Let’s Get This Class War Started

What timeline are you using? I talk about Carnegie Steel, and you talk about bank bailing out? JP Morgan, by himself bailed out the banking industry once did you know about that? Amazing really. If I were to talk about big names now, I would say Gates, Wozniak or however you spell it, Zuckerberg, Ilan Munsk or however you spell his name... etc...

Some people are great. Some are good. When you can accept this and be thankful and fine with your place int he world you will get over your need to try to "make everyone equal" or whatever nonsense the left is up to these days.

 

Tesla also had a lot of failures. Financial successes minus failures = net worth. Carnegie didn't invent the Bessemer process, he did invest everything he had in it though and if it failed he would be ruined. He was already rich and could have lead a comfortable life, but he risked ruin to see if he could do it. He did, and our nation flourished as a direct result of his risk. Should he have just gotten to be a rich man like he was before, or was it right that he got to be the super wealthy man he did become? The inventor was made wealthy, but not as wealthy as him. Fair? I would say yes, the inventor risked less. Less incentive had to be available. The real shame is his name isn't all that popular, I think I even mispelled it above and I am not sure the first name...what can I tell you? He should have gotten a foundation and a large charity network named after him.

But me...if I were in that position? I would have kept the money he had, been happy with my spot in life and said "let someone else take the risk if they want". I can handle some risk, but a comfortable amount. People are great are often willing to risk all to get where they are, and there is a long line of failures along the way you don't hear about but keep our bankruptcy courts working overtime. It isn't just industrialists, but that is theme. Great leaders do the same thing. John Hancock made a bold illustration of that.

 

It may depend on the subjective moral value of "worth" under any form of Capitalism but not necessarily any form of Socialism.

 

See hseiken? ^

 

My line of reasoning has to do with the subjective moral value of "worth" as compared and contrasted by Capitalism and Socialism.

Jesus the Christ was definitely not a firm believe in capitalism as a "moral" stairway to Heaven.

 

Jesus Christ wasnt a socialist no matter how much you want to make him out to be. God has no use for politics or economics. Simply believe and have faith and you will not starve etc... You lefties sure do like to abort his children and them claim "Jesus would be a Lefter" etc... Tax collectors are next to prostitutes in the bible as sinners to be redeemed and turned from their wicked ways.

 

What if i claim a true socialist only needs words and not money.

 

Funny... the rich provide jobs, the rich provide products and services, yet they are against everyone?

Where do you work? Is there a rich guy running the place you work? There is for most people.

 

Not true at all. His parables routinely held the concept of the boss, or land owner, and the employees or tenants.

Further, the Bible itself, very clearly upholds private ownership. Just read the story of Ananias and Sapphira.

 

What was Jesus the Christ's opinion of the wealthiest under truer forms of Socialism, but not truer forms of Capitalism?

 

VP I agree with most of what you said in the OP. But not the part above:

[video=youtube;xSRKTkXfY0I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSRKTkXfY0I#t=21[/video]

 

It occurs to me that there is actually a good reason for that, at least when we're talking about national government.. It is that too many of the voting public are too underqualified to actually wrap their heads around national affairs and vote responsibly. As we've seen, they just end up following this or that piper with his pipe dream promises. We get an endless series of secondary gains for various individuals and groups instead of the best course for the nation overall.

 

And with this, we have the demonization of "free market capitalism," "[t]he Electoral College," and "[t]he Founding Fathers," and the deification of "unions," "the anti-war movement" of the late 1960s to mid-1970s, and--yes, even "Marx" (Karl, not Groucho)...

 

I hate these threads. Brings out the worst in so many people on here who are already disgusting...

 

We all do.

Oh, garbage. I've already proved that claim wrong, remember? Even the commons that gave the commons their name, the village commons of Celtic tradition, were managed for the benefit of all without anyone having any ownership of them. You just have to edit the facts of objective physical reality to make them compatible with your choice to worship at the altar of the Great God Property.

 

Nope. Flat wrong. The rich typically don't provide jobs, products or services. What they mainly do is charge everyone else full market value for the opportunity to create jobs, products and services, an opportunity that would otherwise have been available. That's how they get richer without actually doing or contributing anything productive. They have rigged the economy to do it for them automatically.

You really need to read this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=317411&highlight=this+rich+create+jobs

 

Those rich guys don't pay very well at all...that's how they stay rich. We don't need them.

 

Yes, of course it does, because you insist that ALL rich men, simply by the fact of being rich, MUST have contributed commensurately with their wealth. But they haven't. In fact, the greater the accumulation of wealth, the lower the probability that any significant part of it was earned by commensurate contributions.

It is always the right who worship rulers, because the essence of the right is elitism. The left does not worship rulers because the essence of the left is egalitarianism.

But almost never end up rich for it, and those who do end up rich have almost never done commensurately useful things to earn it.

Or plain old fashioned rent seeking.

Maybe they didn't, and have simply placed themselves in positions to profit from injustice. Has that ever crossed your rightist "mind"?

