*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[a500lbgorilla]

No, they'd have been possessed by demons and locked up in a mental hospital.

They'd probably just be the quirky spastic.

[wufwugy]

Oh, snap.

On this, I was expecting to be upset because I was expecting to see the conservative/libertarian/Trump sides rationalize why the government shouldn't be shut down in spite of those same people liking the shut downs earlier. But I haven't seen much of that. I've seen support for military, which is consistent with what the cons/liberts believe. So, really, there is consistency. The right-wing likes government shut downs for reasons of too much taxing and spending, and the left-wing likes government shut downs for reasons of aiding and abetting crime.

[wufwugy]

This is an intentionally ignorant explanation being peddled by the left. They're getting away with it because most American's aren't tuned-in enough to know that the actual rules require 60 votes, which means the Democrats have to do something more than make hostage-demands.

they say "but repubs have the majority", like having a majority matters, but it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure 60 votes isn't not even a hard and fast rule. It's an internal Senate norm.

[OngBonga]

Oh I see. It's supposed to prove you have no intelligent thought on the issue at hand so you'll just take the toxic idiot approach to debate instead.

Jeez you're easy to troll today.

[OngBonga]

The most intelligent thought I have on the matter is to question what the collective noun is for a banshee.

A shower of banshees?

[Poopadoop]

Jeez you're easy to troll today.

I thought the idea with trolling was to get the other person to react emotionally to you, not just point out how vacuous your input was.

More generally, I don't really understand why people think it's funny to troll others. It's not like anyone ever thinks 'Wow what a clever person, they've acted like a knob to someone on the internet just to get a reaction.'

To me it seems like tripping an old lady on the street when no-one's looking. I guess it proves you can do something obnoxious and get away with it, but I don't see what the person doing the tripping actually gets out of it.

[spoonitnow]

Noone had AIDS in 1900.

Monkeys did.

Poop, its difficult to take you seriously when your position is based on incorrect information.

It takes 60 votes to break a democrat filibuster and pass the bill.

Democrats are intentionally blocking the passing of the bill because they want a deal on DACA now, even though the actual deadline on that is March.

Not denying that leadership us partially to blame here. But youre being quite fescicious if youre denying that the dems are guilty of reckless partisan bullshit

Don't waste your time. There is no cure.

The most intelligent thought I have on the matter is to question what the collective noun is for a banshee.

A shower of banshees?

I'm pretty sure there's not one and that it's just banshees.

To me it seems like tripping an old lady on the street when no-one's looking. I guess it proves you can do something obnoxious and get away with it, but I don't see what the person doing the tripping actually gets out of it.

Notice how it immediately assumes the victim position without conscious control.

[Poopadoop]

Notice how it immediately assumes the victim position without conscious control.

One troll down, next one up to bat.

Here, the troll in his natural habitat attempts to use an argument absent of all but the loosest association with reason to garner an emotional reaction from another person. As will be seen, once this argument fails the troll will slink away, awaiting the next opportunity. When this too fails, the troll may try to escalate or change his angle of approach.

Eventually the troll will see the futility of his pursuit and move on to other targets. For the troll, it's nothing personal (he doesn't know the person he's trolling after all), it's simply a numbers game. An emotional reaction from one person is as good as the same reaction from another.

[OngBonga]

To me it seems like tripping an old lady on the street when no-one's looking.

So my tongue in cheek banshee posts are the same as actual physical harm.

This is why the left have no credibility. This is a somewhat pathetic guilt trip. Man up for fuck's sake, words on the internet are not the same as being a dick to old ladies.

I don't really understand why people think it's funny to troll others.

Various reasons. In many cases, this one included, it's merely a form of banter. And yeah it's not "trolling" by the strict definition, because I'm not posting opinions that I don't hold in order to bait a reaction. But I'm still baiting because you're in bite mode these last few days. I guess being associated with the banshees is hitting a nerve. Sorry dude but that's the company you're keeping with this incessant noise regarding everything Trump does.

[OngBonga]

They'd probably just be the quirky spastic.

It's like tourettes. Do people actually think that's a new thing? Or is it that we thought people who had it were just cunts?

[Poopadoop]

So my tongue in cheek banshee posts are the same as actual physical harm.

This is why the left have no credibility. This is a somewhat pathetic guilt trip. Man up for fuck's sake, words on the internet are not the same as being a dick to old ladies.



Various reasons. In many cases, this one included, it's merely a form of banter. And yeah it's not "trolling" by the strict definition, because I'm not posting opinions that I don't hold in order to bait a reaction. But I'm still baiting because you're in bite mode these last few days. I guess being associated with the banshees is hitting a nerve. Sorry dude but that's the company you're keeping with this incessant noise regarding everything Trump does.

Ok it's like being obnoxious to someone you don't know on the phone then. I still don't see what you get out of it.

