Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Progressivism is opposed to Socialism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:20:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have said this before, I will say it again, I will say it many times. Besides the Capitalism system itself, there has been no greater enemy to the cause of Socialism than that of Progressivism.

In a thread I made before, I went over how it has only been used to calm the masses during time of unrest against Capitalism.

In this thread, my primary point in is on taxation. Let me make this perfectly clear, ALL TAXES ARE TAXES ON THE POOR. It is as obvious as night and day. When the poor folk are taxed, that is that. When rich folk are taxed they will raise prices, lower wages, lay off workers, raise rent, etc, etc, etc.

Taxing the rich cannot fix the problem, the only way to do it is to take away the power they have to get their plunder in the first place.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:31:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tell it like it is, Brother Freedo.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:31:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:20:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I have said this before, I will say it again, I will say it many times. Besides the Capitalism system itself, there has been no greater enemy to the cause of Socialism than that of Progressivism.

In a thread I made before, I went over how it has only been used to calm the masses during time of unrest against Capitalism.

In this thread, my primary point in is on taxation. Let me make this perfectly clear, ALL TAXES ARE TAXES ON THE POOR. It is as obvious as night and day. When the poor folk are taxed, that is that. When rich folk are taxed they will raise prices, lower wages, lay off workers, raise rent, etc, etc, etc.

Taxing the rich cannot fix the problem, the only way to do it is to take away the power they have to get their plunder in the first place.

So, you advocate getting the state out of economics, then? :P
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:36:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:31:47 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:20:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I have said this before, I will say it again, I will say it many times. Besides the Capitalism system itself, there has been no greater enemy to the cause of Socialism than that of Progressivism.

In a thread I made before, I went over how it has only been used to calm the masses during time of unrest against Capitalism.

In this thread, my primary point in is on taxation. Let me make this perfectly clear, ALL TAXES ARE TAXES ON THE POOR. It is as obvious as night and day. When the poor folk are taxed, that is that. When rich folk are taxed they will raise prices, lower wages, lay off workers, raise rent, etc, etc, etc.

Taxing the rich cannot fix the problem, the only way to do it is to take away the power they have to get their plunder in the first place.

So, you advocate getting the state out of economics, then? :P

Absolutely.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:36:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:36:00 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:31:47 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:20:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I have said this before, I will say it again, I will say it many times. Besides the Capitalism system itself, there has been no greater enemy to the cause of Socialism than that of Progressivism.

In a thread I made before, I went over how it has only been used to calm the masses during time of unrest against Capitalism.

In this thread, my primary point in is on taxation. Let me make this perfectly clear, ALL TAXES ARE TAXES ON THE POOR. It is as obvious as night and day. When the poor folk are taxed, that is that. When rich folk are taxed they will raise prices, lower wages, lay off workers, raise rent, etc, etc, etc.

Taxing the rich cannot fix the problem, the only way to do it is to take away the power they have to get their plunder in the first place.

So, you advocate getting the state out of economics, then? :P

Absolutely.

I'm fine with that. I'm waiting for the other part which I won't like.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:38:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:20:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
When rich folk are taxed they will raise prices, lower wages, lay off workers, raise rent, etc, etc, etc.

Common misconception.

Businesses don't set their prices.

If businesses could raise prices without affecting their profits negatively, they would have already done that.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:40:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:38:32 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:20:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
When rich folk are taxed they will raise prices, lower wages, lay off workers, raise rent, etc, etc, etc.

Common misconception.

Businesses don't set their prices.

If businesses could raise prices without affecting their profits negatively, they would have already done that.

Well, they have the ability to do that within a certain range.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:43:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:40:42 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:38:32 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:20:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
When rich folk are taxed they will raise prices, lower wages, lay off workers, raise rent, etc, etc, etc.

Common misconception.

Businesses don't set their prices.

If businesses could raise prices without affecting their profits negatively, they would have already done that.

Well, they have the ability to do that within a certain range.

Businesses certainly have the ability to do so, but only by affecting themselves negatively. Assuming the prices were already set at optimal rates, raising the price of a good would bring in less money.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:51:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:36:36 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:36:00 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:31:47 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:20:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I have said this before, I will say it again, I will say it many times. Besides the Capitalism system itself, there has been no greater enemy to the cause of Socialism than that of Progressivism.

In a thread I made before, I went over how it has only been used to calm the masses during time of unrest against Capitalism.

In this thread, my primary point in is on taxation. Let me make this perfectly clear, ALL TAXES ARE TAXES ON THE POOR. It is as obvious as night and day. When the poor folk are taxed, that is that. When rich folk are taxed they will raise prices, lower wages, lay off workers, raise rent, etc, etc, etc.

