All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...
11/26/2012 4:33 PM (edited)

If you think I'm "cutting my losses" because I'm "defeated, you should think again.  The biggest reason I'm deciding against engaging with you and your opinion is the complete arrogance on this topic.  You may know a lot about economics.  All you've demonstrated in this and other threads is opinion and unsupported assertions.  You've mostly refused to support your opinions with fact, but only with further opinions - as if those opinions are in and of themselves proof.  

When I go back to some of the original questions, such as a fair share, a target tax rate for the rich, etc., I'm the one pointing you to a thread with actual bona fide numbers and facts in it, fully available to anyone, yet you're the one who supposedly is the enlightened one.  I would think one as far above the uneducated masses like us as you are could give us a clue as to what a fair share is or an idea of what tax rate  for the rich would be the best.  You might be able to show examples as to how your point of view would work in real life.  What the implications are for people and businesses when you change their variables.  You might want to show the moral reasoning serving as a foundation for allowing those in power to confiscate something from someone to give it to someone else, especially when it approaches a majority-rule (or potentially mob rule).  I would think someone as enlightened as you are would have ready and convincing answers.

I'll give you a hint about something that I'm sure you don't need:  if you want to "win a debate" in any fashion other than in your own mind, you should be willing to concede a point or two.  A real intellectual should always be open to persuasion, or to be able to validate another's point of view.  As you might notice, I have never even a single time tried to claim "victory" in this one, or claim that I know more than someone else (as you have).   You may think it's self-evident by you claiming it so, but you would probably be alone, except among your socialist friends.  Your obvious disdain for people with wealth shows in your discriminatory language in dealing with them and it serves to discredit your point of view.  (My opinion, not claimed as fact - I'll let other readers judge the merit of that statement if they choose).

If you cared about your credibility with anyone here, which I'm sure you don't, I would recommend you try real hard to get over yourself and discuss the merits of your positions. 

Here are a few specific questions regarding that support: 

What general incentives do you suppose work in each of the two competing theories? 
Why would socialist incentives work better than capitalist incentives (knowing that both systems likely share a fair number of these incentives)? 
Is freedom a valuable component in one or the other (or both)?

Back to the "fairness issue":
Are you willing to give a target as to the rich's fair share?
If they paid 100% of the taxes, would it be enough?
If you raised their rates, and the rich's burden went down, would you be willing to lower their rates in order for the burden to go up?  (BTW, this is demonstrated in the numbers so you can see the effects of human behavior) 
How much of your earnings would it ever be moral for me to take for my needs (or to have the government in its benevolence do so)? 
If you have a number in mind, would you give it willingly?

I think capitalism (as flawed as it can be) better recognizes human behavior and incentives than socialism does and this has been demonstrated in history.  America's version of it is far from perfect, but there is a reason people don't have to be born with wealth here in order to attain it.  First, the pie isn't finite, and second, freedom is everything.

But go ahead and claim you're the smartest.  I don't mind.

Claim the rich need to pay more.  Don't bother to tell anyone how much more.

Claim victory.  Have at it.

11/26/2012 4:28 PM
YVW
11/26/2012 4:41 PM
11/26/2012 4:55 PM
How much of your earnings would it ever be moral for me to take for my needs (or to have the government in its benevolence do so)?  

This is the only part I have a real problem with. It's not a moral issue. Paying taxes is part of living in the US. If you are lucky enough to be in a high tax bracket then you've benefited greatly from the opportunities you've had here. As a society, we've decided to maintain a safety net. Taxing marginal dollars at 39.8% isn't any more or less moral than collecting 35% or 30% or 45%.
11/27/2012 8:45 AM
Yep.  An alias just jerking people around.  No belief system just an internet trolling method that's very successful.

I'm not sure who you're referring to here, but if it's me, you couldn't be further from the truth. You can tell by my profile how long I've been a member of this site and how many of the games I've played, which is enough by itself to know this isn't an alias but as real an identity as you can get here.

