Money doesn't go to the pocket as if you don't reinvest it it becomes useless due to inflation depriving it of value.
there isn't any incentive for companies not to continue automating jobs If automating caused unemployment less people could buy what they're offering and their profits would decrease.
Again, the profits these people make come from the public paying them for commodities they accommodate the production of with the profits they make, taking their profits means they can't produce as much commodities as people want which will not only result in less of what everyone wants but them having less profits for you to take as they'll sell less of what everyone wants.
As for the automation paranoia, companies can't sustain their assets or exist without a stream of revenue which wouldn't exist if everyone is unemployed as people wouldn't be able to buy what they offer, meaning that automation can only exist while people have a source of income. Even if automation caused unemployment new businesses would develop as the only thing that is required in order to establish a business is people who are willing to work and buy, unemployed people fit both categories.
Which males can do things which females can do and which females can do things which males can do? there're certainly traits that're prevalent at different capacities among the female and male populations and there're in fact things that only males/females can do.
A business does what it perceives to be most profitable, losing potential customers due to them not having the capital needed in order to be customers as they're unemployed and have no source of income isn't profitable, therefore if automation really led to mass unemployment there wouldn't be any automation.
Even if automation did lead to mass unemployment, the means by which businesses were established in the first place won't disappear, the only thing a business relies on are people that are willing to trade their work in return for a wage and buy its produce, unemployed people fit both categories and therefore new businesses will be established.
Well, they do rely on their own form of logic. They claim that as reality is up to interpretation the only possible reason for inequality is oppression as there's no reason for someone to form a reality in which he is less successful than someone else.They attribute this philosophy to ideas as well (there is no reason for an idea to be more prominent than another other than oppression), thus cultural relativism. The thing is, this philosophy is an idea in and of itself and as such they can't claim that it is more true than objectivism because according to them the truth is subjective and in order to not be oppressors (according to themselves) they must attribute equal truthness to objectivism. They are wrong Even in the confines of their own deranged form of logic.
A) I wrote general universal preferences, not unanimous universal preferences. Meaning I'm referring to what most people generally want, not what everyone wants.
B) I don't believe you're an elected representative of the modern left and in fact, Cultural Relativism as I described it, is promoted by the modern left as I'm a sociology student and what I wrote is exactly what I was taught.
D) My argument is against the acceptance of every cultural behavior, and in no way did you refute my argument. Do you believe we should accept every cultural behavior?
Did you notice that virtually all your counter arguments are premised on ignoring the actual content of the original argument and focusing on subtleties?
FDR's was a bad US president, his reinforcement of monopolies devoided the market of competition, that coupled with government sanctioned wages led to mass unemployment and extreme price hikes. All in all he is estimated to have prolonged the great depression by about 3 years.
Excluding the fact that high marginal tax rate effects only the top percent of income earners, Eisenhower's goal was to pay off the national debt, there was no government organized health insurance or housing under his terms as president and he has stated publicly that the governments goal should be to keep taxes as low as possible.
There is no "too high" the higher the tax rate the more stagnated the economy is.
If the article was regarding a substitute for the current medicare program a saving of $592 billion annually wouldn't be possible because the total amount of money that is currently spent on medicare in the US is only bout $590 billion. This article is obviously discussing ways to bring down the cost of the bill I mentioned.
We aren't even close to what?
The bill that is discussed in the article in the second link you sent me is Bernie Sander's "Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act" which currently hasn't passed congress, this medicare program is speculated to cost 1.4 trillion USD Annually. When the author discusses half a trillion dollars in savings he's speculating that the cost of this medicare program (that hasn't been enacted yet) could be reduced by said amount of money. I hope you understand that an increase of a trillion dollars in annual government spending isn't viable.
You linked me a 44 page PDF, I'm not going to read it. You can paste the parts where it states how free education isn't going to increase the national debt and nullify the economic stagnation funding it will cause, if you want.
A) The government isn't making enough tax revenue to substantiate all the existing and speculative social benefits you want, which leads it to take loans that it obviously can't cover, which will lead to a recession which will degrade our living standards into oblivion.
B) The economic stagnation that is caused by the extensive taxation that the government partakes in order to cover the existing social benefits is degrading our living standards to the extent that we would be better off without said social benefits and by extension taxation as we would be free to spend our money.