Taxing the rich cannot fix the problem, the only way to do it is to take away the power they have to get their plunder in the first place.

So, you advocate getting the state out of economics, then? :P

Absolutely.

I'm fine with that. I'm waiting for the other part which I won't like.

I don't see what you should have a problem with if I want it without violence.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:54:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:43:48 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:40:42 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:38:32 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:20:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
When rich folk are taxed they will raise prices, lower wages, lay off workers, raise rent, etc, etc, etc.

Common misconception.

Businesses don't set their prices.

If businesses could raise prices without affecting their profits negatively, they would have already done that.

Well, they have the ability to do that within a certain range.

Businesses certainly have the ability to do so, but only by affecting themselves negatively. Assuming the prices were already set at optimal rates, raising the price of a good would bring in less money.

That doesn't really account for situations where prices from manufacturers are raised. Under those circumstances, businesses are going to lose profit either way--they just have to decide whether it's because of raising prices (and losing money from customers) or keeping prices the same (and losing money by selling a particular product or set of products at a loss).
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:55:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:51:57 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:36:36 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:36:00 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:31:47 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:20:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I have said this before, I will say it again, I will say it many times. Besides the Capitalism system itself, there has been no greater enemy to the cause of Socialism than that of Progressivism.

In a thread I made before, I went over how it has only been used to calm the masses during time of unrest against Capitalism.

In this thread, my primary point in is on taxation. Let me make this perfectly clear, ALL TAXES ARE TAXES ON THE POOR. It is as obvious as night and day. When the poor folk are taxed, that is that. When rich folk are taxed they will raise prices, lower wages, lay off workers, raise rent, etc, etc, etc.

Taxing the rich cannot fix the problem, the only way to do it is to take away the power they have to get their plunder in the first place.

So, you advocate getting the state out of economics, then? :P

Absolutely.

I'm fine with that. I'm waiting for the other part which I won't like.

I don't see what you should have a problem with if I want it without violence.

If it's a bad idea, I would have a problem with it.

What is the other part?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 1:56:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:54:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That doesn't really account for situations where prices from manufacturers are raised. Under those circumstances, businesses are going to lose profit either way--they just have to decide whether it's because of raising prices (and losing money from customers) or keeping prices the same (and losing money by selling a particular product or set of products at a loss).

They would absorb the cost, why would they raise the prices? They'd lose money twice.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 2:08:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:56:04 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:54:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That doesn't really account for situations where prices from manufacturers are raised. Under those circumstances, businesses are going to lose profit either way--they just have to decide whether it's because of raising prices (and losing money from customers) or keeping prices the same (and losing money by selling a particular product or set of products at a loss.

They would absorb the cost, why would they raise the prices? They'd lose money twice.

Absorbing the cost was one of the options I gave. Plus, companies do it all the time. They pass on costs and new taxes on to consumers via higher prices. The hikes are usually so negligible that consumers don't care. Realistically, consumers aren't particularly rational. They're usually either too dumb or too lazy to go comparing the prices of every store in town, especially when some stores have lower prices on some goods, and higher prices on others.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 2:09:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 1:55:27 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
What is the other part?

My political stance is the absolute ends of libertarian, I don't agree that there really is any "other part" but you would probably see it as the when I say ownership should be abolished.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 2:16:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 2:09:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:55:27 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
What is the other part?

My political stance is the absolute ends of libertarian, I don't agree that there really is any "other part" but you would probably see it as the when I say ownership should be abolished.

How would you transfer wealth from generation to generation without ownership.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 2:20:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 2:08:08 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Absorbing the cost was one of the options I gave.

I know that, the other option is not a valid option though.

Plus, companies do it all the time. They pass on costs and new taxes on to consumers via higher prices. The hikes are usually so negligible that consumers don't care.

If the company could have raised prices before the tax without the consumers caring, then the prices would have already been raised.

See:
http://blog.mises.org...
http://www.lewrockwell.com...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 2:23:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 2:16:43 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/24/2011 2:09:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/24/2011 1:55:27 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
What is the other part?

My political stance is the absolute ends of libertarian, I don't agree that there really is any "other part" but you would probably see it as the when I say ownership should be abolished.

How would you transfer wealth from generation to generation without ownership.

A gift-economy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 2:29:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 2:20:05 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/24/2011 2:08:08 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Absorbing the cost was one of the options I gave.

I know that, the other option is not a valid option though.

Plus, companies do it all the time. They pass on costs and new taxes on to consumers via higher prices. The hikes are usually so negligible that consumers don't care.

If the company could have raised prices before the tax without the consumers caring, then the prices would have already been raised.

See:
http://blog.mises.org...
http://www.lewrockwell.com...

A couple of problems there.

