because your annoying..you've been gone for a while and everyone has been happy without you..just like doer.
Hillary Clinton’s camp is FEARFUL of Bernie Sanders..
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Another example of you not reading my posts? Or another example of the intolerant left, you make the call.
I actually like having different angles to discuss ideas, if everyone agreed with everything it would be really boring.
You could put me in place by explaining how a marxist utopia deals with floor shitters, I'm willing to listen. I've actually read all published works by Marx in English so it's not the first time I've asked that question with no answers other than gtfo!
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Egghead likes his booky books!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
do you ever say anything new, or just recycle the same meltdown every time?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i have asked you very kindly to explain why your "neck down" evolution theory is so well liked by david duke and jared taylor that they had the guy who came up with it on their radio talk shows, but you refuse to explain.
why?
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Are you saying you make money posting on this forum?I sit in front a computer all day and make money off the backs of conservatives like you for espousing such beliefs
You enter into my art in more ways than one! An endless supply of ideas you equal
How do you feel making me money? You, specifically?($2K+)
Either way, you've, again, avoided the substance of my argument.. But I should tell you, your anecdotes don't convince anyone.. except my bank account!
how so?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Reading is fundamental!
Marx is a fascinating subject. He makes so many points I agree with but goes off the ledge with his endgame. I was hoping for a discussion with a true Marxist but all I get are insults. Oh well, it just weakens their position and makes me think they are just spouting what someone else said.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Thats what I was wondering.
I know people that make money posting on investment forums like a penny stock promotor. And at the same time they talk about how great the stock is they are selling there free shares at the same time knowing it is a scam. Then you end up being a fish. I don't trust people when there is money involved. Or politics.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
like that "neck down" evolution theory you stole from nicholas wade?
a theory so beloved by white supremacists that it was ranked as the most influential work of "scientific racism"?
a theory so beloved by white suprmeacists that david duke and jared taylor both invited the author onto their radio shows to talk about it?
why don't you ever want to talk about that?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"Republicans say higher taxes on the wealthy kill jobs. In 2001, George W. Bush spearheaded the largest tax reduction in U.S. history (overwhelmingly benefiting our wealthiest citizens) and unemployment rates quickly spiked higher and have remained nearly double the Clinton era levels to this day.
When were the golden years of U.S. full employment? How about the 1960s when the highest earners paid up to 91 percent in taxes? How about the Clinton years (4 percent unemployment) when the wealthy paid 36 percent in taxes (the level President Barack Obama wants to again be the highest rate)? Small businesses hire more workers when demand for their goods and services increase, not when their tax rates decrease."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-10-23/news/bs-ed-millionaires-letter-20121023_1_tax-rate-largest-tax-reduction-tax-code
"Nevertheless, looking at the raw correlation between top marginal tax rates and growth can be helpful for getting a rough sense of the likely impacts of higher taxation on growth. One recent paper by Pikkety, Saez, and Stantcheva looks at the correlation between top marginal tax rates and growth and finds the growth is higher when top marginal tax rates are higher. I restrict myself to the historical experience of the United States and go back to 1930. In particular, I took real chained per capita GDP growth from 1930 to the present from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) website. The correlation over this period between the top marginal tax rate and output growth is strong and positive as can be seen below:
A rise in the top marginal tax rate from 0 to 100 percent is correlated with a rise in per capita growth of 5.85 percentage points per year. One reason that this simple correlation might overstate the impact of the marginal tax rate on growth is that the top growth years were in the early 40s when the government was spending heavily and when the country was finally recovering from the Great Depression. If we look only at the post war period (after 1946), a rise from 0 to 100 percent in the top marginal tax rate is associated with an increase of only 2.69 percentage points of growth. Moreover, the statistical significance of the relationship becomes marginal, as the p-value rises from 0.017 to 0.122. On the other hand, if we look at the time period encompassing 1960 to the present, a rise in the top rate from 0 to 100 percent is correlated with a rise in per capita growth of 3.03 percentage points of growth per year, and the relationship becomes more statistically significant (with a p-value of 0.064 percent). Finally, if we look only at the years since 1980, a rise from 0 to 100 percent in the top marginal tax rate is associated with an increase in growth of 3.87 percentage points. In this case, the relationship is statistically insignificant (with a p-value of 0.392 percent), in part because the sample size is small.
