs is one of efficiency & effectiveness not partisanship.
    In the U.S. finance, medicine, and education, are the most heavily regulated sectors of the U.S. economy; entitlements & welfare are completely socialistic. It is no coincidence that these sectors cost more than everything else combined, except the military, and are also the most ineffective & inefficient.

  34. @SupaAmi As far as health care vs health insurance, you are being deliberately obtuse or just purely deceptive. You are perfectly aware (unless you are an imbecile) that medical care and medical insurance are not interchangeable terms.
    I knew that you were European, Scandinavian, or some other such thing, and that was all I needed to know. How much of your GDP is spent on entitlements & welfare? Do you even know?
    …and again you say free when you know that it is not true.

  35. Why can't we make a progressive tax based on differences in utility, not income. I think it would follow a shallow logistic curve.

  36. Why does the chart use pre tax income? I suppose the post tax income will paint the same picture, but for the purpose of comparisson why would you use the income that people dont get to spend. Seems fishy even though it might not be.

    Other thing to point out is a lot of the people who made out life better are in the top 1% list. Google, Ebay, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Mars, Nike, Apple. In part the internet has made the disparity of wealth worse. But life did improve from their innovations

  37. @juicyappleish My computer is part of a necessity of work. I even have a piece of crap work laptop but it does the job. The job doesnt pay too well and they cut my pay each year for the last 3 out of 4, but at least its guranteed work and when I can get overtime I can save for the slow 2 months, where some employees still need to file for unemployment since the job is seasonal.

  38. @UtubeMyAccountName but businesses didnt and wouldnt use it directly to do what was needed. The gov did what business wouldnt.

    Its which spender moves us forward to better lives.
    Though gov is alot more corrupt than it used to be, thats for sure.
    Gov has the money we give it, but the point is its spending the money on necessity that benefits business and us because business refused to do the act itself.

    Reminds me of, I believe Korea, which didnt get modern roads til gov taxed and built them.

  39. @deathByStupid Nike shoes did not make life better, though it did exploit alot of lives.
    Same with apple though their ipods are so cool I hear, cant live without the iphone lol and the exploited workers abused to make them, well, it made your life better somehow.

    Microsoft didnt make lives any better than linux, a free open source operating system has, or any system tht came before it. That is, we didnt need a giant business to screw us over to make computers work for us.

  40. @deathByStupid But getting back to first part, since rich often pay less tax than the middle and lower class, the chart is probably being kind to them

    Also I want to say I dont care how much better my life is with computers and the internet (mostly came about from public funding), nobody is worth 300%+ more than me, nobody worked that much harder.
    In fact, Bill Gates didnt at all, they unethically aquired much of their tech. Google got mega rich off a dang search engine they made in their house

  41. @deathByStupid I can go on and on, this isnt about keeping people from becoming millionaires, its about how many of those at the top hoard money and bet our money for only their benefit but we pay when they lose, or the CEOs get million dollar bonuses no matter how good the company does, or the latest, a guy bet on the euro debt and lost and got nothing from it, but got away with over 100mil while his type of betting just hurts the people hes betting on/against.

  42. @waltermh111 The are two logic problems with your comment;
    1) Government isn't given anything it takes it, by force. That's called appropriation (or more commonly, taxation).
    2) "…businesses didnt and wouldnt use it directly to do what was needed." That makes no sense at all. There isn't a company on earth that doesn't or wouldn't spend whatever it must/has to keep itself going; that's like a person refusing to eat or drink.
    Such arguments show a lack of comprehension & rational thought.

  43. @JUDALATION You don't even know what ad hominem is do you? The reason you see no jobs in the US is because the return rates on speculation is better than on investment in actual production. The only thing that will solve your problem is turning that around. IF you are worried about wars and prisons, then it has nothing to do with government, but who's in power. Funny enough, the no government Reagan, was the one who sent all your jobs over seas.

  44. @genie0390 I am at a loss why you'd think one counterexample, Germany, somehow makes the overall situation disappear. Europe has also lost most of its manufacturing base. Yet overall Europe has neither its manufacturing base nor an income inequality like the US.

    This is in direct contradiction of what we'd expect to see if income inequality was caused by loss of manufacturing base.

  45. @HannuMarijarvi

    less income inequality certainly hasn't helped Europe avoid very serious financial problems which negates what progressives see as a problem in the US.

    America has for many years been seen as a place to go to to make personal fortunes so we have a lot of ambitious aggressive people and money begets money. Growth of high tech industries has made a lot of billionaires.

    CEOs see athletes, entertainers make huge earnings so they have accelerated their expectations vs workers

  46. @Bellita1 ….freedom for whom exactly? For the vast majority of Americans, this is a constructed economy that is only "free" for those who come from privileged backgrounds. For those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, its anything but, or else studies would reflect a circulation of mobility, and not simply success being linked to class background. So its okay to stack the deck against the lower and middle class, but any attempt to address these issues is "socialist" and evil?

