And no, capitalism is not parasitic, as people can only earn money in a free market through voluntary exchange, where their success hinges on the success of others, like higher consumer spending power and the competitive job market that allows it.
You're a fool if you believe that.
And when did I say that slavery is preferable over paid labor? I said it is more profitable to the slave owners, who can claim to offer full employment (without pay).
Only one of the definitions of "employ" involves paid wages. All the other definitions merely mean "using" like a tool, which is a favorite method of the rich con-man who employs duplicity for financial gain.
Do I have to teach you English now in addition to US History?
Since no one claimed anyone said slavery was "preferable" to paid labor, I can only assume this is a straw man. Equivocating about the meaning of the word "employ" and the term "unemployment rate" only further verifies what I did actually say, that you "equate" the two. And apparently without the minimal intellectual honesty to appreciate that the "unemployment rate" is explicitly about voluntary, paid employment. If I had simply said "employ", you might have some semblance of a point, but seeing as this is just a straw man, when I clearly said the "unemployment rate", I can only assume either abiding ignorance or intentional intellectual dishonesty.
But nice little diversion from any argument, at all, against capitalism. Maybe next time you should try to quote the bits you actually intend on replying to. Oh wait, that would just immediately belie your straw men. Never mind.
Unless they cheat and employ economic strategies like slave labor which does not create higher spending power and the competitive market is no longer about competition for cheaper goods, but for the most expensive wasteful luxuries imaginable that money can buy.
Ever watched the Mecum car auction where a restored old car is sold for millions of dollars, because it once belonged to a movie star?
www.sun-sentinel.com › news › florida › os-et-bullitt-mustang-sells-mec...
No, economics is not, generally, a zero sum game. Profit does not always mean an equivalent loss when it is a voluntary exchange for things that are equally valued. Those who profit most just tend to provide more of value to others. Tim Cook is wealthy because lots of people love Apple products, and willingly part with their money to get them. The US has flourished long after any slave labor, and there is obviously competition that lowers prices, otherwise new products would never become cheaper over time.
Jealousy about how much some folks can spend on cars just proves my point.
Income inequality is just run-of-the-mill jealousy when the average person is doing objectively better than ever. If I'm doing well, I really don't care how much better someone else may be doing, because I'm not a jealous prick. I appreciate what I have and earn, and I don't begrudge anyone what they have and earn.
Having paid for the land, drilling, and/or mining rights, the natural resources are legally owned. Americans do not, collectively, own all the land because America is not socialist. And no, capitalism is not parasitic, as people can only earn money in a free market through voluntary exchange, where their success hinges on the success of others, like higher consumer spending power and the competitive job market that allows it.
why is it right wingers love to claim basic human psychology just doesn't apply to them?
Where, pray tell, is any human psychology denied? Conservative can be jealous too, only they don't tend to use it to blame the success of others for their own lack thereof. Conservatives just tend to recognize jealousy as a human weakness, to be resisted, rather than an impulse to be indulged and justified.
Correct, and that's why we have traditionally looked to your country for global leadership, as have most other first world democracies. Sadly instead of providing said leadership, your politicians seem hellbent on turning your country into another "jerkwater". Don't worry, we're already making adjustments, hopefully it doesn't lead to greater dependence on fascist shitholes like China instead. If it was up to me we'd already be testing the ICBM's for our own sovereign nuclear arsenal.
Then quit crapping on the country you rely on to keep democracy secure, and maybe try to pay your share. It's not like we've become even half as isolationist as most other western countries. We still have military abroad, give military aid to many countries, and drive the global economy. Unless or until Democrats get their way, we won't ever give up all global security interests in favor of coddling our own people with welfare and socialist experiments (that inevitably fail, like in many Scandinavian countries have found out).
By all means, pay for your own security. Become an adult country on the world stage. And personally, start voting for people, like conservatives, who are interested in accomplishing that.
As far as I understand, none of that data includes the countless billions being stashed overseas and not subject to any US taxes. The wealthiest Americans in practice actually pay taxes at a lower rate than the US middle class when you take this Mafia money into account. Or maybe Panama and Bermuda are the best places to establish microchip factories and manufacturing composite materials, 3D printers and cellphones; I've never personally been there so I can't say what American investors are doing with their money there but it must surely be important given the amounts involved. I have been to Monaco though, and it was clear to me that all the offshore money hidden there is actually going into agriculture and forestry on the vast tracts of unused land they still have.
Again, when they're already paying the bulk of the taxes, it seems like only jealousy to compare tax rates. And we've had tax cuts, that even benefit the lower and middle class relatively recently, with more such cuts proposed. The average American is doing better than they ever have. But I can empathize with your jealousy if that's not the case for you.
That has nothing to do with the fact that infrastructure has to be built and maintained in order to sustain a healthy economy. You can't say "we have zero infrastructure debt whatsoever" until the moment when the bridges are about to collapse and the highways crumble. From an economic standpoint, falling behind on critical infrastructure is another form of debt just like it would be if you borrowed the money and got it built.
If this is truly the longest era of economic growth for the US, then do you give Obama his fair share of the due credit for getting it started? In any case my point is that it's far too early for you to be declaring much of anything, the data is still being analyzed and sorted.
And when infrastructure actually hurts business, there will be a private sector motive to do something about it. I never said a thing about "infrastructure debt".
Obama oversaw an anemic recovery, due to lackluster leadership and over regulation. It would have never continued so long or so rapidly without the changes Trump made to policy. Democrats seem intent on a managed decline, which makes sense, because the only way everyone can ever be equal in outcome is for everyone to be equally poor. Doubting existing data because it just doesn't square with your ideology is just denial.
