Save us, Wealth-Creator Man!

[Ian]

Oh great, so now it's a "team lefty vs Seth thread." Oh well, I'll keep hoping for a worthwhile discussion here.

To Seth, anything other than pure, laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism is to be denounced as an example of freedom-destroying collectivism. That being the case, I'm happy to be on "Team Lefty".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh great, so now it's a "team lefty vs Seth thread." Oh well, I'll keep hoping for a worthwhile discussion here.

To Seth, anything other than pure, laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism is to be denounced as an example of freedom-destroying collectivism. That being the case, I'm happy to be on "Team Lefty".

Ze collective meets at the People's Palace of Eternal Revolution Over Bourgeois Tyranny.

9 pm. Pot Luck Dinner after.


Please, don't everybody bring potato salad this time.

[SteveB]

Oh great, so now it's a "team lefty vs Seth thread." Oh well, I'll keep hoping for a worthwhile discussion here.

To Seth, anything other than pure, laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism is to be denounced as an example of freedom-destroying collectivism. That being the case, I'm happy to be on "Team Lefty".

About time babies did some work.

[Svartalf]

.... despite the fact that they would make more money if they spent more money.

Hahahaha. Now please, explain how that works.

return on investment and enlarged customer base

[Ian]

.... despite the fact that they would make more money if they spent more money.

Hahahaha. Now please, explain how that works.
[/img]

return on investment and enlarged customer base

Not cutting corners on employee quality or product quality is also a good idea. If you can get away with running a business on the cheap, then I say go for it... but beware that at some point you're probably going to be eaten alive by a competitor who believes in the value of quality.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

.... despite the fact that they would make more money if they spent more money.

Hahahaha. Now please, explain how that works.
[/img]

return on investment and enlarged customer base

Not cutting corners on employee quality or product quality is also a good idea. If you can get away with running a business on the cheap, then I say go for it... but beware that at some point you're probably going to be eaten alive by a competitor who believes in the value of quality.

Not telling your customers you're making cars that won't last ten years, so no resale value, is another good idea. It may be good for the bottom line, but it struck the consumers as a bit arrogant and greedy.

[Svartalf]

I'm still waiting for a decent answer to my question. The one's given are crap.

http://www.upworthy.com/trickle-down-th ... g=2&c=upw1

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand the question. The question is:

How would rich people giving money to poor people help them become richer by having more customers?

If you believe I am mischaracterizing the question (ie statement that I asked to be explained) then I refer you to the last page.

The word "giving" is the fuck up you made here.

Because they'll be getting it back, at least the Rich are going to collectively get it back, if a given Wealth Creator is not going to personally get it from those he gave it to.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The word "giving" is the fuck up you made here.

Because they'll be getting it back, at least the Rich are going to collectively get it back, if a given Wealth Creator is not going to personally get it from those he gave it to.

Drewish was claiming that some unnamed person said that the rich people should give the poor people money. GIVE. Nobody said that, and nobody implied it, but the boogie man lurks in his mind, so he read what he expected to see there. It's really rather sad.

Oh, and that knee-jerk reaction to suggestions the poor need help at all puts a lie to the theory that "the private sector will step in and take over" if the government gave up on the social safety nets. The panic of the well-off at the thought of losing one shekel is a clear sign that they will do no such thing.

[Svartalf]

.... despite the fact that they would make more money if they spent more money.

Hahahaha. Now please, explain how that works.
[/img]

return on investment and enlarged customer base

Not cutting corners on employee quality or product quality is also a good idea. If you can get away with running a business on the cheap, then I say go for it... but beware that at some point you're probably going to be eaten alive by a competitor who believes in the value of quality.

Which is why we're inundated with cherap Chinese crap and lead filled toys rather than appreciating fine craftsmanship.

[Svartalf]

The word "giving" is the fuck up you made here.

Because they'll be getting it back, at least the Rich are going to collectively get it back, if a given Wealth Creator is not going to personally get it from those he gave it to.

Drewish was claiming that some unnamed person said that the rich people should give the poor people money. GIVE. Nobody said that, and nobody implied it, but the boogie man lurks in his mind, so he read what he expected to see there. It's really rather sad.

Oh, and that knee-jerk reaction to suggestions the poor need help at all puts a lie to the theory that "the private sector will step in and take over" if the government gave up on the social safety nets. The panic of the well-off at the thought of losing one shekel is a clear sign that they will do no such thing.

and money given as wages rather than given as alms is still given... of course, you get more value for your buck on the former case, as you get the guy's work as well as the money back when he buys your product..

[Gawdzilla Sama]

and money given as wages rather than given as alms is still given... of course, you get more value for your buck on the former case, as you get the guy's work as well as the money back when he buys your product..

Labor exchanged for wages, not "given".

[macdoc]

It really pisses me off this idea of dispensation from on high by providing job opportunity.
Fucking awful mindspace.

Labour is a critical resource and so is functional society with buyers that can afford your goods and a labour pool of healthy educated workers.

Kellogg could have done what the rest did in the Depression - lay all the workers off and watch them starve around him.

He didn't http://www.context.org/iclib/ic37/hunnicut/

and on top of that ended up burying his long time rival by continuing to advertise.

http://columbia.bbb.org/article/what-ke ... ting-20004

He recognized the critical MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL relationships with his workers and with the greater society and his consumers.

Fucking MBA quarterly results idjits should be put to work in the fields in California for a while and learn some human values.

[JimC]

I certainly hope so. Don't try to steal what's mine because I'll defend my property against such theft. And I'll do the same to crowds of thugs who seek to steal and destroy what does not belong to them, and I'll sleep just fine.

Yep. I've had two discussions with you, and both of them ended with you resorting to "I'll shoot you". Very revealing.

Simple minds produce simple solutions...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wealth breeds arrogance. It's that simple.

[Svartalf]

and money given as wages rather than given as alms is still given... of course, you get more value for your buck on the former case, as you get the guy's work as well as the money back when he buys your product..

Labor exchanged for wages, not "given".

Money out of pocket is "given", it's just not necessarily GIFTED.