Lamborghini and the Beggar

[Thanatos]

No, the Nazis were more about egregious racism than social worthlessness.
Indeed, had they hung onto some of the valuable Jewish business owners and scientists they very well may have won the war. Genocide based on race isn't socially beneficial. Getting rid of parasites is.
I would say a better example would be... perhaps the Spartans?

They made a big deal about hating labor unions and social programs, and tied their racism to the idea that certain groups contribute nothing. It amazes me how little the world has changed.

I can pay you to read a story to children, plan activities for the elderly, or entertain someone immobilized in the hospital. It doesn't matter if you are doing it for a paycheck or if you are meeting a public quota... if you have the skill set you can do it.
I'm not saying you can make yourself "love" someone, but that isn't necessary. I'm just talking about providing some much needed companionship to the lonely.

Normally I don't like extensively comparing someone's positions to those of Adolf Hitler, but forced labor for those you deem worthless sounds very familiar.

Dehumanizing them while glorifying your success and then placing them under your control does not lead to good places. A voluntary department of public works is acceptable, but making those without jobs join it is very bad.

As originally mentioned, the amount of time taxed would be far less than a full time position... so there would still be plenty of time for applying to jobs, working on a resume, doing interviews, etc.

As the profits rise and the dehumanization increases the temptation to raise the number of hours will increase. Human beings are mortal and corruptible, and they will give in to certain pressures.

What about those who can't or won't work? How long will you keep feeding them while they're under your control, knowing they contribute nothing?

[LetThereBe]

They made a big deal about hating labor unions and social programs, and tied their racism to the idea that certain groups contribute nothing. It amazes me how little the world has changed.

Tying in the racism was nonsense. In fact, if anything this was more a case of the opposite... the Nazis convinced the poor and the suffering that the wealthy were most to blame, and that the rich had been robbing them. They tied THIS to the racism: the idea that you don't have because this other group does.

Normally I don't like extensively comparing someone's positions to those of Adolf Hitler, but forced labor for those you deem worthless sounds very familiar.

I ask again, is my suggestion fundamentally different from jury duty? So maybe it would amount to a day's work over the span of a week. Perhaps less. This is a far cry from slave labor at a concentration camp.

Dehumanizing them while glorifying your success and then placing them under your control does not lead to good places. A voluntary department of public works is acceptable, but making those without jobs join it is very bad.

How is it dehumanizing them to have them contribute to society? On the contrary, treating them like parasites that should only feed off the public teat is dehumanizing. Having them provide some service for the public good is making them into equals.
I would also ask how I am "glorifying my success". If anything I am acknowledging my own shortcomings in saying that there are many needs these people could meet.

As the profits rise and the dehumanization increases the temptation to raise the number of hours will increase. Human beings are mortal and corruptible, and they will give in to certain pressures.

I wouldn't really call this any different from the raises in taxes. We are just taxing an additional resource for those that do not have income to contribute.

What about those who can't or won't work? How long will you keep feeding them while they're under your control, knowing they contribute nothing?

Haha... I'm not sure what you mean by "under my control", but for those that can contribute absolutely nothing it is true that society would be better off without them.
That does not make it ethical to exterminate them, even if it is practical. Having those contribute that can is both ethical and practical (at least as ethical as any tax).

[Thanatos]

Tying in the racism was nonsense. In fact, if anything this was more a case of the opposite... the Nazis convinced the poor and the suffering that the wealthy were most to blame, and that the rich had been robbing them. They tied THIS to the racism: the idea that you don't have because this other group does.

Hmm. Nope, no, definitely upset about carrying the burden of the useless and the sick:



While the Jews were criticized for never being blacksmiths and always being bankers, they were pretty consistently portrayed as interest-sucking parasites who contributed nothing. The Nazis said they contributed nothing culturally either, and promptly burned all art and music contributed by Jews. The whole movement was very much about what you did or did not contribute.

