Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Will do

"Let them eat cake."

31 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tatetopa

 

3 hours ago, aztek said:

state A grows food for states A,B,C.  state B makes cars for states A,B,C. state C makes clothes for states A,B,C.  all pay taxes according to their income, there is  a lot less income margin for selling food and clothing than for selling cars,  management of states, aka feds, allocate tax revenue according to state needs, but according to you, states A and C are getting more than they pay, so they needs to be cut off,   now with no food and clothes where does it leave state B?? 

do you really think you are looking at big picture, and consider all variables? from your posts it sure doesn't seem that way

That is socialism pure and simple.  It is somebody in charge the "Federal Government" reallocating money from those that have it to those that don't.  I thought at least some people wanted to have a big showdown to protect our Constitution from socialism.

 

6 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

And we shouldn't try.  Accumulation of wealth is what improves the human condition, not redistribution.  The goal of humanity shouldn't be to create a better NHS, but to better the individual.  Have each individual being capable of supporting themselves and family, not burden others (government).  There is plenty of wealth to go around if we are willing to develop it, instead of stealing it.  This nation is far from perfect, but it is on the right track.

So if the people picking crops and sewing clothes can't afford cars shouldn't they get better jobs or live within their means?  If they don't earn enough money and can't pay state taxes enough to have schools,roads, fire, and police shouldn't the state do without?

 Isn't everybody being self-supporting and not a burden on others  the thing  that keeps America free and true to the Constitution as we frequently get lectured by conservatives? 

So if you didn't have this socialism on a state level, Kentucky would be free but poor until they figured out how to make more money.  That would make them a better state according to conservative doctrine right?

I don't see the difference between the state getting welfare or the guy picking the fruit or sewing the clothes getting help with medical care, but conservatives see the latter as socialism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Raptor Witness
Posted (edited)

The pre-revolution French didn’t have millions of firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens.

This is a completely different dynamic, never observed in history.

Donald Trump has forecast mass suicides, interestingly.

Edited by Raptor Witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 4/24/2020 at 4:53 PM, Tatetopa said:

I think you probably meant  redistribute in the sense of giving money to non-working or unworthy.

I meant "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".  Except that never really meets anyone’s needs.

 

Money accumulated is not the same as money working, only when it is used is it a value to the economy. 

Money accumulation is not the same as the accumulation of wealth.  I think you consider it hording??  It is not.  money accumulation is hording.  There is a difference between money and wealth.  The Wealth of Nations is used to build.  But it’s not meant to be syphoned off.  It is to be leveraged to build with.  Wealth becomes reinvested and returns more wealth.  Money is just spent and never to be seen again.

 

A million dollars buried in your backyard does no one any good. 

Correct and blindly throwing a million dollars at a problem (like welfare) does no one any good in the long term.  To properly use the accumulation of wealth requires good management skills.  The poor are usually those with lacking skills.  You bring up the parable of the talents.  There is another about teaching people how to fish (manage their money), instead of giving them fish.  You do not want people to be dependent on others.  When you have dependency, you have enslavement.  Haven't we learned that lesson?

 

When you start a business and redistribute your money to other people for their labor or skills then you are doing something. 

That is incorrect.  That is how the Left wants us to look at it.  Those that work for you, earn what they make.  you don’t give them anything.  The following is perhaps the best clip on the subject. (he's not giving a job to a boy, he's hiring a man.)

 

When you redistribute your own salary to buy clothes, groceries, a house, a car, a hair cut or whatever then you are making money work in the economy. 

Again, you are thinking about it all wrong.  The Left for some reason, can’t associate money with the power of bartering.  Money is just something to spend whether it’s theirs or not.  The free market is all about bartering.  You have something I want and I have something you’ll take in trade.  Let’s say I want a hammer you created.  Now I could probably build my own, but I find I don’t have the time to spare.  But I am willing to buy the one you built.  It’s not just the material but also the time that goes into building it (the Man-hours).  This benefits me because it saves me time and it benefits you because it recompensates your time.  We mutually benefit.  That is not redistribution.

 

Money is only a useful counter to trade what you want for what I have or what I can do.   The exchange of money is what drives me to make you a new dining table or fix your car or grow your food. That allows me to choose to work hard and grow a lot of food or buy tools to fix more cars or invest in a cabinet shop.

