Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

shots shots shots posted:

Shipping is ludicrously cheap by boat, and tons of countries import almost all of their energy, including places like China, which actually imports a lot of energy from Australia. The rest of the imports could be said of any other country on Earth and is in no way unique to Australia.

Shipping being "cheap" by boat does not make it cost free. And "energy" isn't a single thing - China imports a whole lot of coal from Australia but it's not like Australia converts coal to synthetic oil for domestic use or anything.

And uh, no, that kind of stuff doesn't tend to get imported to the US, particularly heavy machinery and transport equipment.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

shots shots shots
Sep 6, 2011

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Install Gentoo posted:

Shipping being "cheap" by boat does not make it cost free.

Shipping a single container with essentially any weight of goods that will fit inside is only a couple thousand dollars. This makes costs negligible for basically anything that matters.


Install Gentoo posted:

And uh, no, that kind of stuff doesn't tend to get imported to the US, particularly heavy machinery and transport equipment.

Where does this impact everyday living costs? I'm sure it would theoretically affect prices of goods, but if Australia is anything like the US, there will be rarely anything made in Australia that the average person uses. I'd imagine most of this type of equipment goes into the mining sector.

Also, as I mentioned before, a couple thousand dollars per pop is nothing when you are shipping multi-million dollar equipment. The biggest cost is likely paperwork/customs brokers and import duties.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

shots shots shots posted:

Shipping a single container with essentially any weight of goods that will fit inside is only a couple thousand dollars. This makes costs negligible for basically anything that matters.


Where does this impact everyday living costs? I'm sure it would theoretically affect prices of goods, but if Australia is anything like the US, there will be rarely anything made in Australia that the average person uses. I'd imagine most of this type of equipment goes into the mining sector.

Also, as I mentioned before, a couple thousand dollars per pop is nothing when you are shipping multi-million dollar equipment. The biggest cost is likely paperwork/customs brokers and import duties.

"Only" a couple of thousand dollars, multiplied by the tens of thousands... The costs aren't negligible in the least. If you're dealing with sending stuff to Australia, you treat it as immaterial because it's the absolute only way to move large quantities of stuff in or out - but this does get reflected in prices.

The average person in the US uses American made things all day long, unless they specifically go out of their way to avoid it. Just because we have extra toys from China doesn't negate the massive amounts of stuff manufactured and used in the US.

Multimillion dollar equipment isn't the only thing being imported though. You're also still not getting that the recent strengthening of the Australian dollar has not been reflected in the prices charged for most goods that are imported, which has a lot to do with why the prices are very high compared to internationally.

Australia has the third highest consumer price index ranking in the world after Norway and Switzerland.

KernelSlanders
May 27, 2013

Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

quote:

I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: how is it justifiable that hundreds of thousands of Americans are an inch away from destitution, while a privileged few make over a thousand times what any of these people make?

The class warfare speak just alienates people. Why not just say, "How is it justifiable that hundreds of thousands of Americans are an inch away from destitution," full stop? I mean, isn't that the problem? I agree we need a war on poverty. I disagree that we need a war on wealth. You only confuse the issue by making it sound as if those have to be the same thing.

Quantum Mechanic
Apr 25, 2010

Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
:derp:Waaaah the Christians are out to get me:derp:

lol abbottsgonnawin

Freudian posted:

Wait, I'm not sure I understand. The logic behind giving companies tax breaks is that they'll just outsource or migrate to cheaper climates otherwise, yes? But mining operations can't outsource. The rocks don't move. You have to have operations in the country with the actual resources. So why give them tax breaks to persuade them to stay in Australia when they fundamentally cannot leave Australia?

Because it's political suicide to try and tax the mining companies, because they along with our complicit media have run a very successful propaganda campaign presenting themselves as the lifeblood of the country and that if you tax them they won't be able to CREATE AUSTRALIAN JORBS. Most Australians are under the impression they account for some 30%+ of GDP and workforce when the reality is 10% GDP and a vanishingly small amount of the workforce.

shots shots shots
Sep 6, 2011

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Install Gentoo posted:

"Only" a couple of thousand dollars, multiplied by the tens of thousands... The costs aren't negligible in the least. If you're dealing with sending stuff to Australia, you treat it as immaterial because it's the absolute only way to move large quantities of stuff in or out - but this does get reflected in prices.