Banter assumes both people are in on the game. When one person clearly isn't playing, then the person who keeps bantering clearly isn't taking the hint. You tease your friend once or twice and they laugh. You tease them a third time and they just look at you. You tease them a fourth time and they say fuck off. You don't tease them a fifth time unless you're a shitty friend.

[OngBonga]

You don't tease them a fourth time unless you're a shitty friend.

Again with the guilt. You're a victim, I'm a cunt. That's the entire ideology of the left summed up in a few short words.

[OngBonga]

Well actually it would be "I'm a victim you're a cunt" if we're talking from the left's pov, but yeah.

[OngBonga]

People are too sensetive.

You know I can be a dick, you know I like to troll, and yet you still let me get under your skin.

You know why it's bothering you? Deep down you know I'm right, that the left are just noise making pussies who play the victim card to guilt the world into meeting their demands. If they don't get what they want, they cry louder and louder until people get sick of the noise and cave their own fucking head in.

The left operates by playing victim.

[Poopadoop]

Well actually it would be "I'm a victim you're a cunt" if we're talking from the left's pov, but yeah.

Well when you're acting like a cunt what do you want me to say? "Please sir can i have more?"

Fucking hell man.

[Poopadoop]

People are too sensetive.

You know I can be a dick, you know I like to troll, and yet you still let me get under your skin.

You know why it's bothering you? Deep down you know I'm right, that the left are just noise making pussies who play the victim card to guilt the world into meeting their demands. If they don't get what they want, they cry louder and louder until people get sick of the noise and cave their own fucking head in.

The left operates by playing victim.

See, here's where you're making a mistake. You're not under my skin just because I point out you're being a cunt. I could see anyone being a cunt and say 'what a cunt' and be totally devoid of any feeling about it.

What's bugging you is that you got called on it, and now you're trying to make into some 'lefty commie victimisation syndrome' or w/e. Stop trying to rationalise why you were being a cunt and just stop being a cunt, and I'll stop pointing out that you're being a cunt. It's really simple.

[OngBonga]

I don't give a fuck if I get called out for being a cunt. It's hardly breaking news.

I'm usually a cunt, it's just unusual for you to get butthurt about it.

[Poopadoop]

I'm usually a cunt

There's a difference between checking someone's spelling and arguing about nonsense and/or whatever else you usually do and insulting them repeatedly. If it makes you happy I'll try to get butthurt when you point out my spelling mistakes too from now on.

[OngBonga]

Banshee isn't really that much of an insult. You called me a fucking idiot and I didn't get butthurt.

I really couldn't give a toss what someone on the internet says to me. You shouldn't either.

[Poopadoop]

You called me a fucking idiot and I didn't get butthurt.

I didn't call you it over and over again every day for week.

I really couldn't give a toss what someone on the internet says to me. You shouldn't either.

All I said was you're a fail as a troll.

[OngBonga]

All I said was you're a fail as a troll.

I dunno, I mean you're still biting.

Don't make me say the B-word again.

[spoonitnow]

So my tongue in cheek banshee posts are the same as actual physical harm.

This is why the left have no credibility. This is a somewhat pathetic guilt trip. Man up for fuck's sake, words on the internet are not the same as being a dick to old ladies.

Again with the guilt. You're a victim, I'm a cunt. That's the entire ideology of the left summed up in a few short words.

Ding ding ding. Ladies and gentlemen, this man gets it.

[Poopadoop]

I dunno, I mean you're still biting.

Don't make me say the B-word again.

Well if your goal this morning was to get me to not react to your trolling except to call you a troll and then later maneuver me into calling you a cunt, then truly you are playing some 3D infinite chess.

[spoonitnow]

Well if your goal this morning was to get me to not react to your trolling except to call you a troll and then later maneuver me into calling you a cunt, then truly you are playing some 3D infinite chess.

TRIGGERED

[OngBonga]

There was a time that I held some radically left wing views. You could probably find many of them by searching through my posts.

I dunno, there came a time when I realised that life isn't fair, it's impossible for it to be fair, we're not all equal, and I'm not a victim of a shitty world I don't like.

[wufwugy]

I'm not a victim of a shitty world I don't like.

Whether or not somebody takes responsibility or blames others really does seem to be a key driver of how they view the world.


In other news, I've been softening to Christianity as a way of organizing one's life in part due to I think the foundational idea of Christianity is for the self to humble his pride, to not blame others, and to take responsibility. That's the central idea from Cain and Abel to Jesus.

[Poopadoop]

There was a time that I held some radically left wing views. You could probably find many of them by searching through my posts.

I dunno, there came a time when I realised that life isn't fair, it's impossible for it to be fair, we're not all equal, and I'm not a victim of a shitty world I don't like.

Not every liberal is just trying to get more for themselves.

I've been dealt plenty of good cards in life. I can't complain that life isn't fair to me, but I can see where and how it's unfair to other people.

