The debate "Black Lives Matter movement is a terrorist group" was started by
October 5, 2016, 10:46 pm.
32 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 42 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
RogueAmerican posted 75 arguments, Blue_ray posted 3 arguments, neveralone posted 1 argument, blakelovesjesus posted 1 argument, ComradeStalin posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 72 arguments, neveralone posted 6 arguments, PsychDave posted 3 arguments, davidsmiley posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
DrBanner, Bodaciouslady16, Blue_ray, RogueAmerican, blakelovesjesus, TheTrueScotsman, ComradeStalin, Yanksxx21, Your_dad and 23 visitors agree.
TheExistentialist, jack_tim_45, maxip, Nemiroff, davidsmiley, LeeTaHa, CrazePhil and 35 visitors disagree.
I said regulations on manufacturing. They alter production to create a suitable product in the eyes of the government. That is what the regulation is. It is a fascist stem.
In an economic sense, it is the union of capitalism and socialism; however, the capitalist entity is a facade. It is a centrally planned economy, as is socialism, but the means of production are somewhat controlled by the people. Again, this is mostly a facade.
Do you actually have any points?
Freedom and good intentions pave the way for tyranny.
They also pave the way for many other possibilities. You are defining the world based on what suits your argument, and it is absurd. Not all regulations are fascist. To claim that any regulation is fascist shows that you don't understand the meaning. You quoted definitions that you seem to think agree with you, but neither of them said that all regulations are fascist.
Could you give a basic definition of what you think fascism means?
Easy... Im agreeing with you.
And to your slippery slope statement, yes. All governments must grow. Asking a businessman to not make money is as futile as keeping a politician from power. Also, slippery slope usually means nothing, but in a historic view it is declaring causation.
One more thing: freedom and good intentions pave the way for tyranny. It has been observed for centuries.
people can and do choose to assume risk in their lives. such as to do the double diamond or choose to fix the boiler themselves. however you don't choose anything when a company opens a plant up river from you and dumps garbage.
fascism isn't being demonized, fascism has NOTHING TO DO with regulation. the definition of fascism is authoritarian and nationalistic. it can use regulation, but so can numerous other systems. fascism can outright seize control of all production if it wished to. for the good of the nation.
your slippery slope argument isn't good either. at that rate, we fell into fascism as soon as we started conceiving of governments and nations. just another step towards fascism....
the CHOICE of risk has limits. such as the risks you have NO CHOICE OVER or those that VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS.
No the issue is youve missed my entire point. Im saying it is objectively fascist. Whether or not it is needed is entirely separate. Fascism isnt a dirty word, it is what it is. Now in regard to those affected by externalities, I agree. But the fundamental question ive been going for is should an individual be able to choose to incorporate risk into his life. Dont take offense to fascism--it will greatly inhibit any ability of progress. Im not saying youre Hitler. Hitler himself perverted fascism.
If you werent so eager to deny fascist influence, I would take a step forward: by regulating once, we regulate twice, etc. One seemingly innocent fascist principle opens the floodgates of fascism. How is it that debates over the interstate commerce became obamacare and single payer. Become controlling of GM.
Now a person belief in regard nationalism and fascism a force. Is there a group that is being targetted to shut up--alienated from debate; being persecuted and frowned upon as backwards and destructive to the american system? Someone whom it matters not that you offend or attack them?
Let's make this a bit less abstract. Should a factory be able to dump raw sewage on your lawn if it saves them money on disposal?
If so, there is no point arguing with you because you are either an idiot who is ok with being poisoned or are being dishonest.
If not, that is why there are regulations on production. You can argue about the extent and kinds of regulation, but when you start equating any regulation with fascism you have ignored reality in favor of your own theoretical model.
For the record, I don't think you are an idiot because you have been able to make and reinforce your position. That means either you are being dishonest or you should be able to understand at least basic regulation of industry.
you may be talking definitionally, but not the definition of real words. you are making up your defininitions to suit your own world view.
except your definition is made up. that isn't how definitions work.
all regulations affect production, including clean water regulation. if a certain chemical is poisonous in the water, then they have to shift production to either remove the by-product, or add mechanisms to capture it. regardless production will be affected.
are you suggesting that we should allow them to poison our water in the name of campitalism?
Im not arguing. Im talking definitionally.
"Well if we want to continue down this path, we either move away from these archaic principles in favor of fascism and socialism as a whole. Either way, you reject the enligntenment." The lead up was manufacturing and regulations upon it. I have not changed.
It's fascist. Thats all im saying. You alter manufacturing etc to appease the regulations.
before you said that all regulations are fascist by definition, now your picking a choosing.
the epa protects the environment, the land we plan on occupying for ever, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. what is wrong with epa regulations?
Im talking about regulations that alter the production of goods. For example the EPA.
a hate group yes, however; I wouldn't call them a terrorist group.
they could in extreme cases, but they could also be common sense minimum standards for the welfare safety of the people. without regulations capitalism just turns into a bunch of monopolies. regulations are a necessary part of any economy.
Regulatory agencies act as the medium from which national desire is dictated.
