Liberal or Labor? (1 Viewer)

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
If you took all the people who are paid as much as he was, and averaged out the amount the companies they lead increased in value, you'd have a very solid surplus. It'd be like saying that just because 9/10 business ideas come to nothing we shouldn't try anything new, these are simply unavoidable risks which come off in the aggregate. Additionally, I have no doubt that they all work exceptionally hard.
I'm not referring to averages I'm referring to individuals.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I'm not referring to averages I'm referring to individuals.
If your thesis is that some exceptionally rich people make bad decisions which are easily perceived with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think anybody has beef with that. My argument, however, is that on the whole having very rich people isn't a negative thing, and to characterise them as leaches upon the working class is nonsense.
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Yeah right, sure.
You admitted entirely to being economically illiterate and yet you deem your own interpretation of the situation to be valid, even without understanding something as simple as unintended consequences?

You're just post-hoc creating a definition and trying to shoehorn things into it and then getting pissy when you're called on your bullshit.

Sorry, my friend, but intellectual you are not.
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
hahahaha Riet you are crazy billionaires can't own robots because robots can't be owned

they each own themselves and their means of production

the profiteer merely exploits them!
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
You admitted entirely to being economically illiterate and yet you deem your own interpretation of the situation to be valid, even without understanding something as simple as unintended consequences?

You're just post-hoc creating a definition and trying to shoehorn things into it and then getting pissy when you're called on your bullshit.

Sorry, my friend, but intellectual you are not.
Am I to presume you have formally studied business? and as such you are illiterate when it comes to discussing politics/government because you haven't done any tertiary political science?
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Am I to presume you have formally studied business? and as such you are illiterate when it comes to discussing politics/government because you haven't done any tertiary political science?
I'd posit I have a better understanding of pretty much everything compared to your idiotic attempts at disproving the entire field of economics.
 

TacoTerrorist

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
692
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
withoutaface said:
So you think those below them would be equally productive without any guidance from those in management? If so how come we don't see 'collectives' as the predominant productive force in society (given that logically a product without the overheads of huge executive bonuses would be more competitive on the marketplace)?
From an economic perspective I don't know the answer to this, to be honest. However, from a sociological perspective, hierarchy is unnecessary and restrictive. 'Management' is necessary, but those in that role needn't receive more than others. What's your answer to the question you posed?
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
I'd posit I have a better understanding of pretty much everything compared to your idiotic attempts at disproving the entire field of economics.
I don't need to disprove the field of economics, economists do a fine job of it without my help. I trust you know the Churchill quote?
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I don't need to disprove the field of economics, economists do a fine job of it without my help. I trust you know the Churchill quote?
It's like you're not even seeking psychiatric help
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
From an economic perspective I don't know the answer to this, to be honest. However, from a sociological perspective, hierarchy is unnecessary and restrictive. 'Management' is necessary, but those in that role needn't receive more than others. What's your answer to the question you posed?
Please pick up some science units to be grounded in reality kthx
 

TacoTerrorist

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
692
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
^ Huh? You haven't even answered my question dude. If you want to live under some arbitrary hierarchy be my guest.
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
^ Huh? You haven't even answered my question dude. If you want to live under some arbitrary hierarchy be my guest.
Fuck off I agree with you on 99% of things with the exception of property ownership.
 

absorber

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
874
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Well we don't tax money that rich people have stored away or something :confused:

we tax income/capital gains etc

and to make an income you have to be supplying some demand i.e. being productive
Rich people might be generally productive. But for example, a teacher contributes more to an economy than a lawyer would, outside of economic models. The point is that economic models fail to account for heaps of externalities. Just cos some rock star earns a shitload doesn't mean they benefit the economy more than someone with another job earning a fraction of their income. Yes income tax redistributes this, but my whole argument is that this is a good thing.
 

absorber

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
874
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
yeah because taxing the most productive people to help out people who refuse to work is such a good fucking idea

:spzz:
See, he's implying that rich people are productive for reasons other than income tax. They are, but generally not proportional to their incomes.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top