Entitlement
23 Sep 2012, 7:17 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
Works. For. WHO, GGPViper?
Oh yeah that's right. It works the corporation since they really have no incentive to care about the economy as a whole or whether or not anyone has a job since they have one and they're makin big bucks.
Oh yeah that's right. It works the corporation since they really have no incentive to care about the economy as a whole or whether or not anyone has a job since they have one and they're makin big bucks.
I find this statement to be somewhat naive. It is not the *job* of a company to care about "the economy as a whole" or "whether or not anyone has a job".
The underlying concept of the market economy is that it maximizes society surplus... It does *not* concern itself with the distribution of said surplus...
AspieRogue wrote:
I really have extremely low patience and tolerance for people who live in EU welfare states telling me how the world works here in the MOST competitive and stratified western country in the world. America favors the adaptable, and adaptability is not something that is distributed equally any more so than talent.
... I have read you post several times, and I fail to see any actual problems. If your descriptions are accurate, the United States of America is blessed with a remarkably efficient economy...
AspieRogue wrote:
Alright, now that I blew off some steam, tell me where and how you're going to get this venture capital? More than 50% of Americans are having difficulty financing their homes and automobiles as banks are much more discrete about lending money to people who don't have the collateral to pay it all off within at least a year. So, you want a $25,000 loan to start a new biz and your net worth is only, say, $14,000? Alrighty then, tell ya what? We'll lone you $12,000 and as for the rest, you're on your own pal.
Not my problem. You seem to entertain some sort of idea that someone has to "help" you. Living in a EU welfare state (which provokes less than complete patience and tolerance from you, as per your post above) I know that this mindset is devastating to the initiative of the individual.
23 Sep 2012, 7:29 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
I am well aware of the lucrative salaries of US doctors. It is part of my job to know. My concern is that you are simply "raising the bar". If I claim that some individuals are rich, then somehow they are not rich "enough".... Doctors have exceptional access to income outside their primary occupation... They sometimes even derive more income from consulting a few hours a week than from their day jobs... this has to be added to the US estimate of approximately $ 360,000 a year. 7 figures is not that unrealistic for doctors who know where to find a demand, and since they are usually the smartest of us in the first place, they often find the demand.
First of all, I am not *raising the bar*. I'm telling you the facts about what's considered "rich" by my country's standards as the USofA has much lower taxes then Denmark The more you know!
Your reply makes very little sense. The lower income tax rate in the US makes employment (in comparison to entrepreneurship) relatively more attractive compared to Denmark... Which undermines your entire point...
AspieRogue wrote:
I've never heard of American physicians whose salaries are in the millions of dollars but I suppose there are few. As for them being "the smartest among us", I'd like to see some actual evidence that the IQs of physicians are the highest among among any definable group in a given population. There are puh-len-ty of scientists and academic who are AT LEAST as smart and make far less money. If assume that the smartest people in the world are the richest, I have many, many counterexamples.
... It only took me 5 seconds on Google to find this
http://www.medaholic.com/how-smart-are-medical-doctors/
... But to be fair, I was simply referring to my experiences from Denmark where the grades necessary to enter medical school are close to an A average...
AspieRogue wrote:
Lastly, medicine is always in demand. Anytime, anywhere. People get sick, people get injured, and there is no possible way to avoid this.
And why is this relevant to this topic?
23 Sep 2012, 7:30 pm
In that case GGPViper, WHY are you still living in Denmark? Why don't you come hear with your venture capital and start you own business! I wish you the best of luck(and good fortune), you're really gonna need it since there's still a bad recession here.
I honestly don't give 2 sh*ts and fart how efficient the US economy is unless I'm getting my proverbial piece of the pie. The fact is that I really DON'T want to live here. I'm only here since I was born and bred here and there's no other country that will take me. There are so many things about American Culture that I hate so VIOLENTLY.....I won't even go there.
The business loan example is not MY problem either since it was an example to illustrate that it is really not possible to start a business from scratch.
Quote:
The underlying concept of the market economy is that it maximizes society surplus... It does *not* concern itself with the distribution of said surplus...
Again, IDC about free market concepts anymore than I care about "critical social theory". Those pushing for free markets are those who benefit from it financial. Since I am not one of those people who derives benefit from it and in many ways have struggled because of it, I have no incentive to support it unless some of that societal surplus you speak of goes to me.
GGPViper wrote:
The lower income tax rate in the US makes employment (in comparison to entrepreneurship) relatively more attractive compared to Denmark... Which undermines your entire point...
Not so fast, kiddo. The US income tax code is complex and those who have high incomes are constantly trying to shift the tax burden on those with median incomes(the middle class). Low taxes really don't do you much good though if your income is so low that you can't adequately pay for all your needs.
