Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wealth Distribution in the USA

1…1213151718…24

Comments

  • #422
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Sleevoo wrote: »
    No is entitled to private schooling so you shouldn't be complaining if no one pays for private schooling for you. If you want to learn badly enough public schooling is good enough.

    Therefore if the rich want to learn badly enough public education should be good enough for them too.


  • #423
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Therefore if the rich want to learn badly enough public education should be good enough for them too.

    Not even that. There should be no unearned boosts in our education system. It keeps the rich relatively rich. It also makes it harder for people to work their way out of poverty. Plus it goes against capitalism.


  • #424
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Not even that. There should be no unearned boosts in our education system. It keeps the rich relatively rich. It also makes it harder for people to work their way out of poverty. Plus it goes against capitalism.

    Ireland doesn't have a private secondary level education system, it's a semi-private one, the state gives a subsidy of about €3,000 per student per year IIRC. If that disappeared schools would have to up fees or cut services.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #425
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    K-9 wrote: »
    Ireland doesn't have a private secondary level education system, it's a semi-private one, the state gives a subsidy of about €3,000 per student per year IIRC. If that disappeared schools would have to up fees or cut services.


    I know it would cost money but I would be in favor of standardization of secondary schools across the board. It's not the state subsidy I have a problem with really.


  • #426
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I know it would cost money but I would be in favor of standardization of secondary schools across the board. It's not the state subsidy I have a problem with really.

    Discussions about right and left wing are redundant anyway, that's just people who've made their mind up. The balance of power in elections usually comes down to those in the middle ground, and they'll sway left or right depending on the best message put across in an election campaign. The decided voters are after thoughts really.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #427
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Allyall wrote: »

    Not all versions of Linux are free.

    Correct, nor did I say all flavours of Linux are free? RH and OracleLinux for example one needs to pay a subscription. However, most versions lot Linux are free to download. CentOS is basically RH without the support.
    Allyall wrote: »
    Most bricks and mortar stores sell PC's with no other option then windows.

    Most do, yet not all. Last time I was in a PC World in Cork they had loads of netbooks running some variant of Linux, it may have been mint. They were cheaper too than the same netbooks running windows (wonder why that is :rolleyes:) One can ring up Dell and ask for a windows free PC. All it takes is a small tiny bit of effort to be windows or Apple free, but as I said most people can't be arsed.

    Allyall wrote: »
    Or.... Maybe, when they buy the product (PC/Laptop), it already comes installed with Windows (Which they have paid for), and they don't see any reason to install another OS.

    One doesn't have to buy a PC/Laptop with windows installed, as I said ring up Dell and have a chat. Cant be easier than that.
    Allyall wrote: »
    Add to that, I'd say most people have never even heard of linux. It can be a great OS, but isn't natively compatible with a lot of software.
    (Which may be about to change, IBM is investing $1billion into linux to help topple Microsoft.)

    The question is not about one being better than the other (as there are terabytes on the net having that argument), the argument is that there are other possibilities out there other than Windows or Apple, free alternatives….


  • #428
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    K-9 wrote: »
    Discussions about right and left wing are redundant anyway, that's just people who've made their mind up. The balance of power in elections usually comes down to those in the middle ground, and they'll sway left or right depending on the best message put across in an election campaign. The decided voters are after thoughts really.
    Well, I'd disagree with that, because most economic issues are fundamentally on the 'right' today - the right-wing think tanks that have funded their own brand of economic research for more than three-quarters of a century, have had a significant influence on economics education, keeping many myths and just-plain-wrong 'facts' about economics, alive for an extremely long time (that's why it's the "dismal science").

    Economics is discussed with a narrative, that leans pretty heavily to the right - meaning even left-wing type parties, are shifted to the right economically, simply because that is how the debate is framed.


  • #429
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Stock prices rise and fall based on the market perception. It doesn't indicate accurately the effect Steve Jobs had on apple. In fact Apple still seems to be doing very well despite the loss of Steve Jobs.

