Wealth Stratification

#126
#126
utgibbs said:
For me now, BPV, it would be all about your philsophical consistency. I wouldn't take your stuff for spite or greed or to demonstrate my power. Justice, after all, has nothing to do with economic outcomes.

:hi:
Click to expand...

Justice has nothing to do with economic outcomes. As for the reason you don't take my stuff, it's because we have laws and abide by them. If we didn't, you might try, but then there'd be no Johnny to protect your hide. Either way, I'm covered.

Your philosophical tangent is silly.
 
#127
#127
There was a time when I could come in and read a few post and understand what you guys were debating.

Now, i honestly have no clue. Calories? Robbery? Joe Schmo? Show my power?

I've got to be missing something.
 
#128
#128
utgibbs said:
No, I'm afraid you aren't.

I think it is telling that we associate the Rawlsian view of justice with a "leftist stance" actually. Very telling.
Click to expand...

I honestly have no clue where to begin in debating you.

You really, really, REALLY believe this stuff?

really?
 
#129
#129
therealUT said:
Once again, so that someone who happens upon this thread does not get caught up in Gibbs's BS argument:

Let:
a = real wealth
x = time

TRUT possesses 1a at x, 2a at x+10, and 3a at x+100. TRUT has more real wealth at x+100.

Gibbs possesses 1a at x, 5a at x+10, and 20a at x+100. Gibbs has more real wealth at x+100.

At x+100, both TRUT and Gibbs possess more real wealth than they did at x; the stratification has no affect on this.

Now, TRUT might feel as though the situation is unfair; however, that does not change the fact that he has more real wealth. Gibbs might feel he has an advantage and might feel as though he wants to make rules to keep and increase the stratification; however, that does not change the fact that TRUT has more real wealth at x+100 than he did at x. These facts are undeniable; this undeniable truth poves that stratification in itself cannot be wrong/evil/bad.

Gibbs will go on to argue that Gibbs is making his wealth at the expense of TRUT; if this is true, it still does not make stratification inherently evil nor does it make TRUT any worse off in a real sense, only in an imagined sense.

The problem with Gibbs anti-bourgeouis outlook is that he fails to see that it is the envy of the lower class that is causing this imagined suffering in a situation in which TRUT does indeed possess more real wealth at x+100 than at x.

Gibbs continually blasts the top for their greed, which has yet to be proven even exists. In doing so, Gibbs stands on the proposition that the possibility of greed is a greater evil than the reality of envy. It is up to the reader of this post to decide whether such a proposition is true or false, and then whether or not one sould continue to listen to any argument advanced by Gibbs on said proposition.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Pretty spot on.
 
#130
#130
therealUT said:
Once again, so that someone who happens upon this thread does not get caught up in Gibbs's BS argument:

Let:
a = real wealth
x = time

TRUT possesses 1a at x, 2a at x+10, and 3a at x+100. TRUT has more real wealth at x+100.

Gibbs possesses 1a at x, 5a at x+10, and 20a at x+100. Gibbs has more real wealth at x+100.

At x+100, both TRUT and Gibbs possess more real wealth than they did at x; the stratification has no affect on this.

Now, TRUT might feel as though the situation is unfair; however, that does not change the fact that he has more real wealth. Gibbs might feel he has an advantage and might feel as though he wants to make rules to keep and increase the stratification; however, that does not change the fact that TRUT has more real wealth at x+100 than he did at x. These facts are undeniable; this undeniable truth poves that stratification in itself cannot be wrong/evil/bad.

Gibbs will go on to argue that Gibbs is making his wealth at the expense of TRUT; if this is true, it still does not make stratification inherently evil nor does it make TRUT any worse off in a real sense, only in an imagined sense.

The problem with Gibbs anti-bourgeouis outlook is that he fails to see that it is the envy of the lower class that is causing this imagined suffering in a situation in which TRUT does indeed possess more real wealth at x+100 than at x.

Gibbs continually blasts the top for their greed, which has yet to be proven even exists. In doing so, Gibbs stands on the proposition that the possibility of greed is a greater evil than the reality of envy. It is up to the reader of this post to decide whether such a proposition is true or false, and then whether or not one sould continue to listen to any argument advanced by Gibbs on said proposition.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And here I thought you had explored the limits of being purile.

Well, you will all be happy to know, I got that one wrong it seems! :)

Wipe your nose, quit trying so hard, and go read the history of Potosi and then regale me with your notions that we have yet to prove the existance of greed. :ermm:
 
#133
#133
utgibbs said:
And here I thought you had explored the limits of being purile.

Well, you will all be happy to know, I got that one wrong it seems! :)

Wipe your nose, quit trying so hard, and go read the history of Potosi and then regale me with your notions that we have yet to prove the existance of greed. :ermm:
Click to expand...

