White House Declares National Day for the Victims of Communism - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14861255
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, anyone reading this thread can see how you agree with the claim that economic inequality has a far greater social impact than the inequalities you mentioned.



As before, anyone reading this thread can judge for themselves if you agreed with me.



The other reason is a different reason.


I suspect people reading this fully see my point, and will view your attempts at diverting the conversation childish,
#14861262
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure.

As long as we agree that economic inequality has a far larger impact on society than most other forms of inequality, and that it makes sense to address these significant causes of injustice instead of focusing on the inequality inherent in who is best at tiddlywinks.


Income inequality brings out productiveness of all involved, it motivates and cultivates. Society cannot function without inequality of results.
#14861267
Oxymoron wrote:Rich people are far more productive, and those fuckers who put money in off-shore accounts employ more people then your super hero fire men. Who are actually a net loss for society.
Productivity has nothing to do with wealth. A doctor who make $250,000 a year is going to be a more positive influence in a community, than some cunt billionaire who hoards his wealth in offshore banks.

Value, incidentally, is subjective.
#14861270
Godstud wrote:Productivity has nothing to do with wealth. A doctor who make $250,000 a year is going to be a more positive influence in a community, than some cunt billionaire who hoards his wealth in offshore banks.

Value, incidentally, is subjective.


A doctor who's fees are mostly covered by people who are not subsidized by the government? A Doctor who's Medical school gets donations from cunt Billionaires? Using equipment developed by cunt multi national corporations. Doctors are as valuable as tools,and billionaires are as valuable as the skilled craftsman who uses them.
#14861273
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, anyone reading this thread can see how you agree with the claim that economic inequality has a far greater social impact than the inequalities you mentioned.


You believe economical inequality mainly brings negative impact (Evidence: #14861213). @Oxymoron seems believing the impact is at least neutral (if not positive).

Pursuance of resources (wealth is just a form of resources) is basic instinct of almost every organism (Evidence: Those who don't get consumed or eliminated by nature). Some bound to earn more than others, and it's natural for those who do wanting to keep whatever they get. This is where economic inequality begins and it seems very hard to end that inequality without taking off productiveness from a large portion of the population. (And sticking to topic, this is what general public believe why Communism failed)

For clarification: Does "re-investment" (as suggested by @Godstud) qualify as a way to reduce economic inequality?
#14861276
Does "re-investment" (as suggested by @Godstud) qualifies as a way to reduce economic inequality?
My argument is that re-investment does not reduce economic inequality. It has neutral impact unless it's a DIRECT re-investment.
#14861277
Oxymoron wrote:Income inequality brings out productiveness of all involved, it motivates and cultivates. Society cannot function without inequality of results.


And yet, Cuba has a better standard of living than most Caribbean nations.

Guess you are wrong about that too.

And you are implicitly agreeing with my claim.

——————————

Patrickov wrote:You believe economical inequality mainly brings negative impact (Evidence: #14861213). @Oxymoron seems believing the impact is at least neutral (if not positive).


Well, if you are the one benefiting from the inequality, you would also see it as positive. It would still be inequality.

Pursuance of resources (wealth is just a form of resources) is basic instinct of almost every organism (Evidence: Those who don't get consumed or eliminated by nature). Some bound to earn more than others, and it's natural for those who do wanting to keep whatever they get. This is where economic inequality begins and it seems very hard to end that inequality without taking off productiveness from a large portion of the population. (And sticking to topic, this is what general public believe why Communism failed)


Yes, the ways bees prey on flowers and the flowers do not get anything out of it is a clear example of why capitalism is natural.

Lol.

Also, look up “natural fallacy”.

For clarification: Does "re-investment" (as suggested by @Godstud) qualifies as a way to reduce economic inequality?


Ask Godstud. I am sure he is more than capable of answering the question.
#14861281
Pants-of-dog wrote:And yet, Cuba has a better standard of living than most Caribbean nations.