As for my beliefs, they are what I say they are. I absolutely believe in what I'm saying, and if I didn't, I wouldn't waste the time I have already wasted trying to educate people on economics and attempt (though I'm guessing unsuccessfully) to reverse their bias against socialism which is largely borne out of ignorance of both socialism itself and economics in general.
You've mostly refused to support your opinions with fact, but only with further opinions - as if those opinions are in and of themselves proof. 
When you manage to present a challenge to what I have to say, I'll defend it against that challenge. Until then, what I have to say stands for itself.
I would think one as far above the uneducated masses like us as you are could give us a clue as to what a fair share is or an idea of what tax rate  for the rich would be the best.
 
First, stop acting like you and those who agree with you are martyrs because you're losing the argument. It doesn't add anything to your side of the debate and is a waste of time.

Second, I already addressed those issues long ago. I'm not going to keep repeating things because you decided not to read it in the first place.
I would think someone as enlightened as you are would have ready and convincing answers.
I do and I gave them. Perhaps you should go read the thread.
if you want to "win a debate" in any fashion other than in your own mind, you should be willing to concede a point or two.
I have done so on the points which actually made any sense. Most of what has been said is ridiculous that there is no way I would concede to it. It would be like saying the earth is flat.
Your obvious disdain for people with wealth shows in your discriminatory language in dealing with them and it serves to discredit your point of view.
It does no such thing. My point of view is what it is and doesn't need to be justified by your interpretation of my language, which is based upon your own assumptions and is largely inaccurate to begin with.
What general incentives do you suppose work in each of the two competing theories? 
So you want an education on economics. I'll give you a simple nutshell.

In Capitalism, incentives are based upon private ownership, which in THEORY puts the rewards of hard work or the failings of laziness right in the hands of the worker.

In  proper Socialism, incentives are based upon shared ownership, which actually does put the rewards in the hands of the workers.
Why would socialist incentives work better than capitalist incentives (knowing that both systems likely share a fair number of these incentives)? 
Let's do an example to demonstrate:

Say John is a factory worker producing widgets for a company run by Simon.

In Capitalism, John's incentive to work hard is supposed to be that he will earn more when he works harder based upon private ownership theory. In reality, if John makes $10 per hour, he'll make that same $10 per hour whether he produces the required 100 widgets per hour or works harder and produces 110. Unless Simon notices his hard work over time, which may eventually happen but is entirely possible it will not, then he'll continue to make $10 no matter how hard he works. Meanwhile, Simon makes $20 per hour and doesn't do physical labor and has an easier life.

In Socialism, John's incentive to work hard is based upon the fact he shares ownership in the factory itself. It's success translates directly into his personal success, so when he works harder and makes 110 widgets per hour instead of 100, now he's adding to his own bottom line (and that of all his workers, who have the same incentive to work hard as he does). Now production increases overall, everyone makes more money, and John goes from $10 per hour to $12 and then eventually to $15 as the factory thrives. Simon, who initially made the same $10 as John, also now makes $15, but can better manage his employees because they are happier and have incentive to work harder they would never get by hoping he would notice their hard work and reward them in a capitalist system.



11/27/2012 11:17 PM (edited)
Einstein was quoted as saying "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.". How many times has socialism been tried? Nvm.... Einstein was probably an idiot like the rest of you guys.

And to bis' theory about private ownership in a capitalist society.... I find it humorous that my wife and I have employee stock purchase plans, annual profit sharing bonuses, and are paid salary + performance bonuses.... I'm pretty sure we work in a capitalist country last I checked and that we're incented by both our own contributions to the company and the company's overall well-being. Technically I have ownership (and a stake in the success) in quite a few companies.... now that I'm reviewing my equity portfolio. For a guy that talks a lot about incentivising (i.e. full time work) I'm shocked bis doesn't see the incentives to perform here.

Really though i'm not sure why you guys still argue with him... seems like a lot of wasted time... just read his drivel for 'entertainment only' purposes and have a good laugh at the fool being a fool.... jmo.
11/28/2012 8:49 AM
How many times has socialism been tried?

None, in its proper form within the correct structure, as I already pointed out.

Every economic system - including capitalism and socialism - must be set up properly with a correct structure in order to function at anything close to its maximum capabilities. Every system will fail if it isn't managed properly.