Oh god the irony, nowhere have I stated that socialism or communism necessitates expanding the state, effectively making your argument a straw man. Other than that, as you seem to advocate communism, here is my argument against it:
As far as I understand communism is a societal state in which each member of society contributes the entirety of their labor to a common inventory which each member of society has equal access to. If that is the case can I take more than I contribute to the common inventory? If true that means someone else is left with less than he contributed in which case why would that person want to be part of a communist society? Can I only take as much as I contribute? if that is the case why be part of a communist society in the first place?
Do I seriously need to explain why high tax rates stagnate the economy? please educate yourself.
Oh and here's the definition of a straw man so you stop randomly accusing me of using one.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/
First of all it should go into paying off the national debt obviously, and after that it shouldn't exist, taxation should be reduced and kept to a minimum, so does government spending.
Again, you're ignoring the fact that:
A) The government isn't making enough tax revenue to substantiate all the existing and speculative social benefits you want, which leads it to take loans that it obviously can't cover, which will lead to a recession which will degrade our living standards into oblivion.
B) The economic stagnation that is caused by the extensive taxation that the government partakes in order to cover the existing social benefits is degrading our living standards to the extent that we would be better off without said social benefits and be extension taxation as we would be free to spend our money.
If we increase the corporate tax rate the corporation will move to countries with lower corporate tax rate and we'd lose both the corporations to tax and the employment they bring.
The taxation that is required in order to fund your failing safety net is stagnating the economy to the extent that people would be better off (living standards wise) without it. Not to mention that Your government doesn't even make enough tax revenue to pay for it, it relies on loans that it obviously can't pay, which will eventually lead to a recession. Oh, and Prove that people would've died without your safety net.
And to think you told me I'm ignorant of the reality of modern western economic systems. Countries rack up national debt in the way of the government spending more money than it collects by taxation, and on what does the government spend the most? welfare and social programs. Other than that you're operating on the assumption that living standards will decrease as a result of the government ceasing it's social programs, which isn't the case.
Yes indeed, each and every modern western society is, in fact, your blend of socialism and capitalism, and almost each and every modern western society is racking up national debt at an exponential rate, which is inevitably going to lead to a global recession.
The argument you present here shows a level of ignorance of the reality of modern western economic systems that it's hard to know where to start.
Capitalism with very few regulation and laws that prevent cronyism is what works best. It fails hard when people give the government power over the market which Inevitably leads to corporations using the government as a pawn to tighten their grip over the market. - that's precisely the opposite of what really works, and it's what we're seeing right now.
See? I can do this too, so do you want to continue spewing your beliefs without backing them in any way shape or from? because it amounts to nothing.
Your insinuation that my argument is a refutation of an argument you didn't make in order to ridicule an argument you did apparently make thus making my argument a straw man is a straw man in and of itself. My argument is unrelated to you or anything you've said, it's a claim that may or may not be true in fact.
So do the rich do posses some object that can be passed around and allows them to generate wealth?
Excluding the fact that you ignored my point and focused on marginal allegories i gave in order to explain my point, production isn't the creation of new material, it's the acquisition and/or rearrangement of material.
My point is that the rich don't posses some object that can be passed around and allows them to generate wealth, they simply invest in the production of goods, something that everyone can do.
Quantumhead,
Yes, the people thought "being subjugated to the will of one man's right by bloodline and/or conquest to rule over their life and death, worked" in the sense of protection from foreign invaders that would not only subjugate them but kill them and steal their produce. Remember, democracy wasn't even a concept back then, it was slowly developed as oligarchy slowly died after decades of trial and error. If you asked a medieval peasant if he supports the king, he would most likely say he does as the king provides order and protection. Do you think anyone could forcefully rule over someone else for an elongated period of time? where does someone's prowess over someone else even come from? the king is one while the people are many. why do you think the British are so proud of their queen if oligarchy is solely a symbol of oppression?
other than that, i'd like to know how you highlight text if you don't mind informing me.
Quantumhead,
Yes, everything moves forward, but through slow pragmatism, people constantly try new things and what fails dies out while what works better stays. Virtually no positive progression ever came from a swift and forceful implementation of anything.