The UN keeps track of freight rates: http://unctad.org/en/Docs/rmt2011_en.pdf

For 2011 data, shipping is only 6.4% of import costs of developed economies (p.80), and on the same page, they show the average worldwide cost to ship one full container: $2600 small/4400 large.


Install Gentoo posted:

Multimillion dollar equipment isn't the only thing being imported though. You're also still not getting that the recent strengthening of the Australian dollar has not been reflected in the prices charged for most goods that are imported, which has a lot to do with why the prices are very high compared to internationally.

Australia has the third highest consumer price index ranking in the world after Norway and Switzerland.

I get it, but you don't understand basic economics: The Australians are importing it because it's cheaper than hiring Australian labor to do it at $15+ per hour. Not because it's more expensive. Of course some things are not available in Australia at any price, like oil and some kinds of food, but those are not a huge contributor to high costs, as signified by their strong currency.

Amused to Death
Aug 10, 2009

google "The Night Witches", and prepare for :stare:

KernelSlanders posted:

The class warfare speak just alienates people. Why not just say, "How is it justifiable that hundreds of thousands of Americans are an inch away from destitution," full stop? I mean, isn't that the problem? I agree we need a war on poverty. I disagree that we need a war on wealth. You only confuse the issue by making it sound as if those have to be the same thing.

It's only a "war on wealth" if you call it that, others call it making the wealthy pay their dues to society. It's ridiculous the idea of making the wealthy pay more can even be constructed as class warfare when it's the wealthy are are waging a war constantly on everyone else, leaving millions in this country alone ruined.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

shots shots shots posted:

The UN keeps track of freight rates: http://unctad.org/en/Docs/rmt2011_en.pdf

For 2011 data, shipping is only 6.4% of import costs of developed economies (p.80), and on the same page, they show the average worldwide cost to ship one full container: $2600 small/4400 large.


I get it, but you don't understand basic economics: The Australians are importing it because it's cheaper than hiring Australian labor to do it at $15+ per hour. Not because it's more expensive. Of course some things are not available in Australia at any price, like oil and some kinds of food, but those are not a huge contributor to high costs, as signified by their strong currency.

And because of those freight rates, having to import a lot of stuff builds up prices.


More like no one is interested in building out the infrastructure needed to supply all that stuff in Australia, a small nation of 23 million people. The cost of labor has very little to do with it.

shots shots shots
Sep 6, 2011

by Y Kant Ozma Post

Install Gentoo posted:

And because of those freight rates, having to import a lot of stuff builds up prices.

Yes, by about 6%.

Miltank
Dec 27, 2009

by XyloJW

Amused to Death posted:

It's only a "war on wealth" if you call it that, others call it making the wealthy pay their dues to society. It's ridiculous the idea of making the wealthy pay more can even be constructed as class warfare when it's the wealthy are are waging a war constantly on everyone else, leaving millions in this country alone ruined.

It is a war, and we have a better chance of winning if we use propaganda like any other political group. Propaganda can mean softening a message to build a wider base of support.

Miltank fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jun 3, 2013

CharlestheHammer
Jun 26, 2011

YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

KernelSlanders posted:

The class warfare speak just alienates people. Why not just say, "How is it justifiable that hundreds of thousands of Americans are an inch away from destitution," full stop? I mean, isn't that the problem? I agree we need a war on poverty. I disagree that we need a war on wealth. You only confuse the issue by making it sound as if those have to be the same thing.

They tend to be rather linked. The money has to come from somewhere.

Though the wealthy have been using class warfare (at least openly) for a long time and it works well for them. So I don't think your conclusion holds up.

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009

KernelSlanders posted:

The class warfare speak just alienates people. Why not just say, "How is it justifiable that hundreds of thousands of Americans are an inch away from destitution," full stop? I mean, isn't that the problem? I agree we need a war on poverty. I disagree that we need a war on wealth. You only confuse the issue by making it sound as if those have to be the same thing.

But what do you think makes that great wealth for one person possible, if not the poverty of millions of other people?