Further, I'm of the view that being dealt a good hand makes you lucky, not good. I think it's too easy for people who have a lot to think 'i deserve this' rather than 'i partly deserve this, and I partly lucked out because I grew up here or am this colour or knew this person or whatever'. From that pov, it's not hard to get to thinking the world isn't fair and one way to make it more fair is to spread the wealth around a bit better. Even if that costs me a few quid a year personally, to me there's a larger question of the greater good and what kind of society I want to live in.

[OngBonga]

I can't complain that life isn't fair to me, but I can see where and how it's unfair to other people.

That's the way it works. You're a poker player, if you win some fucker else loses. That's the way it works, the principle is the same... we're competing for resources. You invest your money, or labour, in an effort to compete, and you either win or lose.

I'm of the view that being dealt a good hand makes you lucky, not good.

I agree. I don't pretend to be either unlucky nor good. I'm lucky I live in a country where I can be idle for a decade and not die. I'm also immoral for expecting the taxpayer to cough up.

The only lefty view I really still hold onto is the need for welfare. I know most unemployed people are unemployed for a reason... they are unemployable, either because they are too stupid, too lazy, or both. These people still need food, water and shelter, otherwise we have a problem that seems to me a great deal more worrying than a tax burden.

It's not right, but it's the way it is. Life isn't fair. Pay your fucking tax and be glad, in fact be proud, that you're not someone who lives like that.

[Poopadoop]

Whether or not somebody takes responsibility or blames others really does seem to be a key driver of how they view the world.

Obviously someone who has an internal focus and thinks they get what they deserve is going to try harder than someone who thinks it's all luck. So the former are, on average, going to be more successful than the latter.

That said, everyone is subject to variance whether they count its influence properly or not. Being aware of its impact doesn't mean you have to surrender yourself to it.

I think there are studies that show that when people succeed at a task they tend to take the credit for it (i.e., it's down to skill/hard work etc.) and when people (the same people mind you) fail they tend to blame bad luck or say 'it's rigged' or w/e. So it's hardly surprising successful people are going around saying 'all you have to do is work hard to succeed and the reason you failed is you didn't work hard enough) and unsuccessful people are saying the opposite.

[Poopadoop]

That's the way it works. You're a poker player, if you win some fucker else loses. That's the way it works, the principle is the same... we're competing for resources. You invest your money, or labour, in an effort to compete, and you either win or lose.

This is all true but sort of misses my point.

If two football players are both working their ass off to make the top league, and Person A has the genetic talent to be a professional athlete and Person B has almost but not quite enough genetic talent, they've both worked equally hard and arguably deserve the same reward. Rewarding one with £3m a year while the other has to go look for a real job that might pay £30k a year is what strikes me as unfair. Ok fine, capitalism and all that, but it's hard to believe anything except person A's genes are being rewarded out of all proportion to what he 'earned' by being born lucky. Person A did not do anything differently from Person B, so letting A earn 100x the salary of B is unjustified imo.

Now if we add in person C who genetically never had a chance in hell of making £3m a year at anything, it becomes easier to accept the idea that just maybe A should be paying more taxes than B or C.

[OngBonga]

I also still feel the govenrment should run the hospitals, trains, roads, water, energy... so I'm pretty left wing when it comes to economics.

Government should run critical infrastructure so private enterprise can thrive. Why do we need competition for trains? There's only one network. So it's not competition, it's a monopoly, and it's critical infrastructure because people need to get to work for the country to stay afloat. The government has more incentive than a private company that has no competition - votes.

But when it comes to equality and all that shit, this is where it all falls apart for me. This isn't economics, it's fucking identity politics. I abaondoned the left for this reason.

The right are just more sane, their ideology seems based on reason and logic, rather than blame and victimhood. I don't like the way the world works, but it's better here than most other places, so I'll take my good luck and get on with my life. I'm selfish, all I want is to survive and be happy. I don't give a fuck who isn't surviving and isn't happy because if I did I'd have a whole lot of fucking to give.

[OngBonga]

Rewarding one with £3m a year while the other has to go look for a real job that might pay £30k a year is what strikes me as unfair.

Yeah well it strikes me as unfair too. However, it's not. It just so happens that a fuck ton of morons will pay 10% of their salary regularly to watch a ball being kicked around while wearing an advert, while noone is willing to fund an accountant's salary by paying Sky to broadcast their work.

Football is better than watching someone doing the books, so it's fair.

[wufwugy]

Further, I'm of the view that being dealt a good hand makes you lucky, not good.

That's totally true.

The question I think is more about what provides for the best outcomes even in a world where good fortune is exactly that, good fortune.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah well it strikes me as unfair too. However, it's not. It just so happens that a fuck ton of morons will pay 10% of their salary regularly to watch a ball being kicked around while wearing an advert, while noone is willing to fund an accountant's salary by paying Sky to broadcast their work.