1. Seems suspiciously like an appeal to probability.

2. The problem is that the company doesn't have retrospective knowledge--only prospective knowledge. The company probably isn't going to know what the effects of a price raise will be for sure. They might be able to get away with it because of the way consumers shop, but they also might lose a few. That risk is held in pretty high regard, let's say; therefore, the company doesn't raise prices.

When you have a situation in which a company faces higher costs due to manufacturer price raises or increased taxes, however, the degree to which that risk is valued decreases because of the inevitability of loss. In such circumstances, there is a greater incentive to take a gamble by raising prices, since the odds are on the company's side that a price change significant enough to cover costs won't turn away most consumers (and that the value of consumers who o walk out will be made up by less consumers paying more for the same products).
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 2:40:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 2:29:13 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A couple of problems there.

1. Seems suspiciously like an appeal to probability.

What smart business would keep prices lower than a certain rate if it did not affect the spending habits of its' customers?

2. The problem is that the company doesn't have retrospective knowledge--only prospective knowledge. The company probably isn't going to know what the effects of a price raise will be for sure.

What kind of nonsense is this? If the price of an iPod was raised from $200 to $400, would more or less people buy the iPod?

When you have a situation in which a company faces higher costs due to manufacturer price raises or increased taxes, however, the degree to which that risk is valued decreases because of the inevitability of loss.

Ok...

In such circumstances, there is a greater incentive to take a gamble by raising prices, since the odds are on the company's side that a price change significant enough to cover costs won't turn away most consumers (and that the value of consumers who o walk out will be made up by less consumers paying more for the same products).

Again, if the prices weren't set at this rate before, then the business was simply doing a bad job of pricing.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 3:07:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 2:40:46 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/24/2011 2:29:13 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A couple of problems there.

1. Seems suspiciously like an appeal to probability.

What smart business would keep prices lower than a certain rate if it did not affect the spending habits of its' customers?

Businesses aren't going to know beforehand how far they can raise prices before it affects their profits.

2. The problem is that the company doesn't have retrospective knowledge--only prospective knowledge. The company probably isn't going to know what the effects of a price raise will be for sure.

What kind of nonsense is this? If the price of an iPod was raised from $200 to $400, would more or less people buy the iPod?

I'm not talking about a doubling of the price of an expensive luxury good, because that's an awful standard for trying to set a norm for what the majority of "ordinary" transactions are like.

When you have a situation in which a company faces higher costs due to manufacturer price raises or increased taxes, however, the degree to which that risk is valued decreases because of the inevitability of loss.

Ok...

In such circumstances, there is a greater incentive to take a gamble by raising prices, since the odds are on the company's side that a price change significant enough to cover costs won't turn away most consumers (and that the value of consumers who o walk out will be made up by less consumers paying more for the same products).

Again, if the prices weren't set at this rate before, then the business was simply doing a bad job of pricing.

What's your point? No economic agent acts perfectly.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 3:19:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
also, businesses can get away with it if it affects the entire industry equally. The government has a cartel when it comes to raising taxes, unless it targets individual businesses. The only projected loss will be from global competition which will just be accepted.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 3:37:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 3:07:11 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/24/2011 2:40:46 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/24/2011 2:29:13 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A couple of problems there.

1. Seems suspiciously like an appeal to probability.

What smart business would keep prices lower than a certain rate if it did not affect the spending habits of its' customers?

Businesses aren't going to know beforehand how far they can raise prices before it affects their profits.

The market sets the price, not the business per se. The price isn't arbitrary. The business does its best to set an optimum price considering all market forces and the business should know how far they can raise their price before it starts to affect revenue. If a business can't do that, then it's a bad business.

2. The problem is that the company doesn't have retrospective knowledge--only prospective knowledge. The company probably isn't going to know what the effects of a price raise will be for sure.

What kind of nonsense is this? If the price of an iPod was raised from $200 to $400, would more or less people buy the iPod?

I'm not talking about a doubling of the price of an expensive luxury good, because that's an awful standard for trying to set a norm for what the majority of "ordinary" transactions are like.

I was just using an example, maybe you should have used a counter-example? Eh?

In such circumstances, there is a greater incentive to take a gamble by raising prices, since the odds are on the company's side that a price change significant enough to cover costs won't turn away most consumers (and that the value of consumers who o walk out will be made up by less consumers paying more for the same products).

Again, if the prices weren't set at this rate before, then the business was simply doing a bad job of pricing.

What's your point? No economic agent acts perfectly.

My point is, if what your saying is true ("that a price change significant enough to cover costs won't turn away most customers..."), then the business should raise its price regardless of whether or not there is a new tax.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 4:14:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 2:40:46 AM, Nags wrote:

What kind of nonsense is this? If the price of an iPod was raised from $200 to $400, would more or less people buy the iPod?