 

True, but the ideas and labor of the rich are almost never worth THAT much more to humanity than others'.

 

Yes I know Roy. If it weren't for landowners you would have invented everything and just given it away no protections etc...no one made any money by delivering value, it was all rent seeking. I get it, big ole communism. There are no great men, everyone is equal blah blah bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

It is fact.

All such claims are false, absurd, and dishonest. Owning per se is completely passive. The fact that owning property is NOT the same as running a business is proved by the existence of the term, "silent partner." A silent partner is someone who owns but does NOT run.

See? See how easily I prove all your false, stupid, and dishonest garbage is false, stupid, and dishonest?

False. Land by definition is as nature provided it, and requires no upkeep to be as nature provided it.

See? See how easily I prove all your false, stupid, and dishonest garbage is false, stupid, and dishonest?

Tell that to the slumlords who don't do any.

There is no overhead to owning land.

Location subsidy repayment does not drive up the cost of business, because it is just the same whether there is any business there or not. You have obviously not grasped the implications of that fact, and need to take a couple of months off work to think about them.

It is only the LAND market that won't bear the increased cost, with the result that land prices will fall.

We want the landowning "businesses" to close, as they contribute nothing, and are pure parasites.

Correct. Landowners cannot produce less land, they can only get less income by not allowing producers to use their land.

It is indisputably correct.

And thus get no revenue from it, while still being on the hook for the taxes.

You were saying....?

Still trying to pretend that improvements are land, I see....

How do you know? Normally, the taxes are so low the owner pays them and still makes a profit on land appreciation.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Wrong. The long-term average capital gain on the land is greater than the taxes.

That doesn't mean it's unprofitable. Often, vacant land is traded around for decades, with each parasitic owner profiting from the capital gain.

Prove it.

But even if true, it's certainly not a result of location subsidy repayment. ISTR there are places in NYC where rent control prevents both maintenance and demolition of derelict apartment buildings. But NYC's absurd rent control system is a policy landowners have pushed because it drives up rents in non-controlled buildings.

No, that is false, because by your own admission the value and thus the taxes on these properties are derisory. In this case, rent control means it is the cost of IMPROVEMENTS that can't be passed on to tenants, so the reality is the exact, diametric opposite of what you claim.

But see, you are objectively wrong about that, as proved by actual peer-reviewed research on the effects of shifting property taxes onto land value in certain towns in Pennsylvania.

Land value taxes stimulate construction, expanding the tax base. That has been the case everywhere land value taxation has ever been tried.

But at least I'm not rationalizing and justifying the greatest evil in the history of the world.

No, you OPPOSE it because you already know that it would work exactly as we claim. It would create a massive and permanent economic boom, solve most economic and social problems, but do so at the expense of rich, greedy, privileged parasites, and is therefore anathema to you because you exist purely to serve those rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

No, of course you don't. You are just subsituting your uninformed and ill-considered worship of the Great God Property for established facts of economics.

Nope. Flat false. It is only the lack of location subsidy repayment that makes all those other taxes necessary.

To reduce land value to near zero would require an extremely high rate, far higher than has ever been levied. Even at a rate of 100%, land's exchange value would still be near its annual rental value. The highest land value tax rate I know of was only 6%.

They are all true. Every one of them.

Don't be obtuse. Most Macs use at least some Microsoft software, and even if you don't, you are just paying a ton of economc rent to Apple instead of Microsoft. Do you really think that invalidates AfS's point??? REALLY????

By charging royalties for patented technology other software firms use.

All that AfS said was correct, as I have just proved to you.

 

As creative people have been doing since time immemorial. Right.

At least, unlike you, I have made actual money from IP.

Of course people made money by delivering value: the rich made money by "delivering" -- OK, charging for -- value that others had created. Which WAS rent seeking.

Let me know if you ever think of anything interesting to say.

 

You mean back when people were thinking the world was flat and what not? lol... you act like patent laws didnt lead to unprecedented growth of knowledge in human history. I would say more happened in the 300 something years since, then in the 7000 before.

Thief!

Not rent seeking to charge something for your services. You just say it about everything - except green energy jobs and the like which are actual rent seeking.

Yawn, let me know when you stop blaming all the worlds problems on landowners/homeowners and inventors.

 

Roy roy roy roy....

You need to post this quote somewhere near your computer, and read it before every single post.

I'm done with you. Your posts never argue the points. Never have valid counter points. Basically you are a politician on the forum. You deny everything. Prove nothing. And otherwise are a jerk about it.

I'm done with you. You are hereby ignored. And I will never see, nor respond to a post from you ever again.

If someone else wishes to discuss the topic rationally and intelligently, I am more the willing to discuss. You... your finished in my book, and I won't miss these pointless ignore posts of yours. Have a nice life.

 

The ignore list is your friend. I love the ignore list. Just ignore people who are jerks. If that's me, then ignore me.

There's always going to be jerks on a forum like this. Just ignore them. That's why that feature is there! Makes the forum so much more enjoyable.