331–340 of 459 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Superdelegates shouldn't have existed in the first place. It's antidemocratic. You are the epitomy of what happened during the election - bullying and deciding on how the election should go for others. All the media and political establishment took Hillary's side. If they treated them equally he would have won.
Sanders would still have lost if there were no superdelegates.
It's the wrong angle. One should not look at corporations as the moral saviours. As Supreme Court Judge Learned Hand once said: "Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing 851*851 sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, n…
> It's the wrong angle. One should not look at corporations as the moral saviours. It's too late. You're arguing a return to the past, "money is just money, corporations are just doing what's in their self interest." That's still the dominant ideology, but it's on the wane. It will be replaced when cash is replaced. Cash will be replaced by bonds. I won't pay McDonalds in cash for a burger, I will pay them in a bond…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Justice" means upholding laws? Most of the world has signed conventions that makes basic livelihood a right -- and puts it on the state to ensure this. Perhaps you don't agree with these laws and conventions. But please consider that the very concept of "ownership" and "property" is also something that is only upheld by laws. Also on a pragmatic level, why should those without property acknowledge and support a stat…
> to social unrest / revolutions that causes problems for rich people as well. Some problems for sure, but it's probably manageable. Poverty is not and should never be an excuse for crime. Rich people can build as many prisons as necessary.
You are one of the people for whom they build gulags.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If a company doesn't use these tax-avoidance means, it becomes uncompetitive and gets eaten by those, that do. I don't understand why that would be the case.
Well, why do they do it? To save costs. If they have lower costs than you doing the same thing, it will eventually cost you your business.
There is perhaps an indirect link to competitiveness in that a company can retain profits and use them down the road to take over other companies, which may strengthen their position in the market. Another such indirect link is that profitability affects the company's ability to raise capital.
But what I believe is that it's not so much the company itself that cannot afford to pay higher taxes, it's the management team. If a CEO doesn't optimize taxes for the benefit of owners/investors, that CEO could be replaced by someone who does.
Since there are no top level comments putting this out for probably obvious reasons, here is a supportive comment for the article. This is what people feel in their guts when they drive out on tattered roads and avoid going to the hospital even though they are sick, when they don't have a real increase in wages but are working longer hours. They have the sense that something isn't right, that there are two sets of ru…
It does show how bad things in the US have gotten though...
Since there are no top level comments putting this out for probably obvious reasons, here is a supportive comment for the article. This is what people feel in their guts when they drive out on tattered roads and avoid going to the hospital even though they are sick, when they don't have a real increase in wages but are working longer hours. They have the sense that something isn't right, that there are two sets of ru…
The USA has similar areas - often much larger, usually with very similar outcomes. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per... and compare it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... and you can see that if all the state where their own country, the USA would have the richest by GDP PP per capita (DC), as well as Mississippi, a state that would hover around Slovenian levels of wealth.
That's the thing that as an Australian I never understood. The USA - the United States of America - varies so greatly by state. We don't have that - most countries don't. Even when there is variance, UK with London, north and south of Spain and Italy, it is not quite so dramatic.
Back to the example of Singapore, I expect most everyone in Connecticut (GDP PPP per capita of $64,511, population 3.576 million) to have very similar results to Singapore. I don't expect South Carolinans (GDP PPP per capita $37,063, population 4.961 million) to have anywhere near the same results.
The angst in America is a uniquely MASSIVE country phenomenon - hits somewhere north of 100 million mark would be my guess - maybe even higher. People in Milan don't compare themselves and their outcomes to those in Berlin, even though they share an economic zone, but people in Idaho do compare their lot to Silicon Valley.
I don't have an answer BTW, just a vague notion that large countries have it tough - and that China will likely face similar issues in the very near term, as first world level economies like Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin are compared with the outcomes for Gansu (which has Ghanaian levels of GDP PPP per capita - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative...).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, let's set aside for a moment your personal politics, since compassion is clearly not a concept you're likely to grasp right now. As a practical matter, what do you think happens to any society that suffers a class divide severe enough that (a) the majority of the citizenry ends up in the underclass and (b) being in the underclass sucks badly enough to really piss people off? Societies need to take care of their c…
"As a practical matter, what do you think happens to any society that suffers a class divide severe enough that (a) the majority of the citizenry ends up in the underclass and (b) being in the underclass sucks badly enough to really piss people off?" It has a violent revolution. But your question contains an unstated assumption: that capitalism leads to "the majority of the citizenry [ending] up in the underclass". F…
No, not capitalism specifically, and that's not a claim I made. (Unless of course you believe that capitalism necessarily leads to the exploitation of the poor.)
> That was the century of the industrial revolution, huge advances in technology and wealth production, and an unprecedented rise in the standard of living.
Even if I agreed with your premise, is it your argument here that those things happened because of libertarianism? Because (a) historians would disagree with you, and (b), you're still stuck with the same problem as every other libertarian: where are all of the 21st century libertarian utopias then? Is it in Galt's Gulch, Chile (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bn53b3/atlas-mugged-922-v...)? Is it somewhere in Antarctica, one of few (barely) habitable places on Earth with no government? Is it Mauritius? Liberia? Colorado Springs (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/30/colorado-...)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxes are the rent you pay to live in the society you live in.
Do I have a choice? If not, then I am robbed. I don’t disagree with the idea of taxes, just with the way they are stolen from me and with most of the purposes they are used for.
Of course, you won't do this, cause you like living with people. You like living in cities but cities cannot run without roads, piers, planning, etc. And you like being safe, knowing if people hurt you or take your stuff they'll be punished, if your house catches on fire it'll be turned off, and if you're out late at night the sidewalk will be lit so you can find your way back home.
You have the choice, it just doesn't seem like one because not living in society is just not worth it.
A publication using "the 1%" in the context of "the global elite" means what exactly? A salary slightly north of $30k/yr lands you in the global elite club of the 1%.