Best appropriation of a Charlie Brown cartoon ever
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I have never – ever- seen anyone (including me!) change their mind about anything as a result of an online discussion anywhere (or argument!)
I have certainly changed my view several times when presented with evidence. To be fair the last two cases I can recall were because I was researching my point to refute someone else and I came up with reasonable evidence that demonstrated to me that my point was wrong. I believe that I convinced one or two others that their view was wrong (over a very long time.)
A_Griffin wrote:
I mean billionaires. As I said, I have no problem with the odd million or two, but no-one has a morally legitimate claim to billions.
I will note that I accept the legitimacy of the argument that no one is 1000x or 1000000x 'better' (in the sense that they are not 'working' that much more) than someone else and that it is not realistically possible for them to be that way. Where it gets fuzzy after that is how it then becomes "fair" to deny their luck. I have always worn glasses all my life and I know people who not only have good vision but who in fact have had better than normal vision all of their life. While my vision continues to deteriorate. Is that fair? If we must correct for monetary luck shouldn't there be a correction for physical luck as well?
Well, indeed… as I said in answer to HappyFestivus above, there probably isn’t a “fair” solution available in the short term. These things have to evolve, along with society. Like you, I have poor eyesight. Mine is bad enough that I cannot drive – no way I’d get a licence, and quite right too – I’d be a danger to myself and everyone else on the road. But….. if there was a law made that no car could ever go above 25 mile an hour, then I’d be OK. I could cope with that, and drive safely. So – why can’t I demand that such a law be introduced? My right to drive is being denied by other people being selfish by wanting to drive faster! Of course such an argument is silly – sometimes we just have to accept the limitations imposed upon us by our physical frailties. But, in a decent society, we might hope that new buildings are made with, for example, wheelchair ramps. Because there’s no reason not, to, as a rule. Life isn’t fair – we all know that – but as decent people we can take reasonable steps to make it a little fairer when possible. The law of the jungle is only law in the jungle. In a civilised society, we should hope, and try, to do better. Maybe, one day, with improved medical care and decent funding, more and more people with poor eyesight can be helped. And maybe, one day, with a more enlightened society, we can reign in the billionaires and say “Look, you can be richer – but not that much richer.” Give them a few million if it makes them feel better – but no-one is deserving of billions.
-
Quote:
Why not? So what would you do to "fix" this? Would you somehow prevent people from earning a billion dollars? Would you change the economic model to make it impossible?
Well, I am not sure it can be “fixed”. Like most socio-political questions, nothing will change until enough people want it to. All I’d like to see, as a start, is more and more people finding it unacceptable for anyone to be a billionaire – or even a multi-millionaire, above maybe a few million. (Let’s be generous and say 10.) Until such a time, tinkering with the rules won’t make a lot of difference. Rules can always be got round – especially when most people admire those who do it, and wish it were them. Sorry, but I do not admire George Soros, say. He made his billions by buying and selling other people’s money. I mean, seriously, wtf? For that – for making rich people even richer - he is rewarded with billions. Most billionaires are in the same boat – however many millions of product X they may have sold, their net worth of billions has accrued through investments made by their company. And anyway, they couldn’t have sold all those millions without the help of everyone that works for them, right down to the office cleaner (else why would they have employed them?) yet they reward themselves with billions while the office cleaner is lucky to get a minimum wage. (Of course they can pay themselves a dividend – I am not advocating some pure form of communism – just something a little bit fairer, and just simply more humane. While they’re sunning themselves on their luxury yacht, their office cleaner is dying early because they can’t afford heating in their shitty flat.) Maybe one day we’ll find a way to embed our economic model within our social one in some way that works. The communists tried it (theoretically, anyway) but they went to an opposite extreme as bad the one they left behind. So now, of course, people use that as an excuse to shut off all talk of reform, as if one bad experiment is enough to prove that the status quo is the only workable solution. But having the economy so divorced from society and ethics – and the deregulation introduced by Reagan and Thatcher cemented the wall that keeps them separate – is morally repugnant. (Basically, deregulation said to the bankers and hedge fund managers etc “You can do what you want!” So guess what happened? They did what they wanted. Which was to make themselves extremely rich. Because that’s what society teaches us t
A_Griffin wrote:
I’d like to see, as a start, is more and more people finding it unacceptable for anyone to be a billionaire
So, when someone says billionaire I immediately think of Bill Gates. So, are you suggesting that he did something morally wrong? Can you be specific about why you think having billionaires is so bad?