I personally have seen what the libertardian mentality has lead to in terms of civic infrastructure with a guy named Tim Eyman passed a state-wide initiative back in 1999 called I-695 which cut taxes and reduced funding for public transit(an absolute necessity in big cities)among other things. It's impact was extremely destructive and a local judge overturned it since it was supported by high income people looking for a tax break.
Last edited by AspieRogue on 23 Sep 2012, 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
23 Sep 2012, 7:35 pm
GGPViper wrote:
... But to be fair, I was simply referring to my experiences from Denmark where the grades necessary to enter medical school are close to an A average...
Can you get one of those lovely petite Danish lady nurses with the charming breasts to look after me when I suffer from veisalgia?
23 Sep 2012, 7:38 pm
GGPViper wrote:
marshall wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Perhaps it is a "good" thing that some people are filthy rich and others envy them to a great degree. Given the existence of enforced private property rights, the only way to deal with the envy is to work harder yourself, thus providing an incentive for industry...
"working hard" is overrated. Any slave can be whipped into "working hard" but that doesn't mean they'll ever be allowed to get rich. People stuck living in slums have to work pretty hard and live pretty damn uncomfortably just to survive, and they're the least likely to ever get rich. Not all people derive motivation in the simple carrot-stick model. People who are motivated purely on the basis of wanting wealth are most likely dull conventional-thinking idiots who don't have what it takes to truly stand out and create anything useful anyways. This whole idea that we must build society based on the carrot-and-stick model where everything is geared as being merely a means to the ultimate end of having more stuff is actually stifling and demotivational for a lot of people. It makes existence cheap. It goes on the assumption that everyone is a mindless drone who only does anything for profit. I can see a lot of NTs thinking this way but it's totally bizarre to see Aspies vouching for this theory.
But. It. Works.
marshall wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
And regarding the question of employee involvement and "Stakeholder" value... A reason (theoretical, but IMO supported by GDP performance) why capitalism is effective is that companies only maximize [i]one variable - profit. If you introduce other objectives, then efficiency goes down the drain.
Why? Well, because it is mathematically impossible to maximize more than one variable at the same time (von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944: 10-11; Hardin, 1968: 1243). I am making an argument from authority here - as neither work provides an actual mathematical proof - (JakobVirgil would be exhilarated), but I am quoting the von Neumann...
Why? Well, because it is mathematically impossible to maximize more than one variable at the same time (von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944: 10-11; Hardin, 1968: 1243). I am making an argument from authority here - as neither work provides an actual mathematical proof - (JakobVirgil would be exhilarated), but I am quoting the von Neumann...
The problem is this argument only works up to a certain point. Increasing productivity through better utilization of capitol resources, technology, and efficient division of labor does increase the overall standard of living. The problem is large companies reach a saturation point beyond which they can only increase share value at the expense of society as a whole. The Nash equilibrium is upset when companies compete primarily by limiting pay to the point where collectively people have less income to spend. Then there's the fact that companies driven purely by profit and/or share growth often gain an advantage by appealing to the lowest common denominator. A lot of consumers are dumb and will buy a shittier inferior product because they're just following the trend or find it hard to change their habits.
So there's problems on both the production and consumption end. Competitive cost cutting can lower overall wages hurting the economy as a whole and consumers can be too dumb to demand better products at times.
But. It. Works.
I know, I am not being nice right now. I just got tired of defending the market economy when all calls for realistic alternatives are being met with deafening silence... (Statement: Master, this post is likely to result in rebuttals quoting specific alternatives, which would undermine y... stand by, please - was this *intended*?)
I get tired of people who unconditionally defend the market economy with flawed arguments. If the market always delivered the best results we wouldn't constantly be having crises and government interventions to save the system.
23 Sep 2012, 7:43 pm
Being an American Doctor isn't all fun and games. Physicians and Nurses, particularly those who are employed by HMOs are work primarily in hospitals rather than private practice are seriously overworked. Hospitals and HMOs do this for their convenience as well as for their profits and as a result, hospital doctors and nurses become so exhausted that they fall asleep during operations and from time to time are careless with ER patients whose lives hang in the balance.
marshall wrote:
I get tired of people who unconditionally defend the market economy with flawed arguments. If the market always delivered the best results we wouldn't constantly be having crises and government interventions to save the system.
HEAR! HEAR!
Unless your an exec/CEO whose financial interests are contingent on the free market, then you're just another useful idiot.
Last edited by AspieRogue on 23 Sep 2012, 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
23 Sep 2012, 7:47 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
In that case GGPViper, WHY are you still living in Denmark? Why don't you come hear with your venture capital and start you own business! I wish you the best of luck(and good fortune), you're really gonna need it since there's still a bad recession here.