Your responses to my hypothetical propositions (propositions that are required to establish premises) clearly and definitively show your envy; this is displayed against a greed that does not exist in said propositions (or, that you have not proven in said propositions).

Therefore, I use your real envy against the unproven existence of greed in my proposition, to reach my conclusion and to establish the premise that stratification is not inherently bad (it is inherently moral neutral).

Until you can prove the existence of greed in my hypothetical proposition, though, you are dead wrong.
 
#134
#134
Greed is good.

Sorry Gibbs but I employ quite a few people because I am one greedy lil bastard.

I also just hired 4 more full timers this week who were un employed because I am greedy and want more money.
 
#135
#135
greed was purely an add on to make it appear that one isn't necessarily better than the other, which is utter crap.

The bottom line is that greed exists at every level of the economic ladder and it's the primary reason that American poor is the most well off in the history of the world, but is also the most shrill.
 
#137
#137
utgibbs said:
Says the man with the purile and infantile options W - Z and demands monosyllable responses to his purile philosophies he is desperately trying to pawn as deep thinking. :eek:lol:

I include the latest of my answers to your question thoroughly demonstrating your lack of intellectual standing. It raises other questions too, like your skills at reading comprehension or your exposure to Phil 101 even.

In your OP - which you backed off from - you were describing option Zed Prime:

A gets 1500 (the "food poor" point for the FDA - just to be generous)
B gets 10000

an option both evil and one in which A is far, far, far worse off (as is society). Just as I said.

And you have been unable to even generate a monosyllable on the much more challenging question I posed to you. A question which, if answered truthfully, undermines the entire thrust of your OP.

Wipe your nose, junior. You have been played. I will say, I have rarely found an individual trying so desperately to prove how smart they are....
Click to expand...

I swear to all things holy you are the stupidest person on the planet. Attempting to broaden your vocabulary makes someone of your intellect look stupid every single time. Pick about one hundred words and stick with them. Your brain can't handle anything more.

Twice in the same damn sentence. Damn. You'd think you might learn after "paduwan".
 
#138
#138
kptvol said:
I swear to all things holy you are the stupidest person on the planet. Attempting to broaden your vocabulary makes someone of your intellect look stupid every single time. Pick about one hundred words and stick with them. Your brain can't handle anything more.

Twice in the same damn sentence. Damn.
Click to expand...

whoa, stop! I find it very entertaining.
 
#139
#139
utgibbs said:
And here I thought you had explored the limits of being purile.

Well, you will all be happy to know, I got that one wrong it seems! :)

Wipe your nose, quit trying so hard, and go read the history of Potosi and then regale me with your notions that we have yet to prove the existance of greed. :ermm:
Click to expand...

Terrible.
 
#142
#142
NEOCON said:
Greed is good.

Sorry Gibbs but I employ quite a few people because I am one greedy lil bastard.

I also just hired 4 more full timers this week who were un employed because I am greedy and want more money.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I hired four new people last week and bought a very large piece of equipment, but for different reasons from you, Neo. :hi:

This also makes me wonder how my "real envy" could be proven in a court of justice. Since it is "real" while greed is hypothetical, and yet Neo here believes it is an intrinsic good. As does the rest of the coterie who have chimed in on cue. And moreover, it exists, according to Neo, to help him accumulate wealth. HMMMMMMMMMMM.

It seems difficult to be envious of the class in which you belong, but since you are just making stuff up now who knows where you can go with it? :)
 
Last edited:
#145
#145
droski said:
why not hire 10 people?
Click to expand...
Because he is an unjust bourgeois hypocrite that secretly hates the poor and wants to oppress them.
what are you paying them?
Click to expand...

Not enough. He is also requiring them to work too much. If he were really consistent with the ideals he espouses, he'd let them sit in houses he had bought for them, pay all of their bills, and give them all the "walking around money" they wanted.

Of course according to his theories on wealth creation, his business would be just as effective and healthy.
 
#147
#147
utgibbs said:
Interestingly, I hired four new people last week and bought a very large piece of equipment, but for different reasons from you, Neo. :hi:
Click to expand...

Did they have access to the same rewards as you? Are you receiving any fruits of their labor that they are not? I hope there's substantive equality happening up in there.
 
#148
#148
volinbham said:
Did they have access to the same rewards as you? Are you receiving any fruits of their labor that they are not? I hope there's substantive equality happening up in there.
Click to expand...

Does keeping the snackroom stocked with a variety of Pringle's count?
 
#149
#149
volinbham said:
Did they have access to the same rewards as you? Are you receiving any fruits of their labor that they are not? I hope there's substantive equality happening up in there.
Click to expand...

There is. Along Rawlsian lines too.

I can't say I've created Robert Owen's New Harmony though. As MG is fond of pointing out, I'm an Engles-esque character and, like he, constrained by the system.

(My health care bills would go down with single payer, btw).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top