In addition to what Cody said about this being a bad example of "ordinary" market occurences, you seem to be ignoring the fact that a company could still increase profits in this way, even if it does mean less people buying their product.

In simple mathematical terms, if the drop in sales is less than 50%, the company has still increased returns by doubling the price. In real terms, unless costs have somehow doubled as well, their profit margin will be much higher and they could sustain a far greater drop in sales figures, while still increasing profits.

I'm no economist but I think it's rubbish that consumers set prices. In certain markets where a few major players dominate (energy and mobile phones would perhaps be good examples) it is in the mutual interest of all of them to artificially inflate prices and then compete with each other on the basis of unique features of their product.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 8:36:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 4:14:59 AM, feverish wrote:

I'm no economist but I think it's rubbish that consumers set prices. In certain markets where a few major players dominate (energy and mobile phones would perhaps be good examples) it is in the mutual interest of all of them to artificially inflate prices and then compete with each other on the basis of unique features of their product.

You're talking about oligopoly? It's not in a firms interest to inflate its price in the hopes other firms will too. One of the few firms in competition could easily keep their prices low and cut out the competition. it also depends on the goods elasticity, so a price increase could in fact damage all firms in Oligopoly.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 8:50:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 3:37:24 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/24/2011 3:07:11 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/24/2011 2:40:46 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/24/2011 2:29:13 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A couple of problems there.

1. Seems suspiciously like an appeal to probability.

What smart business would keep prices lower than a certain rate if it did not affect the spending habits of its' customers?

Businesses aren't going to know beforehand how far they can raise prices before it affects their profits.

The market sets the price, not the business per se. The price isn't arbitrary. The business does its best to set an optimum price considering all market forces and the business should know how far they can raise their price before it starts to affect revenue. If a business can't do that, then it's a bad business.

I'm not so sure about that. If consumers were a unified hive mind, we might see "market forces" being a power to be reckoned with; however, as it stands, businesses still hold the majority of the power. It's obviously the case, of course, that businesses have to compete to a degree to win over customers, but it's also true that businesses can get away with a hell of a lot because consumers aren't perfect economic calculators, and, often times, don't care that they're being screwed over, since they're just happy to have their material wants satisfied. Politically, it's not a problem because they're making their decisions autonomously. Economically, it can turn out to be a pretty sh*tty deal, because the theory that companies who are at the top of the competitive ladder (i.e. offering the best good or service at the lowest price) will be able to grab most of the profit in a particular market turns out to be quite untrue.

2. The problem is that the company doesn't have retrospective knowledge--only prospective knowledge. The company probably isn't going to know what the effects of a price raise will be for sure.

What kind of nonsense is this? If the price of an iPod was raised from $200 to $400, would more or less people buy the iPod?

I'm not talking about a doubling of the price of an expensive luxury good, because that's an awful standard for trying to set a norm for what the majority of "ordinary" transactions are like.

I was just using an example, maybe you should have used a counter-example? Eh?

I could've, but I assumed that we were on the same page insofar that we both know that a doubling of price on a luxury item clearly isn't a good standard for the way that companies make decisions about pricing.

In such circumstances, there is a greater incentive to take a gamble by raising prices, since the odds are on the company's side that a price change significant enough to cover costs won't turn away most consumers (and that the value of consumers who o walk out will be made up by less consumers paying more for the same products).

Again, if the prices weren't set at this rate before, then the business was simply doing a bad job of pricing.

What's your point? No economic agent acts perfectly.

My point is, if what your saying is true ("that a price change significant enough to cover costs won't turn away most customers..."), then the business should raise its price regardless of whether or not there is a new tax.

Advocating a system that actively encourages businesses to profit off of an idiotic consumer base doesn't seem very nice, especially when you're at the same time claiming that consumers (i.e. "the market") possess the larger share of economic power.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 8:59:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 2:09:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
My political stance is the absolute ends of libertarian, I don't agree that there really is any "other part" but you would probably see it as the when I say ownership should be abolished.

You mean property rights?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 9:00:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 2:23:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/24/2011 2:16:43 AM, lewis20 wrote:
How would you transfer wealth from generation to generation without ownership.

A gift-economy.

Whew! Glad we got that out of the way. As long as Paris Hilton's future children can still be automatic billionaires then we're good to go. Great system, I concur.
President of DDO
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 9:17:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 9:00:52 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/24/2011 2:23:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/24/2011 2:16:43 AM, lewis20 wrote:
How would you transfer wealth from generation to generation without ownership.

A gift-economy.

Whew! Glad we got that out of the way. As long as Paris Hilton's future children can still be automatic billionaires then we're good to go. Great system, I concur.

Would you be interested in debating the inheritance tax if we meet in the tournament?