World welcomes Obama win

#277
#277
BigPapaVol said:
TennNC said:
I'll take that as you have no response that merits reading. The Marxist proletariat vs. bourgoise argument always comes to this point, but it really only became evident since all of those sticking to his ideal failed utterly.
Click to expand...

Have a nice day.

(I'll wait for you to turn that statement into a "Marxist proletariat vs. bourgoise argument." I bet you can do it.)
Click to expand...
 
#278
#278
TennNC said:
BigPapaVol said:
Have a nice day.

(I'll wait for you to turn that statement into a "Marxist proletariat vs. bourgoise argument." I bet you can do it.)
Click to expand...
It's actually not warranted here. You make more comments about wealth existing BECAUSE OF a cheap labor pool and I'll trot them right back out because they're appropriate.

Don't fret over me having a nice day. In my experience, conservatives have more of those than liberals. The shrill whiny emotional arguments of the liberal make them appear to be permanently slighted by those who view the world differently.
Click to expand...
 
#279
#279
BPV, forget every other post and just flatter me and answer this question(s):

Is there any correlation between wealth and income disparity, and if so, what is it?
 
#280
#280
TennNC said:
BPV, forget every other post and just flatter me and answer this question(s):

Is there any correlation between wealth and income disparity, and if so, what is it?
Click to expand...
in short, no. wealth and income are two entirely different financial measures, period.
 
#282
#282
TennNC said:
Then help me get wealthy without earning an income - I want some of that.
Click to expand...
call Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. They've got it down. The basis of wealth in our nation was land ownership, period. George Washington was enormously wealthy and never made more than a pittance.
 
#283
#283
BigPapaVol said:
call Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. They've got it down. The basis of wealth in our nation was land ownership, period. George Washington was enormously wealthy and never made more than a pittance.
Click to expand...

So, I need a time machine.
 
#284
#284
TennNC said:
So, I need a time machine.
Click to expand...
not at all. again, the basis of wealth in America was land ownership. Had nothing whatsoever to do with labor pools. Those that got their hand on dirt, could leverage it into working capital. It was actually the basis for liquidity in this country.

Today, if you can access the capital markets and have any idea that people are willing to pay for, you can become wealthy. I do it on a daily basis and grew up a poor kid in podunk TN.
 
#286
#286
BigPapaVol said:
not at all. again, the basis of wealth in America was land ownership. Had nothing whatsoever to do with labor pools. Those that got their hand on dirt, could leverage it into working capital. It was actually the basis for liquidity in this country.

Today, if you can access the capital markets and have any idea that people are willing to pay for, you can become wealthy. I do it on a daily basis and grew up a poor kid in podunk TN.
Click to expand...

What about slavery? Was that just coincidental?

And if lower-paid laborers went away completely would I still be able to become wealthy?
 
#290
#290
TennNC said:
What about slavery? Was that just coincidental?

And if lower-paid laborers went away completely would I still be able to become wealthy?
Click to expand...
slavery didn't provide the value to the original land owners. not in the least. GW's land was far too immense for any amount of slavery to provide it any real value. The intrinsic value in the property was the basis of his wealth. I know you want to "blame" his wealth on his exploitation of cheap labor, but that didn't do it.

You certainly don't need low paid labor to do what I do or have done since graduate school. Not even a little bit.
 
#292
#292
TennNC said:
If by "resume" you mean "good looking wife," sure.

(btw, I'm honestly not anti-McCain.)
Click to expand...

True! But I was talking more of his over all resume as far as military service, his service in our government etc. I just think over all he is a better choice than Kerry or Obama for that matter.
 
#294
#294
KB5252 said:
Or you could marry well like Kerry. Although I'm not sure there are that many condiment fortune heiresses available though.:)
Click to expand...

13793.jpg
 
#295
#295
BigPapaVol said:
You certainly don't need low paid labor to do what I do or have done since graduate school. Not even a little bit.
Click to expand...

Then why'd you move your client's business to China? I mean, if you didn't need the low-paid labor pool over there...
 
#296
#296
TennNC said:
Then why'd you move your client's business to China? I mean, if you didn't need the low-paid labor pool over there...
Click to expand...

because the company and the jobs it contains belong to the client.

stop being so simplistic and arguing for the sake of arguing. The regulatory and tax burden on American businesses is getting increasingly difficult to bear. If you want jobs to stay in America, stop allowing the federal government to set up obstacles that are particularly troublesome for small and new business owners.
 
#297
#297
TennNC said:
Then why'd you move your client's business to China? I mean, if you didn't need the low-paid labor pool over there...
Click to expand...
I didn't move it, he did. For all you know, it could have been because he was benevolent and wanted to provide something the folks there didn't otherwise have, means to income. I'll assure you that those working there were by no means low paid in there society. Exploitation wasn't on their minds. It was a complete home run for them.

Regardless, his story wasn't about how I went about making money or building wealth for me. He believed I had a skill he could use and was willing to pay for it. I trusted that his business plan was sellable to the investment community, institutional and otherwise. We struck a deal. I held up my end and he held up his. It generally worked out for everyone.
 
#298
#298
BigPapaVol said:
I didn't move it, he did. For all you know, it could have been because he was benevolent and wanted to provide something the folks there didn't otherwise have, means to income. I'll assure you that those working there were by no means low paid in there society. Exploitation wasn't on their minds. It was a complete home run for them.
Click to expand...

And the fact that he pays them much less than he'd pay the same workers here was coincidental? No correlation btwn. wealth and payroll, right?
 
#299
#299
TennNC said:
And the fact that he pays them much less than he'd pay the same workers here was coincidental? No correlation btwn. wealth and payroll, right?
Click to expand...

he also doesn't have to deal with the ridiculous regulatory burdens put in place by the US government.
 
#300
#300
MG1968 said:
he also doesn't have to deal with the ridiculous regulatory burdens put in place by the US government.
Click to expand...

separate issue. separate argument.

this goes back to a quote I made (yesterday) and was then bastardized. it's a really simple statement that has been turned into "You're a Marxist." Which, if you can't prove that the original statement was false or accept it as the truth, makes your argument much easier. B/c then you get to debate against a theory (an incredibly loaded one) rather than the actual statement made.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top