  47. @Bellita1 (cont) and I define income inequality by the stagnation of wages and wealth for working Americans in the middle and lower classes over the last 30 yrs, while wealth and income for the top percentages have exploded. This has created stress and strain on working Americans, and since they are not able to participate, significantly, with the gains of our economy, it has ensured that people stay slotted in the economic distribution from which they were born.

  48. @genie0390 Nobody has ever claimed the 2008 financial crisis or the current Euro crisis was caused by income inequality so great job knocking that straw-man over.

    I'm not even touching that "The US has high income inequality because rich people come to the US" -argument.

  49. @waltermh111 I agree with you 100% that people should not be able to place billion dollar bets which risk money of everyday people, that's what regulation is for.

    The point was that the way the world is now, it was inevitable with globalisation individuals would make more money, because their business expand far more rapidly. Every year more oil/resource moguls drop of the richest list and replaced by innovators that now have a global/unlimited market.

  50. @waltermh111 Of course people are worth 300% more then you, if i wanted someone to run a company say MySpace in 2005 i could have got someone who was a brilliant, best of the best, it might cost me 20-30 million a year. The company went from being worth 580 million in 2005 to 35 million in 2011.

    Investing the money in a great leader would have saved 1400 full time jobs, and 545 million worth of company value.

    That why you and me dont have that job.

  51. why wouldnt they want someone else to make sure they get more money for doing nothing? isnt that the american way, to be handed something without earning it?

  52. The only fair form of taxation is a consumption tax or no taxes at all and just make money from tariffs and have other countries pay our expenses.

  53. @BusinessIDBAI Sure, governments can engage in protectionism to force other countries to adopt similar regulations (at great cost to the poor and working classes, incidentally), but they cannot actually get inside the other countries and change the economic structure from within. Unions can, which is why trade unionism is more effective than government regulation in the long run.

  54. @BusinessIDBAI On the contrary, free trade ensures that workers and consumers everywhere can get the best deals on a competitive market. Multinationals that slash wages and gouge consumers exist because of an ABSENCE of free trade; they can only survive because of government regulations and subsidies that crowd out smaller businesses and cooperatives.

  55. @Bellita1 ….yeah, evil me….I want them to pay their fair share. So I take it that your argument is one that is anti-American. You enjoy the lack of social mobility for hard working Americans and support a corporate aristocracy. Got ya.

  56. @Bellita1 .."my situation" is fine, but I am not a social sociopath who feels that my concerns and my welfare is the only one of interest. I examine the general patterns of our society and every study and indicator reflects that a majority of Americans are sealed off from pursing the American dream, for the benefit of the elite. How is this American? Is this just? Me starting a company and paying a few workers a livable just wage wont change society at large. Have to make wide changes. OWS!

  57. I'm concerned because Cenks claims here about the country being progressive refer only to the population sample taken, and not the whole population of the USA. I don't think we were provided with enough details to determine if the statistics of that interview can be generalized to the rest of the country :/

  58. @BusinessIDBAI Absolutely. American trade agreements are extremely protectionist, generally designed to bolster big businesses against local alternatives throughout the world. Take, for example, the GATT provisions enforcing patents. Patents are government-granted monopolies, totally incompatible with free trade; GATT lengthens the time that patents remain active and eliminates loopholes in such laws.

  59. @zeektheawesome I see one of Rush Limbaugh's listeners will be joining us today. so let me lay some information on you there buddy the reason why the economy sucks so bad is because people don't have the disposable income they had 10 years ago. you see the price of gas has went up 3x since then and food prices have gone up about 30%. yet minimum wage has only gone up about 0.75¢ nationally which is a whole $30.00 a week if there getting 40 hours.?

  60. @BusinessIDBAI None of those agreements ensure free trade; the fact that they say "Free Trade Agreement" is about as meaningful as the fact that the USSR called itself a "republic." NAFTA, for instance, is full of patent protections, which are unquestionably a form of protectionism. Similarly, Germany and the US recognize each others patents. China heavily subsidizes its exports, which is part of the reason so many of our goods are made in China. None of this is free trade?

  61. @BusinessIDBAI Seriously, before you assume that NAFTA ensures free trade, why don't you actually RESEARCH what it does? Before you assume that Germany and China have free trade with the US, why don't you RESEARCH their trade policies. Of course, you won't do that; like most statists, you display an incredible degree of blind faith in the honesty of your system.

  62. @BusinessIDBAI Tariffs are one form of protectionism, but there are others. One such form, patents, have only grown stronger. And if you're talking about tax INCENTIVES for corporations to build offshore, that isn't free trade either. I no more want the government to encourage trade than I want it to discourage it; I want it to leave trade the fuck alone.