Kings were rich because their subjects were poor and forced to give him their labor without fair compensation, GAP is rich because garment workers are poor and forced to give them their labor without fair compensation, America and Europe are rich because Latin America and Africa are poor, forced to give up their resources and people without fair compensation, and so on ad infinitum.

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jun 3, 2013

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

OwlBot 2000 posted:

But what do you think makes that great wealth for one person possible, if not the poverty of millions of other people? Globally speaking, economics is zero sum or close to it.

This phrasing kind of implies that the super wealthy don't actually have enough wealth around that if you raised everyone else up to a nice stable middle income, they wouldn't still be insanely wealthy. You take out the fair cuts to get everybody around the world well fed and sheletered and all that and those guys would still have trillions among themselves, you know?

We're way beyond the point where it would have been "necessary" that everyone be broke so that they could still be rich - they have so much wealth at hand that fair wages would still leave them way ahead.

Grognan
Jan 23, 2007

by Fluffdaddy

wateroverfire posted:

FWIW even without officially codified wage progressions, it works like this in the U.S. too.
No, it actually doesn't

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009

Install Gentoo posted:

This phrasing kind of implies that the super wealthy don't actually have enough wealth around that if you raised everyone else up to a nice stable middle income, they wouldn't still be insanely wealthy. You take out the fair cuts to get everybody around the world well fed and sheletered and all that and those guys would still have trillions among themselves, you know?

We're way beyond the point where it would have been "necessary" that everyone be broke so that they could still be rich - they have so much wealth at hand that fair wages would still leave them way ahead.

No, my point was that their current level of wealth is a direct result of everyone else's current level of poverty. And, as you mentioned, you would need to take some of their profits (in the form of higher wages for workers, meaning less profit for them) or take some of their wealth (in the form of taxation or expropriation) in order to make gains for the poor. Even if they have a combined 30 trillion dollars leftover instead of 120 trillion, and still have more money than they could spend in 10 lifetimes, it is still true that they lost something so that the poor could gain something. The fact that it's an easily bearable loss doesn't make any less of a loss.

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 3, 2013

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe

OwlBot 2000 posted:

No, my point was that their current level of wealth is a direct result of everyone else's current level of poverty. And, as you mentioned, you would need to take some of their profits (in the form of higher wages for workers, and less profit for them) or their wealth (in the form of taxation or expropriation) in order to make gains for the poor. Even if they have a combined 30 trillion dollars leftover instead of 120 trillion, and still have more money than they could spend in 10 lifetimes, it is still true that they lost something so that the poor could gain something. The fact that it's an easily bearable loss doesn't make any less of a loss.

I think I agree with you.

I guess my point is more: things have reached the point where they're keeping people in poverty just because they can, essentially just out of little more than spite. There are very good reasons why suddenly giving the lower classes more money would lead to increased demand and thus vastly increased business for themselves. Instead they choose to forgo those future profits so they can have more profits right this second.

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009

Install Gentoo posted:

I think I agree with you.

I guess my point is more: things have reached the point where they're keeping people in poverty just because they can, essentially just out of little more than spite. There are very good reasons why suddenly giving the lower classes more money would lead to increased demand and thus vastly increased business for themselves. Instead they choose to forgo those future profits so they can have more profits right this second.

That's absolutely true, but addicts aren't known for long-term planning -- they just want their fix RIGHT NOW.

Edit: To add a less flippant and (slightly) more thoughtful comment, individual members of the Capitalist class don't necessarily care about the interests of the Capitalist class as a whole. Sure, their interests almost always overlap, but very rarely will you see one rich person, or one corporation, forgo profit for himself or itself just to help out other rich people or corporations. Just look at the stock market collapse -- everyone wanted lots of money RIGHT NOW, and it didn't matter if it ended up screwing them over collectively. Most people responsible for the housing crisis made off with more money than they had before, and that's all that counts.

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Jun 3, 2013

Miltank
Dec 27, 2009

by XyloJW
What would be the name for someone who is socially leftist and is totally for a super strong social safety net as well as extensive spending, but doesn't really care if there are people who are super rich so long as the poorest members of society are living comfortably?