Ok. I made a mistake.
the core parts of fascism are not authoritarianism nor antisemitism. neither is it economic policy. it's the hypernationalism. the belief that everything is done for the best of the nation. the group over the individual.
before accusing people verify your facts, otherwise it really does make you look dumb. I didn't say the insult you cited.
that was history buff you quoted there. not nemiroff.
Now if you, through your arrogance and extreme conceit, cannot admit reality--distinguish between fascist and fascism--there is little use in attempting to hold philosophic conversation.
"At the heart of fascism lies state control of the economy. As Mises long ago pointed out, socialism can come about while the form of capitalism remains. In this type of socialism, the government dictates economic decisions and the ostensible business owners must obey its orders. It was precisely this pattern that Mises found in Nazism, and, unfortunately, it has become increasingly prevalent in America today.
The reality of bureaucratic administration has been with us at least since the New Deal, which was modeled on the planning bureaucracy that lived in World War I. The planned economy ? whether in Mussolini?s time or ours ? requires bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the heart, lungs, and veins of the planning state. And yet to regulate an economy as thoroughly as this one is today is to kill prosperity with a billion tiny cuts."
"when people hear the word ?fascism? they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and ?30s as ?corporatism,? that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a ?model? by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called ?fascism? but ?planned capitalism.? The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym ?industrial policy? is as popular as ever."
Nemiroff... I hate to break it to you but you dont either.
Blacks in general are threat to society
In their ideal theories; All lives matter is a positive force. Blue lives is a positive force. Black lives matter is a positive force.
The fallacy in saying that BLM should be *changed to ALM lies in the fact that it undermines what is the case.
*To make the BLM movement not exist and instead assert that ALM is equivalent to telling one of your children that all hunger matters, then giving them half a plate of food, while their siblings enjoy a full plate at no expense to them.
The opposite of Black Lives Matter is not All Lives Matter.
BLM does not refute or go against or undermine ALM in any way.
It points to an issue.
If White people want to assert that All Lives Matter, they should look within themselves to care for that ideology.
Meaning they should recognize, and acknowledge that there is a dichotomy between the generalized conceptions of a black persons worth vs a white persons.
Many people think of sagging pants first when they hear black. When i meet people for the first time, they are all too happy to tell me that Im so different than they assumed.
And they say so with a smile!
The opposite of Black Lives Matter is Black Lives Do Not Matter.
BLM is not about cops killing blacks, as they often do whites.
But it came to light because, hell, were already systematically opressed. we can talk abiut that too if youd like. the shootings were just a flame to the fumes.
I'm curious about your explanation.
let me know if youre still watching this thread and i can explain the fallacy here
you are working on your own personal definitions. it's has nothing to do with any fundamental fascist ideology, your literally making this connection up.
you also seem to think if you aren't pure free market capitalism then you are something else completely, but you don't seem to apply the purity requirements to the other systems. the slightest similarities to the system seem to automatically qualify, rather than a full checklist like you expect of "enlightenment" capitalism.
that's both false dichotomy and a false equivocation. you have a double standard.
I would have preferred other solutions, but I'm not informed enough to say if it was better or worse than doing nothing.
you don't seem to know what the word fascism means. you shouldn't throw around words you don't understand. it makes you look dumb.
Do you support the GM bailout.
Im referring to a contractual agreement of accepting risk. You are talking about risk to uninvolved parties.
You don't need a dictatorship, and as ive said, the policies are fascist. Not in themselves fascism, but fascist. Manipulations of the private industry are fundamental to institutionalized fascism.
Because you regulate alterations to production.
everything I said was relevant to regulations. those are the 3 types, and no suggestion of production demands.
what was irrelevant?
because the simple presence of regulation is fascism. fascism does more than just regulate business, but even more so fascism's fundamental definition has nothing to do with economics.
fascism is authoritarian nationalism. there is definitely no dictator here, therefore not fascist. fascism can have total market control or a completely free market. economics has little to do with fascism. your definition is all wrong at its core. that's why I'm rejecting it. its a false dichotomy. they aren't even related.
Why are you running from the term?
Its fascist. You are talking about completely unrelated things. Youre saying that i am saying that we should harm others or put them at risk without consent.
that's the thing. you don't have to produce "anything that I need" you could produce whatever you want, unless it's poisonous or a lie.
the regulation all fall into 3 categories. environmental, safety, and workers rights. your unexplainable all or nothing belief aside, the reasons behind these rules are obvious, important, and vital.
production is not even suggested.
Regulations upon regulations form the basis of central planning. I have to make what you need in the manner dictated by regulations.
That isnt production.
Yes, and I can refuse either. I have an opportunity to work for whomever i desire. Whether i do is my own responsibility.
It is fascist. You are adding a semblance of central planning to private business.
of course not! government is for regulating people and actions. but not businesses and the wealthy!
Let's take your view of regulation a step further. It is my choice to drive 120 mph drunk through a school zone. Is it fascist to make laws against it?
if your given the option of starvation or hopeless slave labor, neither one offers any pursuit of happiness. happiness is not gauranteed, but the opportunities for it are. under the principles of this nation.
the setting of minimum standards is not sacrifice of control. the government makes no decisions, it only makes rules. you want to revoke all safety regulations on construction sites too?