It’s not a “counter”.  It represents Man-hours and it leverages that for goods.  Wealth represents work through Man-hours.  It can be thrown away or it can be accumulated.  It is far more organic than a ‘counter’.

 

But I get your point,money is a way to make things happen.

Depends on what you want to make happen?  A lot of 'old money' becomes non-productive.  When that happens, then you are left with just spending money to sustain life, but in time it dwindles to nothing.  However, wealth will build a city and bring workers to it to support that city and the wealth grows.  Unfortunately, many cities are turning into 'old money'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 4/24/2020 at 8:33 PM, Tatetopa said:

So if the people picking crops and sewing clothes can't afford cars shouldn't they get better jobs or live within their means?

Yes.  We all should learn to do that.

 

If they don't earn enough money and can't pay state taxes enough to have schools,roads, fire, and police shouldn't the state do without?

That usually happens because of mismanagement.  If the state would cut taxes to stimulate wealth accumulation, in time the state would have the funds to cover those things.  A lot of waste occurs in government redistribution.

 

 Isn't everybody being self-supporting and not a burden on others  the thing  that keeps America free and true to the Constitution as we frequently get lectured by conservatives? 

Absolutely!  But the question is how to make people more self-sufficient?  It’s hard to do that in a welfare state.

 

So if you didn't have this socialism on a state level, Kentucky would be free but poor until they figured out how to make more money.  That would make them a better state according to conservative doctrine right?

In general, yes.  I don’t agree with welfare at the state level either (welfare at any level).  What the federal government has done to the states is irreprehensible.  It’s not just the southern states, but all states.  Ever since the Civil War, it has taken more powers away from the states.  We need to reverse that.  A better definition of the separation of powers between the states and the government needs to be written out.  They can begin by going back to the original intent of the 10th Amendment.  There is so much that Trump could do to force on the states during this coronavirus, but he doesn’t.  He’s been encouraging the states by giving them the power back to manage themselves.  Some have never had that luxury and they're unsure of what to do.

 

There are only five things that the government is responsible for.  One of them is the General Welfare.  Because of that, I can see the government sending an allowance to every state, but we need to revisit that term, ‘General Welfare’ and what it truly means.  The meaning from the Constitution is a state of being.  What is needed to better the people’s lives in a state?  A pork project of a train to nowhere?  Absolutely not!  Build and maintain roads, yes.  Support for first responders, yes.  That is not Socialism.  The states are still the primary source for these things but the government can make it a bit easier.  What welfare has become today is an institution of handouts (state, corporate, individual).  That creates no incentive for anyone to better themselves.  And it eventually impoverishes everybody. 

 

Now I think you can have a ‘helping hand’ as opposed to ‘handouts’.  But the thing with them is that you are on the hook to repay it back.  That debt is inherited by the next generations.  That must be included or you’ll see people take out loans and never paying them back.  Then that becomes welfare.  On paying it back, you’d have options.  One, would be to pay it back at a certain percentage (very small) and there would be generational penalties on the remaining balance.  Another would be to simply ‘Pay-it-forward’ (no interest or penalties).  You can pass on a helping hand to another in need.  If you took out 50k, then you could pay-it-forward to someone else or 10k to five others.  The point would be to encourage others to get involved in their fellow man.  It would be a perfect fit for a Constitutional Republic.  Everyone would be a Bailey Building and Loan and the accumulation of wealth would become great.

 

I don't see the difference between the state getting welfare or the guy picking the fruit or sewing the clothes getting help with medical care, but conservatives see the latter as socialism.

Neither do I.  And neither do Conservatives.  Republicans, maybe.  Again, there is this blur between the ‘state of being’ and the institution.  That is what drives me crazy with this relief bill.  Individuals are getting $1200 (and not everyone needs it).  Small business is getting excusable loans if they can keep all their employees (and some of those are returning those loans).  In another time, this is welfare.  But we are in a unique situation.  This is why Trump likens it to a war.  As a general, you need to ensure that your lines are solid.  You get the troops what they need if you can and ask them to hold out with only half of what they have.  That is not so much welfare as it is fighting for survival.  That is the state that the Left would want us in all the time, instead of being prosperous.  The difference is that in one, the Left can control their importance (needed by) with the people (Munchausen syndrome by proxy - MSBP).  It is poor leadership that doesn’t know how to lead in prosperous times.  Trump does. 

