Yep. An alias just jerking people around. No belief system just an internet trolling method that's very successful.
I'm not sure who you're referring to here, but if it's me, you couldn't be further from the truth. You can tell by my profile how long I've been a member of this site and how many of the games I've played, which is enough by itself to know this isn't an alias but as real an identity as you can get here.
As for my beliefs, they are what I say they are. I absolutely believe in what I'm saying, and if I didn't, I wouldn't waste the time I have already wasted trying to educate people on economics and attempt (though I'm guessing unsuccessfully) to reverse their bias against socialism which is largely borne out of ignorance of both socialism itself and economics in general.
You've mostly refused to support your opinions with fact, but only with further opinions - as if those opinions are in and of themselves proof.
When you manage to present a challenge to what I have to say, I'll defend it against that challenge. Until then, what I have to say stands for itself.
I would think one as far above the uneducated masses like us as you are could give us a clue as to what a fair share is or an idea of what tax rate for the rich would be the best.
First, stop acting like you and those who agree with you are martyrs because you're losing the argument. It doesn't add anything to your side of the debate and is a waste of time.
Second, I already addressed those issues long ago. I'm not going to keep repeating things because you decided not to read it in the first place.
I would think someone as enlightened as you are would have ready and convincing answers.
I do and I gave them. Perhaps you should go read the thread.
if you want to "win a debate" in any fashion other than in your own mind, you should be willing to concede a point or two.
I have done so on the points which actually made any sense. Most of what has been said is ridiculous that there is no way I would concede to it. It would be like saying the earth is flat.
Your obvious disdain for people with wealth shows in your discriminatory language in dealing with them and it serves to discredit your point of view.
It does no such thing. My point of view is what it is and doesn't need to be justified by your interpretation of my language, which is based upon your own assumptions and is largely inaccurate to begin with.
What general incentives do you suppose work in each of the two competing theories?
So you want an education on economics. I'll give you a simple nutshell.
In Capitalism, incentives are based upon private ownership, which in THEORY puts the rewards of hard work or the failings of laziness right in the hands of the worker.
In proper Socialism, incentives are based upon shared ownership, which actually does put the rewards in the hands of the workers.
Why would socialist incentives work better than capitalist incentives (knowing that both systems likely share a fair number of these incentives)?
Let's do an example to demonstrate:
Say John is a factory worker producing widgets for a company run by Simon.
In Capitalism, John's incentive to work hard is supposed to be that he will earn more when he works harder based upon private ownership theory. In reality, if John makes $10 per hour, he'll make that same $10 per hour whether he produces the required 100 widgets per hour or works harder and produces 110. Unless Simon notices his hard work over time, which may eventually happen but is entirely possible it will not, then he'll continue to make $10 no matter how hard he works. Meanwhile, Simon makes $20 per hour and doesn't do physical labor and has an easier life.
In Socialism, John's incentive to work hard is based upon the fact he shares ownership in the factory itself. It's success translates directly into his personal success, so when he works harder and makes 110 widgets per hour instead of 100, now he's adding to his own bottom line (and that of all his workers, who have the same incentive to work hard as he does). Now production increases overall, everyone makes more money, and John goes from $10 per hour to $12 and then eventually to $15 as the factory thrives. Simon, who initially made the same $10 as John, also now makes $15, but can better manage his employees because they are happier and have incentive to work harder they would never get by hoping he would notice their hard work and reward them in a capitalist system.