I can starve. Happiness was never a guarantee.
They can choose fascism. Sacrificing private control for the government.
so once again. the people are forbidden from chosing how they are governed? one of the principles of the enlightenment the protection of human rights, and one of the principles of the founding of this nation was the pursuit for happiness. the choice of starvation or slave labor is not a choice that follows either of these principles.
please answer directly. are you eager to return to the conditions of the industrial revolution?
fascism is a right wing ideology btw.
also fascism calls for people to sacrifice for their government, not the other way around. I think your definitions are all screwed up.
regulations have nothing to do with fascism.
Oh the lovely song of fascism. Oh so appealing it seems!
They dont have to work. Surely you must remember the pickets outside of plants. They choose to sell their labor for the risks they are willing to take. It is THEIR choice. And to work or starve, you choose to work or starve. It is a part of lifem
you want to talk about choice? the people chose to elect a government that gave them protections. that was their choice. you are the one taking away their choice based on an arbitrary government restriction that honestly, you libertarians just invented.
because the people taking the risk have no choice. the plant owner is deciding those risks for them. once again I cite the industrial revolution, everyone had a choice, work under hazardous slave conditions, or starve.... that's not a choice.
Why cant I allow myself to take those risks in full knowledge of them? I can drive but transportation is cheapest to walk.
the careers you mentioned can't be done without those risks. manufacturing can absolutely be done while minimizing the risk to workers. that's what the regulations are for. not to completely remove risk, but to minimize it as much as possible.
Say i want to drive to work. Do i have the right to add that risk to my life for the sake of expediency? Im not talking fraudulent deception. If i know what im doing, cant i make the choice?
What about the military.
And what of professional sports?
So you suggest telling people to choose between getting fired and their family starving or being injured or killed and then your family starving since you can't work? That isn't a choice.
and reasonable people don't think that business has the right to ask their workers to risk their life and limb like that. if a worker needs that job to feed their family then their boss is going to be able to pressure them into taking risks they don't want to take. that is why regulations force them protect their employees.
Both have a willful decision though. Unless they lie to you, you know full well what yhe risks are going into a job.
Choosing to do an extreme sport is choosing to take risks. Businesses demanding that you risk your health and life or they fire you and your family starves is not. That is the distinction.
Fascist* We could also argue whether it is an individual right to assume risk upon yourself.
so safety regulations in a factory that prevent people from losing limbs and then being discarded for no compensation is fascism? do you really want to go back to the industrial revolution?
Ill amend that to fascist, not fascism.
I said commerce is trade. Manufacturing regulations are fascism.
I don't understand how you said you want commerce to be regulate equally and then said regulations are fascist.
and why are regulations fascist?
Never mentioned communism, but what you reference is socialism which i did mention. I want commerce (trade) to be regulated equally, but regulations are fascist.
Life, liberty, and property
communism means public ownership, not regulation. not regulating commerce is silly.
I definitely disagree with "nothing more".
which rights do you believe are God given?
Because revolutions within governmental function are ubiquitous. If you say, "hey, I want commerce to mean regulations on manufacturing" you are jumping towards fascism and socialism as a whole. If you reject the enlightenment and its meaning to be exactly what it means, you are moving towards fascism and socialism by definition.
Do you believe that all rights are inherently God-given and the government's role is to preserve these rights, nothing more.
I don't reject the enlightenment! it brought many great ideas and new perspectives.
nor do I accept it as scripture that should not be questioned.
like I said, false dichotomy.
"we either move away from these archaic principles in favor of fascism and socialism as a whole."
why must we move as a whole. you went to the length of actively including that word. why must we embrace an ideal as written without the right to edit and improve?
Well if we want to continue down this path, we either move away from these archaic principles in favor of fascism and socialism as a whole. Either way, you reject the enligntenment.
A computer, like I said, is programmed to dk what you need it to. You cannot have multifunctional steel and grain machinery using one machine without reconfiguring it entirely.
Then you reject the ideas of the enlightenment. It would be easier to come out and day it.
"The enlightenment and founding of many current nations. You may either reject the enlightenment or accept it."
why do I have to accept or reject it? that's a false dichotomy.
the enlightenment was the introduction of brand new governments as alternatives to monarchy. why would you assume the first attempts at an alternative government would get it perfect right away?
why are the people forbidden from choosing what they want their government to do, and are arbitrarily limited based on the model of the first attempts of European democracy?
It depends on the priority. If we had a computer for each task, each one could perform their task more efficiently. The flip side is in wasted resources, money and downtime as we are not constantly performing all tasks. A general purpose computer that can perform all daily tasks adequately is more efficient overall than a large number of specialized ones.
You likely have in your hand just such a device. A computer that takes and plays pictures and videos. It browses the Internet. It sends and receives emails, texts, and calls. It can be modified to perform many other tasks with additional software allowing it to do everything from tracking fitness, banking, research, debating and playing games. It is not the optimal device for any of these tasks since many would benefit from a large screen, others from portability. By striking a balance, you get one computer for many tasks that is more efficient than separate machines would be.
