Page 42 of 60 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 595

Thread: Billionaires Blast off

  1. Top | #411
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,932
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,838
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Who do you think sets 'market rates?' If most of the profits/wealth flows into the hands of a small percentage of the population....who is regulating fair distribution of wealth for work performed in generating that wealth?

    The 'market?' I don't think so.

    Why should workers not get their share? Or are workers supposed to sacrifice for the profit of the extremely rich? Is that your ideal world?
    Market rates are a result of supply and demand.

    That's why labor prices are going up--a lot of people left the labor market because of the pandemic.
    Workers don't get a cut of the profits of demand according to their value and input. Workers get whatever employers decide to pay, what they can get away with....hence some move to developing nations to benefit from low labour cost.

  2. Top | #412
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33,055
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,807
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    I already did:

    when probabilistically positive and negative behavior is rewarded based on an artificial allotment based on the probability rather than the probabilistic outcome
    This is what makes fair. It's fairly apparent to me that the means of measuring is to observe whether doing something with a "7:6 payout" is on the side of spitting out 7 for every 6 you put in, or whether it pays out 0 most times and then 6*7 the one time.

    A perfectly fair system returns the same output to every instance of input. Less fair systems are more winner take all. Lotteries are an example of an inherently unfair system.
    There are too many variables in your definition for it to be objective.

  3. Top | #413
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33,055
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,807
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Who do you think sets 'market rates?' If most of the profits/wealth flows into the hands of a small percentage of the population....who is regulating fair distribution of wealth for work performed in generating that wealth?

    The 'market?' I don't think so.

    Why should workers not get their share? Or are workers supposed to sacrifice for the profit of the extremely rich? Is that your ideal world?
    Market rates are a result of supply and demand.

    That's why labor prices are going up--a lot of people left the labor market because of the pandemic.
    Workers don't get a cut of the profits of demand according to their value and input. Workers get whatever employers decide to pay, what they can get away with....hence some move to developing nations to benefit from low labour cost.
    And thus going a long way towards bringing the world out of poverty. If you truly care about poverty outsourcing should be seen as a good thing.

  4. Top | #414
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,263
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    10,060
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    I see Tesla reported a QUARTERLY profit of $1.2 billion dollars. A couple of things on that, Musk will no doubt be well rewarded for that, seventh straight quarter of profit I believe. Why does the government continue to subsidize the purchase of these overpriced cars with tax credits ?
    It doesn't. The tax credit for Teslas ran out back in 2019.

  5. Top | #415
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,263
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    10,060
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    Does anyone else find themselves secretly hoping that one of them explodes?

    That’s wrong I know, but what’s the point of these trips? They aren’t advancing science. They’re just going a multi million dollar thrill ride.
    I don't. This is how technological progress is made.

    Somebody constructs the wheels, the struts, the engine, wings, seats, propeller so the 'rich guy' can realize their dream. Where they all working for a fair wage, or the bare minimum?
    See any wheels or seats there? The struts, engine, wings and propellers they built themselves. They didn't want to build their own engine but all the ones they could buy were too heavy. The propellers, they not only carved themselves, they invented themselves. Previous attempts at powered flight were based on the notion that an aircraft propeller is a kind of steamship screw; it was W. and O. who figured out an aircraft propeller actually needs to be a 90-degree-rotated wing.

  6. Top | #416
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,263
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    10,060
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    No, you have missed the implications of your position. You take away the wealth, you take away what that wealth produces.
    Nonsense - many innovators are not motivated by wealth. I believe when Orville Wright died, he was worth about 10 million in today's dollars, hardly a lot for the inventor of manned flight.
    But not for lack of trying -- he spent a lot of his life in court trying to enforce his patent rights against an unending series of infringers.

  7. Top | #417
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,263
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    10,060
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    I see it as talking around the fact that the American standard of living is becoming more in line with the rest of the world, by decreasing the SoL for most people and concentrating wealth among a very few.
    But the US standard of living for most people is increasing*. "More in line with the rest of the world" means poorer countries are rising faster and catching up. They're converging on us; we're not converging on them...
    Perhaps true for the "average" American. But a nation shouldn't be judged on how it treats the wealthy, nor the average, citizen. It should be judged (particularly if it's a very wealthy nation overall) on how it's poorest citizens fare.
    Thank you John Rawls. In the first place, I didn't say America is how a country should be; I said Elixir's claim about decreasing SoL for most Americans was wrong. And in the second place, your and Rawls' opinion is a preference, not a fact. Who's in charge of deciding whether the needs of the many near the median are outweighed by the needs of the few or the one at the bottom? Certainly not Rawls -- I read his book and a fair summary is "Utilitarianism with math errors".


    Well, that's a problem we obviously need to work on. But it's not at all clear that it means Viet Nam has a better idea about social organization than America. You've identified a 0.001% sliver of the population who are less likely to die in Viet Nam; but there are an awful lot of 0.001% slivers of the population who are more likely to die in Viet Nam, since overall U.S. life expectancy is higher. And, since it's 0.001% of the population, it's not at all obvious that those are the U.S.'s poorest citizens. We have all manner of government programs that are effective at keeping the poorest several percent from dying of malnutrition. So how do you know those on your chart aren't for example, mainly victims of the drug war, or of the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill?

  8. Top | #418
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,621
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,993
    Rep Power
    69
    What if the government confiscated Jeff Bezos wealth and invested it to create a highly efficient supply chain to lower the prices of goods, and the speed at which they were delivered.

    This would greatly improve the lives of everyone!

  9. Top | #419
    Member *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,504
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    41,057
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    What if the government confiscated Jeff Bezos wealth and invested it to create a highly efficient supply chain to lower the prices of goods, and the speed at which they were delivered.

    This would greatly improve the lives of everyone!
    Why should we as a society have to deal with Jeff Bezos? Or the whims of any billionaire?

    His wealth should be taxed massively.

    To pay for stuff like Medicare for All.

  10. Top | #420
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,932
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,838
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Workers don't get a cut of the profits of demand according to their value and input. Workers get whatever employers decide to pay, what they can get away with....hence some move to developing nations to benefit from low labour cost.
    And thus going a long way towards bringing the world out of poverty. If you truly care about poverty outsourcing should be seen as a good thing.
    Workers dragged themselves out of poverty by forming unions and collectively withdrawing their labour, which enabled negotiating pay and conditions through an improved balance of power.

    The industrialists were quite happy to keep workers poor, pay slave wages and allow horrendous conditions, and reap the profits.


    You don't consider history or reality.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •