When do you consider someone "wealthy" or "rich"?

And you're the master! I get it. You miss the olden timey days.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Being disingenuous again I see. Consistent at least. Are you for a system where Jeeves is not a "servant". Has he shown any "leadership" ability or a grasp for a better system? Or does he just want to argue about the "evils" of "interest".

What system are you imagining where Jeeves wouldn't consider himself a "servant"?

Don't you miss the days when everyone wasn't a little whinny bitch?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not at all. I was quite serious that you see yourself as a master type and Jeeves as a servant. And then you go and prove it:

"Has he shown any "leadership" ability or a grasp for a better system?"
"What system are you imagining where Jeeves wouldn't consider himself a "servant"? "
So thank you for that.

Nothing has changed other than your perceptions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've seen you take my exact same argument when people (probably Jeeves) was arguing that venture capitalists weren't really "working" and that the only worker that matters is a "hard worker" working for wages.

You pointed out that working "smart" is more important and you pointed out that venture capitalists do work and provide value and that they are why the economy is growing.

Now all of a sudden you are talking about me being the "masta" and all the other nonsense. You know our system isn't one with "master and servant" as Jeeves complains about so ...you are being disingenuous.

 

?? That nonsense came from you. You are the one who called Jeeves the servant. Are you going to retract that now? (probably be a good idea actually)

You are the one who claimed he was a servant.

 

I didn't bring up the "master and servant" concept. He did. He isn't complaining about being a master, therefore he must be the servant.

Really, use your brain a little.

 

And since you called him a servant, you must agree with his system - making you the master.

Again, if you don't like dividing up the world that way - don't divide the world that way.

 

I didn't.

Are you looking for things to be offended by? "Jeeves Lives Matter".

 

It's right there in your post. You can't deny it.

Look, you said something stupid; we all do it on occasion. But now you are doubling down on what you said and digging that hole deeper and deeper, and you are looking like an idiot. Why not just admit it was a dumb thing to say and move on? Can you do that?

 

Why do wingnuts make such stupid assumptions about people they don't know instead of dealing with the arguments in front of their noses?

Check out the New Deal solution to that - it's called "progressive" income taxation (capital gains being a form of income). The US used to have that, before Reaganomics torpedoed its economy.

No, you don't. Not unless some dingbat Supply Side tax policy or the like has replaced the common sense New Deal arrangements.

I have no tribe - you are projecting again.
And if you don't want money to go to people who haven't "earned" it (does raising children and maintaining a household count as "earning"? How about having worked for forty years to the benefit of your entire community? ) then fine - but don't let rich people accumulate money they haven't "earned" either.

btw: As all Christians know from a very young age, all money belongs to the government, or "Caesar". It's all "somebody else's money".

Fifty years of the New Deal and forty of Reaganomics is not "cherry picking" - and the Reaganomics era is not yet history only.

I make no such claims, of course - quite the opposite. You should read posts rather than indulge in wingnut fantasies.
Meanwhile, plenty of wealthy men are no good at making money and many poor men are very good at it. Which did you mean by "you guys"?

An economic policy that generated the most dramatic gain in prosperity for its society the world has ever seen.

 

Your tribe of wingnuts brought up McGovern. How did that go?

 

It wasn't a dumb thing to say. Do you understand the concept of context?

 

I'm not going to be in any model.
Is that your most cogent argument for an unsustainable economic system?

 

So far it's pretty sustainable. What system are you thinking of that is more sustainable?
It doesn't really matter though does it if you're not going to be in any model. If you are currently outside the economy as we know it, then you have what you want.

 

I guess not. Have fun digging!

 

Like Windows 8. It lasted a couple of centuries during which it crashed a dozen times, ruining millions of human lives, extirpating thousands of other entire species, devastating three continents. When it runs out of Earth to devour, it dies. There is no possibility of infinite growth on a finite planet.
The inside of your bubble looks all rainbowy, so you think it reflects the world.

 

Your solution is?

 

Haven't I said? Lower the doomed edifice. It's going to collapse, anyway. The less controlled the implosion, the more casualties. While a maximum of dead humans would be good for the planet and the future, I can't [because of sentiment] recommend that route: I would prefer to see a sensible 5-step plan to move from capitalist expansionism to a variety of down-scaled, decentralized anarcho-socialist arrangements, suited to the conditions and cultural preference of each locality.

 

Is this a subtle brag thread? *grabs popcorn*

 

Do you have any good examples of a higher quality of life in a "scaled, decentralized anarcho-socialist arrangement"? Or do you have an example of such an arrangement period?