The enlightenment and founding of many current nations. You may either reject the enlightenment or accept it.
A computer is impartial--it does whatever you command it to. The ability of a computer to work is purely based upon what we want it to do. It is not with the faults of man by itself. But even then, computer is slowed down and less efficient with multiple tasks. Designing computers for their singular functions is most efficient.
the computer was initially created to just handle mathematical tasks, like breaking codes. yet now we are installing them into everything from phones to refrigerators.
I disagree with that view point on 2 issues.
1. who decides what the purpose of government is?
2. what historical precedent do you have for such restrictions?
Because a libertarian would tell you that isnt the purpose of government. Just as a steel mill is not supposed to produce grain. But if a steel mill did produce grain, it wouldn't be efficient. Its purpose is only for steel; however, the multifunctional aspect of it may seem appealing. But inevitably, the goal will not be met by the deeds.
if the social functions are beneficial, why not?
Most libertarians are coming across now as millenials. Its a tragedy. It has become more expansionist over the years. They have left their classic roots and have become interventionists.
As far as taxes, a true libertarian would say they are necessary to fund certain functions of government, but not the social functions.
Blue dont go there haha It's coincidental
but why only banana? wasnt there any other fruits?
because reasons and causes intersect multiple issues in the real world.
arguments evolve, and it shifted as we moved beyond the idiotic thread title.
why are you mixing bananas,taxes,blacks and terrorism?
as an individual... hell yeah. but if someone put up an option to eliminate taxes, including my own, one has to think beyond his own wallet and consider the consequences, something I don't think many libertarians do.
true but they won't accept that.
They need God
Im not against taxation. But as an individual, if you give me a way out, I will take it.
it does keep the economic gears going, which is a benefit to the nation, but no, it isn't the same thing. why don't you want to pay taxes? every nation in the world today and in history has collected taxes. it is the lifeblood of a nation.
the founding fathers even noted the importance of taxation, ensured the power to tax was in the Constitution, and defended it's use in the federalist papers. it is a fundamental and necessary power of the government.
How is labor not contributing?
and you feel you have no duty to contribute to your nation?
what do your labors have to do with regulations and standards?
A libertarian would argue the latter comes from independence. I also dont want a revolution to seize power. I just want what I am owed, and that is the fruit of my labor.
united we stand, divided we fall.
personal independence is not all its talked up to be. interdependence has always proven to create a much greater force.
well I'll agree about Republicans cause I see many of their top representatives as traitors against the people. I applaud libertarians for their conviction to principles... but I fear they over simply reality and are just dancing the tune the powerful want us to dance. both independent and disorganized. the government is the ultimate union and unity is the only way the people can seize any power from the powerful.
I hate republicans. They have no standards. They breach their own guidelines and morality to get votes from the left. My congressman said that he needed to broaden his views in order to meet the concerns of his new constituency after being gerrymandered.
you said they are pandering to the left as an attempt to attribute even the ills of the right to the left.
only libertarians are against any format of government investment. the rest of Republicans are perfectly fine with it.
We arent disagreeing...
no.... it's too make money for the state, or because of contributions to their campaigns...
do you have actual evidence or at least logic behind your response or do you just pretend the most convenient answer to your perspective is the truth?
Oh because they pander to the left for votes.
that may be what Republicans say to get your vote, but you have to check on their actions as well.
Every business should have equal cuts
no, only libertarians are against government investment. Republicans do it all the time. they subsidize companies on a regular basis giving massive companies tax cuts, as if they weren't already crushing small shops.
Republicans dont believe in government investment
and currently the government is MAKING money off of student loans, which is completely wrong by democratic standards, but is a Republican's dream... treating government like a company and seeking profit.
everyone should go to college, and the dem plan for college is for free or affordable CITY/COMMUNITY colleges, that are regulated and can't just raise their rates arbitrarily. private colleges will remain private and you can pay cash for them if you want.
bush cut taxes and cut regulation.... how is that liberal?
Bush was a flaming liberal. Fed student loads are driving costs up. Students are drowning in debt. Why? Because we increased thr money going into education. Needs based student loans and "everyone should go to college" give institutions an opportunity to collect on money. No bankruptcy is no risk. Increasing money supply for an industry increases prices.
it was before Obama started turning it around. if we keep pursing trickle down policies like the ones you are suggesting, that led us into the recession, then the US will be impoverished.
That isnt the U.S.
a economy with a lot of poor people.
What economy is that?
how can businesses thrive in an environment without customers? if no one can afford to patron businesses, how will they thrive?
well we established that they can't sell it anywhere else... and European taxes are even higher than ours, and their wages are higher as well.
trumps story that we are the highest taxing western nation is a downright lie. we aren't even close. we can increase wages and they won't go anywhere cause they can't sell their products anywhere else.
That would only hurt us more. We would need to make incentives for business to thrive, not trap them.
exactly they leave and go to places like China where there paid nothing and sell it here at too dollar. Trump's actually got that one right there needs to be a tax on the importing of goods from american business. though personally I think he wouldn't do it because he comes from the same cloth as big business.
Yes. But they don't EARN a higher wage.
