Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Wealth Inequality in America

Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 10:21:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
uh your can that capitalism for the wealth inequality in this country... enough said.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 10:50:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The video was interesting but misleading.

First, it just provides data on a one year basis, only a snapshot of a person's economic status. America is a diverse society with a dynamic economy. People move up, down, and around the income distribution throughout their lives.

According to the U.S. Treasury, most of those in the top 1% of income earners (75% of them) earned lower income several years later. Median incomes from 1996-2005 rose by 24% or so after adjusting for inflation (link is on my profile page).

So the poor are not "scrapping by on cent change" as the video describes. Male high school graduates earned slightly more than $36,000 in 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010 data). And the Fed, by printing billions in new cash are inflating the cash balances of corporations, the wealthiest banks, and he richest banks.

So this data shouldn't be mistaken with the realities of a potential free market economy, which rewards individual initiative and hard work with equivalent earnings, where people have the ability to utilize their talents and skills to gain experience and rise up the income ladder.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 2:10:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 11:02:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Lee Doren makes a good critique of this.

I was just going to paste a link to his video response. Glad someone beat me to it.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 12:36:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 10:06:53 PM, Rice wrote:
What does everyone think of the current wealth inequality in America?

http://www.youtube.com...
For the most part, it is a reflection of what people were properly recompensated for.

********************************************************

At 6/20/2013 10:21:24 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
uh your can that capitalism for the wealth inequality in this country... enough said.
http://examples.yourdictionary.com...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rhett_Butler
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:11:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe that Hollywood is too rich for what they produce.

If you think Justin Beiber deserves $150,000,000 (which is 150 times the regular life-time accumulation of wealth for the average American) then come forward now, I'd like to know why you think that the entertainment-industrial complex deserves these vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:13:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:11:00 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
I believe that Hollywood is too rich for what they produce.

If you think Justin Beiber deserves $150,000,000 (which is 150 times the regular life-time accumulation of wealth for the average American) then come forward now, I'd like to know why you think that the entertainment-industrial complex deserves these vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses.

He deserves it because people were willing to give it to him. He fulfilled his end of contractual arrangement, and their end was payment.
It is not for us to question people's tastes in these matters.
(Also I'm Justin Bieber)
Rhett_Butler
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:29:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:13:35 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:11:00 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
I believe that Hollywood is too rich for what they produce.

If you think Justin Beiber deserves $150,000,000 (which is 150 times the regular life-time accumulation of wealth for the average American) then come forward now, I'd like to know why you think that the entertainment-industrial complex deserves these vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses.

He deserves it because people were willing to give it to him. He fulfilled his end of contractual arrangement, and their end was payment.
It is not for us to question people's tastes in these matters.
(Also I'm Justin Bieber)

People were not the ones who were willing to give it to him, it was the entertainment industry which is to blame. They marketed him, popularized him, made him into a household name. As a result, the children of people who bought his music became obsessed, begged their parents, and bam, he's richer than even many corporate CEOs, without doing ANYTHING for society. There is no logic, not even in the name of capitalism, that this should have occurred.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:34:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:29:18 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:13:35 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:11:00 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
I believe that Hollywood is too rich for what they produce.

If you think Justin Beiber deserves $150,000,000 (which is 150 times the regular life-time accumulation of wealth for the average American) then come forward now, I'd like to know why you think that the entertainment-industrial complex deserves these vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses.

He deserves it because people were willing to give it to him. He fulfilled his end of contractual arrangement, and their end was payment.
It is not for us to question people's tastes in these matters.
(Also I'm Justin Bieber)

People were not the ones who were willing to give it to him, it was the entertainment industry which is to blame.
My bad. People forced them to buy his stuff at gun point. I didn't realize.

They marketed him, popularized him, made him into a household name.
As one attempts to do with any product. No harm there.

As a result, the children of people who bought his music became obsessed, begged their parents, and bam,
So he produced a product people want. Not seeing the bad side here...

he's richer than even many corporate CEOs, without doing ANYTHING for society.
Society wanted his music and his person as an icon. They rewarded him for providing it.

There is no logic, not even in the name of capitalism, that this should have occurred.
See above. You just mad 'cos people want things that you don't like.

My music wonderful.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:39:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:29:18 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:13:35 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:11:00 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
I believe that Hollywood is too rich for what they produce.

If you think Justin Beiber deserves $150,000,000 (which is 150 times the regular life-time accumulation of wealth for the average American) then come forward now, I'd like to know why you think that the entertainment-industrial complex deserves these vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses.

He deserves it because people were willing to give it to him. He fulfilled his end of contractual arrangement, and their end was payment.
It is not for us to question people's tastes in these matters.
(Also I'm Justin Bieber)

People were not the ones who were willing to give it to him, it was the entertainment industry which is to blame. They marketed him, popularized him, made him into a household name. As a result, the children of people who bought his music became obsessed, begged their parents, and bam, he's richer than even many corporate CEOs, without doing ANYTHING for society. There is no logic, not even in the name of capitalism, that this should have occurred.