A_Griffin wrote:
they couldn’t have sold all those millions without the help of everyone that works for them, right down to the office cleaner
I agree with this. What's funny is that we can see the same statement and get the opposite from it. This statement of yours shows "trickle-down" economics. That janitor has a job because some guy worked very, very hard to develop and sell a product and then build a business to do it repeatedly. Without him, the janitor would be unemployed.
A_Griffin wrote:
yet they reward themselves with billions while the office cleaner is lucky to get a minimum wage.
True, but I'm sure you know why that is. Anyone can be a janitor. It requires no education. Is it fair for someone to educate themselves and work hard to get paid the same amount someone who does not do that? I do not think so.
A_Griffin wrote:
While they’re sunning themselves on their luxury yacht,
This is more evidence of "trickle-down" working. It is the blue-collar people that have jobs because of this rich guy. They are the ones building the yacht and then maintaining it and cleaning it and stocking it, etc. That's what I was asking earlier, if the money is not trickling down then where is it? It sounds like you want socialism. As I understand it, at the heart of socialism is the sharing of all resources so that none are rich and none are poor. The problem with socialism is that everyone has to buy into it. Meaning there is no room for lazy or jealous people. Socialism would say that the owner of the company and the janitor both provide equally meaningful services and therefore should be paid the same. I'm OK with that. However, since we are human sooner or later people will want more than their neighbor and thus socialism can never work.
A_Griffin wrote:
I’m rambling now
Oh, not at all. As I said earlier, I do genuinely like to understand other people's points of view. I thi
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I’d like to see, as a start, is more and more people finding it unacceptable for anyone to be a billionaire
So, when someone says billionaire I immediately think of Bill Gates. So, are you suggesting that he did something morally wrong? Can you be specific about why you think having billionaires is so bad?
A_Griffin wrote:
they couldn’t have sold all those millions without the help of everyone that works for them, right down to the office cleaner
I agree with this. What's funny is that we can see the same statement and get the opposite from it. This statement of yours shows "trickle-down" economics. That janitor has a job because some guy worked very, very hard to develop and sell a product and then build a business to do it repeatedly. Without him, the janitor would be unemployed.
A_Griffin wrote:
yet they reward themselves with billions while the office cleaner is lucky to get a minimum wage.
True, but I'm sure you know why that is. Anyone can be a janitor. It requires no education. Is it fair for someone to educate themselves and work hard to get paid the same amount someone who does not do that? I do not think so.
A_Griffin wrote:
While they’re sunning themselves on their luxury yacht,
This is more evidence of "trickle-down" working. It is the blue-collar people that have jobs because of this rich guy. They are the ones building the yacht and then maintaining it and cleaning it and stocking it, etc. That's what I was asking earlier, if the money is not trickling down then where is it? It sounds like you want socialism. As I understand it, at the heart of socialism is the sharing of all resources so that none are rich and none are poor. The problem with socialism is that everyone has to buy into it. Meaning there is no room for lazy or jealous people. Socialism would say that the owner of the company and the janitor both provide equally meaningful services and therefore should be paid the same. I'm OK with that. However, since we are human sooner or later people will want more than their neighbor and thus socialism can never work.
