Best appropriation of a Charlie Brown cartoon ever
-
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.
-
:confused:
-
:confused:
-
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.
jschell wrote:
And "very, very hard" is only going to be one of the potential causes.
Correct.
jschell wrote:
That is not a valid question.
Of course it is. And people do not answer it because it goes against what they want to be angry at.
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:
And "very, very hard" is only going to be one of the potential causes.
Correct.
jschell wrote:
That is not a valid question.
Of course it is. And people do not answer it because it goes against what they want to be angry at.
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:
And people do not answer it because it goes against what they want to be angry at.
No it isn't. As I explained. Your question is an attempt to force the conclusion that the money has to go somewhere. The problem with that is that the money has to go somewhere if the rich do not retain it as well. So where do you think the money goes if the rich are taxed at a rate of 75%? Do you think it disappears? And incompetence and fraud is not a refutation of government spending either because the money from those still goes somewhere also. So obviously "where the money goes" is meaningless. Thus back to what I said was the the real point is whether if the rich retain the money if that money will then impact the economy, all of it, in such a way that it will more than make up for the impact if they did not keep it. That is what is being claimed.
-
HappyFestivus wrote:
And people do not answer it because it goes against what they want to be angry at.
No it isn't. As I explained. Your question is an attempt to force the conclusion that the money has to go somewhere. The problem with that is that the money has to go somewhere if the rich do not retain it as well. So where do you think the money goes if the rich are taxed at a rate of 75%? Do you think it disappears? And incompetence and fraud is not a refutation of government spending either because the money from those still goes somewhere also. So obviously "where the money goes" is meaningless. Thus back to what I said was the the real point is whether if the rich retain the money if that money will then impact the economy, all of it, in such a way that it will more than make up for the impact if they did not keep it. That is what is being claimed.
jschell wrote:
So obviously "where the money goes" is meaningless.
Yet it has to go somewhere. I'm not sure why you don't see that. The only way anyone can not impact the economy is by putting their cash under their mattress. However, that wouldn't even work for Bill Gates. If he cashes out his billions and puts it under his mattress then that will impact the economy having that much less money in circulation.
jschell wrote:
retain the money if that money will then impact the economy, all of it, in such a way that it will more than make up for the impact if they did not keep it. That is what is being claimed.
Obviously there is no way to know. That's like asking what would have happened had he swung at the baseball? He might have hit a homer. He might have struck out. There is no way to know without doing so in that case your point is meaningless. :-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.
-
jschell wrote:
So obviously "where the money goes" is meaningless.
Yet it has to go somewhere. I'm not sure why you don't see that. The only way anyone can not impact the economy is by putting their cash under their mattress. However, that wouldn't even work for Bill Gates. If he cashes out his billions and puts it under his mattress then that will impact the economy having that much less money in circulation.
jschell wrote:
retain the money if that money will then impact the economy, all of it, in such a way that it will more than make up for the impact if they did not keep it. That is what is being claimed.
Obviously there is no way to know. That's like asking what would have happened had he swung at the baseball? He might have hit a homer. He might have struck out. There is no way to know without doing so in that case your point is meaningless. :-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.
HappyFestivus wrote:
Obviously there is no way to know
Yes there is because exactly the same argument were used before and policies put into place to allow it to happen. And post analysis indicate there was no measurable impact. So repeating it again in the hope that there will be a different outcome is either ignorant or foolhardy.