    As a matter of fact, I do not support Ron Paul (a shameless hypocrite) or any Republican. I actually think the Democrats are slightly better.

  63. @METALMAN4Wii I despise Rush Limbaugh. If you raise minimum wage companies will have to cut jobs or hike their products prices to compensate. It's really basic economics. If production cost rises, so to will the product price.

  64. @BiIlion Class warfare has been waged for decades by both the GOP & the Democrats, more so the GOP.Both against the bottom 99.7% of americans whom cannot afford to buy politicians. Also, Marxism is a form of communism which is a form of socialism.

  65. @Bellita1 .there is no econ pattern that suggest that people "havent attempted to get ahead in life"…If anything the opposite is true, given that productivity is up, profits are at all time highs, yet the working and middle class have been sealed off from participating in the economy. This supports OWS' position that there has been a breakdown in the expected relationship between worker/owner and the idea that in America hard work equals success. Our hard work ensures success for the elite.

  66. @BusinessIDBAI One cannot "own" an idea; ownership is based on scarcity, and ideas are not scarce. Patenting is nothing more than the government giving someone a monopoly. You have a right to profit from you invention, but you do not have the right to EXTRACT MONOPOLY RENTS from people. If someone else can build your invention better than you can, or will agree to sell it at a more reasonable price, you have no right to stop him or her.

  67. @BusinessIDBAI An idea cannot be property. Property, by definition, comes from scarcity. You and I cannot own the same piece of land; thus there are property norms for land, which every society has in one way or other. But ideas are not scarce; my having an idea does not preclude your having it. The "decide who has access to it" privileges you mention are not property, but monopoly.

  68. @BusinessIDBAI well your point on thinking piracy is legit….to pirate it would mean its tangible, its on a disk, or itunes or whatever, an idea meaning just in the persons thoughts, someone who thinks up a song and sings it to you, has no rights to it, you took the motive to write it down, and record it, its not piracy.

  69. @BusinessIDBAI There is no such thing as intellectual property. Again, property is based on scarcity; you and I cannot both have full sovereignty over the same piece of land. Ideas, however, are not scarce; you and I can each have the same idea at the same time. By allowing one individual to control who has access to inventions and ideas, patents create monopolies, meaning they rob the general population in favor of a small elite. Yes, it is legal, but it is still wrong.

  70. @BusinessIDBAI I'm not deciding by "fiat;" I've explained to you exactly why intellectual property is a scam. Again, property is based on SCARCITY, and ideas are not scarce. If I've repeated myself, it's only because you have yet to address even one of my arguments. You simply ignore me and insult me without ever once making a rational point.

  71. @BusinessIDBAI It's not my definition; it's the historical development of the concept of property. Any theory on property (i.e.- Lockeanism, mutualist, Georgist) is based on the scarcity of physical goods.

    The "exclusive rights" that you speak of are not property, but monopoly. They take what is abundant and make it scarce, whereas property in land or goods takes what is scarce and deals with that scarcity.

  72. @BusinessIDBAI No, because your car is a physical object. For anyone to possess it, someone else must not. The same is not true about ideas; we can both have the same idea at the same time.

    The "history didn't have computers" argument is bullshit. Yes society changes over time, but that doesn't mean that legal changes don't have to be justified. Property has always been based on scarcity; if we want to change the definition of property, we have to have a reason. "Society changes" proves nothing

  73. @BusinessIDBAI Yes, but your physical car can only be owned by one person. People do not have the right to steal the car in your yard.

    Sure, your ideas are scarce in that sense, but it is still possible for people to figure out the same information, and their doing so does not take anything away from you. If someone does figure out how to write the same software, you have no natural right to stop them from doing so.

  74. @BusinessIDBAI Yes, people have the right to "steal" your software.

    Yes, GM has a right to make a Ford Explorer. Why the hell not?

    No, because you don't have an inherent right to profit at any particular rate off of anything; if you cannot make those earnings without monopoly privileges, they were never rightfully yours.

    Yes, because you are a moron.

  75. @BusinessIDBAI How am I arguing both in favor and against scarcity? My point on scarcity has been consistent: property can only exist in goods that are physically scarce.

    And there you go, back into emotional raving and threat of lawsuit. News flash: I know piracy is illegal! I know you can sue me! My argument is that you SHOULDN'T be able to, not that you can't.

    This is why these debates don't go anywhere; because when you inevitably start to lose, you just stop debating and get angry.