A_Griffin wrote:
I’m rambling now
Oh, not at all. As I said earlier, I do genuinely like to understand other people's points of view. I thi
I don't think you've read what I wrote. You've filtered it straight through your prism of "anything that isn't free market capitalism is communism", despite my trying rally hard to steer you away from that. Try reading it again. Slowly, this time.
Quote:
Without him, the janitor would be unemployed.
This is a myth. Unless you're saying that that if Bill Gates couldn't become a billionaire he wouldn't have developed Windows? I don't believe that.
-
I don't think you've read what I wrote. You've filtered it straight through your prism of "anything that isn't free market capitalism is communism", despite my trying rally hard to steer you away from that. Try reading it again. Slowly, this time.
Quote:
Without him, the janitor would be unemployed.
This is a myth. Unless you're saying that that if Bill Gates couldn't become a billionaire he wouldn't have developed Windows? I don't believe that.
A_Griffin wrote:
I don't think you've read what I wrote. You've filtered it straight through your prism of "anything that isn't free market capitalism is communism", despite my trying rally hard to steer you away from that. Try reading it again. Slowly, this time.
Interesting. As nowhere did I even mention communism (although you did). I see you are not able to have a civil conversation on this. I mistakenly thought you could. Good day.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I don't think you've read what I wrote. You've filtered it straight through your prism of "anything that isn't free market capitalism is communism", despite my trying rally hard to steer you away from that. Try reading it again. Slowly, this time.
Interesting. As nowhere did I even mention communism (although you did). I see you are not able to have a civil conversation on this. I mistakenly thought you could. Good day.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Bit touchy aren't you? It wasn't that rude...
Quote:
Socialism would say that the owner of the company and the janitor both provide equally meaningful services and therefore should be paid the same
That is communism, not socialism - though most Americans (at least) equate the two. And it isn't what I was advocating - I was quite specific about that. The fact you've repeated it just reinforces my belief that you have not properly read what I wrote.
-
Bit touchy aren't you? It wasn't that rude...
Quote:
Socialism would say that the owner of the company and the janitor both provide equally meaningful services and therefore should be paid the same
That is communism, not socialism - though most Americans (at least) equate the two. And it isn't what I was advocating - I was quite specific about that. The fact you've repeated it just reinforces my belief that you have not properly read what I wrote.
A_Griffin wrote:
communism, not socialism
Not at all. Communism is when the government owns and controls everything.
A_Griffin wrote:
The fact you've repeated it
Now who's not reading? :laugh:
A_Griffin wrote:
you have not properly read what I wrote.
In that case just resort to putting me down instead of clarifying. Very noble of you. :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
communism, not socialism
Not at all. Communism is when the government owns and controls everything.
A_Griffin wrote:
The fact you've repeated it
Now who's not reading? :laugh:
A_Griffin wrote:
you have not properly read what I wrote.
In that case just resort to putting me down instead of clarifying. Very noble of you. :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Socialism does not say that the owner of a company and a janitor both provide equally meaningful services and therefore should be paid the same – and neither have I ever suggested that, so I don’t l know why you are bringing it up. I really don't know what it is you want me to clarify.
-
Well, indeed… as I said in answer to HappyFestivus above, there probably isn’t a “fair” solution available in the short term. These things have to evolve, along with society. Like you, I have poor eyesight. Mine is bad enough that I cannot drive – no way I’d get a licence, and quite right too – I’d be a danger to myself and everyone else on the road. But….. if there was a law made that no car could ever go above 25 mile an hour, then I’d be OK. I could cope with that, and drive safely. So – why can’t I demand that such a law be introduced? My right to drive is being denied by other people being selfish by wanting to drive faster! Of course such an argument is silly – sometimes we just have to accept the limitations imposed upon us by our physical frailties. But, in a decent society, we might hope that new buildings are made with, for example, wheelchair ramps. Because there’s no reason not, to, as a rule. Life isn’t fair – we all know that – but as decent people we can take reasonable steps to make it a little fairer when possible. The law of the jungle is only law in the jungle. In a civilised society, we should hope, and try, to do better. Maybe, one day, with improved medical care and decent funding, more and more people with poor eyesight can be helped. And maybe, one day, with a more enlightened society, we can reign in the billionaires and say “Look, you can be richer – but not that much richer.” Give them a few million if it makes them feel better – but no-one is deserving of billions.
