Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kittamaru, Jan 28, 2018.
Sorry I must have missed something. What are you referring to? (see bold)
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yeah, some people like semantic arguments over popular usage.
Language use has certainly evolved over the years ... who knows... one day they may install "Jenvy" as the shorthand for both words and not bother with the creative possibility of a more complex language...
or just use an emote instead...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There are considerable expenses involved in layoffs, especially of fairly high level employees. Pfizer just got a tax break, and used it in part to cover them. A tax break justified as encouraging hiring was used to abet layoffs.
All "definitions" are not equal, or equivalent, or even accurate (especially online). Jealousy is not a synonym for envy, in your usage here. You don't appear to know what the word means. Get a good dictionary (I listed two), one with usage advice, figure it out.
No one was arguing but you. The rest of us were just posting information.
You are confusing yourself with slop rhetoric, including using words whose meanings you don't know, to conceal your errors from yourself as well as others, and allow you to post irrelevancies and prevent clear discussion. Like this:
See: no, it isn't.
Giving those tax breaks to large drug companies and their upper level executives was a bad idea, with counterproductive consequences, as illustrated by the OP example. That's partly because US drug companies are flush with cash already, so none of the benefits of boosting their cash supply are likely to be significant. That will be easier to see once you have straightened out whatever is confusing you about "zero sum economy" that prevents observation of accumulated wealth and its effects.
Depends on the severance structure.
So you're the arbiter of what I meant?
Sounds like a straw man.
I sure hope these ego displays make you feel good.
Such displays do nothing for me. But I'm just a primate. Maybe we have more hardy egos.
Stock buy-backs do not increase capital. They get rid of underutilized capital.
Who said it would boost their cash supply?
Again, how does accumulation hurt a non-zero-sum economy?
It's okay if you don't know.
And fifty other factors. But it's not cheap. Congress saved them a lot of money - their investment in Congressmen paid off.
Again: As described above, in the first place, right in front of you, including links to excellent books on that exact topic - long, exhaustively detailed, professional explications of what anyone with any sense already knows: when too few people own too much of the wealth, economies stagnate, government representation erodes. And that is inevitable, under capitalism, unless prevented.
Perhaps conditions should be attached to "tax breaks" that ensure the intended objective is achieved.
So you want me to buy some books you like?
Non-zero-sum means that new wealth can be generated independent of existing wealth.
Nothing wrong with the library. Or accept the information here.
That makes no sense. Also, it would be irrelevant - we're talking about where the wealth accumulates, not where it's generated. That's kind of the central issue, that difference. I doubt Wyatt up there ever personally generated a net nickle, for example.
Non-zero-sum literally means more money can be generated (not a fixed amount). Otherwise it is a zero-sum game.
If new wealth can be generated, it doesn't matter if it accumulates.
And the more new wealth that can be generated, the less value the accumulated wealth has.
That's an idiosyncratic take, but serviceable here - and of course completely irrelevant.
The matter of where it accumulates is central, the predominant matter at issue.
Unless prevented, new wealth behaves as all the other new wealth of the past behaved in a given economic setup - and if it accumulates too much at the top, that ruins the economy and the civilization.
And that has been the common experience of history, as well as the current direction of the US.
I guess you can't account for it.
If it's out of circulation, why does it matter where it accumulates?
Isn't it the money in circulation that mostly effects the economy?
Really? New entrepreneurs hoard their money instead of building their business?
Again, how does it matter where it accumulates?
If wealth accumulates at the top, the economy stagnates and democratic governance is damaged.
When wealth accumulates at the top, the economy stagnates and democratic governance is damaged.
Accumulation of wealth at the top damages the economy. We all become less prosperous in consequence. I listed a couple of ways this happens, and linked you to books on the topic.
If it's not circulating it's not circulating. "Just because" doesn't make it an issue.
Didn't you just say...
You seem to need lots of repetition. You keep babbling about "circulating" - slower money circulation is just one of the many stagnating effects of top-heavy wealth distribution.
Your claim doesn't make it so. But if you don't want to justify your claim, that's up to you.
I would have thought it would be pretty straight forward...
1000 USD each in the control/hands of 1 million people will move around a lot more with lots and lots of relatively small transactions = non-stagnant economy.
1000 million USD in the control/hands of one. = stagnant economy
Thus sharing the power ( money) equitably among the entire population leads to a vital, vibrant and active economy.
It is really about purchasing power and if confined to only a few then.....uhm... only a few can do most of the buying...
So IMO IceAura is entirely correct in stating:
"When wealth accumulates at the top, the economy stagnates and democratic governance is damaged."
One could go on to say similar:
"When power accumulates at the top, the economy stagnates and democratic governance is damaged." (USA administration/government as it stands currently IMO)
perhaps I am over simplifying it or mistaken entirely...?
Also extreme financial diversity leads to the need for a more "point of gun" regulation, active police force and military to enforce the oppression generated upon the majority. (re: North Korea, Venezuela etc)
Dis-empowerment leads to poor voter turnout/interest and translates into a diminished democratic function.
Top heavy situations are terribly inefficient and historically unsustainable, when talking about positive societal outcomes. (See Pre/post French Revolution)
Specific posted circumstances and links to multiple sources of detailed professional analysis on that claim alone, earlier in this thread alone, outweigh the sum total of everything you've posted in the past month on any topic in any thread. But you seem to need lots of repetition of the basic points, on top of that. So I oblige.
"Adversity" ? Just guessing.
Have I been here a month? That doesn't sound right.
Separate names with a comma.