Good - if you have to accommodate to the American Noise Machine it suggests I am getting there - though a bit too right yet, I expect!
Good - if you have to accommodate to the American Noise Machine it suggests I am getting there - though a bit too right yet, I expect!
I don't disagree that we need more money and that those with money can afford to pay more but you're demanding money ha simply doesn't exist, like that Visa credit card bill that was 4 times the global GDP.
How do you not understand the question? You can't only aim at ends because ends are never reached since time keeps going. When the ends affect the means, that will in turn change generational ends.
The poor currently make a lot more than "just enough to eat" in many capitalist areas. The other important thing to look at is economic mobility, which tends to be higher for capitalist systems meaning that even the poor don't tend to stay poor long relative to other systems. And I don't understand how you came to that conclusion on unrestrained capitalism when there has never in the history of the world been unrestrained free markets (unless you meant something else by unrestrained capitalism). And on working class living standards- correlationary, not causal (unless you can prove it which I know you can't). There are a lot of other things happening right now and there are strong arguments that certain government policy is hurting the common person. Either way, even the US's poorest people today are rich on the scale of world history and well off compared to the middle and upper classes in many other nations today.
He is saying they are on the slide due to capitalist policies. That is a correlationary claim. That statement alone without any other sounder evidence holds the same amount of water as saying living conditions are on a slide because the sky is blue.
is this what they teach in school ? . not all correlations are the same , those which as you say don't hold water are the one similar to Lombroso's general theory suggesting that criminals are distinguished from noncriminals by multiple physical anomalies. but when there is a direct correlation or inverse relationship between to thing and this preset in changing stats then it hold more than water and you cant dismiss it unless you come up with a more logical causation for each of them independent of the others , or you can prove the the lack of correlation on other similar cases such as you prove cases capitalism were they are on the slide . you just can't dismiss it out of the blue . you can argue the validity of a premiss though . hardly you will find a pure capitalist system or non capitalist system in the globe . rather you will have a mixture of varying degrees .
Do you realize how many extraneous variables exist in the looking at a country with declining living standards (which in itself is arguable if it is happening) and tying that result to an economic system? It is virtually just as absurd a conclusion as the one I made with the sky. Do you have some stronger proof? Also, the most ironic thing about your and Iono's arguments are that the United States is currently (and has been) a MIXED ECONOMY, not a purely free market or capitalist one.
the more complex a system is the more important the observation of a relation between the elements Whether a direct correlation or inverse relationship ,if they persist .correlation between the demand for a product and its price is a good example
that is your opinion
proof of what ?
Most ironic thing is how you discern that Iono's and I arguments are that the United States is currently (and has been) a MIXED ECONOMY . I dont' know what Iono thinks United States is or isn't , but all I said was " hardly you will find a pure capitalist system or non capitalist system in the globe . rather you will have a mixture of varying degrees ."
How purely free market or capitalist is the US or any other country for that matter ?.
No Change
no change at all.it would be the same thing anyway.the more "they" say that theyre gonna change the tax system for the benefit of the common..but still i cannot trust them if that so called "benefit" cant be felt at all.
no change at all.it would be the same thing anyway.the more "they" say that theyre gonna change the tax system for the benefit of the common..but still i cannot trust them if that so called "benefit" cant be felt at all.
Similar threads