How do you think the American economy cam about? Lobbying has nothing to do with it. It is a leftist creation. The government has made lobbying for economic gain a reality by over-regulating.
but there life does.
Oh well their labor isnt worth that much
how can Walmart leave and still sell its products here? how many of these Goliath companies actually produce anything here? this is just the place they sell it to. and if no one can buy....
and the jobs suck. half the people on welfare work at places like Walmart.
more than half of welfare goes to filling in minimum wage jobs because they aren't enough to live on.
do u know how many low income people rely on Walmart. and when businesses leave they only leave fresh unemployed they still sell their products here.
the market makes terrible decisions. and it's not exactly free either, such as cable companies lobbying to block city fiber, or oil companies lobbying against renewable energy opportunities. like how am radio lobbied to block the new and superior fm radio for a decade with law suits.
your free market is a textbook fantasy that doesn't work in reality. the rich and big companies modify it to their advantage but when the people try it they politicians to cry "freemarket!!!" and you dance
the free market is a sham
Do you know how much prices will rise?
Im saying let the market decide. Any many jobs are above minimum wage.
if Walmart leaves, do you have any idea how many mom and pop stores will be able to finally open and prosper?
let large corporations leave, I want to promote small businesses so getting rid of their oversized competition will only help that goal. and good luck to them to sell their products to people who make 5 dollars a month.
if they were gonna leave they already would have. wages are already growing around the world so they missed that window. and automation will happen regardless. automation is cheaper than 7 dollars an hour too.
and were you seriously planning on try to match 3rd world wages in America? lol. do you hate people and this country?
Large corporations can afford to leave the us or automate. Most of them are doing that. Why would anybody pay a low skill worker over his skill value. If you can only get 8 dollars an hour of work for 12 dollars, what incentive is there to hire a worker?
because big corporations employ legions of low wage workers. mom and pop shops usually have much fewer.
Why would that hurt big business?
and yes I know, gearing up will cost more, but stores will be empty and factory orders will be in. they will make less money per item. that is a fact. but the money is already there. store owners already sold out of current merchandise, he has money. and if he places an order to a manufacturer, the manufacturer knows he's gonna get paid. there is no risk to the businesses.
and like I said, small businesses support living wages. it is the big companies that are lobbying against these measures.
if no new products will be made, then yes prices will rise... but this is why I said this isn't a classroom. in what kind of realistic real world scenario will people not make more products? companies will gear up to capture as much of the money as possible.
If you increase demand without supply, prices will increase. I want the same number of products more. If you increase supply, then you drop prices since supply increases in comparison to what is demanded. And to increase supply you must invest in labor, but minimum eage makes thst more difficult.
I did not say supply would increase, I said demand would. when you have demand, and people who have and want to spend money, businesses finds a way to capitalize.
and who decided what someone's labor is worth? the market is flawed in its priorities and I don't think we should follow it any longer. it hasn't led us anywhere good, we've been trying to claw out for 8 years now from the mess deregulation and tax cuts got us into during Clinton and bush terms.
It isnt as precise as you think to implement it. Say you make 13 an hour. Your labor is worth 13 dollars for every hour you work. Suppose wages go up to 12 an hour. How much is that labor worth now? Consistency argues 13; however, labor worth 7 is now 5 more. How can invaluable labor rise and others not? If i made 13--my labor was twice as valuable as minimum wage, or just +6, would my wage be justifiable. It would become deflated. Wages would need to increase for a 13 an hour job in order to attract skills lost to 12 an hour labor.
Therefore wages across the board increase meaning capital costs more for business. You argue supply would increase, but supply would increase with investment. Raising the price of investment would not increase supply, but reduce it.
actually you were the one hoping the wealthy will just reinvest and be good sports about the free money they are getting.
the people NEED to spend, do you think people on poverty already have all they need? half their stuff is probably broken and needs replacing yesterday.
and a majority of small businesses support a living wage.
So you're taking money from businesses amd hoping people consume with the money you took from the business. Most employment isn't huge business.
I'm saying that prices could remain the same, profits per sale would go down, but number of sales will go up.
the exact result will vary, items that are dependant heavily on low wage labor may rise alittle, other could drop.
So youre saying prices go up then
the point is people need to buy things they can't at the moment. increasing wages will increase costs, but will also increase sales which will offset some or maybe even all the costs. increased sales will increase demand and INCREASE EMPLOYMENT.
also not all things will go up, rent is not based on labor but on scarcity. same with electricity and medicine. it will be a massive stimulus to the economy.
even if they sell 15*$3 profit is $45. still higher than 40
the increased cost of production is the reason the price went up (profit per banana went down) so it's already factored in
the increased demand is because people have more money from the higher wages, the demand has always been there, people were just to poor to buy what they needed.
BLM= banana???? iam totally confused. you guys are so funny.
If and only if they could afford to produce 30 bananas. Otherwise they are bleeding money. They must invest to produce more--they must hire more. That means more money gone which is compounded by a higher, undeserved price in labor. They would lose a lot of money producing 30 bananas while being able to sell 10.