Football is better than watching someone doing the books, so it's fair.

I'm talking about what's fair in terms of people getting what they morally deserve, independent of what they actually get because of how the economic system works. In other words, I'm saying the economic system is not set up properly when the rewards differ by so much for what is the same amount of effort.

If a giant suitcase with £3m inside falls out of the sky into my garden, and a smaller one with £30k falls into my neighbor's garden, then neither of us did anything to deserve the bigger or smaller suitcase; one just got lucky relative to the other. It's the same with A and B; one had the stars line up genetically and other didn't. In that sense, I have no problem with saying 'ok A you got £3m you lucky bastard, let's have a big chunk of that and spread it around a bit.'

[wufwugy]

The only lefty view I really still hold onto is the need for welfare. I know most unemployed people are unemployed for a reason... they are unemployable, either because they are too stupid, too lazy, or both.

I know some very stupid people. Like 80 IQ or something worse, who are very employable and very employed, that even support families.

Regarding too lazy, yeah true, some people are too lazy to be employable. Though that would change right quick if their options were to go hungry or lift their fucking finger.


Anyways, even if most people are not "truly" unemployable, some still are, so my above points would not fully address your concerns. To your concerns, which are legitimate, (some people legitimately cannot take care of themselves) those people do need to be taken care of. The question then is does it work best when government does it or when families and friends and communities do it? I had a great post how we can figure this out a few days ago that you might have seen.

[wufwugy]

Obviously someone who has an internal focus and thinks they get what they deserve is going to try harder than someone who thinks it's all luck. So the former are, on average, going to be more successful than the latter.

That said, everyone is subject to variance whether they count its influence properly or not. Being aware of its impact doesn't mean you have to surrender yourself to it.

I think there are studies that show that when people succeed at a task they tend to take the credit for it (i.e., it's down to skill/hard work etc.) and when people (the same people mind you) fail they tend to blame bad luck or say 'it's rigged' or w/e. So it's hardly surprising successful people are going around saying 'all you have to do is work hard to succeed and the reason you failed is you didn't work hard enough) and unsuccessful people are saying the opposite.

I totally agree.

What do you think about when applying prescriptions? It can be true that "I'm the bestest" emerges from success and "Woe is me" emerges from failure, yet if we're dealing with prescriptions to "Woe is me," it might involve changing the outlook away from "Woe is me."

[wufwugy]

This is all true but sort of misses my point.

If two football players are both working their ass off to make the top league, and Person A has the genetic talent to be a professional athlete and Person B has almost but not quite enough genetic talent, they've both worked equally hard and arguably deserve the same reward. Rewarding one with £3m a year while the other has to go look for a real job that might pay £30k a year is what strikes me as unfair. Ok fine, capitalism and all that, but it's hard to believe anything except person A's genes are being rewarded out of all proportion to what he 'earned' by being born lucky. Person A did not do anything differently from Person B, so letting A earn 100x the salary of B is unjustified imo.

Now if we add in person C who genetically never had a chance in hell of making £3m a year at anything, it becomes easier to accept the idea that just maybe A should be paying more taxes than B or C.

In this example, you may be correct in part because you didn't provide any output for the taxes. If the output is something like welfare, it can be the case that Person C is made worse off because of how his behavior (and beliefs) would change when he receives benefits due to the fact that he is in a worse situation.

[OngBonga]

I'm talking about what's fair in terms of people getting what they morally deserve

You get what you morally deserve by working hard for it, at least in this country anyway. You think the footballer got lucky? Bollocks did he. He had to work really fucking hard to get where he got, ridiculously hard because the competition is enormous. You want to be an accountant? Go to uni, be motivated, sorted. You want to earn $30 million a year kicking a ball about? Be better than millions of other kids who want to be a footballer.

Morality is a crock of shit. If you don't like the money footballers earn, don't buy into it.

[wufwugy]

I also still feel the govenrment should run the hospitals, trains, roads, water, energy... so I'm pretty left wing when it comes to economics.

Do you believe the government more efficiently allocates resource than private interests do?

[spoonitnow]

There was a time that I held some radically left wing views. You could probably find many of them by searching through my posts.

I dunno, there came a time when I realised that life isn't fair, it's impossible for it to be fair, we're not all equal, and I'm not a victim of a shitty world I don't like.

I don't say this to make fun, but I was honestly wondering what had happened to you since the last time I was active on FTR. I'm glad to see that you've hopped onto the winning team with this. I was always hoping that you would since you seem like you have a lot to offer the world, but base mindset is a motherfucker.

[spoonitnow]

Person A did not do anything differently from Person B, so letting A earn 100x the salary of B is unjustified imo.

Person B picked the wrong thing to work at.

