I generally don't post videos for information, because they waste so much time and don't get to the point, but they seem to be preferred by many.
To me they seem to get to the point more succinctly, also you can usually just listen and go about your business. Also in my situation it makes my point pretty well without me writing many paragraphs I don't usually have time to write. The things said and references should also inspire someone to do a lot of research, and many times points them where to look.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-22-2019).]
To me they seem to get to the point more succinctly, also you can usually just listen and go about your business. Also in my situation it makes my point pretty well without me writing many paragraphs I don't usually have time to write. The things said and references should also inspire someone to do a lot of research, and many times points them where to look.
The videos that you post, such as Jordan Peterson, are an exception. I am talking about the vlog/podcast types that waste half the video trying to show off their writing abilities or production skills with excess verbosity, elaborate introductions and “artistic” camera cuts. If I haven’t heard anything useful in the first couple of minutes, I usually bail out.
With a print article, I can quickly scan the text to see if there is any new, useful information; then decide if it is worth my time.
The videos that you post, such as Jordan Peterson, are an exception. I am talking about the vlog/podcast types that waste half the video trying to show off their writing abilities or production skills with excess verbosity, elaborate introductions and “artistic” camera cuts. If I haven’t heard anything useful in the first couple of minutes, I usually bail out.
With a print article, I can quickly scan the text to see if there is any new, useful information; then decide if it is worth my time.
For sure. I don't subscribe to any video blogger. I word search topics, and find videos that way.
It may not always be easier for the viewer. Many folks might not be where they can listen or view it.
I make a point to say start from X minute mark many times.
There wre a few posts a whiole back where I labeled headers at multiple minute marks. In the end its the veiwers desire or curiosity that keeps them listening.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-22-2019).]
But I guess because it is more real people accounting first hand experience, it will be dismissed as anecdotal evidence.
And just one more:
I generally don't post videos for information, because they waste so much time and don't get to the point, but they seem to be preferred by many.
I don't get it, so you agree that Sweden is not a fully socialist country and its policies are not socialist? That has been my point. You have been the one accusing me of being socialist, not the other way around. I put "socialist" in quotes for a reason.
My ENTIRE POINT, has been that we need a balance. Right now we keep pushing further and further into capitalism, and we have so little regulation that it is hurting millions. There has to be a balance. European countries are not hurting with much higher tax rates, and have much higher rates of social mobility. Taxes do not prevent social mobility.
You know what does? Cutting taxes repeatedly and making income inequality in America the worst it has been in over a century.
Source Cutting taxes repeatedly on the rich is just not working.
Source Cutting taxes repeatedly on the rich is just not working.
From your source:
quote
A century ago, Saez notes that the highest earners derived much of their income from earnings on the accumulated wealth of past generations. By contrast, “[t]he evidence suggests that top incomes earners today are…“working rich,” highly paid employees or new entrepreneurs who have not yet accumulated fortunes comparable to those accumulated during the Gilded Age.”
In stark contrast to the past, those who are now wealthy have earned their money, rather than inheriting it. This is a perfect example of American exceptionalism and ingenuity in the present day.
Income and living conditions for the bottom 99% of Americans have risen dramatically in the last 100 years. What you are complaining about, what makes you unhappy, is that some have been able to earn vast amounts of wealth through hard work. They did not steal anything from you or your comrades.
We like to think that America's super-capitalistic attitude is what allowed America to thrive during the second half of the twentieth centuries. However we forget that just about every other country that could rival us economically had been invaded, split, or bombed to complete and utter ruins.
A strong, exceptional, Capitalist nation can afford the military resources to prevent it from being "invaded, split, or bombed to complete and utter ruins"
quote
It is really easy to be on top when your infrastructure is intact and others have been decimated.
See, there is a method to this Capitalist madness.
quote
Once countries began to rebuild their infrastructure/politically stabilize, they caught up quick.
I guess you must have been home sick the day they covered the Marshall Plan.
I don't get it, so you agree that Sweden is not a fully socialist country and its policies are not socialist? That has been my point. You have been the one accusing me of being socialist, not the other way around. I put "socialist" in quotes for a reason.