  76. @deathByStupid 1) Companies that arent getting bailouts are still giving people bonuses even when the person screws up, and if they leave a company in a bad light, once your CEO you pretty much get to keep being CEO somewhere else
    People that make bad investments over and over are still trusted

    You make no sense in reality. I dont have the job because I am not a sociopath, not because I couldnt do it. Your no better managing whether you make 1mil or 20mil, you just know how to screw people more

  77. @rLOVEutionFor2012 Yeah yeah, socialism would never work. That's what all you conservative cronies espouse – I had a poli sci class with a lot of you – except you're WRONG. What about Sweden? What about the Netherlands? What about Canada? They have extremely high taxation rates, low income disparity, low poverty, low crime and RANK consistantly by Forbes as the happiest (all things taken into consideration) countries in the world. That's true Socialism.

  78. All those Soviet communist dictators were just that – dictators, they espoused socialist ideals just like the democrats espouse Socialist ideas in the US to win votes. They didn't care about the people. It was still keneysian economics. The people were poor and they were rich. The modern-day "borderline socialist" (Forbes magazine's words, not mine) countries, that also rank as the happiest countries in the world (what a coincidence), have low income disparity AND prosperity.

  79. Income inequality is a sign of a prosperous nation, because it means that there is a great deal of people earning vast amounts of wealth.
    In every system there are always winners and losers, there is no way to prevent people from being poor. But we can create an environment where it can be easier to become wealthy. Which is the scenario in those 5 countries.
    "I don't care about those who are already Rich, I only care about those who are trying to become Rich"

  80. @waltermh111 Almost everything we have today is because of these sociopaths, if it wasn't created by a company it was improved upon and made end-user friendly by a company.
    You show your lack of understanding with one sentence, a CEO doesn't "manage", managing is hitting someone with a stick to make them work harder. A CEO's job is to have vision and foresight into the future to make the right decisions to succeed. You lack the most basic understanding of leadership.

  81. @deathByStupid Thats the furthest from the truth. So much of what we have is through gov funding, education, etc…
    But even moreso, we got plenty from inventors before modern companies came around and still so much comes from inventors that dont need companies to make things work.

    We also would have plenty from inventors working in democratic countries without these sociopaths also, it doesnt become a barren desert. Sheesh, even Soviet Russia came up with alot of great stuff, Cuba does, etc…

  82. @deathByStupid If you think managing is only hitting somebody with a stick you havent been a manager or suck as one.

    Shows your lack of understanding of reality.
    I have managed people at 2 companies, admittedly, not near the CEO level, but I have managerial experience. Dont try playing that game with me.

    As to CEO purpose, they still get rewarded even when they fail at having vision and foresight, so your explanation doesnt help. And when they dont succeed, they just become CEO somewhere else

  83. @zeektheawesome Thats not basic economics and changes in minimum wage in the past, as well as change to taxes has not caused what you claim. Please dont spout ideology about basic economics and actually look up facts. You might be shocked, but reality doesnt fit your ideology

    Companies hire based on demand. Product could go up pennies to cover wages at most places. But fact is they hire based on demand, not how much profit they make. They arent hiring people to stand around in good times

  84. The wealthy have become abusive… the people need to slap back hard, and bring them back on their knees. What the fuck do Landlords do that is so fucking productive? These fuckers buy up houses, and rent, and use the rent to buy more houses… how the fuck is that anything other then pure leeching of society?

    The wealthy are an unproductive piece of garbage in our country know… we need new people at the helm… the old ones are stale, and stink of rot.

  85. @waltermh111 Sorry on the late reply.
    Reading between the lines of the stick comment, the job of a manager is make sure things get done, and that is their primary job. Developing staff and managing office morale/politics is secondary.

    Your last example is really stupid, i give you a basketball example, teams sign star players, sometime they get injured (brandon roy), sometimes they get fat/dont perform (e.curry/b.davis), while it sometimes doesnt work out, the aim was to get the best.

  86. Government should fight income inequality, can someone remind me which of 18 enumerated powers that is in? The country doesn't run on public opinion polls if it did the laws would never stay the same. We aren't a democracy the 51% can't take from the 49% and the 90% can't crush out the 10%. If you want the power to fight income inequality make it an amendment if not shut the fuck up, it's ILLEGAL and it's not the government job in a FREE CAPITALISTS society (Cenk lies & says he likes capitalism)

  87. Of course the government should do something about income inequality. They should stop causing it! I don't see how that is a progressive stance.

  88. This does not prove anything except that the marketing campaign is working.
    When push comes to shove stealing is what you will support.
    The left loves crony capitalism but they are angry that their cronies are not replacing the cronies.
    Both love the idea of dividing up income amongst the politically connected. This is not how prices should be determined.

  89. A single Ford Explorer is scarce because there is only one of it. The idea of your Ford Explorer, or any idea, is not scarce, as more than one person can have it at the same time. More than one person cannot possess full sovereignty over a car at the same time.

    You are losing this debate because you are incapable of entertaining any position other than you own. You need to understand that just because the law says something is property does not mean that it actually is. Or was slavery valid?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *