No, thank you. I take great pride in rooting out liberal dishonesty.
Conservatives Vs. Liberals- More Than Politics
- Thread starter poet
- Start date
No, thank you. I take great pride in rooting out liberal dishonesty.
So you are a moron?
Wooosh! the point flew right past you. LOL
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well, in the market, there are many instances where if you aren't willing to participate in the race to the bottom, you're going to quickly be replaced by someone who is. It is societies responsibility to identify these instances and correct them, not to sit back and shake our heads in disapproval as negative things naturally happen.
I think that any economy where growth is high is going to lead to inequality. In low growth situations, say, 0% or 1% a year, the average person who invests in the market "as a whole" can only expect to get back what they put in. You have to truly be meritorious to hope to get ahead, you have to beat the average. However, when the economy is growing faster than that, a spoiled inheritor can expect to do very little and not only maintain their wealth, but see it grow tremendously. Not based on any work they did themselves, or any special merit, but just on the backs of the naturally growing economy itself. High growth environments lead to situations in which people can simply snowball up huge amounts of wealth.
It has been noted for a great deal of time that, while you often see a man's neighbor doing twice the amount of work as someone else, you rarely see them doing ten times as much. But it's not uncommon at all to see one man have thousands of times the wealth. Again, I think this is due to our high growth economy. If you look at history in the light of my theory, it is really not surprising when these socialist movements start emerging:
In the early US, there was not much growth per capita. And there wasn't much wealth inequality either - we never saw anyone rise to the heights of Rockefeller. Some people may make more, but it was much easier to see back then that it was due to their own work. And there really wasn't much of a socialist movement either - indeed, the defining feature of the left, as is often pointed out by libertarians, was their opposition to government (it was kind of a stupid left, that opposed the government because it kept farmers from burning down banks so they wouldn't have to pay their debts). However, as soon as the industrial revolution happens, and GDP per capita begins growing tremendously, low and behold, first you get the Republicans lead by Lincoln who put the "man before the dollar", then you get populists, then Progressives and Socialists.
The common man could see that the system was no longer working. They could see that something was up. And so FDR came, and with his policies he was able to restore the balance and establish a new equilibrium. Marx correctly identified that the strifing social forces would overthrow the old system, however, he was wrong in his perscription for what that system would be. The worker's revolution was a success - Orthodox Marxists, on the other hand, were reduced to being simply an odd kind of warlord in underdeveloped areas that typically produce such warlords.
The modern Conservatives seem to believe that they can ignore history, that by sheer strength of will they can pretend that things are still how they were early in the Republic. But they're not. They're tearing down the system and merely rediscovering the factors that forced their ancestors to put it up in the first place.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's funny, in the US our tax system mostly hits these kinds of guys. People who make money simply by throwing around capital, on the other hand, are supposed to pay at much lower rates. And there seem to be all kinds of loopholes they can take advantage of to not even pay that. Warren Buffet, for instance, would only be paying ten million or so even under Obama's "Buffet Tax". But he makes billions a year. People who make a great deal in salary, such as entertainers, can easily pay much more than that while making much less.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I actually think that one reason Conservatives are more charitable is that they feel guilt that Liberals mostly do away with by voting. Of course, that would be a bit of a perverse result. But that's something I just came up with. However, to support my theory, I'll note that when Gates went to Germany and talked to rich Germans about giving to his charity, he met with a remarkably cold reception. They responded mostly with variations on "shouldn't the government be doing this stuff?"
poet
Banned
The question becomes, do you?
Are you a filthy, lying, degenerate?
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Of course, it could have more to do with them being Germans, and less to do with them being citizens of a modern European society.
Yesterday, 04:22 PM
Granule
Verified User
[h=2]This message is hidden because Granule is on your ignore list. [/h]View Post
Granule
Verified User
[h=2]This message is hidden because Granule is on your ignore list. [/h]View Post
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
My Church has been the recipient of Protestant ire for 500 years because of our firm belief in works.
poet
Banned
Works? You mean like the Borgias? The Roman Catholic Church dropping the ball during the Holocaust? The sex scandals by clergy? Those works? Please, don't make me roll on the floor laughing.