My ENTIRE POINT, has been that we need a balance. ..
We have a balance, I would not tilt more towards socialism.
You put socialism in quotations I assume for the same reason most do, because we may define it differently.
Your posted desires, what you would have the country do, speak for themselves.
Originally posted by Threedog: ...it doesn't mean we have social mobility. The vast majority of people can't move up within our system, it only allows a very small number.
That is not true ! What do you mean by The vast majority of people can't move up within our system ... ? Life, success or failure, is all about choices and consequences. Of the individual.
Let's start with your utopian pipe dream, education. Everybody is mandated to go to school. Some master it (I did not), some don't. Why is that, and, how are we going to fix it ? Some make the choice to put their minds to the grindstone and forgo "being social", in planning to be the best that they can be. Life starts early. With grades. Study, get an "A". Don't study, an "F". mediocre study, a "C". Choices and consequences !
Thus starts the self imposed spiral. One's choices, which present themselves to "the individual", creates opportunities, or consequences.
quote
Originally posted by Threedog: Looking at the data I posted, it shows that social mobility is far more prevalent in these countries with "socialist" policies. It is fact that social welfare helps improve chances of social mobility.
There are "lies - damn lies - and statistics / data". The simplest mind must understand this, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of. I don't believe you are lying. I believe you believe what you think.
Heh, "socialist" policies. Like the ...
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: I was around years before LBJ tried the Great Society experiment.
My conclusions are based on life-long observation and analysis. The best teacher is experience.
What did that get us in the way of upward social mobility? ? We have created multi generational welfare users.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: Welfare systems kill motivation and promote dependence.
quote
Originally posted by Threedog: You have no proof. These are just beliefs that you want to believe because it is what you have been told.
Do you have any 'data' to prove that ? That is what you believe. You would have us to believe that you spent hours and hours to search for the truth, and found no data which made you question your beliefs. I suspect your beliefs are from what you have been told, and swallowed, hook, line, and sinker.
quote
Originally posted by Threedog: "I have no evidence and think that one life experience can substitute thousands of experts and endless amounts of data" Just because some things worked for you, doesn't mean they were the best for the country.
No one was born to serve the best for the country ! That is not what this country is about. You expect us to be slaves to the country ?
You have no evidence and think that one life experience can not substitute thousands of experts and endless amounts of data ? Perhaps you would honestly consider Star Parker's life experience in escaping Uncle Sam's Plantation. Google "Star Parker" for videos if you are lazy. If you really want to know the truth about ?upward mobility? .
Perhaps you would consider mine. I know people on welfare. When presented with a guaranteed job that would pay them more than their "benefits", they chose to decline the job because they would lose their benefits ! Some even did the math. They claimed they would be working for $5.00 an hour (based upon a $200.00 increase in personal value verses working 40 hours a week).
If you truly wanted to "do the best" for the country, you could educate your students to be critical thinkers. Not present them with what to think. You would teach them to believe that success in life comes from hard work.
If you truly wanted to "do the best" for the country, you could start a Foundation, proposing your ideals, asking for contributions to make it happen. Instead of making all pay for it. Heck, half the populace believes what you espouse. Heh, you would solve half of the country's woes. Rome was not built in a day !
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-23-2019).]
Originally posted by Threedog: I would point to universal healthcare that has not tanked the economies of European countries or Japan or Korea or Canada.
I would point to taxation polices that work in Scandinavian and European countries that have not turned them into third world hell holes.
I would point to the utter lack of exodus of the super rich from countries that have progressive, strict taxation polices that heavily tax the rich.
I would point(as I have in this thread) to the increased social mobility in these economies, where poor people actually have a fair shot at getting rich.
I would point to many states in this country that have passed many liberal/leftist laws with large social safety nets and have seen increased social mobility and stronger economies. We like to think that America's super-capitalistic attitude is what allowed America to thrive during the second half of the twentieth centuries. However we forget that just about every other country that could rival us economically had been invaded, split, or bombed to complete and utter ruins. It is really easy to be on top when your infrastructure is intact and others have been decimated. Once countries began to rebuild their infrastructure/politically stabilize, they caught up quick.
So, you would tear it all down. I'm sure you won't be surprised if I disagree.