Moreover, what you're describing here is at the core of the victim mentality. It's the difference between what's fair and what's equal. They aren't the same.

[wufwugy]

I'm talking about what's fair in terms of people getting what they morally deserve, independent of what they actually get because of how the economic system works. In other words, I'm saying the economic system is not set up properly when the rewards differ by so much for what is the same amount of effort.

Is that an economic system or is that the way the world normally works and economic systems are ways to try to solve that?

[wufwugy]

I don't say this to make fun, but I was honestly wondering what had happened to you since the last time I was active on FTR. I'm glad to see that you've hopped onto the winning team with this. I was always hoping that you would since you seem like you have a lot to offer the world, but base mindset is a motherfucker.

Do you have much idea regarding how to change base mindset?

[Poopadoop]

I totally agree.

What do you think about when applying prescriptions? It can be true that "I'm the bestest" emerges from success and "Woe is me" emerges from failure, yet if we're dealing with prescriptions to "Woe is me," it might involve changing the outlook away from "Woe is me."

By prescriptions do you mean how to address the problem?

Well, clearly self-pity is not productive. The cure for that in a one-to-one setting is to say, 'Yes poor you. Explain the problem to me.' and then once you understand the problem, to say "Now what can, and are, we going to do about it?'. I think the approach needs to be handled carefully though, because different people have different buttons that need to be pushed to activate them out of their self-pity.

I had a colleague once who got a visit from a student doing a version of 'woe is me'. He went on to explain life variance to her with some equations and whatnot, and suffice it to say it did absolutely nothing for her in any way.

In a more society-wide setting 'woe is me' tends to be more complicated, and I don't know what the answer is. If you take the plight of minorities in many countries, the 'woe is me' is understandable and the way to resolve it is to try to resolve the cause if you can. But it's complicated.

[Poopadoop]

You get what you morally deserve by working hard for it, at least in this country anyway.

Bullshit. The Queen never did a hard day's work in her life and she lives in a palace.

He had to work really fucking hard to get where he got, ridiculously hard because the competition is enormous.

You just ignored the whole premise of the argument. They both worked equally really fucking hard at it.

[spoonitnow]

You just ignored the whole premise of the argument. They both worked equally really fucking hard at it.

Equality in effort does not mean equality in what's earned or what's deserved. The left does not understand this, largely because of the epidemic of participation trophies and the related victim mentality.

To kick this over to the Christianity thread, this is also at the core of the Cain and Abel story. Cain perceives that he has put up equal effort but does not get equal result, so he lashes outward instead of looking inward.

[OngBonga]

Do you believe the government more efficiently allocates resource than private interests do?

No, because they are cuorrupt and have private interests at heart. So when they do run public services that they would like to privatise, they run them to the ground to given the idea of inefficiency so the people are brainwashed into thinking that private interests will deliver a better service. It might if there was serious competition, but am I going to browse hospitals on the internet before I get my fucked ankle looked at?

[Poopadoop]

Person B picked the wrong thing to work at.

So 'blame the person who has less for them having less' is your answer in a nutshell.

Let's take a different approach then. A and B are identical twin footballers and work equally hard. Both are drafted to the big leagues. On the day before signing his contract, B gets hit by a drunk driver, and suffers career-ending injuries.

What's the argument now for why A "deserves" £3m a year and B "deserves" £30k?

[wufwugy]

By prescriptions do you mean how to address the problem?

Yes.

I had a colleague once who got a visit from a student doing a version of 'woe is me'. He went on to explain life variance to her with some equations and whatnot, and suffice it to say it did absolutely nothing for her in any way.

LOL I can imagine.

In a more society-wide setting 'woe is me' tends to be more complicated, and I don't know what the answer is. If you take the plight of minorities in many countries, the 'woe is me' is understandable and the way to resolve it is to try to resolve the cause if you can. But it's complicated.

It's probably important to accurately identify the problem. For example, the concepts often found in political discussion include that an economy is a zero-sum game (it's not). Those concepts are probably a faulty base from which some people derive their faulty prescriptions.

[spoonitnow]

So 'blame the person who has less for them having less' is your answer in a nutshell.

In this situation, yes.

Let's take a different approach then. A and B are identical twin footballers and work equally hard. Both are drafted to the big leagues. On the day before signing his contract, B gets hit by a drunk driver, and suffers career-ending injuries.

What's the argument now for why A "deserves" £3m a year and B "deserves" £30k?

In this completely different situation, A can earn £3m/year, and B can earn £30k/year. What they can produce is what they deserve. B does not have a claim to what A is earning.

Whether or not B deserved to be hit by a drunk driver and the injuries that came with that is a completely different question, but I don't expect you to understand that because your first inclination is to define B as a victim.

And of course I have sympathy for your perspective. I just think it's better for everyone, on average, if that perspective is not the one that's used as the basis for policy.

