Liberal or Labor? (12 Viewers)

[Lentern]

The fault dear brutus...

Yeah right, sure.

 

[Lentern]

If you took all the people who are paid as much as he was, and averaged out the amount the companies they lead increased in value, you'd have a very solid surplus. It'd be like saying that just because 9/10 business ideas come to nothing we shouldn't try anything new, these are simply unavoidable risks which come off in the aggregate. Additionally, I have no doubt that they all work exceptionally hard.

I'm not referring to averages I'm referring to individuals.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Justin, in fairness Australian big businesses' idea of innovation seems to be "dig bigger holes, plant more wheat, shear more sheep."

 

[withoutaface]

I'm not referring to averages I'm referring to individuals.

If your thesis is that some exceptionally rich people make bad decisions which are easily perceived with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think anybody has beef with that. My argument, however, is that on the whole having very rich people isn't a negative thing, and to characterise them as leaches upon the working class is nonsense.

 

[Rothbard]

Yeah right, sure.

You admitted entirely to being economically illiterate and yet you deem your own interpretation of the situation to be valid, even without understanding something as simple as unintended consequences?

You're just post-hoc creating a definition and trying to shoehorn things into it and then getting pissy when you're called on your bullshit.

Sorry, my friend, but intellectual you are not.

 

[Optimus Prime]

someone has to build those yachts and mansions.

 

[Rothbard]

someone has to build those yachts and mansions.

They're actually built by robots that feed on the 'fair go' other Aussies give up to let them build.

 

[Optimus Prime]

and the profits go to the billionaire that owns the robots.

 

[Rothbard]

hahahaha Riet you are crazy billionaires can't own robots because robots can't be owned

they each own themselves and their means of production

the profiteer merely exploits them!

 

[Optimus Prime]

you can't own property man

we are just transient consciousnesses in this little piece of space-time.

 

[Lentern]

You admitted entirely to being economically illiterate and yet you deem your own interpretation of the situation to be valid, even without understanding something as simple as unintended consequences?

You're just post-hoc creating a definition and trying to shoehorn things into it and then getting pissy when you're called on your bullshit.

Sorry, my friend, but intellectual you are not.

Am I to presume you have formally studied business? and as such you are illiterate when it comes to discussing politics/government because you haven't done any tertiary political science?

 

[Rothbard]

Am I to presume you have formally studied business? and as such you are illiterate when it comes to discussing politics/government because you haven't done any tertiary political science?

I'd posit I have a better understanding of pretty much everything compared to your idiotic attempts at disproving the entire field of economics.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

So you think those below them would be equally productive without any guidance from those in management? If so how come we don't see 'collectives' as the predominant productive force in society (given that logically a product without the overheads of huge executive bonuses would be more competitive on the marketplace)?

From an economic perspective I don't know the answer to this, to be honest. However, from a sociological perspective, hierarchy is unnecessary and restrictive. 'Management' is necessary, but those in that role needn't receive more than others. What's your answer to the question you posed?

 

[Lentern]

I'd posit I have a better understanding of pretty much everything compared to your idiotic attempts at disproving the entire field of economics.

I don't need to disprove the field of economics, economists do a fine job of it without my help. I trust you know the Churchill quote?

 

[Rothbard]

I don't need to disprove the field of economics, economists do a fine job of it without my help. I trust you know the Churchill quote?

It's like you're not even seeking psychiatric help

 

[Rothbard]

From an economic perspective I don't know the answer to this, to be honest. However, from a sociological perspective, hierarchy is unnecessary and restrictive. 'Management' is necessary, but those in that role needn't receive more than others. What's your answer to the question you posed?

Please pick up some science units to be grounded in reality kthx

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ Huh? You haven't even answered my question dude. If you want to live under some arbitrary hierarchy be my guest.

 

[Rothbard]

^ Huh? You haven't even answered my question dude. If you want to live under some arbitrary hierarchy be my guest.

Fuck off I agree with you on 99% of things with the exception of property ownership.

 

[absorber]

Well we don't tax money that rich people have stored away or something

we tax income/capital gains etc

and to make an income you have to be supplying some demand i.e. being productive

Rich people might be generally productive. But for example, a teacher contributes more to an economy than a lawyer would, outside of economic models. The point is that economic models fail to account for heaps of externalities. Just cos some rock star earns a shitload doesn't mean they benefit the economy more than someone with another job earning a fraction of their income. Yes income tax redistributes this, but my whole argument is that this is a good thing.

 

[absorber]

yeah because taxing the most productive people to help out people who refuse to work is such a good fucking idea

See, he's implying that rich people are productive for reasons other than income tax. They are, but generally not proportional to their incomes.