Edit: obviously there would need to be some sort of action to restrict businesses from dominating the third world as well, but outside of that what would be the downside of such an economic system?

Miltank fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jun 3, 2013

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009

Miltank posted:

What would be the name for someone who is socially leftist and is totally for a super strong social safety net as well as extensive spending, but doesn't really care if there are people who are super rich so long as the poorest members of society are living comfortably?

A liberal, I guess? No need to come up with a new name for a pretty standard ideology. I guess you could do Left-Liberal if you really needed to distance yourself from privatization-happy Liberal Parties, but in the USA at least people will know what you mean.

Miltank posted:

Edit: obviously there would need to be some sort of action to restrict businesses from dominating the third world as well, but outside of that what would be the downside of such an economic system?

The downside is that (in my view) it's not actually sustainable. The USA was once such a society, back in the 50s and 60s (for whites at least) -- but over time the rich people and the corporations decided they wanted more, and since they by definition had more money than the poor people, were able to buy politicians, buy deregulation and so on until you end up in America, 2013. The UK was once like the society you described as well, and a similar phenomena occurred under Thatcher and is occurring more and more today, with the social welfare parts getting chipped away piece by piece. The same is occurring all across Europe, and they're calling it "austerity."

So it would be a great society everybody in D&D would support if we thought it was in any way sustainable, and didn't notice that it's subject to lots of internal contradictions that slowly but inevitably bring it right back to a society of super-rich and super-poor. Short answer, we had just that society, and it destroyed itself or is in the process of destroying itself.

Edit: vvv "Progressive", then? You could call yourself a Social Democrat, since the parties bearing that name in Europe don't have anything to do with socialism anymore but (in theory, if not in practice) support a strong welfare state.

Miltank posted:

I feel like I just got told that I am lukewarm and it hurts :eng99:

Haha it's just a silly internet chat, I'm sure you're a great person and truly, genuinely want to see people treated fairly and live happy, fulfilling lives. No hard feelings, I hope!

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Jun 3, 2013

Miltank
Dec 27, 2009

by XyloJW
Is that what liberal means? I always just thought it meant a conservative who doesn't hate gays. Or a leftist that hates poors.

Edit: I feel like I just got told that I am lukewarm and it hurts :eng99:

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Miltank posted:

What would be the name for someone who is socially leftist and is totally for a super strong social safety net as well as extensive spending, but doesn't really care if there are people who are super rich so long as the poorest members of society are living comfortably?

Edit: obviously there would need to be some sort of action to restrict businesses from dominating the third world as well, but outside of that what would be the downside of such an economic system?

Social democrat

The downside is that social democracy can only be achieved in unique circumstances (the much more heightened consciousness of the inter-war and immediate postwar years) and that the capitalist class will claw back their privilege over time (as we are seeing today with the privatisation of public services in most of Europe).

Which is exactly what OwlBot said haha

Enjoy fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jun 3, 2013

Van5
Sep 9, 2011

Miltank posted:

Is that what liberal means? I always just thought it meant a conservative who doesn't hate gays. Or a leftist that hates poors.

Edit: I feel like I just got told that I am lukewarm and it hurts :eng99:

Well there is one way you can solve that, by joining us on the fringes! :anarchists:, :ussr:

Van5 fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Jun 3, 2013

Miltank
Dec 27, 2009

by XyloJW
Oh make no mistake, I'll throw a brick through a starbucks window the first chance I get. Basically anything to break the status quo is good enough for me.

SSJ2 Goku Wilders
Mar 24, 2010
Maybe the SR is the party for you then comrade

KernelSlanders
May 27, 2013

Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Amused to Death posted:

It's only a "war on wealth" if you call it that, others call it making the wealthy pay their dues to society. It's ridiculous the idea of making the wealthy pay more can even be constructed as class warfare when it's the wealthy are are waging a war constantly on everyone else, leaving millions in this country alone ruined.