    Apple are still doing well because of the legacy of Jobs and the products such as the iPhone, iPad and revamped OSX that Jobs inspired. The proof of the pudding on Tim Cooks tenure will be in 4-5 years time and the products that Apple come up with under his tenure.
    http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/RNGS/2011/OCT/JOBS1_GC.jpg
    Christy42 wrote: »
    Yes the CEO of a fortune 500 company has a more important role than the average worker. The fact that this should imply that the worker gets substandard health services is beyond crazy. How much more important the CEO is is also up for discussion.

    The average human in a western country is enjoying its longest lifespan in history. I don't think that points to 'workers' getting substandard health services.
    Christy42 wrote: »
    As you say both men were self made men, however the plural of anecdote is not data. Also you mention that they are collecting modest salaries, how did they become multi billionaires then? Once you are multi billionaire I doubt you really care about your salary.

    They became multi billionaires through ownership of securities, usually their companies stock. Many start ups will compensate via an employee share scheme rather than salary or cash bonuses. The worker then has a vested interest in making the company successful. More risk of course as one is forgoing reliable present income in cash for possible greater wealth in the future. Most workers would not want to work 80-100 hours a week at a start up for a modest salary for the possibility of greater rewards. Most just want to have a few bob for a drink, a bite to eat, a bit of TV and nice-ish home.

    Charlie Munger and Warren Buffet's actually salary is 100k a year. Income =! Wealth These men are in their 80's are worth a fortune yet still go to work each day as they love what they do.


  • #430
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    The problem with Windows being preinstalled on computers, is typically the lack of an option not to buy it along with the computer (because of deals Microsoft do with OEM's), not that you can't install another OS.

    Yet now the market is moving to having more devices with OSX, iOS or android than windows. The consumer will always choose what is best for them.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Also, Apple are well known for locking down their devices and supporting government imposed Digital Rights Management laws which they use to back this, that effectively erode consumers ownership of their devices (by limiting what they can do with them) - and in addition to that, Apple also have setup 'walled garden' markets, which heavily restrict apps that are allowed to be published (and installed on devices - I believe installation is restricted to app store apps, unless you hack the DRM, which is illegal in many countries), while forcing developers to use this market if they want to release apps.

    Odd company to support, for those who are against government granted monopolies, or against government granted erosion of peoples Freedoms, or who support free markets themselves (since the app market is anything but free), or for people against regulations (again - the app market is very heavily regulated).

    Nobody here is defending Apples business practices but what we are saying is that a CEO took Apple from being on the verge of bankruptcy to the most valuable company in the world. If the products that Steve Jobs came up with were crap, then Apple would have been history back in 1996. Steve jobs obviously had an enormous impact on Apple and the wider technology industry in general. To say the average working had as much impact as him, as this thread suggests is just plain wrong on all levels.

    Nobody is forced to buy an Apple product. There are other companies out there that compete with them such as Microsoft, Google and Samsung among others. The consumers are the real winners as they get to choose at the end of the say which one of them are successful.


  • #431
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Not even that. There should be no unearned boosts in our education system. It keeps the rich relatively rich. It also makes it harder for people to work their way out of poverty. Plus it goes against capitalism.

    How does private education go 'against' capitalism. That is a strange sentence.
    Are you saying that the state should ban private education so that everyone then gets a fair crack by going through the same (often substandard) public education? The state should diss-incentivise extra education?



    Private education exists because there is a demand for it. If public education was enough for everyone and there was nothing wrong with it than there would be no demand for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    loveBBhate
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 645 ✭✭✭loveBBhate


    jank wrote: »
    How does private education go 'against' capitalism. That is a strange sentence.
    Are you saying that the state should ban private education so that everyone then gets a fair crack by going through the same (often substandard) public education? The state should diss-incentivise extra education?



    Private education exists because there is a demand for it. If public education was enough for everyone and there was nothing wrong with it than there would be no demand for it.

    They give extra points in the Leaving Cert for being good at Maths, this is unfair to those who find Maths difficult but are perhaps good at Irish. We are from Ireland, not Mathland. We are Irish, not Mathish. The education system is flawed and needs to be rectified.