I would rather Justin Bieber have it than either Tom Cruise, George Cloony, Matt Damon, Jane Fonda, etc.
Tsar of DDO
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:40:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:39:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:29:18 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:13:35 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:11:00 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
I believe that Hollywood is too rich for what they produce.

If you think Justin Beiber deserves $150,000,000 (which is 150 times the regular life-time accumulation of wealth for the average American) then come forward now, I'd like to know why you think that the entertainment-industrial complex deserves these vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses.

He deserves it because people were willing to give it to him. He fulfilled his end of contractual arrangement, and their end was payment.
It is not for us to question people's tastes in these matters.
(Also I'm Justin Bieber)

People were not the ones who were willing to give it to him, it was the entertainment industry which is to blame. They marketed him, popularized him, made him into a household name. As a result, the children of people who bought his music became obsessed, begged their parents, and bam, he's richer than even many corporate CEOs, without doing ANYTHING for society. There is no logic, not even in the name of capitalism, that this should have occurred.

I would rather Justin Bieber have it than either Tom Cruise, George Cloony, Matt Damon, Jane Fonda, etc.

Thanks YYW. I won't tell anyone you buy all my albums on day one.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:43:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:40:48 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:39:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:29:18 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:13:35 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:11:00 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
I believe that Hollywood is too rich for what they produce.

If you think Justin Beiber deserves $150,000,000 (which is 150 times the regular life-time accumulation of wealth for the average American) then come forward now, I'd like to know why you think that the entertainment-industrial complex deserves these vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses.

He deserves it because people were willing to give it to him. He fulfilled his end of contractual arrangement, and their end was payment.
It is not for us to question people's tastes in these matters.
(Also I'm Justin Bieber)

People were not the ones who were willing to give it to him, it was the entertainment industry which is to blame. They marketed him, popularized him, made him into a household name. As a result, the children of people who bought his music became obsessed, begged their parents, and bam, he's richer than even many corporate CEOs, without doing ANYTHING for society. There is no logic, not even in the name of capitalism, that this should have occurred.

I would rather Justin Bieber have it than either Tom Cruise, George Cloony, Matt Damon, Jane Fonda, etc.

Thanks YYW. I won't tell anyone you buy all my albums on day one.

Yeah... I definitely buy music ;)
Tsar of DDO
Rhett_Butler
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 7:23:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:34:57 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:29:18 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:13:35 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:11:00 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
I believe that Hollywood is too rich for what they produce.

If you think Justin Beiber deserves $150,000,000 (which is 150 times the regular life-time accumulation of wealth for the average American) then come forward now, I'd like to know why you think that the entertainment-industrial complex deserves these vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses.

He deserves it because people were willing to give it to him. He fulfilled his end of contractual arrangement, and their end was payment.
It is not for us to question people's tastes in these matters.
(Also I'm Justin Bieber)

People were not the ones who were willing to give it to him, it was the entertainment industry which is to blame.
My bad. People forced them to buy his stuff at gun point. I didn't realize.

They marketed him, popularized him, made him into a household name.
As one attempts to do with any product. No harm there.

As a result, the children of people who bought his music became obsessed, begged their parents, and bam,
So he produced a product people want. Not seeing the bad side here...

he's richer than even many corporate CEOs, without doing ANYTHING for society.
Society wanted his music and his person as an icon. They rewarded him for providing it.

There is no logic, not even in the name of capitalism, that this should have occurred.
See above. You just mad 'cos people want things that you don't like.

My music wonderful.

Actually, the social dynamics of youth culture require children to keep up with popular culture because if they don't, they will be ostracized from their peers. Individuality in the public school system is mythical, if anything. Because of their need for social interaction and love, kids can't live in the solitude that we enjoy in our years of maturity. It only hurts them. Some children are so hurt by rejection that they kill themselves. So, in a sense, yeah, they are holding them at gunpoint, but you never said that they were the ones pulling the trigger.

It is my understanding that you are not seeing the severity of the issue; a point that I was at years ago when the topic of redistribution was first brought up. Social media is a powerful force in the United States. If the industry pushes for one thing, it will be promoted across all lines. As a result, we see things like Paula Deen saying the N-word become a national discussion. We see planking become a popular craze. We see celebrities get rich... Social media controls the masses and what they purchase, "yet they wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun."

