Tainari88 wrote:The problem is that you don't believe in equality. And as such you don't care about the ones without anything.
There are more than two views in the world Tainari88--yours and the bad people who don't agree with you. Presuming inequality does not infer a lack of empathy. Seeing the world as it is and not how you would like it to be is probably a bit too sobering for you. That doesn't imply a lack of concern for others, though.
Tainari88 wrote:It means you will promote a system of exclusion and exploitation.
Trying to see the entire world through legal or political abstractions leaves you incapable of seeing the world as it is. It leaves you making inferences based on ideology rather than on empirical observation. Exploitation and inequality do not go hand in hand. Babies are not equal to adults, but we don't exploit them. Yet, we don't allow them to vote. That's inequality, but it's not evil.
Tainari88 wrote:And you will impede prosperity for the many. Just like a hoarder who thinks by getting rid of the excess shit somehow they lose what is valuable. It is the opposite. But tell that to the possessive hoarders. They scream. Their whole lives is about hanging on to shit that if they let it go and put it to circulating and producing instead of a system of exclusive possession and petty power over objects and so on?
People who lived in areas that have no growing or hunting season in the winter had to store an excess of food to survive. They developed this compulsive behavior, and it helped them to survive. That may cause them lots of problem in advanced societies without actual scarcity. However, you can only reason with who someone is, but not what someone is. Try telling an addict they need to stop doing drugs. You might find it surprising that they ignore you. Understanding addiction means understanding the difference between the frontal cortex (reason, language, etc) and pre-frontal cortex and limbic system.
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Capitalism is built around the middle class if the middle class is the minority than it need to be expanded and not reduced because if you distribute everything equally you will make everyone poor thats how it was in the soviet union
If you shrink the middle class, you get a less democratic system of government.
Tainari88 wrote:Come on now BJ. You know very well, that the way the workers work in Bolivia and in Latin America they get paid very low wages and are exploited.
There's not much capitalism in Bolivia. It's not like Bolivians are making iPhones at rock bottom wages. It's a fairly primitive agricultural and resource economy. Evo Morales did little to change that. If you want to bring people out of poverty, you need physical capital, automation, education, etc. Wealth redistribution in a poor economy just makes everyone equally poor. China figured out that abandoning communism was the only way it could compete, and it went from a backwater to the second largest economy in the world in 30 years.
Tainari88 wrote:Get a grip BJ, the reality is that if you take a tour of South American slums there is a lot of unemployed people who not only have to take odd jobs and informal employment? They also don't pay taxes to the state and the state can't really build itself up and has to rely even more heavily on private companies and outside investors...it is very close to chattel slavery.
Indeed. However, if outside companies have to pay taxes and the state does invest in education and enforces private property rights and creates solid trade incentives, then it employment increases along with wages. Redistribution, however, doesn't attract long term foreign direct investment.
We're starting to face a similar problem in the US as illegal aliens don't pay taxes to the state, but are a strain on social services.
In a more insidious move, Democrats in California have raised the dollar amount for shoplifting and don't prosecute shoplifters. Guess what happens? The stores raise prices. Who gets hurt the worst? Poor people who are honest and don't steal. You see, Tainari88, I can recognize things like that because I am more than just some hard hearted idiot. It's the soft-hearted, soft-headed left leaning middle class idiots and their virtue signalling that implement this sort of thing. Who gets hurt the most? Honest poor people. That's fucked up.
The left in America thinks it is doing a good thing by letting criminals run rampant, giving needles to drug addicts, allowing people to defecate in public, and not enforcing shoplifting.
It bothers me, and I can give you two recent anecdotes:
I went to Macy's the other day to pick up a sport coat--ironically, they are unlocked. However, the popular Ralph Lauren polos are locked up. People can steal those polos, not get arrested and then turn around and sell them on Ebay. So what's the shopping experience like now? Anything that's popular is under lock and key. In California, for whatever reason, thieves don't steal suits.
During the drought a few years ago I got hooked on flavoring my water with Mio, because I could taste the river mud--I now also double filter my water habitually; first with Brita and then with ZeroWater. Anyway, Mio used to cost $2.98 a bottle at Winco. It's now $3.49. Why? To offset shrinkage.
When Rei Murasame used to post here, she would always note that it was Asians who ran the stores in ghettos and how they had to charge higher prices to deal with shoplifting. Now that's statewide in California.
I studied economics Tainari88, so I understand the concepts of positive and negative externalities. The idea of these policies of not prosecuting poor people for stealing is to be more compassionate. Yet, it's dewy-eyed rocks-for-brains stupidity from middle class leftists thinking they are better people than us hard hearted people on the right. However, the people who bear the brunt of it most are honest poor people. Who will they blame for this fiasco? The political right of course, because being a leftist means never having to acknowledge fucking up or having to apologize for it.
For me, I'm just starting to make the switch to shopping for groceries online so that I don't have to pay the de facto shoplifting tax that grocery stores are imposing--and shopping at members only outlets like Costco. I used to think shopping for groceries online was just the height of laziness, but now I can see a very practical reason for doing it. Sadly, poor people don't have credit cards, or if they do, they pay exorbitantly for them.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden