The Chinese govt does that with political prisoners. After they claimed they'd stopped, watchdog groups say the number of transplants taking place indicates theyre still doing it. I don't think it reflects communism, though. Does it? — frank

The practice of harvesting organs from sometimes living prisoners is just a reflection of the genocidal, sociopathic nature of the Chinese leadership today. As much as I hate communism, I don't specifically blame communism for the organ harvesting happening today in China. I don't blame capitalism either. I blame the leadership.

The practice of harvesting organs from sometimes living prisoners is just a reflection of the genocidal, sociopathic nature of the Chinese leadership today. As much as I hate communism, I don't specifically blame communism for the organ harvesting happening today in China. I don't blame capitalism either. I blame the leadership. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't know. Someone once told me that to understand China, you have to know that life is cheap there, and has been for a long time.

I was resistant to believing that, but in some ways it makes sense. It makes me wonder how the Chinese takeover of Australia will turn out.

The 1% is an organizing principle for political agitation, and a scapegoat for those who lament poverty, or who resent wealth for a variety of reasons. These resentments find root in the fallacious belief that all of economics is 'zero-sum'; that those who have accumulated wealth have necessarily obtained it by confiscation. The whole social movement draws on a wider set of Marxist propositions that have been remarkably persistent over time.

The 1% include (but are not limited to):

putin @jamalrob @StreetlightX @Baden @Michael @Benkei @fdrake and (even) @andrewk

I wish.

These resentments find root in the fallacious belief that all of economics is 'zero-sum'; that those who have accumulated wealth have necessarily obtained it by confiscation. — geospiza

One does not have to believe that all of economics is zero-sum in order to believe that theft is possible, nor that other forms of illegitimate transfers of wealth (if those somehow don't count as theft) are possible.

Proud owner of the means of pontification.

Dictatorship of the prattleariat.

One does not have to believe that all of economics is zero-sum in order to believe that theft is possible, nor that other forms of illegitimate transfers of wealth (if those somehow don't count as theft) are possible. — Pfhorrest

Of course theft happens. My point is that just because a small group of people attain extreme wealth does not imply that it was ill-gotten.

The 1% is an organizing principle for political agitation — geospiza

This is incoherent. What is the principle of "the 1%"? It's not a principle at all, it's a statistic.

and a scapegoat for those who lament poverty, or who resent wealth for a variety of reasons. These resentments find root in the fallacious belief that all of economics is 'zero-sum'; — geospiza

It has nothing to do with "resentment" -- a common accusation for those who don't want to face reality.

that those who have accumulated wealth have necessarily obtained it by confiscation. — geospiza

Who has said that on here? Try arguing with real people instead of your self-constructed phantoms. Classic straw man.

My point is that just because a small group of people attain extreme wealth does not imply that it was ill-gotten. — geospiza

"ill-gotten"? That depends on what you mean. Stop talking in the clouds and be specific. Is it right or wrong for companies to use tax havens and code loopholes to avoid paying taxes? It depends. You might argue it's perfectly legal and within the rules of the game. Is it right to automate jobs or outsource them to make more money? You could argue that's perfectly "natural," given that maximizing profit and market share is a core feature of our economic system.

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways...

"ill-gotten"? That depends on what you mean. Stop talking in the clouds and be specific. Is it right or wrong for companies to use tax havens and code loopholes to avoid paying taxes? It depends. You might argue it's perfectly legal and within the rules of the game. Is it right to automate jobs or outsource them to make more money? You could argue that's perfectly "natural," given that maximizing profit and market share is a core feature of our economic system.

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways... — Xtrix

Give your head a shake, Xanax. Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. By maintaining modest corporate and personal tax rates there is less incentive to lower production or to export earnings. Stop the obsession with tax rates, and focus instead on overall tax revenues. Realize that there is a point at which higher marginal tax rates for the wealthiest income earners will negatively correlate with total tax revenue.

The top 1% did not make the rest of us poor. Poverty is the default condition.

Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

:yawn:

Says every capitalist apologist in history. No evidence whatsoever, historical or otherwise, but nice to see you can repeat slogans.

