Does anyone here not understand....

You could write volumes, but you'd still be wrong. It's been a long time since I took Economics, but I still remember the definition of it. Economics is the study of how to manage and allocate LIMITED financial resources to UNLIMITED demand; that's not verbatim of course but real close to text book, at least as how it was taught in the early 70's.

 

I can run circles around you mathematically speaking.

Since you wish to refer to my job you should also know I take on many managerial duties and also handle some of the mechanic duties. So put that in your future file reference folder.

I think it's hilarious how the only people that ever attempt to shame me for actually having a job or Democrats.

 

Ridiculous. If an infinite amount of trees were possible, why isn't there an infinite amount of trees on earth? Why do trees not grow infinitely tall? There is only one fact: Your supposed "facts" fall infinitely short of physical laws.

 

Lol...no, just the same old trickle down bullshit calculated to starve the rubes while they suck mindlessly on pipe dreams.

 

It sounds like you've got the talking points memorized by rote.

 

Mathematically ... probably not.

Good for you.

I wasn't trying to shame you, you did that yourself.

Look, I'm not trying to ... get on ya ... I was following your conversation with cd8 and ... the man obviously knows what he's talking about. The more you argued the difference became apparent. It's not all lefty, righty; sometimes ... it's time to put down your prejudices and insecurities and ... listen.

 

Sounds like a text from a liberal arts college.

Nobody has been able to explain to me how wealth is limited, though I have given numerous examples of how it is not.

Other than just saying over and over "it's limited!" Does anybody have an example?

 

Ok

What's the maximum amount of trees that can be grown? What's that number?

 

It's the Standard definition of economics; look it up.

You're confusing intangible wealth with tangible wealth. I suppose crap like bitcoin are unlimited, but HIGHLY volatile. But when you try to turn it into something besides zeros and ones, they you have "money" chasing limited resources.

"If wishes were horses beggars would ride". If, wealth were unlimited ... we'd all have a Bezos size yacht. Real economics may draw on game theory but is not limited by it. "REAL" wealth is limited,always has been and always will be.

 

just giving your talking points and your opinions and trying to present them as fact does not make you correct.

It does prove you have the partisan talking points down pat... But that's about it.

And by the way I have nothing to be ashamed of. If you or anyone like you feels like I should be ashamed because I have a job that you feel like is below your station in life... That just proves that you have a snobby elitist attitude.

And who knows what your story is. This is the internet and you can be anything you want.

 

Today it's less than it used to be because there is more demand for lumber than we have room for forests and foresters to mange them. Tree's are a great example of a limited resource facing unlimited demand.

 

OR make me wrong ... because you say so.

Nothing partisan about it, you need to learn more.

I never said you have anything to be ashamed of, but, just saying, IMHO you should lose that giant chip on your shoulder.

I'm comfortable ... thanks!

 

LoL he's a head of lettuce.

 

I mean, of course wealth is not literally infinite. It is a measurement of finite resources. But can it be continuously increased (more technology, more consumers, using as much energy as we can access in the entire universe) and be "practically" infinite. Sure. Zero sum is not true either.

 

What nonsense.

Forests have been stable since 1900.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...e-about-1900-Data-from-Alvarez_fig1_269095223

 

Except they can't.

 

The same people screaming at the sky when Trump got rid of their SALT deductions.

 

And demand has grown exponentially since then.

 

Proposed taxes on the wealthy is primarily personal income taxes. Corporate taxation is a completely different ballgame and does not affect the wealthy at all.

You do understand that, don't you?

 

And yet you and other republicans complain that the taxes are high, too high.

For starters, we don't have VAT taxes here. We have sales taxes, which is the tax at the final stage for new products. VAT taxes are charged at each stage of the production and ultimately paid by the consumer, individual or business. Again, understand what you are looking at, not what you think you are looking at.

 

You can't look at this subject in simplistic terms, because it's more dynamic, more complex than that. Flat taxes are simplistic and oppressive, they would raise taxes on the poor, and lower taxes on the rich. Neoliberalism stems from the mentality that believes one must run a nation lke a business, and, in truth, it's somewhat the opposite.

In a business, if you penalize the productive and reward the non productive, you will go out of business. But, those who don't produce will have elsewhere to go, find another job and next time they will have the incentive to try harder so as to not be fired. In a nation, it doesn't work that way. The poor have nowhere to go. If they are penalized, long enough, hard enough, historically speaking this results in revolutions, and revolutions rarely turn out well.

With a nation, the bills have to be paid, and from where should that money come? From those who can afford to pay it. The affluent and rich, because they benefit from the system them most. No one is suggesting paying the poor enough to life high on the hog, but they shouldn't be allowed to starve, either, or not have access to health care.

Your philosophy is the essence of neoliberalism. That is how neoliberals think. It's simplisticism applied to something that can't be understood simplistically.

First off, I've been in business for years, have owned mercantile businesses, and one thing I know for an absolute fact is this:

Prices have NOTHING, absof*ckinglutely NOTHING to do with costs.

Prices are determined by market DEMAND.

I sold $10 trinkets that cost me $1.

I've sold $13 trinkets that cost me $9.

The cost had NOTHING to do with the price I charged.

If there was a heavier rush buy an item, no matter the cost, I'd raise the price until until the profitability dropped, then I'd lower it a bit finding the profitability sweet spot. There is a price equilibrium that yields the most profitability and that is the correct price. The only reason I checked the cost was to determine profitability, but it was the demand that determined the price. If it wasn't profitable, all that meant that there was no market for the item, and we stopped selling it.

Therefore, any logic that goes tax the rich means prices will go up' is FALSE ON IT'S FACE.

Any logic that goes 'taxing the rich will mean less will be invested' is false.

That is addressed in this video, in fact, all of your arguments are diffused in this video.

12 Myths About Taxing the Rich




If Robert Reich doesn't convince you, get it from a super rich guy:

Nick Hanauer is in the top 1% of the top 1%, an investment banker, a true capitalist. But he's no neoliberal or conservative, so one wonders how
that is so. Listen to his message.

 

Ahh, somewhere between both extremes, I did an OP on this awhile back:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/politics-of-the-center-what-is-it.585857/


Your thinking is classic neoliberalism.

Your comparisons to other nations are false equivalencies.

Starting about Reagan, the super rich's wealth grew and grew while the rest of us our wages did not.

Today, per the wealth distribution tables on the Federal Reserve, the upper 50% own 99% of the wealth. It never used to be that way, and the gap is getting wider every year.

This is due to neoliberalism, the very concept you are offering.

Listen to a rich guy, Nick Hanauer, just listen:

and no one wants to kill competition, this isn't communism or socialism.

Successful economies are not jungles, they are gardens.

That is the philosophy, now listen.




My philosophy is derived from a more centrist, NON-neoliberal approach, as described in my OP linked to, above.

 

Simple: A tree canopy on average covers about 50-70 square feet:

https://www.harrisonburgva.gov/sites/default/files/PublicWorks/files/stormwater/credit-program/residential/Tree Canopy Appendix.pdf

Look up the total number of square feet of land on earth and divide by that number, you get the maximum number of trees. Note that this number would only be infinity if the canopy area of the average tree was 0. Well, good luck getting economic benefit of a tree that basically doesn't exist.

I don't even know why I am doing this exercise because it is truly futile. Because you will 100% move the goal post in your next post, so you can keep up your silly idea of infinite wealth.

 

Well of course they're hypocrites. Also water is wet.

 

Yes!