Socialism proceeds from a notion that one collective consciousness controls the desires, goals and actions of the entire population. It is only under such a delusional assumption that one can imagine everybody working for nothing and getting everything free, that you can take money from businesses and expect them to continue functioning as before.
References to incentives and individual achievement mean nothing to those obsessed by their imaginary collective consciousness, because their "collective mind" will simply dictate the desired behavior. Ludwig von Mises called such people "daydream dictators." They're always thinking, "If only everybody would..."
Of course, the only way to fully implement the plans crafted under such miserable ideas such as socialism is through force. Violence, terror, mass murder. If one's ideology denies individual consciousness in theory, it then must exterminate it in practice.
Marxists created a nine-digit body count during the last 100+ years and they show every sign of desiring to continue in that tradition.
EXAMPLE:
YES, She actually just said that.
"Inside every leftist is a totalitarian screaming to get out."
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-24-2019).]
Originally posted by Threedog: This is not evidence. These are not facts.
Of course there are happy people in America. However the percentage of people who are happy in America is far lower because our system mistreats so many people that are not you.
You are thinking of this as a "I want to make you unhappy and me happy", no, I want to make everyone happy, educated, and able to work at a living wage.
Also, I am plenty happy living here, I am not happy how much other people are not. I can criticize this country while liking it, there is no harm in that. Just because you don't like some American policies or leaders or reps does not mean you do not like America.
since when are opinion polls. fact.
We get it you hate the US of A. why you still here. pack your bags and go to one of those socialist countries you find so dreamy.
I can poll a jail and get data that they are unhappy.. That doesn't mean anything . Or poll a bunch of triggered lefties that are still unhappy that killer didn't win and trump is THEIR leader. SCARY PART IS YOU TEACH YOUNG MINDS.
I have thought about this failed experiment. I think people do a disservice by calling it socialism. This was more an experiment in product valuation and ethics. Eating at Panera and the payment were voluntary. Claiming this is equal to socialism makes socialism look better than it is.
To make a true socialism experiment, we would first have to tax everyone $1500/month for Panera meals. The menu would be reduced to a single set course for each meal with no deviation allowed. Districts would be drawn up and everyone in a district would be assigned to eat at a Panera in the district. Eating outside of your district would be prohibited. Moving between districts would require registering in your new district and being assigned a new Panera to receive your meals. Eating at a Panera outside of your assigned district and failure to register is punishable by fines and possible jail time. Eating at other restaurants would be allowed but it would be paid out of pocket and no tax credit given.
Originally posted by Threedog: Just because some things worked for you, doesn't mean they were the best for the country.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: If you truly wanted to "do the best" for the country, you could ...
If you truly wanted to "do the best" for the country, you could ...
Threedog, just what is it that you do, that is the best for the country ? Serious question.
Your yearnings for a more socialistic country / world, are under the guise that it would give a leg up to people who don't have the advantages that some others have. Forcing those that have, and all of us, to pay for it.
Again I ask you, what do you do that is best for the country ? What do you do that is best for your community ? What have you done to improve anyone's life ?
I don't like to pat myself on the back, or brag, and I hardly ever do. Perhaps I should more often, if only to inspire others.
The wife and I have been the primary caregiver for a mentally challenged girl / woman since 1998. We took over this act of compassion from her mother, who adopted two such girls. We provide a modest, decent home, and are involved in her daily life. We provide a daily structured life for her which also includes life educating experiences. Such as supporting her in quests she wishes to follow which includes Special Olympics, bowling, group field trips to places such as the zoo, museums, and other such venues. We also provide her with many opportunities which are pleasurable and also build her self esteem.
Giving her true social mobility. It comes from / with a considerable cost, in both time and money.
The wife is faithful in tithing 10% all all of our earnings, in pre-taxed dollars, to the church and still give monetary offerings to other church sponsored endeavors (missionaries are high on my wife's wishes). The church does a lot of good, of all kinds, for the poor and needy. You will find many church going folk participating in many endeavors, including weather disasters.
We also donate to a handful of other charities. St Judes and Shriners Hospitals are two of my 'causes'. I first stated being a volunteer firefighter for my community in 1996. I have done many things for the good of individuals, my community, my city, my State, and my country.
