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…1314161819…24

Comments

  • #452
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    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.
    If you can't provide a simple definition yourself either, of what makes a socialist/communist, then you are hiding something (specifically - the fact that you have no workable definitions, and apply it in a completely arbitrary/meaningless way).


  • #453
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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.

    Can you now clarify how you believe the economy should be run? We're all waiting.


  • #454
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Sleevoo wrote: »
    Can you now clarify how you believe the economy should be run? We're all waiting.
    That was never the debate to begin with - it's notable how all the unrelated posters, who haven't been posting in the discussion at all, now come in to try and lend credibility to this.

    How I think the economy should be run, was never what was the focus here - what was the focus though, is the use of labels like Socialist/Communist, which people have no definition for, and which are meaningless.

    Now, to get out of giving any definition of those terms (which you do not have...), you are going to try and pretend we were discussing something else (how I think the economy should be run), and are going to either:
    1: Insist on distracting from my original point about the use of meaningless labels of Socialist/Communist - and never returning to that topic, or
    2: Try to justify witholding any definition, because I refuse to let that distraction take place.


    None of you have any definition for the words Socialist or Communist - you can not provide any kind of a workable definition. This shows that the words are used primarily, as slurs to promote emotional "Us vs Them" thinking.


  • #455
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    That was never the debate to begin with - find a single post, prior to my post here - it's notable how all the unrelated posters, who haven't been posting in the discussion at all, now come in to try and lend credibility to this.

    How I think the economy should be run, was never what was the focus here - what was the focus though, is the use of labels like Socialist/Communist, which people have no definition for, and which are meaningless.

    Now, to get out of giving any definition of those terms (which you do not have...), you are going to try and pretend we were discussing something else (how I think the economy should be run), and are going to either:
    1: Insist on distracting from my original point about the use of meaningless labels of Socialist/Communist - and never returning to that topic, or
    2: Try to justify witholding any definition, because I refuse to let that distraction take place.


    None of you have any definition for the words Socialist or Communist - you can not provide any kind of a workable definition. This shows that the words are used primarily, as slurs to promote emotional "Us vs Them" thinking.

    I really don't care about labels. What way should the economy be run, forget about labels?


  • #456
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Well Is sum it up with

    What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Well Is sum it up with

    What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too.
    See this isn't a workable definition - you could say that taxes meet this definition, and then since the state depends upon taxes for its existence, you could describe the very existence of the state as socialist - which is so broad as to not serve any useful purpose in discussion whatsoever (with every country in existence utilizing taxes, being arguably socialist - without a more consistent definition).


  • #458
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    To sum up the thread we all agree everyone should be allowed to get enormously wealthy.


  • #459
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    See this isn't a workable definition - you could say that taxes meet this definition, and then since the state depends upon taxes for its existence, you could describe the very existence of the state as socialist - which is so broad as to not serve any useful purpose in discussion whatsoever (with every country in existence utilizing taxes, being arguably socialist - without a more consistent definition).

    We have never had pure capitalism. Ever.

    Some would say the US is turning socialist for this very reason, Obamacare would lend weight to that argument, so would the corporate bailouts. Henry why leftys are assumed to be socialists. They support the tax and spend philosophies and in giving government more and more power.

    He who pays the piper calls the tune.


  • #460
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    KyussBishop wrote: »

    None of you have any definition for the words Socialist or Communist - you can not provide any kind of a workable definition. This shows that the words are used primarily, as slurs to promote emotional "Us vs Them" thinking.

    I wouldn't say there are strict definitions.

    Those who reject current systems rarely have a unique working alternative that hasn't failed already

    I struggle to imagine what thousands of economists must have missed over the centuries.


  • #461
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    We have never had pure capitalism. Ever.

    Some would say the US is turning socialist for this very reason, Obamacare would lend weight to that argument, so would the corporate bailouts. Henry why leftys are assumed to be socialists. They support the tax and spend philosophies and in giving government more and more power.

    He who pays the piper calls the tune.
    Your using the word socialist again without a definition though (or, do you subscribe to the definition from my previous post?).