While we cannot say that there is a robust significant positive relationship between tax rates and growth, it is still interesting that regardless of when we start the sample, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher not lower growth. Moreover, a narrative reading of postwar US economic history leads to the same conclusion. The period of highest growth in the United States was in the post-war era when top marginal tax rates were 94% (under President Truman) and 91% (through 1963). As top marginal rates dropped, so did growth. Moreover, except for 1984, a recovery year, the highest per capita growth rates since 1980 were all in the late 1990s, after the top marginal tax rate had been increased from 28% under President Reagan to 31% under the first President Bush and then 39.6% under President Clinton. One possible reaction to this finding is that what matters more than the top marginal tax rate on income is the capital gains tax rate but growth has also been higher when the capital gains tax rate has been higher."
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/does-taxing-the-wealthy-hurt-growth.html
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You very clearly have never read anything by Marx
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I make money drawing all day
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Then enlighten me. In his end game, what was his methods for dealing with those who are still willing to steal, still willing to rape, still willing to murder, still refusing to pull their own weight or wasting shared resources? Or even just those unsociable floor shitter types? Remember, it's a collectivist philosophy, no room for individuals. His claims were people wouldn't do this in his utopia because there would be no need, do you believe that? Do you believe people shit on floors (next to a toilet) out of need?
And yes, I've read everything published in English by Marx, it was mandatory reading in a poly-sci class I had. Sorry that hurts your senses. Long time ago and once I became an independent adult I dismissed a lot of his theories. I'll admit that.
Philosophically I believe we need authority to protect me from my fellow man. The PC crowd and moral majority have decided I also need protection from myself, fuck them.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't believe you have
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he read what kkkynes had to say about marx though, so he's basically an expert.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nice meltdown.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"As I make the rounds of college commencements, I wish I had better news. But here are the facts (courtesy of the Economic Policy Institute):
1. Young college graduates are still doing worse than young graduates were doing before the Great Recession. Their unemployment rate is now 7.2 percent (compared with 5.5 percent in 2007), and many are working in jobs that don’t require a college degree.
2. Their wages are 2.5% lower were the wages of young college grads in 2007.
3. Meanwhile, college costs have grown far more rapidly than family incomes -- forcing students to take out loans that, in this fragile labor market, are difficult to repay.
The problem isn’t that new college graduates lack the right education or skills. Most have what it takes. The problem is overall demand for goods and services in the U.S. economy remains perilously weak -- so employers don’t feel the need to do much hiring or to pay good wages.
Why is demand weak? Because most American consumers don’t have the purchasing power, as almost all of the gains have been going to the top 1 percent -- who spend only a fraction of what they earn. Repeat after me: The record inequality we're experiencing is bad for the economy."
1. Young college graduates are still doing worse than young graduates were doing before the Great Recession. Their unemployment rate is now 7.2 percent (compared with 5.5 percent in 2007), and many are working in jobs that don’t require a college degree.
2. Their wages are 2.5% lower were the wages of young college grads in 2007.
3. Meanwhile, college costs have grown far more rapidly than family incomes -- forcing students to take out loans that, in this fragile labor market, are difficult to repay.
The problem isn’t that new college graduates lack the right education or skills. Most have what it takes. The problem is overall demand for goods and services in the U.S. economy remains perilously weak -- so employers don’t feel the need to do much hiring or to pay good wages.
Why is demand weak? Because most American consumers don’t have the purchasing power, as almost all of the gains have been going to the top 1 percent -- who spend only a fraction of what they earn. Repeat after me: The record inequality we're experiencing is bad for the economy."
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
So I take it you got nothin...
You can assume I took the only poly-sci class in existence that had nothing to do with Marx if it helps you feel better, the question still stands.
In a Marxist utopia, how do we handle the floor shitter and the won't do, he covers the can't do well enough to exclude those.