Right, but it comes down to what is the means and what is the end. Is making the wealthy pay an end unto itself? I think it's a lot harder to get support for something like that -- or something that sounds like that. I completely agree that one could make an argument for a fairer tax code, particularly with respect to things like carry interest and the qualified dividend rate, or even capital gains more generally. However, when you start saying that it's ridiculous that people can be so wealthy, it sounds like what you're objecting to is the existence of rich people. Maybe we do need to dial up taxes slightly on higher earners to fund a proper social safety net (I don't think that's true actually, but I tend to think about the deficit differently than most people, so that's an economics point and slightly off topic), in which case, that's fine. If the goal is to eliminate poverty then focus on that. Sounding like you want to eliminate wealth just alienates people. Also, there are plenty of market economies with lots of rich people that have functioning social safety nets.

Fuck them
Jan 21, 2011

and their bullshit
:yotj:

Install Gentoo posted:

This phrasing kind of implies that the super wealthy don't actually have enough wealth around that if you raised everyone else up to a nice stable middle income, they wouldn't still be insanely wealthy. You take out the fair cuts to get everybody around the world well fed and sheletered and all that and those guys would still have trillions among themselves, you know?

We're way beyond the point where it would have been "necessary" that everyone be broke so that they could still be rich - they have so much wealth at hand that fair wages would still leave them way ahead.

If you have a source/graph/details for this I'd really, really love to have that to use.

Fuck them
Jan 21, 2011

and their bullshit
:yotj:

KernelSlanders posted:

Right, but it comes down to what is the means and what is the end. Is making the wealthy pay an end unto itself? I think it's a lot harder to get support for something like that -- or something that sounds like that. I completely agree that one could make an argument for a fairer tax code, particularly with respect to things like carry interest and the qualified dividend rate, or even capital gains more generally. However, when you start saying that it's ridiculous that people can be so wealthy, it sounds like what you're objecting to is the existence of rich people. Maybe we do need to dial up taxes slightly on higher earners to fund a proper social safety net (I don't think that's true actually, but I tend to think about the deficit differently than most people, so that's an economics point and slightly off topic), in which case, that's fine. If the goal is to eliminate poverty then focus on that. Sounding like you want to eliminate wealth just alienates people. Also, there are plenty of market economies with lots of rich people that have functioning social safety nets.

One thing I've long wondered and never found an answer for is why exactly anyone else should tolerate the intense concentration of wealth required for anyone to be rich at all.

Or, to put it another way, does it benefit anyone at all if anyone is rich, or would everyone (except that one person, or, perhaps, the group as the whole) be better off if that rich person no longer had so much accumulated wealth?

I think it's as fair a question to ask as if second hand smoke or pollution are negative externalities that warrant action or not.

Dr. Arbitrary
Mar 15, 2006

Bleak Gremlin
Leisure is really important. When resources are divided unequally then you can create a class that devotes some or all of their time to leisure. Some people will just indulge in decadent pursuits, but this also enables some people in that leisure class to pursue things like science and culture. In the case of science, it's really important because you have to really devote yourself to it, 5 hours a week as a hobby isn't going to cut it.

But at this point in history, we've got enough automation that we could sustain a huge leisure class, many would just play World of Warcraft all day but some would be able to do amazing things that make the world a better place. Instead we've just enabled ultra-decadence.

I can't think of any benefit to ultra-decadence like that ugly mega-mansion in Florida.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010

HELL SERPENT
Lipstick Apathy
Are there any sources I could cite about how Ron Paul couldn't have possibly been nominated in 2012, and/or that he still would have lost (or even lost worse) regardless?

For reference, this is what I'm trying to respond to:

quote:

I got some numbers back in November which showed that Romney was something like 2 million votes short of McCain. As far as I was aware, that was the final count (and included Romney doing worse than McCain in raw numbers across all demographics.

All the analyses I read even as late as mid-December (where I read one that had the numbers broken down by demographic group) indicated that Romney still had less votes than McCain among whites and men, as well as all other groups.

Also, the last poll I had seen with the different matchups (I'm going to say around July 2012) had Ron Paul doing FAR better in matchups against Obama (within 2%, less than the margin of error) than Romney. Not only that, Paul swept the independent vote in those polls.