Guess you are wrong about that too.

And you are implicitly agreeing with my claim.

.


Cuba does a better job then those loser islands, and thus enjoys better standard of living, thank you for proving my point. In any case Its not like those islands you mention are the bastion of free market economics.
I guess you are wrong about that too, and implicitly agreeing with my position.
#14861284
Oxymoron wrote:Cuba does a better job then those loser islands, and thus enjoys better standard of living, thank you for proving my point. In any case Its not like those islands you mention are the bastion of free market economics.


So a society that does not use economic inequality as a driver for production does better than societies that do, and this somehow magically supports your claim that the reverse is true.

Lol.
#14861286
Pants-of-dog wrote:So a society that does not use economic inequality as a driver for production does better than societies that do, and this somehow magically supports your claim that the reverse is true.

Lol.


Cuba does not have inequality? Are you on some form of drug?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/keithflame ... e5eea26d76

just because they call it communism and socialism does not mean it is. While the part heads live like the old aristocracy passing wealth to their children, most of the population lives in equal squalor. I give you better squalor then Haiti, but that is not really a bench mark :lol:
#14861292
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, if you are the one benefiting from the inequality, you would also see it as positive. It would still be inequality.


I made that statement in an objective sense, or at least from the viewpoint of the whole society. You should know better as you keep saying simple sentences and arguments, implying you have great ability of reading between the lines.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the ways bees prey on flowers and the flowers do not get anything out of it is a clear example of why capitalism is natural.

Lol.

Also, look up “natural fallacy”.


Natural doesn't necessarily mean right (which defeats your accusation of me committing natural fallacy). What I mean is: Like it or not, they bound to exist (even in Cuba, that is), and eliminating them brings other negative consequences that you didn't think about or dismissed as minor.

P.S. For Cuba's case, the economic inequality is on international level. They don't make big impact to world economy and our individual economic well-being, do they?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Ask Godstud. I am sure he is more than capable of answering the question.


He had answered, but I would like to see your opinion as well.
#14861295
Godstud wrote:Pretending that rich people evading taxes by putting their money off-shore, or investing overseas, is helping income inequality, is absurd.


Oops, sorry, I only saw someone saying "economic inequality" (which is about asset accumulated), rather than "income inequality" (which is about change of asset accumulated). You are correct that they are different concepts.
#14861296
Patrickov wrote:I made that statement in an objective sense, or at least from the viewpoint of the whole society. You should know better as you keep saying simple sentences and arguments, implying you have great ability of reading between the lines.


Sure?

Economic inequality is never positive when it is being used against you.

Natural doesn't necessarily mean right (which defeats your accusation of me committing natural fallacy). What I mean is: Like it or not, they bound to exist (even in Cuba, that is), and eliminating them brings other negative consequences that you didn't think about or dismissed as minor.


I doubt this is true, since even in nature, we get examples of this not happening, such as the synergistic relationship between bees and flowers.

P.S. For Cuba's case, the economic inequality is on international level. They don't make big impact to world economy and our individual economic well-being, do they?


...which has nothing to do with the claim that societies need economic inequality in order to maintain a decent standard of living.
#14861301
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure?

Economic inequality is never positive when it is being used against you.


Economic inequality is a society phenomenon and has to be addressed in a macroscopic way. Rest assured I am at the worse end of it, but this is not enough to explain it "should be eliminated". I mean, are you sure that there are no negative consequences to those seem to be worse off? Taking off the inequality doesn't necessarily mean everyone get back to the mean. Instead, the mean itself may have risen or fallen. I don't have a conclusive deduction on this, but you have, so I think you have to justify it.


Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt this is true, since even in nature, we get examples of this not happening, such as the synergistic relationship between bees and flowers.


Those are "exceptions" or "specialties". Furthermore this doesn't conflict with the fact that bee hives compete each other. And if you are saying "this synergy is possible in human society", while I also agree with this, it still doesn't conflict with the fact that there will always be people who desire and manage to get "more / less than they 'deserve'", which means inequality will always exist. Or do you believe that every human being can be (educated to be) contributing to this synergy willfully?