Since I had to make that case, I may as well use it to say that society didn't "want" what he produced, but it was required of them by social culture because that's what the industry running the popular aspects of their lives required. You can't be involved in pop culture if you don't BUY pop culture. Can people opt out? Of course, I did, you probably did. With that said, other individuals want to participate in pop culture because that's practically all that they know about. The next Lil' Wayne song to get high to, the next Gaga song or the next Katy Perry song to screw to... Social media decides who is "sexy." Social media decides what is "popular." Social media decides the "news." Social media has become the Entertainment-Industrial complex, and it is a danger that I am here to warn you about.

I could tell you that our snack/junk food industries-which rely upon the promotion by the entertainment industry-produce goods that are banned in countless countries. Chemicals and additives responsible for the stereotypical obese American. Doritos and Mountain Dew made a fortune off of the Halo and Call of Duty series; yet Dew has Brominated vegetable oil, which in certain quantities can cause Bromism. Yet people get addicted to the stuff... It tastes good, and there is a lot of caffeine to hook you in. This is just one example of how bad this industry can be in terms of what it influences. Junk food is just one little bit... I haven't even mentioned the fashion subsidiary.

At that, I could return to the topic of how bad the influence these celebrities in particular possess, and how completely unreasonable it is that they hold the amount of money that they do, but I feel that the above case is strong enough to help the point stand out. It IS required, if you want to have a "popular" social life, and we have fed a conglomerate that has no interest in public health, safety, or sanity. The industry uses men and women of poor character who have been set up as role models to hold vast amounts of influence in our society. In them, the people see that great success can work in stride with great incompetence. They set an example, young people follow it, and fail.

Now, if you were the Justin Bieber of Hollywood fame, you would be too high to type as coherently as you have been, and you would be too busy playing videogames on a 120 inch television. You most certainly wouldn't be on a debate website to learn anything useful when you have expensive cars to drive on the American dollar. I applaud you for not being him, have a beer!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 4:50:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, that video is soooo silly. The guy might as well have been asking random people, "how smart do you think you are?" and, "how smart do you think the average person should be?"

It is what it is.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 9:13:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If wealth inequality is at the point where there are only the rich and the poor, and there is no middle ground, it is a problem. However, up until that point, people should get what they deserve. Some people take more risks than others, some people make smarter decisions than others, and those should be rewarded. I think that, in general, I am against equality when it means bringing the upper tier down, rather than the bringing the lower tier up.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 9:48:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 9:13:00 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
If wealth inequality is at the point where there are only the rich and the poor, and there is no middle ground, it is a problem. However, up until that point, people should get what they deserve. Some people take more risks than others, some people make smarter decisions than others, and those should be rewarded. I think that, in general, I am against equality when it means bringing the upper tier down, rather than the bringing the lower tier up.

There aren't really any proper supporters of equality who believe in bringing the rich down for the sake of it - and those who do I would very much question their notion of equality. There are multiple forms of equality, however, and the vast majority are essential to soceity functioning as a meritocratic system:

Foundational Equality
Formal Equality
Equality of opportunity
Relative equality
Equality of outcome
Absolute equality

There are probably more. A devotion to complete equality through state ownership is not even wanted by the socialists. To quote Crosland's limerick:

the virtuous young lady of Kent
Who said that she knew what it meant
When men took her to dine
Gave her cocktails and wine;
She knew what it meant-but she went.

"the public ownership of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange" does not mean equality.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
brett.winstead
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 9:49:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:11:00 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
I believe that Hollywood is too rich for what they produce.

If you think Justin Beiber deserves $150,000,000 (which is 150 times the regular life-time accumulation of wealth for the average American) then come forward now, I'd like to know why you think that the entertainment-industrial complex deserves these vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses.

He is worth 150 million and I will prove it. Rhett, no one sat down at a board meeting and said "We have decided to offer Bieber 150 million dollars because his music is really awesome." In fact, you can remove Bieber's name and insert any athlete or entertainer and remove "music" and insert whatever venue they participate in. The fact that you are missing is that people are worth exactly what the market decides that are worth. Bieber sells records and concert seats and fan paraphernalia. If he were not worth 150 million dollars, then where exactly is the money coming from? Outer space? Magic? They, the fans, are CHOOSING to pay him that kind of money. Not a board, not a boss, not his mother. When an entertainer sells records and his fans have the choice to buy or not to buy and they choose to buy, they have decided he is worth what he is getting paid. It is really not difficult to wrap your mind around it if you just give it some thought. Bieber does not make 150 million off of one sale of one record. It is based on volume. Bosses don't decide that an athlete like Kobe Bryant is so good, he is worth 27 million per year. The market does and the fans buy tickets and the money rolls in. Otherwise, how could he possibly get paid?

Now, does his cashflow equal to what appear to be pretty easy work? Of course not to you and me. I work harder than Bieber and make a lot less but that is just because no one pays to watch me work. They do pay to watch him work. He is worth everything he gets. If you don't believe me, ask his record company and all others who benefit from his work.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 10:45:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 9:49:09 AM, brett.winstead wrote:
At 6/21/2013 4:11:00 PM, Rhett_Butler wrote:
I believe that Hollywood is too rich for what they produce.