I ask again, is my suggestion fundamentally different from jury duty?

If someone makes money off of it, yes.

[iolo]

That's all you get. Your response deserves nothing at all.

Well, given the audience.... :)

[Dieval]

While the Jews were criticized for never being blacksmiths and always being bankers, they were pretty consistently portrayed as interest-sucking parasites who contributed nothing.

Hmmm....that sounds exactly how some people here portray the rich.....does that mean some people here are Nazi-like?

Hmmm....kinda makes you think...

[iolo]

Hmmm....that sounds exactly how some people here portray the rich.....does that mean some people here are Nazi-like?

Hmmm....kinda makes you think...

If anything ever makes rightists think, good. But nazis, of course, existed only to keep capitalism, at whatever cost to others.

[Dodds]

By yet another non sequitur? No, not at all. That has nothing to do with at what threshold unemployment is unsustainable.

A link to the UK parliament library on why high unemployment is unsustainable in the USA is non sequitur? Emm sure it is.

Because they would actually be increasing profits by charging less and dominating market share.

WRONG. 100% wrong.

[link=http://]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-07-04/business/9707040216_1_general-mills-cereal-kellogg[/link]

But the price cuts didn't do much to boost the cereal companies' fortunes. Total sales volume rose only 1.6 percent, and dollar sales for the year ended May 18 declined more than 9 percent, to $7.2 billion from nearly $8 billion.

While all the companies showed sales declines, Kellogg was hit the hardest, dropping 15 percent, to $2.4 billion, according to Chicago-based Information Resources Inc., which monitors the industry.

Again fantasy land that does not match the data.

I don't think you even know what "sticky prices" means. Not all goods/services exhibit that behavior, and none purely so. Prices don't immediately reach equilibrium, but things obviously can (and do) change.

Most do. I can list hundreds of examples of sticky prices. And the example above is why companies do not slash prices to get a market share. It hurts profits. The only times you will see price drops of any considerable amount is when you get demand shocks.

]
You have less to spend, but the loss isn't as great as what I would lose by paying you more.
I could pay you fifty dollars or one hundred dollars to make lollipops. Let's say I pay you the 100 and you spend 25 dollars on my lollipops. I am still out 25 dollars. Even if "the economy benefits overall" (debatable) I benefit less. It isn't about benefiting everyone. It is about everyone benefiting themselves.

This is why Chicago school economics is retarded.

Ok you pay me less. Sally and Steve who works at my local grocery store, have a massive thing for lolipops. You pay me less to make them, I spend less on groceries. Sally and Steve now no longer work there as Bob (who hates lolipops) the owner can't afford to keep them on. Your profits then suffer as Sally and Steve can't afford your lolipops anymore.

That is how an economy works. It is the circular flow of money. And that is why it is in your best interest to pay your workers more.

Sure you would. "As little as possible" is market value. If workers won't work for what you are offering then that is LESS than what is possible.

Yeah, thats why workers flooded to the Ford factories in 1914. Because everyone else offered as little as possible. Again fantasy.

That is because they advertise at market value. When is the last time you saw an employer advertise they would be paying half what another employer would pay for the exact same work and exact same hours in the exact same area?

Personally? 2002.

That is what competition does. Again, this is generally the real world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/bu...pagewanted=all

And this is an example of a demand shock. Also as you can see from your own link, it is not sustainable.

Straw man. I never said that "wages have not stagnated". I say that both supply and demand factor into wages. If supply exceeds demand, market value of that supply will go down. Wage stagnation is a natural consequence.

Actually demand was kept high due to credit and the housing bubble. Is that a natural consequence? Again the labour market had no hand in setting these wages, which is what you claim happens. Again it is fantasy.

What waffle? You obviously don't know how the economy works. If supply is high and demand is low, prices will be low.

This is incorrect. Prices shall either stay where they are or go up. Examples would be gasoline, utilities in your home, rent prices, mortgage prices, public transport etc etc etc.