A_Griffin wrote:
Maybe, one day, with improved medical care and decent funding, more and more people with poor eyesight can be helped. And maybe, one day, with a more enlightened society, we can reign in the billionaires and say “Look, you can be richer – but not that much richer.” Give them a few million if it makes them feel better – but no-one is deserving of billions.
And I am hoping for a berth on the Star Trek Enterprise but I am not really expecting that either. However I do consider it more likely than the above that civil discord due to monetary inequity might grow to such an extent that it would lead to long term civil unrest. And that is not something that I want to see.
-
This is what I read, but it was dated 11/2. Their could be a more updated version somewhere. Republican Tax Plan: Read the Full Bill | Fortune[^]
jschell wrote:
Not to mention of course that even that was not available when I posted this.
:confused:
Slacker007 wrote:
:confused:
Perhaps it is unclear to you what I meant. The bill that was passed is NOT in the link that you posted. The bill that was actually passed was distributed to congress (hundreds of pages) as a physical copy some hours (only) just before the final vote. And it had many handwritten adjustments to it. So when the prior post was made the bill that was passed wasn't available to anyone because the final form did not exist then.
-
Look, you said " xxx wrote: Nobody is poor because someone else is rich. Tell that to the people that has lost rent insurances, fonds and other savings, just because a rich wanted to be richer and scammed them all. Or people working their asses off to see how the boss takes profit and get self-made boni while all the rest don't get a sh*t." Which is ranting socialist crap.
No... Not ranting socialist crap. Ranting avaritious individuals, that walk over corpses and would sell or kill their mother for money. I said "a rich" and "the boss", as I said I am not native english speaker so maybe I am telling it wrongly, but for me these two sentences say it in a not defined way, but still using concrete articles (which don't imply generalization). I didn't use "any" or "every" or "all" or similars. But anyways... even when I have messed up what I wanted to say in those two sentences making the missunderstanding possible, the very same message (in the second half) and the three additional messages should bring enough complementary information to see that I was not generalizing. And please note that I don't try to convince anyone. I just want to clarify what I was meaning. I don't really care about what people think of me, but I do care about people can think of me based on things I didn't say (or I said wrongly not being what I wanted to mean).
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
:confused:
Perhaps it is unclear to you what I meant. The bill that was passed is NOT in the link that you posted. The bill that was actually passed was distributed to congress (hundreds of pages) as a physical copy some hours (only) just before the final vote. And it had many handwritten adjustments to it. So when the prior post was made the bill that was passed wasn't available to anyone because the final form did not exist then.
:confused:
-
A_Griffin wrote:
Maybe, one day, with improved medical care and decent funding, more and more people with poor eyesight can be helped. And maybe, one day, with a more enlightened society, we can reign in the billionaires and say “Look, you can be richer – but not that much richer.” Give them a few million if it makes them feel better – but no-one is deserving of billions.
And I am hoping for a berth on the Star Trek Enterprise but I am not really expecting that either. However I do consider it more likely than the above that civil discord due to monetary inequity might grow to such an extent that it would lead to long term civil unrest. And that is not something that I want to see.
Well, yes, indeed. I'm not holding my breath either - but that doesn't mean I can't still bitch about the status quo. Nothing will ever change if people don't at least want it to. People being people though, we'll only ever do it the hard (bloody) way. Individually, there are some incredibly smart people around, but as a species we're as stupid as stupid is.