    I don't see what pure capitalism has to do with it: Economics is definitely not a spectrum where you have capitalism on one side, and socialism on the other - it is way more complicated than that - you have Neoclassicals/Austrians/Marxists(the socialists/communists)/Post-Keynesians/Sraffians/Institutionalists and even more still.

    So can we take it that socialist, means anyone advocating the very existence of government? Or just more government than we have now? (which would make it a totally meaningless term, which means anything not marching rightward economically, is socialist by definition)

    Can we just agree that it, and communism, have no real definition? This inherently means they aren't useful in debate either.


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I wouldn't say there are strict definitions.

    Those who reject current systems rarely have a unique working alternative that hasn't failed already

    I struggle to imagine what thousands of economists must have missed over the centuries.
    Economics isn't made up of a whole complete ideologies - that is an utterly disastrous way of thinking about economics, which ensures discussion of it only ever ends in trench-warfare between one 'side' and another.

    Economics should be about basing theory and policy on evidence, free from (non-science-based) ideology - it is extremely far from that ideal today.

    I think that actually, is probably the best general definition of my economic/political views, and how I think things should be done.


  • #463
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    There are so many strands of what would be called left or right wing politics that in the context of the OP it probably isn't helpful to throw them about, I'm guilty myself. Even within right wing politics a big section would want Government interference in social matters, maybe more so than strands of left wing thinking. Liberal can mean different things to different people, even Liberterianism has different thinking as we've discussed already.

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



  • #464
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Equal wealth distribution is impossible. Trying to aim for such a goal, I would argue, is detrimental to society which needs a certain level of imbalance in order to thrive not just survive.


  • #465
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Equal wealth distribution is impossible. Trying to aim for such a goal, I would argue, is detrimental to society which needs a certain level of imbalance in order to thrive not just survive.
    I'd agree, and on the opposite side of things, too unequal a distribution of wealth is harmful to society in very well documented ways - I'd say for the majority of people, they would think it fair to allow people to become extremely wealthy for doing beneficial things for society, just not have a class of people so wealthy that they become a threat (active or potential) to society itself and peoples wellbeing.

    I think that fits across a very wide spectrum of both left and right, and I think that ideology based arguments (often based on the theory of how the advocated ideology would work, less often how evidence shows it would likely happen in reality) - I think that kind of argument, just prevents reasoned discussion on actually finding that balance.

    If discussion can't get past reflexive defensiveness, over things people find offensive because of their preferred ideology, then debate gets nowhere.


  • #466
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Equal wealth distribution is impossible. Trying to aim for such a goal, I would argue, is detrimental to society which needs a certain level of imbalance in order to thrive not just survive.

    That is great but no one argued that we should have equal wealth distribution so I don't know who you are arguing against?


  • #467
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I'd agree, and on the opposite side of things, too unequal a distribution of wealth is harmful to society in very well documented ways - I'd say for the majority of people, they would think it fair to allow people to become extremely wealthy for doing beneficial things for society, just not have a class of people so wealthy that they become a threat (active or potential) to society itself and peoples wellbeing.

    I think that fits across a very wide spectrum of both left and right, and I think that ideology based arguments (often based on the theory of how the advocated ideology would work, less often how evidence shows it would likely happen in reality) - I think that kind of argument, just prevents reasoned discussion on actually finding that balance.

    If discussion can't get past reflexive defensiveness, over things people find offensive because of their preferred ideology, then debate gets nowhere.

    I'd agree it gets no where, it also gets no where when people waffle about things that are off topic such as labels.


  • #468
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KB gives out about labels but is well capable of throwing them out there anyway to make a pont. See quote below.
    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.

    My point stands. Would we have had a Tony Blair or a Bill Clinton without the fall of the Berlin Wall? Would we have had them without Thatcher or Reagan?

    There is a fundamental reason why economcis of the 'left' has shifted to the right. The economics of the pre-80's left e.g. Carter & Callaghan, failed and failed misserably. New labour and all that. KB even admits this shift, yet refuses to discuss why the shift has taken place. Maybe a conspiracy or maybe the voters saw it differently? :rolleyes:


  • #469
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    I love how KB continues to snake around the question. KB stop worrying about labels and answer us this question. What way do you think the economy should be run?

    And yes, there is a definition of Socialist, the social ownership of the means of production.


