US study lays bare extreme pay-ratio problem

no, as that is demonstrably untrue, and moronic.

 

Omg, it happened again! That just what I was about to say to you. Strange.

 

but you of course know what you said is demonstrably untrue, and you also know what I have said is demonstrably true. So the only strange thing is you parroting this moronic nonsense, after being shown how and why you are wrong. Lol

 

Simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't count for anything.

 

I know. Which is why, as you are perfectly aware, I SHOWED you how and why you are wrong.

 

I disagree, but I'll let others be the judge.

 

your agreement has no bearing on reality. You are wrong, have been shown how and why, and you know that.

 

Yes, I know. You've shared your opinion. I disagree. But I'll let others decide.

 

What's "this thing" about names?

Debating politics is not like driving a car. There are no roads. You have to make your way with your mind and your words and in this forum "economic facts", not "feelings" ...

Which is why even if Socialism was born, tried and thrown away, it was Europe that rescued the notion with Social Democracy:

Meaning doing more good for the most people!

How does it work in practice? High upper-income tax rates even the burden of supporting social-initiatives like National Healthcare and Free Tertiary Education for all. Which are only two of its programs that show a central concept. That the economic-group bands together to support the individual where there is need.

It's to avoid the past, which was a world of "Winner take all". That came to an end in most of the world, except America where - under the guise of being a democracy but actually has comparatively little government support for those who need it most (below the median-wage level).

A social-democracy levels the playing field, even if that field has both winners and losers.

At least the latter are allowed to live decent lives ...

 

No you didn't.

A paper contract requires signatures from the the parties involved for implicit consent. You are confusing this with what an actual "social contract" is supposed to be.

Read Rousseau and you'll understand that according to those who adhere it the philiosophy of "social contracts" there is no actual document.

This is the problem we libertarians have- tacit consent (which is the basis for any "social contract") is an a nebulous assumption that has no concrete basis. We don't believe in it for the same reasons we don't believe in intellectual property or LTV- they have no actual substance.

Read Proudhon- his theories.on the social contracts stated that contracts could only be valid with individuals and not a nebulous "government" or "society". To me that simply entails an agreement not to agress against each other.

 

I didn't share an opinion.

 

of course I did, as you are perfectly aware.

absolutely not. Signatures are in no way required for a contract to be valid, or enforced.

I am not.

lol, this is far from the only problem libertarians have.

but your beliefs regarding them are irrelevant to reality. You are bound by the social contract of US citizenship, while you are inside US borders, and remain a US citizen.

 

Yes you did. You shared you opinion that you're right and I'm wrong. I don't agree, but I'll let others decide.

 

no, that is not an opinion. It is a demonstrable fact. You were/are wrong, and you know that you are.

 

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

You aren't even aware of how a "social contract" works or what the theoretical basis of one is, so that makes it impossible for you to understand.

For a paper contract, they are. But anything can be endorsed by threat of violence.

No matter how much you may deny it, it doesn't change the fact that you are coming from a position of ignorance. I know more about the position you are advocating than you do.

Ad home attacks is not the position of an intelligent argument.

No, the reality is that I am coerced by a mob that has a monopoly of force.

 

Crikey, the fake libertarians don't half whinge as they take advantage of the economy created by the social contract...

 

Under the Articles, America won a war of independence against the mightiest empire on earth and secured a larger territory than any European power possessed. That is the exact opposite of a failure. The only ones who thought it was a failure were self-interested aristocrats who openly disdained democracy.

In other words, the people kept the fruits of their labor and retained their democratic sovereignty. How horrible.

And what "system" are you referring to? And how did it "collapse"?

The power to tax was granted in order to make it easier for large creditors to secure repayment on their loans. Like always, the power to tax on a large scale was done for the economic benefit of a small group of elites. This was proven by Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.

The States ceded limited, enumerated powers to the federal government while retaining the lion's share of the sovereignty. Madison himself said so. And the tenth amendment made it official. You are simply making things up and hoping no one will notice.

1. You keep claiming that the articles failed, yet you have failed to demonstrate how they failed.
2. The States only ceded limited, enumerated powers to the federal government. All other powers were retained by the States. Madison expressly said so and the tenth amendment made it official.
3. The new federal government really wasn't that strong. There was no income tax, no central bank, no welfare programs, no FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, DOE, ATF, CDC, FDA, ICE, etc., no drug laws, no gun laws, the military was small, etc. The "strong" central government didn't emerge until several decades later during the "progressive" era.

Free markets were only made possible because of libertarian ideology. If people like you had your way, the entire country would look like Detroit: An overtaxed, overregulated cesspool of corruption.

That's because libertarian ideology isn't about "systems" but the lack of them. The brilliance of the classical liberals was to see that many of the "systems" imposed on people by the state were oppressive, exploitative, and inefficient, and that the absence of these designed systems led to economic prosperity. Adam Smith called it the "invisible hand" and F.A. Hayek called them "extended orders". Ironically enough, Soviet and Chinese Communism were based on the same set of economic assumptions Democrats like you subscribe to: Like you, they wanted the state to plan and design the economy instead of simply allowing people to spontaneously organize. And it resulted in massive poverty, corruption, and oppression, just like in Democrat-controlled Detroit.

 

Libertarian principles created the most prosperous and powerful country in history, America. The founders believed in natural law, inalienable rights, individual liberty, and economic freedom, the exact opposite of what Democrat quislings subscribe to. When Democrats control the political system, you get Detroit. When freedom is allowed to work, you get things like Uber and Bitcoin.

 

You're ignoring it because it demonstrates the absolute absurdity of the standard you're attempting to assert.

According to your asinine logic, the Jews who resided in Germany and earned an income consented to be gassed by the Nazis.

I never consented to such an arrangement, ergo there is no contract to sever.

No, it's tyranny. And like all tyranny, it is based on pathetic lies and imaginary standards that no sane person accepts under normal circumstances.

Stripped of all the mythology and magic thinking, the "social contract" you describe is a fraud foisted on people against their will by tyrants.

 

If residing inside a country and earning an income were tantamount to consent, then the Jews who lived in Germany and earned an income consented to be gassed by the Nazis. That is the logical conclusion of the completely fabricated standard you're attempting to assert in this thread.

 

A great deal of poverty in America is concentrated within urban municipalities that are controlled by tax and spend Democrats who promote big government as the solution to everything. Detroit is probably the best example of what happens when Democrats sink their fangs into the economy. It went from being one of the most prosperous cities in the world to being a blasted out cesspool in only a few decades. Democrat handiwork at its finest.

 

Behold the authoritarian mind in all its glory.

 

Not impressive, if you ask me.

 

He must have submission to his will, politically, intellectually, spiritually.