Ad Hominem. Please, It that your best shot?
And let me pull off a few quotes:
AspieRogue wrote:
I honestly don't give 2 sh*ts and fart how efficient the US economy is unless I'm getting my proverbial piece of the pie.
AspieRogue wrote:
Since I am not one of those people who derives benefit from it and in many ways have struggled because of it, I have no incentive to support it unless some of that societal surplus you speak of goes to me.
... I believe the "Entitlement" part just caught some empirical evidence...
AspieRogue wrote:
The business loan example is not MY problem either since it was an example to illustrate that it is really not possible to start a business from scratch.
So all businesses are created by the government? Funny, a lot of history books must be full of lies, then...
23 Sep 2012, 7:54 pm
GGPViper wrote:
So all businesses are created by the government? Funny, a lot of history books must be full of lies, then...
Kid, you're setting up yet another false dichotomy. Most private enterprises are neither government created nor started from absolutely nothing. The person who starts them has access to capital already, owns property, or better yet is in the right place at the right time and has the LUCK of being effectively given an opportunity.
Also, learn the definition of ad hominem before you attempt to accuse me of pulling one. You have venture capital? Where did ya get it and how are you going to use it? If you can't answer that then I'm calling Bullsh*t.
Refusing to support something that I derive no benefit from DOES NOT imply that I feel that I "deserve" something from society(a sense of entitlement). What it means is an unwilling to "take for the team". Why the hell should I? I don't owe anything to the world any more than the world owes anything to me.
Last edited by AspieRogue on 23 Sep 2012, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
23 Sep 2012, 7:56 pm
marshall wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
But. It. Works.
I know, I am not being nice right now. I just got tired of defending the market economy when all calls for realistic alternatives are being met with deafening silence... (Statement: Master, this post is likely to result in rebuttals quoting specific alternatives, which would undermine y... stand by, please - was this *intended*?)
I know, I am not being nice right now. I just got tired of defending the market economy when all calls for realistic alternatives are being met with deafening silence... (Statement: Master, this post is likely to result in rebuttals quoting specific alternatives, which would undermine y... stand by, please - was this *intended*?)
I get tired of people who unconditionally defend the market economy with flawed arguments. If the market always delivered the best results we wouldn't constantly be having crises and government interventions to save the system.
You just proved my point. Criticism with no alternative.
23 Sep 2012, 8:20 pm
GGPViper wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Works. For. WHO, GGPViper?
Oh yeah that's right. It works the corporation since they really have no incentive to care about the economy as a whole or whether or not anyone has a job since they have one and they're makin big bucks.
Oh yeah that's right. It works the corporation since they really have no incentive to care about the economy as a whole or whether or not anyone has a job since they have one and they're makin big bucks.
I find this statement to be somewhat naive. It is not the *job* of a company to care about "the economy as a whole" or "whether or not anyone has a job".
The underlying concept of the market economy is that it maximizes society surplus... It does *not* concern itself with the distribution of said surplus...
You cannot call someone "naive" for disagreeing with your particular libertarian normative proclamations you dunce. The fact that the market does not care about the distribution of said surplus and would just as well allow the jobless to starve on the street is the problem.
23 Sep 2012, 8:30 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
So all businesses are created by the government? Funny, a lot of history books must be full of lies, then...
Kid, you're setting up yet another false dichotomy. Most private enterprises are neither government created nor started from absolutely nothing. The person who starts them has access to capital already, owns property, or better yet is in the right place at the right time and has the LUCK of being effectively given an opportunity.
A lot of undocumented claims without references to peer-reviewed scientific articles. As such, I find no need to respond to this outburst...
I - on the other hand - simply claimed that venture capital exists. I stand by this claim, and should you dispute it I will also produce evidence of its existence... If I'm in a good mood...
AspieRogue wrote:
Also, learn the definition of ad hominem before you attempt to accuse me of pulling one. You have venture capital? Where did ya get it and how are you going to use it? If you can't answer that then I'm calling Bullsh*t.
Rejecting an accusation of an Ad Hominem claim by making another Ad Hominem claim suggests that logic is perhaps not your area of expertise. The entire "X makes claim about Y" -> "X is not Y" -> "Y does not exist" has severe logical flaws.
AspieRogue wrote:
Refusing to support something that I derive no benefit from DOES NOT imply that I feel that I "deserve" something from society(a sense of entitlement). What it means is an unwilling to "take for the team". Why the hell should I? I don't owe anything to the world any more than the world owes anything to me.
In this statement I identify no logical flaws. But doesn't your statement make this entire thread moot as hell?
AspieRogue wrote:
Kid
How quaint. You might want to restrict condescending speech to situations where you actually hold the high ground...