By saying socialism will fail based only upon your view that it has failed when it was set up to fail, you aren't looking at how economic systems really function. It would be like putting together the worst football players you could find and then when they lose every game you claim it is impossible for anyone to win at football.
I find it humorous that my wife and I have employee stock purchase plans, annual profit sharing bonuses, and are paid salary + performance bonuses.... I'm pretty sure we work in a capitalist country last I checked and that we're incented by both our own contributions to the company and the company's overall well-being.

Sure, you work in a capitalist society, but those incentives are SOCIALIST incentives, or based on socialist principles.

However, I am an advocate of complete socialist workforce environments, where everyone makes the same wage and it is entirely based upon how well the company is doing. Everyone is an EQUAL owner in the company or organization and therefore has every reason in the world to ensure it succeeds as much as possible.

I'm just guessing here, but where you and your wife work, you probably don't own an equal share of the company with everyone else, and I'm guessing you probably don't earn an equal wage or salary either.
Technically I have ownership (and a stake in the success) in quite a few companies.... now that I'm reviewing my equity portfolio. For a guy that talks a lot about incentivising (i.e. full time work) I'm shocked bis doesn't see the incentives to perform here.
There are incentives, but they aren't as powerful as they could be, for you or for your co-workers (and particularly for co-workers who earn less than you or have less of these incentives than you do).

I'm also against large scale investing. Every dollar invested is a dollar that isn't spent at the consumer level, and that ultimately hurts the economy. Most investors thing they are helping the economy, but they're only helping compared with putting the money in a sock drawer or under a mattress. Consumer spending drives the economy, and every dollar you invest is one you aren't spending as a consumer. I'm not against saving some or investing some, but I think many people (including especially the incredibly wealthy) invest far too much and spend too little of their money.
Really though i'm not sure why you guys still argue with him... seems like a lot of wasted time... just read his drivel for 'entertainment only' purposes and have a good laugh at the fool being a fool.
It's funny that you say this, because much of the reason I continue to post here is for my entertainment purposes. A small part of me would like to believe some of you are open minded enough to actually be educated on economics and economic systems, but I highly doubt that based on some of the responses such as this one right here.

I try to learn from every experience, and when someone clearly displays knowledge of a topic or situation which is superior to my own, I try to at least consider what they have to say even if I disagree. I would suggest some of you could benefit from doing the same.




11/28/2012 12:19 PM
11/28/2012 2:41 PM
Will you ever stop trying to make yourself out to be some kind of martyr?

I suppose not. Certain people can't stand it when someone who disagrees with them has the knowledge and ability to defend what they have to say, so this is how they try to fight back. They are the martyr and the other person doesn't have knowledge but is arrogant.

There are two problems with this approach:

1. Knowledge doesn't equal arrogance.

2. Even if it did, attacking the person doesn't do anything to defend your side of the argument.
11/28/2012 3:07 PM
11/28/2012 3:18 PM
I get it now. Your posting of these things is the same as you waving a white flag and giving up on your argument.

After all, it's not like you're actually posting anything of substance to go with it, so a surrender must be your intent. I'm glad to see you are apparently able to amuse yourself despite the defeat you suffered in this debate.

11/28/2012 3:33 PM
11/28/2012 5:35 PM
Biz, I'll try just one more time.

You admit that your form of Socialism hasn't been tried anywhere at any time.

Yet you're touting it definitively as the best answer. 

And yet you don't think you're being arrogant.
11/28/2012 10:03 PM
In the spirit of bistiza's "correct structure" of a Socialist economic implementation, I'm proud to anounce that I have put together a flawless plan for repelling an extraterrestrial attack on the planet Earth.

I have an extensive background in understanding and dealing with extraterrestrials, but I'm not going to tell you how I came to this knowledge because it's none of your ******* business, and none of you have shown to me that your inferior minds would be able to understand the nuances of my plan.  I'm also not going to divulge any specifics about my plan because, again, nobody here is capable of comprehending the details.

I suspect that others may have given some thought to how to best repel an extraterrestrial attack on our planet, but it's quite obvious to me that nobody else can develop a plan that matches the perfection of my plan.

This may come across as arrogance, but it really isn't.  It's just fact.  I'm smarter than you.  Deal with it, much in the same way that you deal with wallowing in the ignorance of the rest of your meaningless little lives.

11/29/2012 4:24 AM
Lol.... you hit the nail on the head. ^^^
of 34
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.