She should have sourced her claims but that doesn’t mean it’s necessary to go full bore passive aggressive.
Also I already saw that video, and although funny that kind of attitude could just as easily be applied to people who write pieces like Liberty in Aquarius or “The Universe as an Acting Being” if you wanted to be fair.
Because you asked for a number. The point is that under capitalism wealth generally accumulates in the hands of a small part of society. Of course you’re going to say capitalism doesn’t exist and that will really move the discussion along.
Just because you disagree with me does not mean I’m stupid.
Aristophanes, my purpose is to highlight to other forum users that I believe “alsdjfalsdjfos” originally posted here under the name “mustang19” and thus is evading his ban (yet again).
If your definition of “most” is “51% or more”, fine. I can go along with that arguendo. By your definition, however, a society in which 51% of people hold 51% of the “capital” (not sure what your definition of that is) would count as “capitalism”. After all, 51% of people in a society counts as a “segment of society”, doesn’t it? So basically the definition of “capitalism” you gave proves too much.
I agree. But can you provide those sources I asked for?
Why do I get the feeling that MissSocialist is Kylio undercover?
So what happens if he gets banned (yet again)?
Those vegetarians who don’t eat their missed steak the first time are doomed to reheat it. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. By that standard we’re both pretty much nuts.
Well, in order for Marxism to work, “we” have to limit that segment to something reasonable. Say, the people who gain most of their income from capital rather than labor.
MissSocialist,
What is the difference between extracting money from someone and earning money through trade? Is there a difference, in your mind?
What’s your definition of “reasonable”? What do you think constitutes “income from capital” vs. “income from labor”? Regardless, you do understand that you’re implicitly changing your definition of “capitalism”, right? (I believe you do.)
You’ve said yourself that commonsense has no place in political discussion. “Reasonableness” is irrelevant.
Capital/labor income are measured separately in the national accounts, you can go to the BEA and look them up. One comes from wages and salaries, the other from rent and interest.
Someone should tell the mods that a “temporary ban” is not a thing. “Ban” is a permenant thing. “Kick” or “Boot” are terms for suspensions which is itself what a “3-day ban” is.
Where did you hear this?
You ramble.
I’ll ask you again: what’s your definition of “reasonable”?
Why are you suddenly introducing “national accounts” into this discussion? I don’t see its necessary relevance. Regardless, are you saying here that you think income from rent and interest constitutes “income from capital”, and that income from wages and salaries constitutes “income from labor”? If so, do you understand then that, as per your definitions, CEOs making multi-million-dollar salaries are earning income from labor and not from capital? And that’s just one example.
Thanks for implicitly admitting that you’re implicitly changing your definition of “capitalism”. Another shining example of intellectual dishonesty from our local ban-evader.
Enough to justify socialist theft of private property to the gullible, naturally public healthcare-wary Canadian proletariat.
That’s a borderline case. Most of their compensation comes from stock options, and that salarly is pretty much rent to the extent that they influence the salary boards.
Why should I believe that this is honestly your definition of “reasonable”?
Most (51% or more, per your earlier definition) of their compensation always and necessarily comes from stock options? And now you’re redefining (some) salary income as rental income? To what extent do (you think) they “influence” the salary boards? Regardless, by that reasoning, higher wages that union workers get from “collective bargaining” (i.e. influencing company management) would also constitute rental income and thus income from capital, not labor.
Socialism is all about redistributing the wealth (“stealing” is a bit innaccurate because it implies random non-progressive taxation) to put it towards things that do the most good for the most people. Taxes are reasonable to me as long as they accomplish that (without impinging on any real human rights like immediate personal safety).
no
They’re different things.
In some cases, quite a lot.
Oh yeah. It’s entirely possible for unions to be bloodsucking leeches too. But if the goal is to redistribute income to the proles there’s no point in taxing them.
“The top 1% actually pays 36% (Not 40%) HOWEVER what they ‘extract’ from the working class -cash they impose on the working class- is 300% higher than the same amount (through fees, rents, costs, charges, and general cost of living) than it was before Ronald Reagan took office. In other words, the 1% pay a fraction of the same cost compared to the increase they’ve imposed by ‘hiring’ the Republican party to ‘de-regulate’ the economy for them.”
Since there are few to no Republicans on these boards, what’s your point?
The economy has never been de regulated, it has repeatedly been re regulated to satisfy the special interests who pay for the campaigns of the people in power at the time.
To the extent The Top 1% ‘extracts’ anything from anyone else, so long as it’s voluntary, tough fuckin’ nuggies. To the extent the government enables them, they should be ashamed and stopped, period.
Do your calculations also take into account what the remaining 99% ‘extract’ from their employers via union and labor regulations?
P.S. Nice tits.
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.
On another note, would you like to meet up some time for coffee? I live near NYC.
I’ve never had any “Rich” people extract a dime from me. I’ve had a mugger extract money from me at knifepoint (I’m only guessing that the crackhead wasn’t rich), and the government extract money from me at (implicit) gunpoint. Other than that I’ve only chosen to give my money to people in return for them giving me something.