The premise of raising only demand is an impossibility.
as long as the demand is there definitely but if u don't sell enough bananas u can lose a lot of money. though a banana shouldn't cost out of he wazoo either.
your just repeating your starting position completely ignoring everything I just said about increased business.
if you sell 10 bananas for 4$ profit per = $40
or you sell 30 bananas for 3$ profit per= $90
selling more for less per makes can make a lot more money at the end of the day.
Ultimately, only unions win because they can collectively bargain prices in relation to minimum wage.
That isnt the case. That would be as you described, in a classroom environment. Those are the goals. What you end up with is an inability for a business to rectify wage to labor. How can you arbitrarily say 8 dollars in labor is now 10? The fact is the employer loses money in comparison to labor and employment becomes more exclusive. They dont want to enter into an absurd agreement, that is to say something is worth more than it truly is. They will take the more economic route and use capital that justifies its price.
Minimum wage kills minimum wage jobs. A business paying 8 dollars an hour is paying for a skill worth 8 dollars an hour. And a skill worth 8 dollars an hour now is not worth 10. Labor that was worth 8 dollars is now nonexistant since they cannot pay what labor demands.
and it's not like we're printing money, it will be the same amount of money, just in higher demand. that would actually be deflation, not inflation.
the difference is more of that money would be circulating. the total is still the same.
it will likely increase supply after or near the point when the need to restock. after they sold a bunch of stuff.
And before people consume, how can a business on the margin of debt increase supply if they cannot afford extra labor?
You ignore the consequences of price theory and wages. Not to mention any increase in monetary supply inflates.
that's why you have decent enforcement agencies that can afford the necessary activities. I'm not about leeches.
um not against welfare per say I'm against people misusing it. it's good for the ones that need it but bad for the economy for those that could do without it
increase in demand will increase supply. we will stimulate the economy, increase production, and create jobs.
this isn't class where you think about 2 variables, this is the real world...
They either need to make money to make up for money lost in wages, or an increase in demand will drive prices up.
why would the market price change above the direct increase in cost of labor, or even less because of increase sales?
And will the business not attempt to reach market clearing price by raising costs? To maximize profit?
yeah, less profit per sale... but more sales from increased business. which will get the economy moving.
You also remove some of that profit lome from the businesses in the form of wages. The costs would rise naturally. All it dors is catalyzes a cycle of inflation.
That has been the purpose of all of their previous actions. It has failed.
wages increase out weights the increased cost. your doing math without inputting values. there are many things that do not increase, like rent and electricity. and the increase in business will counter the lower profit per sale.
so the government put them into that mess and they had little ability to fight out of it...
if what you say is true, why doesn't the government have a responsibility to help them out of it?
That is the issue with welfare. It is easier than working.
Minimum wage is also a policy that doesnt live up to its good intentions. Once you increase the value of labor, you have changed the basis of pricing. The new base pay is now x. Things will change based on the new value. If better labor is now close to x dollars as a result of an arbitrary change, this labor is now undervalued. People dont want to work hard to have the value of their work minimized by increasing wages for no reason. So therefore wage 2 will likely be increased in order to fit the new value of "work" in general. We see these prices of labor increasing, and in order to make money, we increase the value of goods to match the new wages. We see everything inflating without an increase in the money supply. You cannot create new jobs so you enter stagflation. Inflation is increasing and jobs are not being created.
Im speaking of the deterioration of black society. All starting with the FHA and the New Deal, they have faced the onslaught of a deteriorating society. Nobody could get out of the slums. With everybody successful fleeing and nobody able to get loans to save themselves, they were locked into crime and poverty. Now since they face crime and cannot find proper education, they must rely upon the government.
do you think taking their only lifeline away will help? I mean abusers of welfare should be deported (not sure if that's legal) but for most of the poor... I'm not sure if that's a good idea.
what do you think about working 10 hour shifts for a job that's 2 hours away in each direction (14 hours gone) then come home, still got to go get food (1 hour round trip + shopping IF you have a car) then cook (McDonald's so much easier, but then diabetes) 16 hours done. gotta clean (people wonder why there's mold, they must be lazy) balance your bills, spend time with kids. (18 hours gone) when do you sleep? school for bettering your life? oh work called, gotta come in last minute, screw personal plans.
is that even worth it if your bringing in barely enough to pay the bills and nothing left over? why not give up and go on welfare? it sucks but better than slavery!
that's why I say people give up, don't bother, live for today, and rent a center their house or car so it looks nice for a bootycall, and that's it. it's not like people choose to do the welfare life as plan A. minimum wage would make work worth it, and revitalize local neighborhoods so that they can find work not 2 hours away, free time, get an education, and less government aid.
it was kind of the same for me. when I was a kid I wanted to know as much as I could about everything. I would ask people who knew or read in books. I had a colledge reading level before fifth grade. my mom would always say I would do something great someday and expected A's in everything. I got a job fairly easy because I have known everyone in my neighborhood all my life. my community is very tight knit to a fault. I've always been told if u r going to do something do it with all that u are and nothing less. we didn't have a lot of money but we got by without gov. help.
u make a good point
I'm an immigrant, and a refugee. I went to a good school cause we pretty much got subsidized, not sure if it was gov or the Jewish community. I got a good education and hard working parents who pushed me alot. I covered things by 8th grade that some people didn't hear about until sophomore year of highschool.
also being white has unseen advantages. although I still work low wage jobs (in college atm too) I find a job right away. when my old job closed down, many of my fellow workers are still looking while I found it quick on Craigslist. (remember that resume study)
I guess some people call it white privilege, but I don't think it's a privilege that people assume I won't be lazy cause I'm white, it should be the norm for everyone. it's really old fashion discrimination, but the beaten down use that name that brings hate on their competition instead of the employer who screwed them or the store clerk who was suspicious of them. I think the effects of white privilege are very real, but it's not white privilege, its just old fashion discrimination.