  • #433
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Well, I'd disagree with that, because most economic issues are fundamentally on the 'right' today - the right-wing think tanks that have funded their own brand of economic research for more than three-quarters of a century, have had a significant influence on economics education, keeping many myths and just-plain-wrong 'facts' about economics, alive for an extremely long time (that's why it's the "dismal science").

    Economics is discussed with a narrative, that leans pretty heavily to the right - meaning even left-wing type parties, are shifted to the right economically, simply because that is how the debate is framed.

    I think you will find the abject failure of traditional 'the state should own all industries', left wing economic policy the past 6 decades around the world, has done much more to promote capitalism and free markets that 'right wing' economists favour than so called 'conspiracies' pushed by special interests. The economic argument was won hands down when the Berlin Wall came down. China is another example of this.


  • #434
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    jank wrote: »
    How does private education go 'against' capitalism. That is a strange sentence.
    Are you saying that the state should ban private education so that everyone then gets a fair crack by going through the same (often substandard) public education? The state should diss-incentivise extra education?



    Private education exists because there is a demand for it. If public education was enough for everyone and there was nothing wrong with it than there would be no demand for it.

    I can see the argument for how private schools are anti-competitive, but not anti capitalist, in that some of them are their to stream dynastic little families straight into elitist third levels or Ivy Leagues. I can see this argument particularly in an Irish context and I'm thinking Conglowes and Gonzaga here, however, much more so than an American one which is such a huge country and with so much competition even among universities it's difficult to argue that universally.

    That's not to say I don't know idiots who bought their way into some very snooty universities, because I do, but I also know a lot of people who earned their way in too.


  • #435
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    jank wrote: »
    I think you will find the abject failure of traditional 'the state should own all industries', left wing economic policy the past 6 decades around the world, has done much more to promote capitalism and free markets that 'right wing' economists favour than so called 'conspiracies' pushed by special interests. The economic argument was won hands down when the Berlin Wall came down. China is another example of this.
    Ok, had a reply up for another one of your posts, but this "everyone who disagrees with me (or who can be remotely labelled 'left') is a Communist" crap is where I stop replying to you - past that point, there's no reason to expect honest intent in argument from you.


  • #436
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I think the biggest problem I have with right wing thinking is the double standard often displayed.

    I have no problem with people living or being born into poverty as long as they have the opportunity to work hard and come out of their poverty. That to me is the spirit of capitalism and that's no bad thing IMO. The "right wing" thinkers often talk about how everyone should work hard and no one should have a free ride and they're absolutely right there. I really respect people who work hard to make something of themselves. I don't think there will ever be an equal society and maybe that's how it should be. Some people naturally work harder than other and that should be rewarded.

    The the thing is you'll often find right wingers defending or denying the fact there are things in place that ensure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

    For instance for all the talk "right wing" people have about working for everything and not getting anything for nothing they often defend private paradoxically schools. Unless you won a scholarship you didn't earn the right to be privately educated. This is one way the relatively well off (I didn't say rich) keep their kids better off relative to those born into poorer families. The same people who defend this practice will also criticize those who are poor for not having worked hard enough. The same people will say that anyone can do it irregardless of school while maintaining that we need private schools. Why would we need private schools if anyone can do it is beyond me.

    I'm not having a go at those who went to private schools by the way as some of my best friends did. I'm having a go at the system that allows it and those who defend it while criticizing others for getting free rides in life.

    I'm not racist but


  • #437
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    That was completely irrelevant to my point.

    Microsoft got lazy thinking the status quo would hold and that everyone would be buying a bit of hardware with windows pre-installed for the next 10 years. They got punished for this lazy thinking by the market and consumer.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Nobody said any of that, it was pointed out that the success of Apple depends upon privileges granted by the state (often at the expense of consumers) that would not exist in a truly free market, so are a bad example to tout in favour of that.

    A lot of that which was pointed out, is also contrary to your claims here.

    Apples success is derived by giving consumers what they want. They were the first to offer a legal and paid alternative to digitally download music.