 

One of the most difficult actions to preform in war is to disengage one enemy to go fight another.  This is what Trump has done.  Like Patton, pivoted 90 degrees from the battle line, moving 100 miles to relieve Bastogne.  That is one of the greatest feats in all of history.  Trump was engaged with a tariff war with China, then pivoted to deal with covid-19, all the while being harassed by the Left.  It is spending the money for sure, but it is keeping us in the game.  In the end, China may not be standing but we will be.  China will have a lot to answer for and there will be repercussions for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That is incorrect.  That is how the Left wants us to look at it.  Those that work for you, earn what they make.  you don’t give them anything. 

BINGO!  Those that work for you earn what they make.  I never said anything differently.  In fact, Left, Right, of Middle, if somebody tells me I am lucky to have a job, my response is that they are lucky to have me working for them because I add more value in my field than most.  Am I so unclear in my writing that when I say "When you start a business and redistribute your money ..." that you think I will give people money they didn't earn or that I believe my bosses are giving me anything I don't work for and exchange equal value for?  Well, sorry if I was unclear, but no. that is not the case.

 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Again, you are thinking about it all wrong.  The Left for some reason, can’t associate money with the power of bartering. 

 Exchanging man hours for money is bartering.  Of course I, the personification of the left can see this.  .  It gives me the power of bartering with a shortcut through all of the supply deal making. 

Why should I work for a blacksmith? Maybe one day I exchange my labor for his knowledge to fix my ax.  If I think I should get my ax fixed and my knife sharpened for my days labor, that is bartering.  The blacksmith says yes or no.  I work for him or choose not to.

But the next day, what I want is food. I don't need to find a farmer who needs his plow fixed, arrange for the blacksmith to do it in trade for food and work for the blacksmith in exchange for some of that food.  We deal in money.  The farmer and blacksmith don't need me to set up their barter, they do it them selves with money.  The blacksmith pays me and I buy food from the farmer and he can buy seeds from somebody else I never met.

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s not a “counter”.  It represents Man-hours and it leverages that for goods. 

Is that not the definition of a counter?  It is a way to set values for many different entities; oranges and hours worked in a clothing factory can have a known value and equivalence through money. You know at the beginning of the day how many oranges you can buy with an hours labor.

 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Let’s say I want a hammer you created.  Now I could probably build my own, but I find I don’t have the time to spare.  But I am willing to buy the one you built.  It’s not just the material but also the time that goes into building it (the Man-hours).  This benefits me because it saves me time and it benefits you because it recompensates your time.  We mutually benefit.  That is not redistribution.

Ah, I see my problem, I said the triggering word "redistribution" without thinking of what that means to you.  For you, redistribution is something the government does.  

For me that means, I accumulate wealth by trading knowledge and labor for wealth or whatever you like to call it.  I have a pile.  I give some portions of that pile  to others in exchange for items that they have which I want.  I said redistribute, choose another word that you like better for the concept.

 

As long as we are on this topic

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

However, wealth will build a city and bring workers to it to support that city and the wealth grows.

 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Those that work for you, earn what they make.  you don’t give them anything

Here is your own answer.  Workers build a city, wealth does not build a city, it is only a means of enticing talent and marshalling forces to accomplish a task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 4/24/2020 at 10:16 AM, Will Due said:

 

"They would die under the blade of the guillotine. 

For over a hundred years Versailles stood for the power and prestige of the Bourbon dynasty.

But it also stood for a society that was fundamentally, unfair and corrupt.

Romantic, but royally debauched.

Glittering, but grotesquely unequal.

Magnificent, but profoundly immoral. 

A society who's time was up."

 

- from The Rise and Fall of Versailles 

 

 

Those words ironically, describe the situation with the would be aristocratic and self-absorbed ruling class in America today.

Out of touch with reality, selfish, arrogant and walking straight towards what just might be the beginnings of an uprising, not seen since the days of the French revolution of 1789.

How long do you think it will be before the cake gets baked that they'll have to eat too?

 

 

 

Good post Will. Inequality is not only a problem in the USA but to some extent, in much of the western world. Some of the uber wealthy themselves actually hold the same fears. History shows that once the seeds of discontent run deep enough, it doesn't take much to spark revolution. In 1916 Lenin feared a revolution wouldn't happen in his lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.