What have you done ? What would you think if I expected you to pay for what I do ? If I forced you to do what I do ?
Back to the thread topic. "Panera Tried Socialism, It Failed" . They really did not, because they couldn't force the rich to pay more, or any really.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: Welfare systems kill motivation and promotes dependence.
quote
Originally posted by Threedog: You have no proof. These are just beliefs that you want to believe because it is what you have been told.
Would you like to double down on stupid ? Panera gave away free stuff and people were takers. I would bet that those whose income is derived from holding up signs saying "will work for food" ate there and did no work.
quote
Originally posted by Threedog: I would point to the utter lack of exodus of the super rich from countries that have progressive, strict taxation polices that heavily tax the rich.
I would point to many states in this country that have passed many liberal/leftist laws with large social safety nets and have seen increased social mobility and stronger economies.
There is not a lack exodus of any country that have progressive, strict taxation polices that heavily tax the rich. There are many States that have passed many liberal/leftist laws with large social safety nets that have a good percentage of exodus. All fleeing to States with less burdensome taxes which have social safety nets.
In 1970, 92% of 30 year olds earned more than their parents did at that age. Now, that number is below 50%.
What has happened since then? The complete destruction of the lower and middle class by a drastic cutting of social safety nets and cutting taxes on the rich resulting in a deteriorating infrastructure and government systems.
Putting people in the lower class does not encourage them to get out, that is not how human psychology works no matter how badly you want it to.
American middle class growth was spurred by the economic boom that occurred as a result of North American manufacturing (US and Canada) providing the materials needed to rebuild the world. Prior to the two World Wars, America's middle class was nearly non-existent.
Technological innovations from war technology created new industries, and created the need for education in the technologies.
As the rest of the world rebuilt, manufacturing was restored in the rebuilt countries, and technologies were exported or stolen and transferred offshore.
The middle class was created as a result of WWII and was not sustainable without ever-expanding markets. The move by Nixon to open up China to trade was a result of the recognition of that need for a larger customer base for our products.
Lower demand for North American products, the off-shoring of production and poor performance by Congress to protect America's advantages had more to due with the degradation of the middle class than the lack of safety nets or social welfare programs.
In 1970, 92% of 30 year olds earned more than their parents did at that age. Now, that number is below 50%.
So, we are finally approaching income equality! All hale the great and wise Karl Marx!
quote
What has happened since then? The complete destruction of the lower and middle class
“Complete Destruction” means that the lower and middle class no longer exist. The conclusion that can be drawn is that everyone is now upper class. Everyone is now rich. Income equality has been achieved! All hale the great and wise Karl Marx!
quote
by a drastic cutting of social safety nets
Are you saying that the middle class depended on “social safety nets”? That money was intended for the disadvantaged. Is middle class disadvantaged? I am middle class, should I have taken some of that money?
quote
and cutting taxes on the rich resulting in a deteriorating infrastructure and government systems.
Are you saying that tax revenue has decreased over the years? Or that we need the rich to support us? Why would you want help from someone that you so despise?
Now, let’s reexamine your first contention:
quote
In 1970, 92% of 30 year olds earned more than their parents did at that age. Now, that number is below 50%.
and this one:
quote
Also, the world is not the same as it was when you grew up. Opportunities for advancement are nowhere near what they used to be.
Are you saying that 50 years ago, America was a better place?
Maybe we should……
quote
Also, if socialist policies are so bad, why do we constantly give farmers massive amounts of government handouts?
Originally posted by Threedog:I don't get it, so you agree that Sweden is not a fully socialist country and its policies are not socialist? That has been my point. You have been the one accusing me of being socialist, not the other way around. I put "socialist" in quotes for a reason.
My ENTIRE POINT, has been that we need a balance.
I absolutely agree, we need to tax the poor. I think we should be taxing the first dollar, even if just at 1%, everyone should have a dog in the fight. Very humorous is that the writer found that she was being taxed at 102% and that is what would happen in high tax states like California if the Federal tax reached 87% for super high income earner. 100% plus income taxes then taxed on property they already "own"(do you ever really own real estate if you have to pay property tax?).