-
No... Not ranting socialist crap. Ranting avaritious individuals, that walk over corpses and would sell or kill their mother for money. I said "a rich" and "the boss", as I said I am not native english speaker so maybe I am telling it wrongly, but for me these two sentences say it in a not defined way, but still using concrete articles (which don't imply generalization). I didn't use "any" or "every" or "all" or similars. But anyways... even when I have messed up what I wanted to say in those two sentences making the missunderstanding possible, the very same message (in the second half) and the three additional messages should bring enough complementary information to see that I was not generalizing. And please note that I don't try to convince anyone. I just want to clarify what I was meaning. I don't really care about what people think of me, but I do care about people can think of me based on things I didn't say (or I said wrongly not being what I wanted to mean).
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Nelek wrote:
Ranting avaritious individuals, that walk over corpses and would sell or kill their mother for money.
That is ridiculous. Are you honestly suggesting that there are a large number of people like that?
-
Nelek wrote:
Ranting avaritious individuals, that walk over corpses and would sell or kill their mother for money.
That is ridiculous. Are you honestly suggesting that there are a large number of people like that?
I don't say a large number, but I don't say very few either.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
:confused:
-
Well, yes, indeed. I'm not holding my breath either - but that doesn't mean I can't still bitch about the status quo. Nothing will ever change if people don't at least want it to. People being people though, we'll only ever do it the hard (bloody) way. Individually, there are some incredibly smart people around, but as a species we're as stupid as stupid is.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I’d like to see, as a start, is more and more people finding it unacceptable for anyone to be a billionaire
So, when someone says billionaire I immediately think of Bill Gates. So, are you suggesting that he did something morally wrong? Can you be specific about why you think having billionaires is so bad?
A_Griffin wrote:
they couldn’t have sold all those millions without the help of everyone that works for them, right down to the office cleaner
I agree with this. What's funny is that we can see the same statement and get the opposite from it. This statement of yours shows "trickle-down" economics. That janitor has a job because some guy worked very, very hard to develop and sell a product and then build a business to do it repeatedly. Without him, the janitor would be unemployed.
A_Griffin wrote:
yet they reward themselves with billions while the office cleaner is lucky to get a minimum wage.
True, but I'm sure you know why that is. Anyone can be a janitor. It requires no education. Is it fair for someone to educate themselves and work hard to get paid the same amount someone who does not do that? I do not think so.
A_Griffin wrote:
While they’re sunning themselves on their luxury yacht,
This is more evidence of "trickle-down" working. It is the blue-collar people that have jobs because of this rich guy. They are the ones building the yacht and then maintaining it and cleaning it and stocking it, etc. That's what I was asking earlier, if the money is not trickling down then where is it? It sounds like you want socialism. As I understand it, at the heart of socialism is the sharing of all resources so that none are rich and none are poor. The problem with socialism is that everyone has to buy into it. Meaning there is no room for lazy or jealous people. Socialism would say that the owner of the company and the janitor both provide equally meaningful services and therefore should be paid the same. I'm OK with that. However, since we are human sooner or later people will want more than their neighbor and thus socialism can never work.
A_Griffin wrote:
I’m rambling now
Oh, not at all. As I said earlier, I do genuinely like to understand other people's points of view. I thi
HappyFestivus wrote:
That janitor has a job because some guy worked very, very hard to develop and sell a product and then build a business to do it repeatedly.
Are you claiming that someone that works "very, very hard" always becomes rich? And that those that do not work hard do not become rich? So the single mom that is working three jobs to support her kids will soon be a billionaire? And apparently David D'Amato in the documentary "Tickled" is also contributing to the economy in a positive way by tricking men into sexually fetish situations that appease David D'Amato. Certainly seems like David D'Amato is working "very, very hard" and even apparently providing income to some people although it is not clear to me how his wealth, exclusively from his father, really reflects what you are presumably claiming.
HappyFestivus wrote:
This is more evidence of "trickle-down" working. It is the blue-collar people that have jobs because of this rich guy. They are the ones building the yacht and then maintaining it and cleaning it and stocking it, etc. That's what I was asking earlier, if the money is not trickling down then where is it?