...and, of course, didn't represent the old, white, rich out of touch demographic that Romney did (old and white, but neither rich nor out of touch.) And that in addition to being seen as more moderate/centrist, not directly opposed to stuff like gay marriage (he goes for the States' rights approach - let each state decide what it wants to do and people can go to whichever state they want), as well as having more legitimacy than President Obama when it comes to potentially closing Gitmo, trying to repeal the PATRIOT Act, and being opposed to the expansion of the use of drones.

Oh yeah, and he opposes the IRS and wants to audit the Fed - both things the American people would get behind, if for no other reason than most people hate the IRS (and that was BEFORE this latest scandal.

Gourd of Taste
Sep 11, 2006

by Ralp
Is there a flouride factbomb because after Portland this is getting out of hand

edit: also joe mercola, quackwatch has a small piece but I'm sure someone here has read up more on him

Gourd of Taste fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jun 4, 2013

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp

Gourd of Taste posted:

Is there a flouride factbomb because after Portland this is getting out of hand

edit: also joe mercola, quackwatch has a small piece but I'm sure someone here has read up more on him

Science Based Medicine is a great resource for any medical-related quackery.

Generally every conversation will come down to the Harvard metastudy, and that's because people don't understand how to read a study. It doesn't help their side, it helps yours.

Naf
Jul 3, 2007
Trying to debate intelligently regarding the taxpayer impact of illegal immigration - can anyone direct me to some eye-friendly information regarding the net benefit or cost to the tax payer?

Some digging has lead me to this:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584 which includes the text:

"Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy. The widespread belief is that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false. [E]very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . .: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy."

Looking for something along this line with larger print and prettier pictures.

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Economic_effects:_An_overview
http://www.workingimmigrants.com/2006/12/new_texas_study_says_illegal_i.html

These might help.

Amused to Death
Aug 10, 2009

google "The Night Witches", and prepare for :stare:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?_r=0
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/05/30/2075791/immigrants-put-more-into-health-care-system/

These might help as well. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, pour billions of net dollar in SS and Medicare. Immigrants are in a weird limbo where they work so hard and for so cheap they all our jobs while simultaneously sucking us dry because they just want all our welfare.

OwlBot 2000
Jun 1, 2009

gradenko_2000 posted:

Are there any sources I could cite about how Ron Paul couldn't have possibly been nominated in 2012, and/or that he still would have lost (or even lost worse) regardless?

For reference, this is what I'm trying to respond to:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

He's not totally wrong, at some point in February, in ONE poll, he was ahead of Obama from a few points. But in other polls, he was 5 or 6 points behind, worse than Romney. This doesn't take into account the fact that he hadn't actual debated Obama, had the full force of Obama attack ads, etc. on him, because he really wasn't a target.

Yes, Ron Paul had some theoretically good foreign policy -- stop the wars, end the drug war, etc. But he also wanted to shut down foreign aid, which would have killed a huge number of people.

While "auditing the Fed" is not a bad idea (transparency is a good thing), replacing it with the Gold Standard is a terrible, terrible idea. Right now, there's far more dollars floating around than there is gold -- so you'd need to "buy back" most of the dollars in circulation. The effect of this? Each dollar is worth a lot more, by a factor of ~10. So someone who's in 40,000 of debt thanks to student loans would now be in 400,000 thousand dollars of debt. That's great for bankers, though!

But we've had this whole thing happen before and we see how the gold standard is just terrible for everyone except bankers and people who are already rich. So, bad for about 90% of humanity. And is it stable? Not without government control of how much gold is in circulation.

Also, moderate inflation is a good thing -- it encourages people to spend their money and keep the economy moving, rather than hoarding.

In short, Ron Paul doesn't get economics. Before replying to your Paulite acquaintance, Gradenko 2000, I recommend you watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoVffze_i9g

KernelSlanders
May 27, 2013

Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

OwlBot 2000 posted:

But what do you think makes that great wealth for one person possible, if not the poverty of millions of other people?

Kings were rich because their subjects were poor and forced to give him their labor without fair compensation, GAP is rich because garment workers are poor and forced to give them their labor without fair compensation, America and Europe are rich because Latin America and Africa are poor, forced to give up their resources and people without fair compensation, and so on ad infinitum.

