**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

You're taking without giving. That's a net loss.

But I am giving. Everything goes back. The only thing I'm not giving is my labour, my time. So you can argue that the economy loses because it doesn't have my productivity and tax, but it doesn't lose because it has to pay me money. It would if I didn't then spend it, or sent it abroad. When I eat, I am consuming goods that I bought from a company. That company profits. Ultimately, the economy benefits from my consumption to the exact amount they give me. Because it all goes back.

False, every dollar in benefits you consume is a dollar that could be given to someone more deserving.

Yeah I mean this would maybe have some element of truth if currency was actually based on a resource such as gold. If someone is "more deserving" than me, then give them money too. It's not going to cost the economy anything except their lost productivity and tax. And that is not an obligation.

Honestly banana, thanks for helping me come to realise that I'm not actually costing the economy anything. I hope after you give it some thought, you'll realise that actually it's true, that if it all goes back in, then I haven't actually been "given" anything, just "loaned".

[Poopadoop]

First there was capitalism. Then there was socialism. Now there's Ongbongalism.

[wufwugy]

But I am giving. Everything goes back. The only thing I'm not giving is my labour, my time. So you can argue that the economy loses because it doesn't have my productivity and tax, but it doesn't lose because it has to pay me money. It would if I didn't then spend it, or sent it abroad. When I eat, I am consuming goods that I bought from a company. That company profits. Ultimately, the economy benefits from my consumption to the exact amount they give me. Because it all goes back.



Yeah I mean this would maybe have some element of truth if currency was actually based on a resource such as gold. If someone is "more deserving" than me, then give them money too. It's not going to cost the economy anything except their lost productivity and tax. And that is not an obligation.

Honestly banana, thanks for helping me come to realise that I'm not actually costing the economy anything. I hope after you give it some thought, you'll realise that actually it's true, that if it all goes back in, then I haven't actually been "given" anything, just "loaned".

Hi, Gandalf.

This is not correct.

[Poopadoop]

This is not correct.

(Pretty sure he knows that).

[Poopadoop]

Person A grows up in a super-rich family and never works a day in his life and yet is a millionaire, lives high on the hog, and no-one bats an eye. Person B grows up in a not-rich family and doesn't work and lives on a pittance that costs the average taxpayer a fraction of a penny a year.

Why all the rage against Person B and not A?

[OngBonga]

Person A grows up in a super-rich family and never works a day in his life and yet is a millionaire, lives high on the hog, and no-one bats an eye. Person B grows up in a not-rich family and doesn't work and lives on a pittance that costs the average taxpayer a fraction of a penny a year.

Why all the rage against Person B and not A?

Ex fucking actly.

Banana won't admit it, but it's envy. He's pissed that he has to grind away his life to maintain his lifestyle, while I'm perfectly happy doing fuck all and living on a pittance. He hates the idea that someone can be happy like that but he can't.

This, I do not believe, is conscious thought. It's pretty much how I felt when I worked, only I realised I didn't need to do it because I only need to support myself, and am happy with next to fuck all.

[wufwugy]

Person A grows up in a super-rich family and never works a day in his life and yet is a millionaire, lives high on the hog, and no-one bats an eye. Person B grows up in a not-rich family and doesn't work and lives on a pittance that costs the average taxpayer a fraction of a penny a year.

Why all the rage against Person B and not A?

The rage probably should not be against Person B. There is a moral argument to be made regarding trying to convince people to not take advantage of things they "shouldn't", but I don't have a coherent view on that so I won't comment.

What we should rage at is the policy. Person A's behavior is productive for society and Person B's behavior is counterproductive. If what we don't like is the inequity represented by the difference between Persons A and B, we're in luck that a better way to create greater equity in aggregate is to let Person A behave in the proposed way if so desired while not aiding Person B in behaving in the proposed way.

[Jack Sawyer]

The rage probably should not be against Person B. There is a moral argument to be made regarding trying to convince people to not take advantage of things they "shouldn't", but I don't have a coherent view on that so I won't comment.

What we should rage at is the policy. Person A's behavior is productive for society and Person B's behavior is counterproductive. If what we don't like is the inequity represented by the difference between Persons A and B, we're in luck that a better way to create greater equity in aggregate is to let Person A behave in the proposed way if so desired while not aiding Person B in behaving in the proposed way.

But what the fuck are you saying? It's OK to be lazy if you are born rich, but not if you are poor?

[wufwugy]

But what the fuck are you saying? It's OK to be lazy if you are born rich, but not if you are poor?

I don't think that you think that's what I said.

[Poopadoop]

Person A's behavior is productive for society.

Person A's behavior is exactly the same as Person B's; they don't produce a fucking thing. The only difference is the former won the lottery in terms of inheritance.

[wufwugy]

Person A's behavior is exactly the same as Person B's; they don't produce a fucking thing. The only difference is the former won the lottery in terms of inheritance.

Person A produces a ton just by existing. The wealth the person's parents created is real, and the proceeds Person A possesses represent that real wealth. That real wealth is mostly being used as capital in financial markets to fund others' productive endeavors.

Person B* is diminishing the amount of real wealth in the economy by merely consuming (this reduces supply of resources) by using others' real wealth that would otherwise be more productive. Furthermore, a society in which the Person A situation is discouraged and the Person B situation is encouraged is one that significantly incentivizes not developing wealth and not being productive.

*More specifically, the diminishing of real wealth is coming from the government policy that takes from Persons A-Z and redistributes in an unproductive manner.

[OngBonga]

Hi, Gandalf.

This is not correct.

Yeah I mean you should know better. I'm trying to troll banana, and you're taking the bait. cmon dude. I thought my thermodynamics comment was enough to imply I knew I was talking out of my arse.

[wufwugy]

Yeah I mean you should know better. I'm trying to troll banana, and you're taking the bait. cmon dude. I thought my thermodynamics comment was enough to imply I knew I was talking out of my arse.

Figured. But I really wanted to call you Gandalf.

[OngBonga]

Figured. But I really wanted to call you Gandalf.

It's a wated joke on me. I haven't watched the Oh Lord My Ring films, so I have no idea why you feel that name is appropriate to me.