By maintaining modest corporate and personal tax rates there is less incentive to lower production or to export earnings. Stop the obsession with tax rates, and focus instead on overall tax revenues. Realize that there is a point at which higher marginal tax rates for the wealthiest income earners will negatively correlate with total tax revenue.

The top 1% did not make the rest of us poor. Poverty is the default condition. — geospiza

No one said the 1% made the rest poor. "Poverty is the default condition" is meaningless. And none of this addresses the points I raised above. But that's expected.

If you want to build straw men and/or hold conversations with yourself, an online forum isn't for you. Go read more Milton Friedman.

Says every capitalist apologist in history. No evidence whatsoever, historical or otherwise, but nice to see you can repeat slogans. — Xtrix

No evidence? :rofl:

Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

Says every capitalist apologist in history. No evidence whatsoever, historical or otherwise, but nice to see you can repeat slogans.
— Xtrix

No evidence? :rofl: — geospiza

Yes: no evidence, historical or otherwise.

Just a childish assertion, as if "profit" is essential in human behavior. In fact it ignores the the core thrust of philosophy, the sciences, and the arts. Not to mention family, friendship, and community. I suppose in your eyes, all this operates on the basis of the "profit incentive."

What a pathological, nihilistic view of the world.

Yes: no evidence, historical or otherwise. — Xtrix

:up: Yep. One of those mythic stories, not unlike jaguar spirits in the jungle or haunted chairs in grandma's house. Unempirical trash.

Yes: no evidence, historical or otherwise.

Just a childish assertion, as if "profit" is essential in human behavior. In fact it ignores the the core thrust of philosophy, the sciences, and the arts. Not to mention family, friendship, and community. I suppose in your eyes, all this operates on the basis of the "profit incentive."

What a pathological, nihilistic view of the w — Xtrix

Don't be a fool. There's evidence all around you of people being motivated to production by profit. Your inability to admit it is an obvious sign of a deeper ideological agenda.

Ah yes the good 'ol 'look around you' standard of proof. Trash.

Ah yes the good 'ol 'look around you' standard of proof. Trash. — StreetlightX

Fool #2

The 1% is an organizing principle for political agitation, and a scapegoat for those who lament poverty, or who resent wealth for a variety of reasons. These resentments find root in the fallacious belief that all of economics is 'zero-sum'; that those who have accumulated wealth have necessarily obtained it by confiscation. The whole social movement draws on a wider set of Marxist propositions that have been remarkably persistent over time. — geospiza

It is a fact that there are wide disparities in outcomes of wealth/income. It doesn't follow from this that some groups have been victimized by others. In most cases the best explanation is that some people have simply outproduced others. There is nothing morally superior about those who accumulate wealth, just as there is nothing morally superior about those who don't.

In most cases the best explanation is that some people have simply outproduced others. — geospiza

Yeah I'm sure Elon Musk just works a few million percent harder and smarter than the average American.

It is a fact that there are wide disparities in outcomes of wealth/income. It doesn't follow from this that some groups have been victimized by others. — geospiza

Sure, that conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from that fact, but lots of other more specific facts taken all together strongly suggest that something or another is amiss. There's room to debate what exactly, but dismissing all of that in favor of "probably some people just work harder/smarter/whatever than others" reeks of grinding an ideological agenda.

Don't be a fool. There's evidence all around you of people being motivated to production by profit. Your inability to admit it is an obvious sign of a deeper ideological agenda. — geospiza

Ask yourself: is ANYONE really making the claim that the profit motive doesn't exist?

Again, try arguing against real people.

You're completely missing the point, and once again creating men of straw.

Go talk to scarecrows somewhere else.

In most cases the best explanation is that some people have simply outproduced others.
— geospiza

Yeah I'm sure Elon Musk just works a few million percent harder and smarter than the average American. — Pfhorrest

Exactly. The "best explanation" doesn't apply there, I guess. Once again, no specifics, just vague, generalized, tired neoliberal slogans.

What's interesting is that it's empirically on par with those examples, yet unquestioningly believed by millions of Americans as if it's a law of physics.

That's some impressive propaganda.