    The market will dictate wether their current methods of locking down data with DRM will affect them long term. I personally have big issues with them on a number of offerings but the thing is, I can choose to buy their product or not.


  • #438
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    jank wrote: »
    Microsoft got lazy thinking the status quo would hold and that everyone would be buying a bit of hardware with windows pre-installed for the next 10 years. They got punished for this lazy thinking by the market and consumer.



    Apples success is derived by giving consumers what they want. They were the first to offer a legal and paid alternative to digitally download music.

    The market will dictate wether their current methods of locking down data with DRM will affect them long term. I personally have big issues with them on a number of offerings but the thing is, I can choose to buy their product or not.

    Exactly. I don't like Apple but I have a choice and the reason I have a choice is because of competitive markets.


  • #439
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Ok, had a reply up for another one of your posts, but this "everyone who disagrees with me (or who can be remotely labelled 'left') is a Communist" crap is where I stop replying to you - past that point, there's no reason to expect honest intent in argument from you.

    Priceless. You talk about some right wing economic conspiracy, yet when I point out the failure of left wing economics you just resort to ad-hominem attacks.

    My point stands. It is not so much that the proponents of free market and capitalism won the argument. Just the proponents of state controlled capitalism were annihilated by failure after failure and no other alternative at this moment in time is either practical or even under discussion.

    Again if you have an working alternative, please share it. Is it your "lets burn tax revenue" again?

    What then do you mean of left wing economic policy if we are not talking about free markets or capitalism?


  • #440
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Well, I'd disagree with that, because most economic issues are fundamentally on the 'right' today - the right-wing think tanks that have funded their own brand of economic research for more than three-quarters of a century, have had a significant influence on economics education, keeping many myths and just-plain-wrong 'facts' about economics, alive for an extremely long time (that's why it's the "dismal science").

    Economics is discussed with a narrative, that leans pretty heavily to the right - meaning even left-wing type parties, are shifted to the right economically, simply because that is how the debate is framed.

    discredit the field of economics.....cos.....nobody likes your field


  • #441
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    jank wrote: »
    Priceless. You talk about some right wing economic conspiracy, yet when I point out the failure of left wing economics you just resort to ad-hominem attacks.

    My point stands. It is not so much that the proponents of free market and capitalism won the argument. Just the proponents of state controlled capitalism were annihilated by failure after failure and no other alternative at this moment in time is either practical or even under discussion.

    Again if you have an working alternative, please share it. Is it your "lets burn tax revenue" again?

    What then do you mean of left wing economic policy if we are not talking about free markets or capitalism?
    jank you just threw the same tedious tactic of comparing the left to Communist countries again, and you're saying I posted ad-hominem?

    I'm not entering into the same circlejerk debates with you again - how anyone can give you benefit of the doubt, of honest intent in argument, seeing that crap, I don't know.

    Makes me wonder why people deliberately blind themselves to such blatantly dishonest methods of argument; once that is seen it deserves nothing other than having cynical expectations of a posters intent in argument, and of giving no benefit of the doubt that what they have to say has any merit (because they've already displayed they aren't interested in a debate, just in pushing their particular view).


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    czx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    KyussBishop wrote: »

    I'm not entering into the same circlejerk debates with you again

    you just wait


  • #443
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    jank you just threw the same tedious tactic of comparing the left to Communist countries again, and you're saying I posted ad-hominem?

    I'm not entering into the same circlejerk debates with you again - how anyone can give you benefit of the doubt, of honest intent in argument, seeing that crap, I don't know.

    Makes me wonder why people deliberately blind themselves to such blatantly dishonest methods of argument; once that is seen it deserves nothing other than having cynical expectations of a posters intent in argument, and of giving no benefit of the doubt that what they have to say has any merit (because they've already displayed they aren't interested in a debate, just in pushing their particular view).

    So I will ask again. What can you define as left wing economic policy? It is not communism or socialism, so what is it? You have to do better than say 'It isn't free markets or capitalism'.


  • #444
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    ^^ Can I just ask, what is thank-worthy about this, seeing as it ignores everything I have said and is completely irrelevant? I mean do people seriously think economics is as simple as "you are either a capitalist/free-market supporter, or a socialist/communist"?