I guess being normal feels like a privilege when your treated like shit, but they should hate the discriminators and not their white peers who are not facing (or noticing) the discrimination happening in front of them.
yes there are a lot of cases like that and under consideration I think u could be right on that one bit there is still the problem that they are staying on gov. help. I know they need help but it's like if u loan them ur room eventually ur going to have to kick them out if they don't pay or in other words we are trying to support too many people that we don't have the money for.
do you see some of the inherent disadvantages that poverty come with that may make people give up early? it's hard to study with little/junk food and health problems. also with bad parents, or good parents who are always at work.
laziness isn't the real cause, although it can be an effect after you choose to give up.
I am white though
no. I see how it is around me and I want to help them and my kids when I have kids. the only 2 ways I've seen this done is science and faith so I'm going to college to be a scientist and I help people around me by spreading the word of God.
I'm assuming your white based on your original stance in this issue, but you live in that neighborhood while retaining a desire to go to college.... are you or your parents immigrants?
yes.no.his parents didn't but his parents would ride with their friends if they went to get food. some were good people others were good people but also addicts. no it's his friends that let him use it for free. looks horrible depending on really if his parents were addicts or not. if not it still looked bad but if they were it looks unlivable.
I remember hearing a comparison. in a nice, usually white school if a kid acts out he gets a therapist. in a poorer, mostly black school, you get a criminal record.
and do their parents work? obviously not the kid with the addicted parents, but his life probably sucked for most his youth, I doubt he stood a chance in school unless he really devoted himself on an exceptional level.
let me just ask a bunch of things and get to the point.
I'm guessing the guy in the car was a young kid. do his parents have a car? does he live with them? cause it's easy to get something when you don't have to pay bills, and if his parents don't have a car means he probably didn't have easy access to the good food most his life.
also, does he actually own the car? or most of the furniture in his house if it's nice furniture. far too often I see people trick out their house with rent a center, which is probably the dumbest thing you can do, and it looks fancy, but it don't mean squat cause it's all gone any minute.
yeah and the people who don't have cars (2) get rides with their friends when they go to the city.
there's the one in town but to the other about 30min.
what's the travel time to these supermarkets. (any store that has a variety of meats and veggies)
yes and yes if u count a supermarket in OKC otherwise known as Oklahoma city if u sent from OK called sprouts. it has all the vehicles and stuff like that and there are the Walmarts if u count those though the sprouts is better. PS it's alright I'm not offended u were following a logical line of reasoning.
do you live in that neighborhood? and don't mean to assume, some have some havent, have you been to any better neighborhoods with a real supermarket?
it's sometimes hard to recognize what's missing in a poor neighborhood until you see what's really out there. I live in a big city so everything is close together, the bad and the good, but I'm not going to assume about your situation, so just asking.
all of below
deli grocery? like a bodega? did that actually have fresh food like vegetables and spices? or just cold cuts and cigarettes?
yes a DG which has been here since the town was made.
are there any supermarkets or places with fresh food anywhere near their? and if their are, did they just open in the last few years but before that nothing?
everyone tried to help them as children but there parents were drug addicts so they had to hide he food because the parents would sell it. yes child services were notified and yes they did nothing. another problem right now
things like food they can afford, air quality, and diseases from a young age are not conducive to learning. despite what their potential may be, all of these little or not little things add up, especially from the start. I'm not saying welfare is the answer, but there are certain at the start inequities that need to be fixed. or at least considered before we dub a population lazy.
none have had asthma but about one tenth that are on gov. help had diabetes
one didn't have food at home? that's a pretty big deal in america.
do any have asthma or diabetes at a young age? I'm guessing since you said you seen them around their house their your friends.
regular. a little behind in some classes topnotch in others.top of the line. also top of the line. one didnt but for the most part they did.
how were the classes? the books? the computer lab? the science materials?
and did they always have food at home?
yes I did.
when you have no chance in life, you mostly live for today. did you go to the same school as those kids?
if ur talking about me. yes I do. but u can't tell me that when a guy of any race pulls up in a really nice car and has nice clothes on then when he goes to buy some food pulls out a food stamp card is ridiculous. I work at a store (until I'm done in college anyways) and this happens more than I like to think. so at the very least it is a problem where I live. also when I ask what kind of card their using because u have to push a diff. button for food stamps they practically shout it out. then when I see these people outside of work they are usually just laying around there house all day.
you don't think imprisoning adult males at high rates from a specific group will have no economic effect on them? how about psychosocial? of course they are just lazy and there are no other reasons.... (sarcasm)
half of those single mothers were caused by mandatory minimums incarcerating most of their men due to low level drug crimes. a black crack addict = criminal, a white heroin addict = victim.
your whole dependency speech is a myth. a myth that has nothing to do with their right to protest unlawful killings of peaceful citizens.
a lot of people of all races live on hand-outs. some with good reason others because they don't want a job. we need to get a little tougher on that depending on the individuals situation.