[wufwugy]

No, because they are cuorrupt and have private interests at heart. So when they do run public services that they would like to privatise, they run them to the ground to given the idea of inefficiency so the people are brainwashed into thinking that private interests will deliver a better service. It might if there was serious competition, but am I going to browse hospitals on the internet before I get my fucked ankle looked at?

Do you think the other sectors of the economy would be better if government ran them?

[Poopadoop]

For example, the concepts often found in political discussion include that an economy is a zero-sum game (it's not). Those concepts are probably a faulty base from which some people derive their faulty prescriptions.

By zero-sum, do you mean the argument is stated as if there's only so much wealth to go around? How is this not true? I can see that more wealth can always be generated but not that the amount of extant wealth at point X in time can be altered. Or maybe that's besides the point.

[spoonitnow]

Do you have much idea regarding how to change base mindset?

I do, but it's incredibly complicated, and I would argue against the need to on a mass scale. However, I think it can be useful on an individual scale. It gets into the topic of benevolent brainwashing, which I wouldn't need to do if someone didn't fill the person's head full of shit in the first place. It's largely outside of the scope of this thread.

[spoonitnow]

By zero-sum, do you mean the argument is stated as if there's only so much wealth to go around? How is this not true?

Someone just outed themselves.

To give you an example to hopefully think about, a voluntary transaction between two informed individuals creates value for both of them. The amount of wealth available after the transaction between those two is greater than the amount of wealth available before the transaction.

[OngBonga]

They both worked equally really fucking hard at it.

Sure they did. I'm sure the accountant was practising sums in his spare time through his entire childhood. I'm sure he is as fit.

The accountant went to uni and was pretty much guaranteed a job because someone is always hiring an accountant.

The footballer was practising from an early age, all the time, more so than your average kid who just has a kickabout now and then. If he's really serious when he gets in his teens, he'll have to ensure he's fit enough, so he'll have to go for a jog every day, make sure he doesn't smoke, less parties... the accountant can get as drunk as he likes at the weekend.

You think being a footballer is as easy as being an accountant?

That's why it's fair.

As for the queen, so she has a palace. What do you care? She earns it by being gawped at by millions of people and not being able to have a normal life. You think that's an easy life just because you don't ever have to worry about running out of bog roll? I wouldn't swap lives with her for shit.

[Poopadoop]

In this completely different situation, A can earn £3m/year, and B can earn £30k/year. What they can produce is what they deserve. B does not have a claim to what A is earning.

So what if B gets out of the hospital and gets hit by lightening. Now he can barely afford to pay his first bill and has to sell his house to pay his second one. Meanwhile A is living the high life and sleeping with supermodels. Tough shit?

your first inclination is to define B as a victim.

If every time I point out an inequality arising through no fault of a person's own, you call that defining them as a victim as if that's some artificial construct I've come up with, then you must believe there is no such thing as good or bad luck in terms of people's salaries.

Further, if B had any kind of bad luck that caused him to have a lower earning potential than A, all other things being equal in terms of talent, abilities, hard work, etc., then what difference does it make what you label that? It's bad luck and has nothing to do with 'deserving' anything.

And of course I have sympathy for your perspective. I just think it's better for everyone, on average, if that perspective is not the one that's used as the basis for policy.

Ok, fair enough.

[Poopadoop]

Sure they did. I'm sure the accountant was practising sums in his spare time through his entire childhood. I'm sure he is as fit.

The accountant went to uni and was pretty much guaranteed a job because someone is always hiring an accountant.

The footballer was practising from an early age, all the time, more so than your average kid who just has a kickabout now and then. If he's really serious when he gets in his teens, he'll have to ensure he's fit enough, so he'll have to go for a jog every day, make sure he doesn't smoke, less parties... the accountant can get as drunk as he likes at the weekend.

You think being a footballer is as easy as being an accountant?

That's why it's fair.

Go back to my first post about A and B and read the chain of posts again. You're not even on the same page here.

As for the queen, so she has a palace. What do you care? She earns it by being gawped at by millions of people and not being able to have a normal life. You think that's an easy life just because you don't ever have to worry about running out of bog roll? I wouldn't swap lives with her for shit.

Ok, how about someone who inherits a fortune without the strings attached? You think they earned that?

[OngBonga]

Do you think the other sectors of the economy would be better if government ran them?

No. The government would have an advantage over small business, just like the corporations do. In fact more so, because they would be in a position to set regulations that suit them without the need for lobbying.

I don't think government should be competing with private businesses. But your natural monopolies which constitute critical infrastructure... these should be run for the benfit of the nation, for overal economic interests, and not by a private business making profit.

If the trains were free, people would travel more, and spend more.

[Poopadoop]

Someone just outed themselves.

You mean as someone who isn't an economist? I've outted myself on that a hundred times already, you're late to the party mate.

