Are Total Dollars Needed To Save Lives Of Those Who Are Doomed Merely Because Of Lack of Money - Page 2 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Hypothetically if an otherwise productive worker cannot work because their arm is broken and they cannot afford to treat the injury. If they could treat the injury it would cost $x and they would produce $y more after treatment resulting in an additional $z taxation adjusted for timevalue. If $x is greater than $z the answer is very clear. This is true for things like education as well with a longer term outlook. Definitionally this is the job of the state and is basic economics as well.

Some people believe that it is a fantasy land for you to expect them to pay for anything including things that would have a greater cost over time. There are some words to these people and they include uneducated and misinformed. Don't run your country, house or business based on what they think, no matter however smart they may be in other matters, or how persuasive their arguments might be. It's just basic deductive reasoning.

Read the first line and got stuck grammatically and logically so I didn’t bother reading on. Your first “sentence” makes zero sense based on the English word “if”. It logically is a dead end and isn’t a complete sentence. Perhaps retaking 5th grade English is in order?

Quote

12-05-2021 , 09:27 AM

#27

ProblemPlaya

banned

Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 740

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken

We can designate that wherever we want, and it doesn't have to be a bell curve. It's a political determination that comes after the prior determination that any person can only be so much more deserving than another. Bezos wouldn't be on any such curve.

Who makes the determination oh wise one?

Quote

12-05-2021 , 09:29 AM

#28

ProblemPlaya

banned

Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 740

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rococo

I can't for the life of me figure what it would mean to tax wealth that is "outside the bell curve."

Nor do I understand how all wealth outside a certain range constitutes theft. I obviously understand the argument for taxing the rich more. But do you honestly think of Lebron James as a thief?

Please elaborate on this “obviously we need to tax the rich more”.

Quote

12-05-2021 , 09:44 AM

#29

ProblemPlaya

banned

Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 740

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Any limit is going to be arbitrary, there isn't some magic objective value that everybody will agree on.

Presumably, most people, except some very weird and medieval-loving monarchists, would think that one person shouldn't own everything. Presumably most people, except some very strange ideological purists, would think it is unfortunate that some people own nothing or next to nothing.

Somewhere on that scale, things start to get problematic for most.

Personally, I think it is stupid that some people have personal wealth to rival nations, while others die or severely suffer from lack of resources that is available right next to them. You don't have to be a communist in favor of radical re-distribution to take issue with economic systems that so greatly slants distribution.

You reworded a problem that is as old as time itself but you offer no solution. If you do not work, you do not eat, as the ancient writings say. People are dying in capitalist countries from lack of resources? Care to post a newspaper article citing just one case? To me the starvation is in third world countries ruled by mobs with guns who take over farms, resources, and people with the threat of death. The best people from first world countries go over there to feed them the best they can.

How many people in first world countries own nothing? Give me a percentage, a guess. Is the fate of the poor in first world countries getting better or worse? Don’t react on primal emotions but look at reality. Do most poor people own cell phones in first world countries? Refrigerators? TVs? Cars? Do they die of starvation in first world countries? OBVIOUSLY NOT!

Why is this? Because the wealthy took a part in creating wealth. Because the wealthy created jobs. How? It’s called capitalism. Google it.

Quote

12-05-2021 , 09:46 AM

#30

ProblemPlaya

banned

Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 740

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

+1.

Why not just apply a Nash equilibrium (gto solution) to the problem of distribution of wealth ?
Pretty clear to me the market can’t do it by Itself , guess it is up to the government to elaborate the pie distribution but then, government just need to get the fack out of the market once the pie distribution is in place .

How is your idea new? How is it , in any way or intention, different than communism?

Quote

12-05-2021 , 09:50 AM

#31

ProblemPlaya

banned

Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 740

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14cobster

Perhaps this post is naive and slightly off-topic, but I think it is stupid that there isn't some basic minimum level of shelter for anyone in the U.S. without a home. Basically, a clean bed, plumbing and heating. Obvious considerations are that too many people might opt for that type of living and the economy would be greatly damaged, or the cost would be too great, which I don't believe. But perhaps there could be a max number of beds available or number of homeless housed, such that people have to get rotated in and out if necessary. Of course some microcosm of this might exist in certain areas already (although the recent John Oliver episode on homelessness seems to suggest otherwise?), but I think it should be large-scale, federally funded if necessary (presumably so) and widely available.

Even if in an individual case someone is genuinely homeless on account of their "laziness", as a common stereotype goes, I'd still rather this person be able to sleep indoors in a room with sufficient heat, and plumbing while I go to work until I retire and live my modestly (compared to many Americans, according to me) materialistic life, and hopefully not be bitter about it. Also, as we well know, many homeless people actually are working, or trying to find work and just can't make ends meet in their specific situation.

And hypothetically if you could magically shave off excess billions of the uber rich in America to easily cover the cost, I think that would be great and they obviously wouldn't suffer AT ALL for it save for some bitterness about it. Anything over a 100 million (just random guess number) for one's personal pleasures or pride or whatever is pretty excessive. Just a few million of completely disposable spending money in my mind is already absurd. Honestly wouldn't know what to do except not work my ho-hum job and do some fancy stuff here and there or something?