Originally posted by Threedog:In 1970, 92% of 30 year olds earned more than their parents did at that age. Now, that number is below 50%.
What has happened since then? The complete destruction of the lower and middle class by a drastic cutting of social safety nets and cutting taxes on the rich resulting in a deteriorating infrastructure and government systems.
Putting people in the lower class does not encourage them to get out, that is not how human psychology works no matter how badly you want it to.
Have you not heard, we live in a rich country and we should allow all persons of the world a chance to live here and have the exact same experience. Consider your numbers and then look at immigration by year. https://www.albert.io/learn...-historic-migrations
Some young people seem to look back on the sixties with rose colored glasses. They dream that they are Abby Hoffman or Malcolm X. Those who were around back then, that is anyone who’s mailbox is littered almost daily with come-ons from the AARP, know better. Friends and family were sent half way around the world to fight something most did not really understand and those who were lucky enough to make it home found that the streets were literally on fire all across America.
Los Angeles, California, USA 1965 - LBJ's "Great Society"
This is not a video game. Think carefully. If you make the wrong decision, people will die.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 02-26-2019).]
In 1970, 92% of 30 year olds earned more than their parents did at that age. Now, that number is below 50%. What has happened since then? The complete destruction of the lower and middle class by a drastic cutting of social safety nets and cutting taxes on the rich resulting in a deteriorating infrastructure and government systems. Putting people in the lower class does not encourage them to get out, that is not how human psychology works no matter how badly you want it to. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Also, the world is not the same as it was when you grew up. Opportunities for advancement are nowhere near what they used to be. Also, if socialist policies are so bad, why do we constantly give farmers massive amounts of government handouts?
You don't think that's because if you had to swing a hammer or read a tape measure for a living you would die of starvation? When everyone had to have the latest gadget and wanted it dirt cheap they went off shore for it. When manufacturing left the states because they couldn't compete with China and Japan. Who by the way were not paying wages anything close to those in the states. So now we have a service based economy that cant sustain itself.
We need to bring back manufacturing, stop telling our children that if they don't have an 8 year degree that they wont amount to anything and put pride back in our children for a job well done instead of rewarding everyone for participating. Even if the country did socialize everything, the corruption and lack of manufacturing the US would collapse in less than 10 years. So perhaps when you hear that the world will end in 10 years they are not so off the mark. Keep it up, put the government in charge of everything. Hell its not like we will all just stop working and get fat. Its not like we would just roll over the next time we are attacked.
As for mandated health care, well I have been paying the fine for the last 3 years. So no its not working for me.
You like data right? Many things are interrelated, there are sources to problems that could use fixing, more than just throwing money at the resulting issue.
What do you do that we can follow to make life the idea that you have?
I hit things with hammers until they fit. Ok not so much anymore as I work in IT now but for 20 years I worked with my hands and only for health reasons did I go into IT.
I hit things with hammers until they fit. Ok not so much anymore as I work in IT now but for 20 years I worked with my hands and only for health reasons did I go into IT.
It seems to me that the hammer might still be a useful tool whenever you encounter a PICNIC*.
This is an age old tactic that baits people into meeting in the middle and having nothing to offer, nothing to loose. First set up a straw man, then make it evil and convince others to hate the straw man. In this case it is Global Warming or the newest evolution of the concept, Global Climate Change ( or the newest new is "Crisis"). Then say we need to do something to stop this evil straw man. Make outrageous claims so people will give half of the offer "meet in the middle". Thus, getting something for nothing, with nothing to offer and nothing to loose. She is making the claim that she is trying to solve a problem and people are giving her a hard time about FACTS. Then says anybody who disagrees with her NEEDS to offer a better solution (to a problem that does not even exist). Fools abound, EVEN in the highest places on Earth. Keep in mind, that no matter your opinion or beliefs about Climate Change, it is ONLY a hypothesis, it is not a proven undisputed "fact".
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 02-26-2019).]
It really does seem like proponents of socialism think they are talking about something completely different than what socialism is and where it leads.
I don't subscribe to any video blogger. I word search topics, and find videos that way.
