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.