To give you an example to hopefully think about, a voluntary transaction between two informed individuals creates value for both of them. The amount of wealth available after the transaction between those two is greater than the amount of wealth available before the transaction.

I guess I'm not clear on what this has to do with anything. Hopefully Wuf will have something useful to say about it.

[OngBonga]

Go back to my first post about A and B and read the chain of posts again. You're not even on the same page here.

Nah, I'll just let you win.

[OngBonga]

Ok, how about someone who inherits a fortune without the strings attached? You think they earned that?

Sure, his Dad earned it and his Dad has the right to do what he likes with his own hard earned shit.

[OngBonga]

If I want to give all my money to a homeless guy, that's my call, right?

What if I want to give my $100m estate to my son? Why is that a problem?

[spoonitnow]

So what if B gets out of the hospital and gets hit by lightening. Now he can barely afford to pay his first bill and has to sell his house to pay his second one. Meanwhile A is living the high life and sleeping with supermodels. Tough shit?

Yes. A is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to pay for B's misfortune. Forcing A to pay for B's misfortune is theft.

If every time I point out an inequality arising through no fault of a person's own, you call that defining them as a victim as if that's some artificial construct I've come up with, then you must believe there is no such thing as good or bad luck in terms of people's salaries.

What I said was: "...your first inclination is to define B as a victim." You seem to misunderstand what I mean, so I'll clarify: My first inclination is to assume that he's strong enough as a human being to overcome his hardships (which can include accepting charity given voluntarily from A or some other party) and achieve his potential, whatever that may be after his hardships, in spite of those hardships. One consequence of that is that I don't believe we need to force someone at gunpoint to give what they have to B just because he has been unlucky (ie: theft). This is what I mean as opposed to defining B as a victim (not to be confused with saying he wasn't a victim of some terrible shit that happened).

Further, if B had any kind of bad luck that caused him to have a lower earning potential than A, all other things being equal in terms of talent, abilities, hard work, etc., then what difference does it make what you label that? It's bad luck and has nothing to do with 'deserving' anything.

Regarding the bold, I just want to reiterate that the difference isn't in labeling what happened to him; it's a difference in labeling him as a person.

[Poopadoop]

Sure, his Dad earned it and his Dad has the right to do what he likes with his own hard earned shit.

So everyone gets what they deserve then in your eyes. The guy who makes £300k as a university chancellor deserves 10x as much as the accountant making £30k?

[spoonitnow]

I guess I'm not clear on what this has to do with anything. Hopefully Wuf will have something useful to say about it.

It was an answer to this...

By zero-sum, do you mean the argument is stated as if there's only so much wealth to go around? How is this not true?

...to show you a simple, intuitive way to see that wealth is not zero-sum.

[spoonitnow]

So everyone gets what they deserve then in your eyes. The guy who makes £300k as a university chancellor deserves 10x as much as the accountant making £30k?

If wufwugy is willing to pay me $25 to mow his yard, and I mow their yard for that amount, then I deserve that amount.

If wufwugy is willing to pay you $250 to paint his porch, and you paint his porch for that amount, then you deserve that amount.

The guy who makes $250 as a porch painter deserves 10x as much as the yard mower making $25?

Yes.

[Poopadoop]

Yes. A is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to pay for B's misfortune. Forcing A to pay for B's misfortune is theft.



What I said was: "...your first inclination is to define B as a victim." You seem to misunderstand what I mean, so I'll clarify: My first inclination is to assume that he's strong enough as a human being to overcome his hardships (which can include accepting charity given voluntarily from A or some other party) and achieve his potential, whatever that may be after his hardships, in spite of those hardships. One consequence of that is that I don't believe we need to force someone at gunpoint to give what they have to B just because he has been unlucky (ie: theft). This is what I mean as opposed to defining B as a victim (not to be confused with saying he wasn't a victim of some terrible shit that happened).



Regarding the bold, I just want to reiterate that the difference isn't in labeling what happened to him; it's a difference in labeling him as a person.

The whole premise of your model seems to be that people get what they deserve in terms of their earnings,and if even they don't that's not a good enough reason to redistribute wealth.

So, if A makes £3m a year due at least in some part to good luck (or lack of bad luck if you will), whereas B makes a lot less than that, A is in his rights to say 'not my problem, luck smiled on me and not someone else' to the government who would take some of his salary (a portion mind you, not all of it) and use it to pay for B's lightning burn treatments?

[Poopadoop]

It was an answer to this...



...to show you a simple, intuitive way to see that wealth is not zero-sum.

yes, thank you for explaining that to me. Now all I need is to understand why Wuf brought it up in the first place which is what I said in the next post.

[spoonitnow]

The whole premise of your model seems to be that people get what they deserve in terms of their earnings,and if even they don't that's not a good enough reason to redistribute wealth.