  • #470
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    @ Wibbs and Permabear

    Yes I'd rather be a waitress in the US than a doctor in Italy.

    Here is why:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/bruni-italy-breaks-your-heart.html?pagewanted=1&ref=general&src=mv


  • #471
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I love how KB continues to snake around the question. KB stop worrying about labels and answer us this question. What way do you think the economy should be run?

    And yes, there is a definition of Socialist, the social ownership of the means of production.

    KB doesnt answer direct simple questions. Instead he gets out the internet theasarus and does a crazy indian dance in trying to distract from the original question put.

    I asked him for a definition of the term 'left wing economic policy'. I am still waiting.....


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    And yes, there is a definition of Socialist, the social ownership of the means of production.
    If this is the definition of socialist, then it is a definition that either 1: Nobody ever argues in favour of, further showing that the term is used meaninglessly and solely to promote "Us vs Them" type crap in debates, and 2: If it's meant to apply to public services (and not just stuff like worker-run business), then again it still is meaningless as the very existence of the state can be termed 'socialist'.

    This is a thread about wealth distribution, not about presenting my general economic/political views for you to nitpick at - I'll save that discussion, for people who aren't just looking to affix the 'socialist'/'communist' label to my views after the fact, when they can't even provide a consistent definition. So you're not going to get that discussion from me here.


    I'm really surprised that some can't see just how deliberately inaccurate the use of these labels is (which is perfectly relevant for discussion, given dishonest use of them in the thread), and how posters use them to make dishonest/fallacious generalizations or try to pigeonhole peoples views (in a deliberately inaccurate way - so they can put words in the persons mouth and say they support more stuff that they don't); it's not like when people self-identify with particular ideologies (then the labels are accurate), this is taking a completely unsupported ideology and pinning it to them, knowing that is bullshít.

    When really blindingly obviously dishonest methods of argument like that, get given benefit of the doubt by posters, or are happy to turn a blind eye to them (it is not just opinion that this kind of argument is fallacious/dishonest, it is fact and easy to demonstrate just by looking it up on wikipedia) - when people are happy to keep lending credibility to a person despite that, I really don't get that, and it (unavoidably) makes me start to question the honesty/motive of that person too.

    I mean, do just read that Wikipedia article, and read up on logical fallacies in general; these get used as guide-book of how to argue by some posters, not as things to look out for:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy


  • #473
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    I mean, even just read this bit:
    Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy

    Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

    This form of the argument is as follows:
    • Source S makes claim C.
    • Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
    • Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.

    An example of this fallacy would be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

    So jank, the person who likes to moan falsely about ad-hominem when you criticize his shítty methods of argument, engages in ad-hominem all the time by affixing false communist/socialist labels to people.

    Still think there's nothing dishonest about his methods of argument? Or just happy to turn a blind eye?


  • #474
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KyussBishop wrote: »

    Still think there's nothing dishonest about his methods of argument? Or just happy to turn a blind eye?

    How about just answering my simple question, no?


  • #475
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    If this is the definition of socialist, then it is a definition that either 1: Nobody ever argues in favour of, further showing that the term is used meaninglessly and solely to promote "Us vs Them" type crap in debates, and 2: If it's meant to apply to public services (and not just stuff like worker-run business), then again it still is meaningless as the very existence of the state can be termed 'socialist'.

    This is a thread about wealth distribution, not about presenting my general economic/political views for you to nitpick at - I'll save that discussion, for people who aren't just looking to affix the 'socialist'/'communist' label to my views after the fact, when they can't even provide a consistent definition. So you're not going to get that discussion from me here.


    I'm really surprised that some can't see just how deliberately inaccurate the use of these labels is (which is perfectly relevant for discussion, given dishonest use of them in the thread), and how posters use them to make dishonest/fallacious generalizations or try to pigeonhole peoples views (in a deliberately inaccurate way - so they can put words in the persons mouth and say they support more stuff that they don't); it's not like when people self-identify with particular ideologies (then the labels are accurate), this is taking a completely unsupported ideology and pinning it to them, knowing that is bullshít.

