Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Brian Peacock]

Will you be telling us about the virtues of trickle-down economics next?

[Scott1328]

Will you be telling us about the virtues of trickle-down economics next?

As far as I as I can tell, the greatest advantage of trickle-down economics is that only trickle of wealth ever escapes from the wealthy.

[Scot Dutchy]

No you were quote mining and flinging personal insults.

Really. That is something you do all the time. How was I slinging insults?

Corbynites just cant stand the truth about their fucked up leader. He is a dinosaur. Just look at the mess he is making.

[Scot Dutchy]

Will you be telling us about the virtues of trickle-down economics next?

As far as I as I can tell, the greatest advantage of trickle-down economics is that only trickle of wealth ever escapes from the wealthy.

That is an advantage?

[Svartalf]

Will you be telling us about the virtues of trickle-down economics next?

As far as I as I can tell, the greatest advantage of trickle-down economics is that only trickle of wealth ever escapes from the wealthy.

That is an advantage?

If you are wealthy, it is.

[Scott1328]

No you were quote mining and flinging personal insults.

Really. That is something you do all the time. How was I slinging insults?

Corbynites just cant stand the truth about their fucked up leader. He is a dinosaur. Just look at the mess he is making.

That's a lie. And the actions of others don't justify your bad behavior.

Also, who the fuck is this corby person you are obsessed with.

[Seth]

Will you be telling us about the virtues of trickle-down economics next?

Sure. It's quite simple really. People with capital to invest do so with the expectation of a return on their investment and that investment creates companies which create jobs for people willing to fill the need for labor to produce something that can be sold on the free market and they profit from the demand for their labor just as the investor profits from the demand for his capital and the business owner profits from the demand for his product.

Those willing to work to fill the need for labor profit and those who are not willing to work go begging, literally. Their economic condition is the direct result of their indolence and sloth and their unwillingness to input productive labor to the process of creating marketable products, and so they deserve to go hungry until their hunger motivates them to useful labor, from which they profit.

Thus, the investment of the capital owner trickles down to those willing to participate in the market for labor.

[Seth]

Will you be telling us about the virtues of trickle-down economics next?

As far as I as I can tell, the greatest advantage of trickle-down economics is that only trickle of wealth ever escapes from the wealthy.

Nonsense. Depending on the particular industry between 99 percent and 75 percent of the generated wealth showers down upon the working class one way or another, either directly through wages and benefits or indirectly through the availability of affordable consumer goods that make their lives better.

The free market economy distributes wealth in accordance with the demand for labor and the costs of producing something that can be sold on the free market. Those who excel at their labor input and who constantly improve their skill set and therefore increase their value to employers advance economically. Those who do the minimum required labor to maintain their job settle for a guaranteed paycheck at the end of the week instead of the additional rewards associated with the risks of self-improvement and skill enhancement. Those who do not care to work should not be supported in their indolence and sloth

Those who cannot work, for legitimate reasons that are beyond their control, such as disability, need to be cared for by society as a part of the altruistic and charitable nature of ordinary human beings.

But it is very important to carefully distinguish between those who cannot work through no fault of their own and those who will not work because they prefer leeching off of society or those who, through their own actions and misbehavior have rendered themselves unable to work.

The latter two categories must be induced to labor by depriving them of the benefits of society that are produced by the labor of others because to extend such benefits to those groups is to misappropriate the labor of the productive class for the benefit of the indolent and idle.

[Hermit]

Depending on the particular industry between 99 percent and 75 percent of the generated wealth showers down upon the working class

Ah! That explains why the top 1% of US citizens owned 34.6% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 60% owned 16.1% of it in 2007. I expect current figures are even more polarised now, but can't be bothered to look for them.

[Brian Peacock]

Ah, but if you can feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.

[Seth]

Depending on the particular industry between 99 percent and 75 percent of the generated wealth showers down upon the working class

Ah! That explains why the top 1% of US citizens owned 34.6% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 60% owned 16.1% of it in 2007. I expect current figures are even more polarised now, but can't be bothered to look for them.

You say that as if "owning" wealth means it's sitting in a vault like Scrooge McDuck's. That's just silly. Whoever "owns" it, wealth is constantly circulating in the economy, generating more and more wealth that gets distributed to those who participate in the production of wealth.

Evidently the bottom 60% isn't working very hard, as demonstrated by the fact that the top 50% of taxpayers pays 97% of the taxes while the bottom 50% pays just 3%.

And the top 20% pay something like 80 percent of the taxes.

I guess the bottom 60% need to get off their lazy asses, get off the dole and get to work.

You want to own more wealth, work for it.

[Hermit]

You say that as if "owning" wealth means it's sitting in a vault like Scrooge McDuck's.

No, I do not. Some wealth consists of stuff like Larry Ellison's 200 million dollar yacht



or the Hawaian island he owns, or Yoko Ono's collection of beautiful houses. Most of it, though, consists of stuff that increases wealth, and most of that increase stays with the owner. Kind of explains why in 2007 the top 1% of US citizens owned 34.6% of your nation's wealth and the bottom 60% owned 16.1% of it, don't you think?

[JimC]

Yearly income would be a more interesting comparison. The difference in the amount of work done is not the key...

[mistermack]

Years ago, the rich got so rich, they actually owned the poor.
That still happens in parts of Asia. People sell their kids, and the kid never gets the chance to pay off the debt. It's not legal, but it's fairly common.

In western society, the rich are getting richer and richer, because money makes money. And consequently the poor are getting poorer and poorer.
The rich don't actually own the poor, in a legal sense, but they do in a practical sense.

The answer is taxation. If you don't want the situation to continue and get more extreme.
My favourite solution is very high inheritance taxation, to prevent super-rich dynasties forming, which is just the old aristocracy, all over again. Spend the money on giving the poor a decent education.

[Scot Dutchy]

No you were quote mining and flinging personal insults.

Really. That is something you do all the time. How was I slinging insults?

Corbynites just cant stand the truth about their fucked up leader. He is a dinosaur. Just look at the mess he is making.

That's a lie. And the actions of others don't justify your bad behavior.

Also, who the fuck is this corby person you are obsessed with.

You know it is not a lie. The leader of the brown arm gang has had more holidays than me but now he has the protection of the mods.

If you dont know who Corbyn is well