It is a fact that there are wide disparities in outcomes of wealth/income. It doesn't follow from this that some groups have been victimized by others. In most cases the best explanation is that some people have simply outproduced others. There is nothing morally superior about those who accumulate wealth, just as there is nothing morally superior about those who don't. — geospiza

Finally someone speaking some sense.

I'll agree with this like 99% with the possible caveat that if someone is capable of accumulating wealth, but instead blows it it reflects very poorly on them. Despite what some of the other commentators are saying, saving and particularly investment are absolutely essential to civilization. Leftists do not understand this point. The profit motive is absolutely central to the concept of investment, i.e. delaying gratification to reap benefits later.

Without profit on investment you are effectively losing money, even if you break even. I make this point frequently and leftists never quite seem to understand it.

Without profit on investment you are effectively losing money, even if you break even. I make this point frequently and leftists never quite seem to understand it. — BitconnectCarlos

And what a profound point it is. Too bad those "leftists" can't understand your very stable genius.

Why don't the two of you go have fun arguing against your straw men. When you're ready to join the real world, we'll be waiting.

And what a profound point it is. Too bad those "leftists" can't understand your very stable genius. — Xtrix

Thank you! I knew we'd see eye to eye! /s

Why don't the two of you go have fun arguing against your straw men. When you're ready to join the real world, we'll be waiting. — Xtrix

What straw man are you talking about? No one is saying that only profit motivates people. We are saying that the profit motive is essential to growing the economy though and particularly investment, which makes up an enormous chunk of economic activity.

What straw man are you talking about? — BitconnectCarlos

I shouldn't even respond, but in case you really aren't sure:

My point is that just because a small group of people attain extreme wealth does not imply that it was ill-gotten.
— geospiza

"ill-gotten"? That depends on what you mean. Stop talking in the clouds and be specific. Is it right or wrong for companies to use tax havens and code loopholes to avoid paying taxes? It depends. You might argue it's perfectly legal and within the rules of the game. Is it right to automate jobs or outsource them to make more money? You could argue that's perfectly "natural," given that maximizing profit and market share is a core feature of our economic system.

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways... — Xtrix

Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

The top 1% did not make the rest of us poor. — geospiza

Your inability to admit it is an obvious sign of a deeper ideological agenda. — geospiza

It doesn't follow from this that some groups have been victimized by others. — geospiza

There is nothing morally superior about those who accumulate wealth — geospiza

Despite what some of the other commentators are saying, saving and particularly investment are absolutely essential to civilization. — BitconnectCarlos

Everything you're seeing isn't intended to be an argument or a direct rebuttal to you. We're just making our position clear. Us expressing our position isn't a "straw man." If you agree that's great, if you don't we can talk about it.

Typically how a straw man works is you'll say something and then someone else will respond by reframing that point in a much weaker sense and then respond to that instead of addressing your point.

If we really are straw manning you or some point then please directly state 1) The original point 2) How we are misinterpreting it and instead only countering a weaker version of it.

You make references to "the game" or "the system" but you're not too clear about it exactly.

Everything you're seeing isn't intended to be an argument. We're just making our position clear. Us expressing our position isn't a "straw man." If you agree that's great, if you don't we can talk about it. — BitconnectCarlos

Take a look at the quotes again, and then try harder to spin it. "Despite what some other commentators are saying..." This implies they're saying something other than the banality you mentioned, which you claim -- sounding like the intellectual giant that is Donald Trump -- the "leftists don't understand."

Each one is most certainly a straw man. Nothing -- not one of those claims -- are an accurate portrayal of what I'm saying or, as far as I can see, anyone else is saying either.

You make references to "the game" or "the system" but you're not too clear about it exactly. — BitconnectCarlos

I think I've been pretty clear as to what I mean by that, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt: I'm talking about our economic system, which is a state capitalist system. I use "game" as an analogy. Within the context of this system, one may very well come to believe that the "profit incentive" is an essential feature of human nature. But this system, and that very belief itself, has a history. It's been beaten into our heads for generations, until it finally shows up in the warped worldview you represent. I don't expect you to see how deeply sick this attitude is. But I also won't pretend to have a rational discussion based on such an assumption.