Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2018 10:08:00 AM (view original):
That’s a little bit of a straw man because I don’t think anyone is arguing for full socialism/communism/facism.

Even the most extreme (mainstream) proposals like Medicare for all, minimum income, etc., don’t ask that capitalism be eliminated any more than the original proponents of Medicare or Social Security did. It’s just another way to mix capitalism and socialism, like we already do.

Didn't Ocasio Cortez state that she wanted to nationalize some industries? She was not specific but hinted at healthcare and pharma? No?

My compliments and we shall agree to disagree. Dramatic change, like social and economic egalitarianism, can be implemented only so far through persuasion. The remainder will be converted at the point of a sword. If you believe I am employing a straw man fallacy, I hope you are right. All of recorded human history says you are wrong.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/15/2018 10:20:00 AM (view original):
My compliments and we shall agree to disagree. Dramatic change, like social and economic egalitarianism, can be implemented only so far through persuasion. The remainder will be converted at the point of a sword. If you believe I am employing a straw man fallacy, I hope you are right. All of recorded human history says you are wrong.

I think the disagreement is that I don’t think anyone is arguing for complete egalitarianism.

I think most people understand that there will always be rich and poor. The goal is to flatten things somewhat so that you don’t get one person with $150 billion while a huge percentage of his 500,000 employees need food stamps to survive.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2018 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/15/2018 10:20:00 AM (view original):
My compliments and we shall agree to disagree. Dramatic change, like social and economic egalitarianism, can be implemented only so far through persuasion. The remainder will be converted at the point of a sword. If you believe I am employing a straw man fallacy, I hope you are right. All of recorded human history says you are wrong.

I think the disagreement is that I don’t think anyone is arguing for complete egalitarianism.

I think most people understand that there will always be rich and poor. The goal is to flatten things somewhat so that you don’t get one person with $150 billion while a huge percentage of his 500,000 employees need food stamps to survive.

Can you give one example of this?

Does Bill Gates not deserve his $$? He founded MSFT? What about Mark Cuban? Should Tom Brady not get paid well? Does he not generate 10x more for NE and the NFL than he actually earns? How do you "flatten things out"?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2018 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/15/2018 10:20:00 AM (view original):
My compliments and we shall agree to disagree. Dramatic change, like social and economic egalitarianism, can be implemented only so far through persuasion. The remainder will be converted at the point of a sword. If you believe I am employing a straw man fallacy, I hope you are right. All of recorded human history says you are wrong.

I think the disagreement is that I don’t think anyone is arguing for complete egalitarianism.

I think most people understand that there will always be rich and poor. The goal is to flatten things somewhat so that you don’t get one person with $150 billion while a huge percentage of his 500,000 employees need food stamps to survive.

Hmm. I'm not sure how to approach this. Dismissing the wackos, this is possibly true.

For those of you who have read Marx and are familiar with his theories, it's hard for me to gauge just how seriously enamored the far left is with him. What you just said would presume the far left does NOT fully subscribe to Marxism. Again, I hope you are correct. It's almost impossible to truly know until it actually happens...which might not be too far into the future.

Would someone answer how we "flatten things"? Thanks.

I assume a redistribution of wealth through taxation/subsidy and a redistribution of opportunity through affirmative action.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/15/2018 10:55:00 AM (view original):
I assume a redistribution of wealth through taxation/subsidy and a redistribution of opportunity through affirmative action.

I hate that. Honestly.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 8/15/2018 10:55:00 AM (view original):
I assume a redistribution of wealth through taxation/subsidy and a redistribution of opportunity through affirmative action.

We already redistribute some wealth through taxation. The argument becomes how much should we tax and redistribute.

And how you look at that answer really depends on how you look at things as they are. If you see the current set-up as just---and by "just," I mean, rich or poor, people, in general, get what they deserve---then you would argue that the current set-up is either perfectly OK or maybe even goes too far.

For example, my dad is a libertarian, he believes the current tax system punishes high earners and taxes need to be flatter and less progressive.

On the other hand, if you see things as unjust---meaning that, for the most part, the relative quality of your life depends largely on how well-off your parents were and how lucky you got---you probably believe that there is a better way to divide resources than to continue to allow extremely wealthy people to dominate and amass more and more wealth.

Neither one of those arguments is inherently right or wrong. Neither one is significantly more radical than the other. They are just two philosophies as to how society should divide resources.

Whaaaat?!?!? You said "Flatten" How would YOU flatten?

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/15/2018 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Whaaaat?!?!? You said "Flatten" How would YOU flatten?

Maybe take a breath and re-read what I posted.

"I think most people understand that there will always be rich and poor. The goal is to flatten things somewhat"

I could not find one company where the owner makes $150Bn and 500k employees are on food stamps. Please elaborate.

The left are Marxists whether they realize it or not. Marxism is a slow progression. It's not something that happens overnight. We've seen it happening in America for a while as taxes have slowly crept up and government assistance has slowly trended upward. Tang's philosophies are a great example of this. "We are only going to tax the rich a little more." That happens and we still have the poor, so we tax a little more. Eventually they are taxed until incomes are equal despite the value that one brings to the table and the benefit to produce is extinguished.

The only dividing factor between Marx and the left is that In Marx' system there is no government and with leftist ideologies the government is a necessity to "take from the rich to give to the poor."

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/15/2018 8:16:00 AM (view original):
Not saying that you are or aren't, but on what issues do you believe that you're further right than B_L?

Social issues, economic, he hates Trump far more than I do, etc.

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/15/2018 12:52:00 PM (view original):
"I think most people understand that there will always be rich and poor. The goal is to flatten things somewhat"

I could not find one company where the owner makes $150Bn and 500k employees are on food stamps. Please elaborate.

Oh, you weren't referring to the post directly above your reply.

Yeah, redistribute more.

Bezos is worth roughly $150B. A large percentage of his employees are on government assistance, somewhere between 10% and 20%, depending on the state.