Pants-of-dog wrote:...which has nothing to do with the claim that societies need economic inequality in order to maintain a decent standard of living.


Aren't we discussing "productivity / impact" instead of "decent standard of living"? The latter is rather easy to maintain on a small scale, if you insist.

And how do you define "decent standard of living" (some may count spiritual standards / freedom / fairness as well, and Cuba seems not agreeing that some of these are important)? And if defined, is it sustainable without some kind of economic inequality exists?
#14861375
Patrickov wrote:Economic inequality is a society phenomenon and has to be addressed in a macroscopic way. Rest assured I am at the worse end of it, but this is not enough to explain it "should be eliminated". I mean, are you sure that there are no negative consequences to those seem to be worse off? Taking off the inequality doesn't necessarily mean everyone get back to the mean. Instead, the mean itself may have risen or fallen. I don't have a conclusive deduction on this, but you have, so I think you have to justify it.


Economic inequality has been addressed in a macroscopic way. It is called Marxism.

And economic inequality needs to be eliminated because it causes a significant disparity in how well we access the things we need to survive. This disparity is so significant that people on the poor end often cannot access potable water, clean air, healthy food, a home, or even family.

Those are "exceptions" or "specialties". Furthermore this doesn't conflict with the fact that bee hives compete each other. And if you are saying "this synergy is possible in human society", while I also agree with this, it still doesn't conflict with the fact that there will always be people who desire and manage to get "more / less than they 'deserve'", which means inequality will always exist. Or do you believe that every human being can be (educated to be) contributing to this synergy willfully?


Those who will not do ao willingly after being educated can always be removed from society. Just like murderers.

Aren't we discussing "productivity / impact" instead of "decent standard of living"? The latter is rather easy to maintain on a small scale, if you insist.

And how do you define "decent standard of living" (some may count spiritual standards / freedom / fairness as well, and Cuba seems not agreeing that some of these are important)? And if defined, is it sustainable without some kind of economic inequality exists?


I am using the regular definition.

And yes, it is sustainable. Probably more sustainable than capitalism since a socialist ir communist society would be much better at handling stuff like pollution.
#14861421
They should declare a National Day for Victims of Rape, Child Molestation and Sexual Abusers in which they have some people in their cabinet and in the White House who are experts on Pussy Grabbing and molesting minors in their sphere.

And having a day for the victims of rawhide Capitalism without welfare, unemployment insurance, food allotments, and subsidized housing and medical care wtihout having to give up your entire paycheck all over the world? How many victims are there in that category? Capitalism without relief....how many victims?
#14861625
Pants-of-dog wrote:Economic inequality has been addressed in a macroscopic way. It is called Marxism.

And economic inequality needs to be eliminated because it causes a significant disparity in how well we access the things we need to survive. This disparity is so significant that people on the poor end often cannot access potable water, clean air, healthy food, a home, or even family.


Marxism failed.

What you said is inequality going to the extreme. Yes it exists, and that's the "extreme" part which is bad and should be removed (I mentioned something similar in #14861287), not the inequality itself (and besides it CANNOT. As long as we value different things differently there will be inequality because it's impossible for everyone to have the same ability and skill set). If you count those suffering from primitive living in, then we are possibly at the upper half as well. Expect a lowering of our living standards during the change (not that I care about it, but I have to remind you).


Pants-of-dog wrote:Those who will not do so willingly after being educated can always be removed from society. Just like murderers.


Don't expect those will go down without a fight. And that's a fight that they can have advantage by "buying their way". Plan your war wisely.

They have the seat for four years, actually. The[…]

Lol, a Pile-adian :D

An interesting opinion piece by Israeli author and[…]

Right Wing Marxism?

Rural people, of which I am proud to be, are reli[…]