If you think Justin Beiber deserves $150,000,000 (which is 150 times the regular life-time accumulation of wealth for the average American) then come forward now, I'd like to know why you think that the entertainment-industrial complex deserves these vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses.

He is worth 150 million and I will prove it. Rhett, no one sat down at a board meeting and said "We have decided to offer Bieber 150 million dollars because his music is really awesome." In fact, you can remove Bieber's name and insert any athlete or entertainer and remove "music" and insert whatever venue they participate in. The fact that you are missing is that people are worth exactly what the market decides that are worth. Bieber sells records and concert seats and fan paraphernalia. If he were not worth 150 million dollars, then where exactly is the money coming from? Outer space? Magic? They, the fans, are CHOOSING to pay him that kind of money. Not a board, not a boss, not his mother. When an entertainer sells records and his fans have the choice to buy or not to buy and they choose to buy, they have decided he is worth what he is getting paid. It is really not difficult to wrap your mind around it if you just give it some thought. Bieber does not make 150 million off of one sale of one record. It is based on volume. Bosses don't decide that an athlete like Kobe Bryant is so good, he is worth 27 million per year. The market does and the fans buy tickets and the money rolls in. Otherwise, how could he possibly get paid?

Now, does his cashflow equal to what appear to be pretty easy work? Of course not to you and me. I work harder than Bieber and make a lot less but that is just because no one pays to watch me work. They do pay to watch him work. He is worth everything he gets. If you don't believe me, ask his record company and all others who benefit from his work.

I somewhat agree with you, but your logic is flawed. Your logic assumes a perfect free market. We are not in a perfect free market, there is too much government involvement and outside factors for it to be that perfect free market, so his worth is not determined purely by supply and demand.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 10:53:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I somewhat agree with you, but your logic is flawed. Your logic assumes a perfect free market. We are not in a perfect free market, there is too much government involvement and outside factors for it to be that perfect free market, so his worth is not determined purely by supply and demand."

You're right; he probably deserves 300 million.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 10:57:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"vast sums of money for serving as nothing more than an unnecessary opiate for the masses."

Entertainment is unnecessary? Somehow I doubt you refrain from all entertainment yourself.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 12:13:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wealth inequality is fully consistent with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
brett.winstead
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 6:53:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 10:53:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"I somewhat agree with you, but your logic is flawed. Your logic assumes a perfect free market. We are not in a perfect free market, there is too much government involvement and outside factors for it to be that perfect free market, so his worth is not determined purely by supply and demand."

You're right; he probably deserves 300 million.

Actually, Dylan is right. He has to be paid less than he is bringing in so other people can make money off of his talent. If he made his handlers 150 million and got paid 150 million, what is the point since they would only be breaking even. Everyone who is employed or contracted has to be paid less than they are worth so whoever hired them or signed them to a contract can get paid some excess. Robert, the free market cannot hardly get any freer than people deciding whether or not to buy Bieber's music or attend his concert. I am ashamed to say that I, a 47 year old actually can tolerate some of it, lol! It does not need to be made complicated. Does a person who volunteers to do free hairlip surgeries to children whose parents cannot afford it deserve more money than Bieber? Our emotions say yes but the market says no. No one wants to pay $100 a seat to watch this surgery but they will (only God knows why) pay this to see Bieber sing "Baby, Baby." Betcha you are impressed I knew that song. I am ashamed that I do but I have a huge variety of music tastes. If Bieber is not getting paid based on supply and demand as you suggest, how is he getting paid? The government is not sending him tax dollars.
brett.winstead
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 6:56:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I will add that in America in most cases, the rich who get richer, the poor who get poorer and the middle who stay the same all do so for the exact same reason - they continue to do what they have always done to get rich, poor or remain in the middle.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 7:07:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 6:53:19 PM, brett.winstead wrote:

Robert, the free market cannot hardly get any freer than people deciding whether or not to buy Bieber's music or attend his concert.

There is a government role in regulations and laws, mainly. For example, in a perfect free market, piracy would still be happening, and Bieber and the industry would be getting exactly what he and it are worth. However, the government has laws against piracy, so less people are pirating music, and the industry is not getting everything that supply and demand would say that they should get. A free market implies no government involvement in the market.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 7:37:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 6:56:41 PM, brett.winstead wrote:
I will add that in America in most cases, the rich who get richer, the poor who get poorer and the middle who stay the same all do so for the exact same reason - they continue to do what they have always done to get rich, poor or remain in the middle.

Nope, everyone gets richer:

http://www.currydemocrats.org...

One can complain that that the rich are getting too much, but the poor simply aren't getting poorer.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...