Wages will be low. This seems to currently be the case for low-skill jobs... which doesn't contradict my position at all.

Actually the higher paid jobs have also seen their wages stagnate. Again your position does not match the data.

When demand is high and supply is low (as is the case for many skilled fields) pay will be high. This is the case in many lines of work. It isn't that wages and salaries are stagnating in every single region, every single field.

Correct here, CEOS have seen a massive increase in income.

No, it isn't. It takes far less than 40 hours a week to tweak a resume, apply for some jobs, and do some interviews.

Then you must not be looking very hard.

Jury duty is also forced labor. The reward in this case would be that unemployment check.

And just how is it? Jury members are compensated for their time and efforts. What you propose is to force the unemployed to do duties for no reward and that rob someone else of a job.

Not at all. There is plenty of time to do both.
If anything, getting out and doing something with your time resources would be MORE valuable to potential employers. Even something simple like spending time with the lonely could show you are very good at dealing with people. Perhaps instead your time could be to do something like Habitat for Humanity where you could learn valuable construction skills.

Which would look better if you did such things on your own accord. Also having worked in the construction industry and having seen programs like this be implemented no person would wan't to be a part of it.

Yes, this would be more frequent than jury duty. So what? The comparison just shows that we already demand someone's time on occasion, so it isn't "slavery" any more than what we already do.

It is slavery. It is forcing someone to labour for no monetary gain and no compensation for their efforts.

[Senor Hoint]

If anything ever makes rightists think, good. But nazis, of course, existed only to keep capitalism, at whatever cost to others.

I love the revisionist movement among American conservatives that tries to paint the Nazis as a left-wing movement. If the Nazis were left-wing, then Ronald Reagan was a Marxist.

[Dieval]

If anything ever makes rightists think, good. But nazis, of course, existed only to keep capitalism, at whatever cost to others.

I love the revisionist movement among American conservatives that tries to paint the Nazis as a left-wing movement. If the Nazis were left-wing, then Ronald Reagan was a Marxist.

Did I miss something?

Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-capitalism

The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences.[148] Nazi propaganda posters in working-class districts emphasized anti-capitalism, such as one that said: "The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism."[155]

Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed strong disdain for capitalism, accusing modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[156] He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld.[143] He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to its egotistic nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk.[156] Hitler told a party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day is the creation of the Jews."[156] Hitler said to Benito Mussolini that "Capitalism had run its course".[156] Hitler also said that the business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them."[157] Hitler admired Napoleon as a role model for his anti-conservative, anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois attitudes.[158]

Doesn't that sounds EXACTLY like some people here?

[iolo]

I love the revisionist movement among American conservatives that tries to paint the Nazis as a left-wing movement. If the Nazis were left-wing, then Ronald Reagan was a Marxist.

Of course Ronald Reagan was a Marxist, when you compare him with the tea-bags. He was even active in his union, the bolshevik swine!

[Dodds]

Did I miss something?


Doesn't that sounds EXACTLY like some people here?

Yes you did.

Historians Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that in post-World War I Germany, the Nazis were one of many nationalist and fascist political parties contending for the leadership of Germany's anti-communist movement. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility to small businessmen, and its atheism.[148] Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction.[15]
During the 1920s, Hitler urged disparate Nazi factions to unite in opposition to "Jewish Marxism."[149] Hitler asserted that the "three vices" of "Jewish Marxism" were democracy, pacifism and internationalism.[150]
In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[151] In 1931, during a confidential interview with influential editor Richard Breiting of the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, a pro-business newspaper, Hitler said: "I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners."[152] In 1942, Hitler privately said: "I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative".[153]

Sound like anyone you know?

[Dodds]

Of course Ronald Reagan was a Marxist, when you compare him with the tea-bags. He was even active in his union, the bolshevik swine!

He negotiated with terrorists too. That traitor.