Kings were rich because they were able to tax a large population. Each member of that population was poor because technology at the time was bad and agriculture was inefficient. The peasants in medieval Europe would not suddenly have become rich, or even marginally more comfortable if they could keep all of what they grew -- there just wasn't a lot of wealth to divide up. Gap runs a 7% margin, so I'm not sure what your point is there. In modern economies, it's certainly possible to have billionaires like Olav Thon or Stein Erik Hagen in a country with a strong social welfare system and a very high standard of living for the poorest citizens.

2banks1swap.avi posted:

One thing I've long wondered and never found an answer for is why exactly anyone else should tolerate the intense concentration of wealth required for anyone to be rich at all.

Or, to put it another way, does it benefit anyone at all if anyone is rich, or would everyone (except that one person, or, perhaps, the group as the whole) be better off if that rich person no longer had so much accumulated wealth?

I think it's as fair a question to ask as if second hand smoke or pollution are negative externalities that warrant action or not.

I presume you would grant that the rich person is better off being rich than not rich, but that asside, the question becomes are other people better off, worse off, or unchanged by the fact that someone is rich. To answer this (and to a certain extent how the rich today are different than medieval nobility) we need to look at how wealth is held by the ultra rich. In the middle ages, supporting a king's standard of living required an army of servants all of whom had to be fed, housed, and clothed by an even larger army of servants. The common person was quite poor, lived on dirt floors, etc. although there is some evidence that their standard of living was higher than in some of the poorest countries today (source). Today, in a modern economy, while there is clearly a greater nominal inequality than at any point in history, in terms of material inequality I think it's hard to argue the same thing. Rich people just don't have armies of servants anymore. They may live in houses ten times bigger or own their own private jet, but most Americans have a roof over their head (87% have air conditioning) and 90% have been one a plane.

Instead, the ultra rich's nominal wealth is concentrated mostly in ownership of businesses, especially large ones. The Pritzkers own a bunch of cruise ships that common people can enjoy. David Neeleman owns (owned?) an airline that common people can fly on (and many do). Michael Dell owns a computer factory, etc. Are most people's lives better off because the assets exist? I think the answer is yes. Could we nationalize some of them? Maybe, but I think it would be very hard to make the case that we would be much better off for it.

I think the question of do we eliminate poverty or continue to allow a few people to be rich is a false choice. If someone has a moral philosophy that inequality of wealth is wrong, I'm probably not going to change their mind, but from an economics standpoint, I don't agree that wealth creates poverty. If anything it's the oposite.

Mans
Sep 14, 2011

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
If you don't understand that the massive amounts of capital that are acumulated by said private individuals and corporations cause massive and crushing poverty in the third world and destroy the social fabric of the first world then i don't know in which world you're living.

And Stein Erik Hagen has been extremely active in funding of neoliberal parties that want to strip away government regulation and the welfare state of Norway.

He's a literal living proof of someone who is rich BECAUSE of a strong social support and wants to rip it all away to gain further profits.

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010

Mans posted:

If you don't understand that the massive amounts of capital that are acumulated by said private individuals and corporations cause massive and crushing poverty in the third world and destroy the social fabric of the first world then i don't know in which world you're living.

People who haven't internalized leftist ideology tend to find that description unconvincing.

What about the point that accumulated capital isn't sitting in a vault somewhere? That it mostly represents assets that contribute to the quality of life of ordinary people by, for example, producing things they want or need?

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

wateroverfire posted:

People who haven't internalized leftist ideology tend to find that description unconvincing.

What about the point that accumulated capital isn't sitting in a vault somewhere? That it mostly represents assets that contribute to the quality of life of ordinary people by, for example, producing things they want or need?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/wealthy-stashing-offshore_n_3179139.html

Oh, it looks like a metric fuckton of money is literally just sitting around being completely useless to the vast majority of people. Imagine that.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mans
Sep 14, 2011

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

wateroverfire posted:

People who haven't internalized leftist ideology tend to find that description unconvincing.


Actually it convinces. Most of the aversion to the left seems to come from fear of change, belief that it's impossible to break the status quo or of losing the struggle.

The idea that the country is dominated by a greedy destructive elite that causes famine, misery and death is not something new or shocking to most people.

  • Locked thread