Do you feel pretty embarrassed, seeing the state of the economy right now with people not working, asking this question?

Quote

12-05-2021 , 09:53 AM

#32

ProblemPlaya

banned

Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 740

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken

That's a tough question. Lebron is, for all practical purposes, singularly great at basketball and he generates a huge amount of transfers toward his organization and appears to do so by way of merit.

I don't have a great response, but I would view Lebron as a meritorious earner within an organization or within a complex of organizations (sneaker companies, media companies etc) which benefit from monopolies and built in advantages and which have resulted in accumulations which would be outliers in a politically determined model or curve. Lebron isn't stealing just like some 10k a night hooker isn't stealing from some sheik paying for her. She's earning it, but the Sheik didn't. All the Sheiks gotta go.

A YouTube video I kinda like is of this soccer player, presumably the best in the world, who dresses up like a soccer bum and starts doing some tricks in a public square. He is doing his best stuff, all amazing, and trying to get people to play with him. Despite his skill nobody is lining up to watch and most seem embarrassed to be approached by him. Eventually the rouse is spoiled when he signs an autograph and a huge crowd starts to form. This illustrates that what Lebron does and the demand to see him do it is very much a product with a lot of investment behind it, not some pure thing that has inherent appeal coming from Lebron himself (though it is marketed as such).

You’re actually on the right capitalistic track. Speak more of this investment behind pro athletes that makes them attractive to the masses……go on…..your logic might hang you. A socialist proven wrong by his own thoughts.

Quote

12-05-2021 , 10:07 AM

#33

RFlushDiamonds

cool

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 5,969

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProblemPlaya

LOL

Job creation is an expense any capitalist worth his salt would gladly do without.

Quote

12-05-2021 , 10:09 AM

#34

ProblemPlaya

banned

Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 740

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken

Once you have a model of what human beings can contribute and what they can deserve at the outer limits, and you have an amount from which it is designated fair game to redistribute, there are different schemes that come to mind. My preference would be to try to pin it not to a happiness index but to an opportunity index. I think most people want to live in a world where everyone can fulfill their potential. That's not only good for the individual, but we all benefit when people are allowed to advance humanity or save it through their contributions. Of course, the ideal of everyone living up to their potential is pie in the sky. But we could give people the infrastructure and the resource prerequisites such that an arbitrary number of people believed they had a realistic chance to reach their potential (even if they didn't actually reach it). We could set that percentage at what some study might suggest is the percentage of people who would naturally be willing and able to take advantage. And we could invest resources differentially based on sub groups of people who might have particular resource deficiencies.

So say that number is 80%. We take the extra money above and beyond what we know are the limits of human talent (like Bezos is a talented guy at the far end of the spectrum but let's be honest he is a retail merchant who has made no individual contribution equivalent to his holdings) and we invest it towards factors we know will promote the realization of human potential to a level such that 80% of people feel satisfied with their opportunity. This would obviously include health care and other kinds of benefits which would provide the bare minimum needed to compete somewhat fairly in a market economy.

Here, let me help you rephrase that. One of your masters has already worded it juuuust right

https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...921/oct/17.htm

Quote

12-05-2021 , 10:17 AM

#35

ProblemPlaya

banned

Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 740

Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceman Bryce

I’m convinced a Ubi would be good. We have too many systems where the people who need help the most fall through the cracks or go to jail. If the rules were everyone gets 3k a month, period. No exceptions. Then those people would be free to stop shooting each other over 5 dollars and start producing things they WANT to do instead of things they have to do.

Yeah because we all know dumping millions of dollars into something changes everything! Amirite? Do you know the history of the Kansas City Missouri public schools that got millions in extra funding? Care to guess the results?

Quote

12-05-2021 , 10:22 AM

#36

ProblemPlaya

banned

Join Date: Feb 2021 Posts: 740

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds

LOL

Job creation is an expense any capitalist worth his salt would gladly do without.

A capitalist, doing his job, can’t help but create jobs. It’s the only logical conclusion to creating wealth. It’s inevitable.

Quote

12-05-2021 , 01:44 PM

#37

Cuepee

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 17,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProblemPlaya

Please elaborate on this “obviously we need to tax the rich more”.

That is elaborated on at length here along with a poll.

And yes, it is obvious.

Quote

12-05-2021 , 02:22 PM

#38

RFlushDiamonds

cool

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 5,969

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProblemPlaya

A capitalist, doing his job, can’t help but create jobs. It’s the only logical conclusion to creating wealth. It’s inevitable.

A capitalist doing his job may create jobs or may destroy jobs.

Creating wealth has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism has to do with who owns the means of production which is political and macro in scope.
And while it's a very good system is some ways it's also a predictably flawed on in some. The problem is, one mans flaw is another man's easy money.

Quote

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last