    When really blindingly obviously dishonest methods of argument like that, get given benefit of the doubt by posters, or are happy to turn a blind eye to them (it is not just opinion that this kind of argument is fallacious/dishonest, it is fact and easy to demonstrate just by looking it up on wikipedia) - when people are happy to keep lending credibility to a person despite that, I really don't get that, and it (unavoidably) makes me start to question the honesty/motive of that person too.

    I mean, do just read that Wikipedia article, and read up on logical fallacies in general; these get used as guide-book of how to argue by some posters, not as things to look out for:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

    Leave the thread please. Your input is pointless.


  • #476
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    If this is the definition of socialist, then it is a definition that either 1: Nobody ever argues in favour of, further showing that the term is used meaninglessly and solely to promote "Us vs Them" type crap in debates, and 2: If it's meant to apply to public services (and not just stuff like worker-run business), then again it still is meaningless as the very existence of the state can be termed 'socialist'.
    1. Plenty of people argue in favour of it.
    2. Yes it does include worker run businesses.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    This is a thread about wealth distribution, not about presenting my general economic/political views for you to nitpick at - I'll save that discussion, for people who aren't just looking to affix the 'socialist'/'communist' label to my views after the fact, when they can't even provide a consistent definition. So you're not going to get that discussion from me here.
    It's about wealth distribution so what are your views on wealth distribution. I'm very suspicious of a someone who won't even tell me what his views are.


  • #477
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    1. Plenty of people argue in favour of it.
    2. Yes it does include worker run businesses.
    You're dodging around the second question: Do public services in general count under your definition of socialist? (which would make it a completely meaningless term, due to how broad that is)
    Your definition of socialist is so broad, that a sizeable portion of Libertarians (who support a minarchist state) could be labelled socialists - that's how ridiculous and meaningless the term is.

    Since nobody seems to be able to give a sensible definition, and since the definition seems to cover the very existence of the state, then lets make clear what it really means when people use it:
    "If you support any part of government that I personally disagree with, then you are a socialist"

    Can we either have a sensible and clear definition of it, or retire this silly meaningless term once and for all? (which would go a long way to restoring sensible discussion on these topics)
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It's about wealth distribution so what are your views on wealth distribution. I'm very suspicious of a someone who won't even tell me what his views are.
    You were already debating with me about my views on wealth distribution, so this shows up your faked 'suspicion', and the fact that you are being demanding on questions (which in this case you know was already answered) purely for rhetorical effect, without giving a toss about the answer:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87179201&postcount=232
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=87179689#post87179689

    What you're doing here, is trying to defend the shítty methods of argument other posters use, by piling on with them and trying to distract the discussion away from their methods of argument, and trying to make it look like I'm avoiding the topic (which I show right above you know is false), so that you can try to be demanding with questions to again try and distract from the bad methods of argument.


  • #478
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it.


  • #479
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You're dodging around the second question: Do public services in general count under your definition of socialist? (which would make it a completely meaningless term, due to how broad that is)
    Your definition of socialist is so broad, that a sizeable portion of Libertarians (who support a minarchist state) could be labelled socialists - that's how ridiculous and meaningless the term is.
    I dodged no question you just didn't ask it plainly. No social services in general do not count as socialism but in the case where the government controls the entire means of production then yes that would be state socialism.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    What you're doing here, is trying to defend the shítty methods of argument other posters use, by piling on with them and trying to distract the discussion away from their methods of argument, and trying to make it look like I'm avoiding the topic (which I show right above you know is false), so that you can try to be demanding with questions to again try and distract from the bad methods of argument.
    For God's sake just say what you believe in. Forget about labels, we won't use them. Just for once stop dodging the question and state comprehensively what your economic views are. I remember a few month ago you were talking about state guaranteed full employment. Do you still believe in that?


  • #480
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    There's only one person on this thread obsessed with labels.

    I believe ultimately maximising long term happiness of its citizens should be the governments overriding goal. In order to do that the government should intervene as little as possible and let the free market dominate for the most part.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it.
    Yes, agreed - trouble is they successfully smear you anyway, even if you don't engage them - posters still give them benefit of the doubt despite seeing the shítty methods of argument.

    Apart from that, there are plenty of topics where they are so numerous that you can't ignore them, and a handful that are so trolled that they are not possible to discuss at all.


Advertisement