    I don't want to get into another debate with jank, after the several other lengthy debates which cement the pattern of "ignore what KB says, pretend something else was said, reply to imaginary argument", but I just have to wonder wtf is it that people still support there (because apart from that I have no reason or desire to reply) - I mean I know people see the dishonest level of argument, so why look past or ignore that?

    How much of a dishonest intent/method in argument does a poster need to show, before the credibility is even dented? (by being willing to look past that, it is just perpetuated as well - leading to the same methods being used again and again, destroying quality of argument in every thread)


  • #445
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    I don't see the dishonesty myself.

    When someone talks about left wing economic policy, yes people will think you are talking about socialism or communism.

    So unless you define your terms and assumptions, this is what people will assume is meant by left wing economics.

    If you mean something different, its better to clarify so that the discussion can evolve.


  • #446
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    I have to say, I'm incredibly confused by that; can you define your meaning of the terms socialist/communist? (because I don't have any fixed label/definition that can fit my views or left-leaning economics in general)

    I have never heard it said before, that people who identify as left, will be assumed to be either socialist/communist. Socialism/Communism may be a part of the left, but that does not mean the left is socialist/communist.


  • #447
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I have to say, I'm incredibly confused by that; can you define your meaning of the terms socialist/communist? (because I don't have any fixed label/definition that can fit my views or left-leaning economics in general)

    I have never heard it said before, that people who identify as left, will be assumed to be either socialist/communist. Socialism/Communism may be a part of the left, but that does not mean the left is socialist/communist.

    Well obviously there is a sliding scale.

    But yes, if you identify as left people will assume that unless you modify it by saying centrist left or something along those lines.

    There is a relativity in perceptions too.

    Certainly from my perspective if you talk about France, I'd call that socialist. I don't know what Castro would call it, he might call it a free for all.


  • #448
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Well obviously there is a sliding scale.

    But yes, if you identify as left people will assume that unless you modify it by saying centrist left or something along those lines.

    There is a relativity in perceptions too.

    Certainly from my perspective if you talk about France, I'd call that socialist. I don't know what Castro would call it, he might call it a free for all.
    What does socialist even mean though? This is the problem with labels like that - they are deliberately so broad, that they can be applied to anyone.

    It's not up to me, to pigeonhole myself into an inaccurate label - my views don't fit any label.

    Really though, can you provide a definition of socialist or communist? Sliding scale seems to imply it can mean anything.


  • #449
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    I don't understand why you won't just state comprehensively your opinions so we can move on and discuss them. Makes you look like you have something to hide tbh.


  • #450
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    What does socialist even mean though? This is the problem with labels like that - they are deliberately so broad, that they can be applied to anyone.

    It's not up to me, to pigeonhole myself into an inaccurate label - my views don't fit any label.

    Really though, can you provide a definition of socialist or communist? Sliding scale seems to imply it can mean anything.

    Maybe it would be a lot clearer if you put on the table how you think things should be run and we'll park the labels for the time being.

    Sorry I didn't mean to put that red thumbs down up there. Can mod remove it? Stupid iPad. Another reason I don't like apple.


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    It's not about how I think things should be run. If people don't know what I think, they shouldn't be applying labels in the first place.

    This point on labels is very very important: It shows janks tendency to just throw labels at people, labels that are totally meaningless (which can be seen by the inability to give a definition for these words).
    This is an unmistakably dishonest method of argument, that is not far off an ad-hominem (affixing the socialist/communist label to people as a slur).

    You've got to ask, what is the point of these labels then? My view, is that the point is to get people thinking emotionally: With such a broad definition of 'socialist' (a meaningless word), if you can get people to dislike socialism (whatever that means), you can get them to reflexively dislike any policy you choose, because it's easy to affix the socialist label to any policy or person.


    So it would still be good to get a definition of what constitutes a socialist/communist (not a "this person holds policy 'x' I dislike, therefore they are (after the fact - with no consistent definiton) a socialist" discussion) - because I would like to know what you think makes one.


Advertisement