Its because we have dehumanized them with handouts. They have been stripped of their pride--single mothers depending upon welfare, children corralled into gangs with failing schools, fathers leaving them. Everything we have done to help blacks beyond civil rights have hurt them. Its tragic what we have convinced ourselves they are. They are a battleground for votes, not equal standing. Once you get issue voters dependent upon welfare, you have become their champion. When you try to divide them from the population, you have created vitriol with one shining solution--you.
which is what needs to change. I agree on that. I mean I watched a comedy a while back (I can't remember what it's called) and this black guy would tell his friend to watch him as a joke and he would smoke a cigarette and he would blow it into some white people's face and they would do nothing. then if u see a black person there either a gangster or a stay at home dad thing.
some people also call them terrorists.
you said you don't assume that black people are violent by default but many people do. many people are just biased. it's a cultural thing, even many less educated black people think that. it's what the TV has taught us over the decades. it's cultural.
I have heard many people say that these group think black people want to have more rights and I would ask them where they got that from and they would say just read there name it's obvious. which I would actually put more stock in research but not all do this.
I'm not saying it needs to change to that exactly but if they get the message out that they matter as well without confusion they will do a lot better overall.
I think changing the name to all live matters would miss the point. I'm completely against the name "white privilege" cause I think it is wrong, but at this point the system makes it seem like black lives don't matter, and saying that they do is important for this country.
i think what there doing is good but I can see people getting the wrong idea. so in other words a little more clarity can really help their cause.
I agree with that. but protecting the right and dignity of people to protest against unjust killings has nothing to do reverse racism. (antiracism is a good thing, you mean reverse racism)
fine I can accept that but letting people get away with the anti-racism isn't helping at all.
yeah, racism gets overused. it seems that whenever people of different races have a negative interaction it is automatically labelled as racial. but racism is still real, and 2 repeated studies have proved it.
1. tipping, white servers vs black servers. funny/sad even black people tipped black servers worse. quality of service was controlled for.
2. job resumes. identification resumes with white vs black names. massive difference in call backs. (identical resumes)
so no, racism is not dead.
u don't think that about black people either. it's that through this innocent group bad things will happen. I wouldn't be debating this if it said ALL lives matter or some diff. name. there saying Black lives matter which they do but I can see that this is going to be a problem. for the most part people aren't racist anymore. if anything there anti-racist.meaning there trying so hard not to be racist that SOME not all people hold it against them. for example when I was in highschool we had a black kid in class who would do stupid stuff and when he got in trouble all he had to do was say they were racist and the teacher would shut up immediately. they still is a fact in today's society. that's part of the problem. now u can not tell me that it is fair for people to do that.
what stories? if they were killed in legitimate circumstances, then it most certainly deserves a discussion, but it has little to do with the blm movement.
the blm movement is about a series of consistent and unjustified killings of unarmed non-threatening people. if you want to compare it to other races, these criteria are not something irrational to expect for a valid comparison.
although if more justified killings were aimed at white individuals, it does question the assumption that black people are the dangerous threatening ones which is the logic of many who are anti-blm
I agree they do and that every shooting should be analyzed. it is percentage of race of people killed though it talks a little on other stories that are rarely heard.
whoa, before I click the link. is this a list of people killed with good reason? or people killed while unarmed and posing no threat? the 2 are very different. they have every right to kill in certain situations and no one is questioning those.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/. at thus site and many more u can see that white people are getting killed as well. it shouldn't matter what color they are. no matter who they are.
especially with the anti blm movement in the country, don't you think people would jump on a story of innocent, unarmed, nonresistent white people being killed by a enforcement? that seems like a viable story at any time.
your assuming it happens, but you don't actually know do you?
I don't think there terrorist myself but they could make it to where people see racism that's not there. like the red scare.
and yes they are it's just not news worthy because their white or some other race. the news is a big problem because as always they will bend the truth to get the people to watch them more.
misstating a name doesn't make you a terrorist... not sure exactly why people keep calling them terrorists, doesn't help the notion that their lives don't matter.
but to your question, let me give an analogy.
if something bad happens to your mother, do you go out of your way to say that you love both your parents? does telling your mother you love her imply you don't love your father?
the fact is that other people aren't being kill by authorities unjustly. they aren't saying black Lives Matter just to make a statement, they are saying it because atm, it feels like their lives (specifically) don't matter.
yes but so are white, Hispanic and eastern people. I think more people would agree with them if they simply changed their name to All Lives Matter
what terrorist actions have they done?
only 1 protest turned riot (fuergueson was before blm), all the rest have been peaceful.
and they also have a valid reason to protest, people are dying unjustly.