However false conclusion. The current and past uses of this suggest that all or the vast majority of incurred riches will result in a substantial, sustained and complete infusion into the economy. And very real post analysis (multiple) of prior attempts demonstrate that very little of it actually ends up actually going back into the working economy.
-
:confused:
-
HappyFestivus wrote:
That janitor has a job because some guy worked very, very hard to develop and sell a product and then build a business to do it repeatedly.
Are you claiming that someone that works "very, very hard" always becomes rich? And that those that do not work hard do not become rich? So the single mom that is working three jobs to support her kids will soon be a billionaire? And apparently David D'Amato in the documentary "Tickled" is also contributing to the economy in a positive way by tricking men into sexually fetish situations that appease David D'Amato. Certainly seems like David D'Amato is working "very, very hard" and even apparently providing income to some people although it is not clear to me how his wealth, exclusively from his father, really reflects what you are presumably claiming.
HappyFestivus wrote:
This is more evidence of "trickle-down" working. It is the blue-collar people that have jobs because of this rich guy. They are the ones building the yacht and then maintaining it and cleaning it and stocking it, etc. That's what I was asking earlier, if the money is not trickling down then where is it?
However false conclusion. The current and past uses of this suggest that all or the vast majority of incurred riches will result in a substantial, sustained and complete infusion into the economy. And very real post analysis (multiple) of prior attempts demonstrate that very little of it actually ends up actually going back into the working economy.
jschell wrote:
Are you claiming that someone that works "very, very hard" always becomes rich? And that those that do not work hard do not become rich?
Why do you look for ways to twist thing just to post? If you don't have anything, then don't post. Of course I am not suggesting that. It's pure lunacy to claim that.
jschell wrote:
The current and past uses of this suggest that all or the vast majority of incurred riches will result in a substantial, sustained and complete infusion into the economy.
Nope. I never said nor implied substantial or complete. But why don't you answer the question? Where is the money?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
jschell wrote:
Are you claiming that someone that works "very, very hard" always becomes rich? And that those that do not work hard do not become rich?
Why do you look for ways to twist thing just to post? If you don't have anything, then don't post. Of course I am not suggesting that. It's pure lunacy to claim that.
jschell wrote:
The current and past uses of this suggest that all or the vast majority of incurred riches will result in a substantial, sustained and complete infusion into the economy.
Nope. I never said nor implied substantial or complete. But why don't you answer the question? Where is the money?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
HappyFestivus wrote:
Of course I am not suggesting that. It's pure lunacy to claim that
You said "That janitor has a job because some guy worked very, very hard to develop and sell a product and then build a business to do it repeatedly. Without him, the janitor would be unemployed." Presumably you meant that the "guy" that drove that scenario either happens all of the time or some of the time. The final alternative, none of the time, would of course be the negative of what you said. So if it is all the time, then the specific example that I gave fits into your model. If it is some of the time, then one then must evaluate each case to see the merits of whether the specific individual is in fact responsible for what the created. And "very, very hard" is only going to be one of the potential causes. Additionally it will be possible to find many cases where "very, very hard" never lead to wealth at all. And other cases where "very, very hard" does not apply at all. As the case I provided demonstrates.
HappyFestivus wrote:
Nope. I never said nor implied substantial or complete.
Sorry if my statement wasn't clear. I didn't mean to suggest that you said it. My statement applied to the public proponents that are trying to sell the plan, those politicians or those who are paid to popularize a particular position are all claiming that is how it will work.
HappyFestivus wrote:
But why don't you answer the question? Where is the money
That is not a valid question. The proponents, again not you, are claiming that this extra wealth will lead to an expansion of the economy to such an extent that it will more than offset what those who are rich retain. Prior experience, in all cases, says that does not happen. Prior experience suggests that the it has no impact at all.