So, if A makes £3m a year due at least in some part to good luck (or lack of bad luck if you will), whereas B makes a lot less than that, A is in his rights to say 'not my problem, luck smiled on me and not someone else' to the government who would take some of his salary (a portion mind you, not all of it) and use it to pay for B's lightning burn treatments?

Your issue is that you're determining what B deserves based on what A is earning. That's not how deserving something works.

[wufwugy]

By zero-sum, do you mean the argument is stated as if there's only so much wealth to go around?

Zero-sum is in this case that a gain in resources by one entity means an equal subtraction of resources from another entity. When considered in isolation, people typically probably will correctly point out that the economy is not zero-sum. Yet, many of those same people hold political views that derive from the idea that the economy is zero-sum. We had an example of this just the other day in that gif Jack posted of a suit-and-tie guy taking the oreos.

I can see that more wealth can always be generated but not that the amount of extant wealth at point X in time can be altered. Or maybe that's besides the point.

At any point in time, wealth is constant because that point is one point and includes no change. But once we use multiple points in time, wealth is either increasing or decreasing (or remaining the same) based on changes in resource allocation. Resources include everything from oil to expending energy to wake up in the morning. Allocation of those resources depends on how their use is organized. Wealth derives from when that organization produces stuff people desire. An increase in wealth derives from when that organization becomes more efficient since that produces more of what people desire with the same resources. That also happens if there is a positive supply shock (like discovery of oil fields), but generally changes in supply are only impacted by us through efficiency, so we don't have need to address the supply shock element. Continuing on, an individual's allocation of resources can change dramatically over a short period of time. If you simply wake up one day and decide to work harder, your resource allocation improves markedly and the expectations of your future wealth improves markedly (if your change is essentially permanent).

So, let's take Phil as an example. Phil can start out as a lazy sack of shit who does nothing and learns nothing new, to transforming his life and becoming quite wealthy by merely allocating resources more efficiently while not detracting from somebody else. Phil can plant plants with positive yield that nobody else was going to plant, he can read books that nobody else was reading, he can act kindly to people, he can help other people solve problems and solve his own problems, he can build things that other people like enough that they'll wanna trade with him. He can do all this by using resources that people were not using, by using resources that other people gain by him using (like if he trades for some resources), and by more efficiently using resources than ways they were not being used before (like using a shovel to plant instead of hands or a rock).

There is a lot Phil can do to increase his resource allocation, which ultimately leads to increasing his monetary wealth and investment capital (a shovel or a house or a room full of computers can be thought of as investment capital). The political policies we want are the kind that allow Phil to do this. What we don't want is political policies that deter Phil from doing this. Most people can do what Phil does yet many are deterred. Some are deterred by a lot (like those living under dictatorships), and some are deterred by less but still a significant amount (like people who have to spend $20k on the licensing process to cut hair).

[Poopadoop]

Your issue is that you're determining what B deserves based on what A is earning. That's not how deserving something works.

Nope, I'm not. I'm using them as an example to illustrate how 'earning' and 'deserving' sound like synonyms, but aren't necessarily synonymous when it comes to income.

If I had argued that both A and B should have the exact same income regardless you might have a point there.

[spoonitnow]

Nope, I'm not. I'm using them as an example to illustrate how 'earning' and 'deserving' sound like synonyms, but aren't necessarily synonymous when it comes to income.

If I had argued that both A and B should have the exact same income regardless you might have a point there.

You're saying that B deserves more and that A deserves less, neither of which are true. What they deserve in terms of pay is between what their employer is willing to pay them and what they agree to work for. Nothing more, nothing less.

[wufwugy]

Someone just outed themselves.

To give you an example to hopefully think about, a voluntary transaction between two informed individuals creates value for both of them. The amount of wealth available after the transaction between those two is greater than the amount of wealth available before the transaction.

As long as we're thinking in terms of value. Hard monetary wealth would not change in this case, but yes both parties would be better off. And since monetary wealth is meant as a proxy of better off-ness, you are thinking about it more in terms of the way it should be thought about.

[wufwugy]

Ok, how about someone who inherits a fortune without the strings attached? You think they earned that?

In a way they did*, but this also shows why it's folly to attempt to organize "earns" and "deserves" by force.

*By being preferred inheritor by the other person who "earned" it. Indeed there likely wouldn't be inheritance except that the person who "earned" it first, whatever that even means, preferred to give it as inheritance.

[Poopadoop]

Zero-sum is in this case that a gain in resources by one entity means an equal subtraction of resources from another entity. When considered in isolation, people typically probably will correctly point out that the economy is not zero-sum. Yet, many of those same people hold political views that derive from the idea that the economy is zero-sum. We had an example of this just the other day in that gif Jack posted of a suit-and-tie guy taking the oreos.



At any point in time, wealth is constant because that point is one point and includes no change. But once we use multiple points in time, wealth is either increasing or decreasing (or remaining the same) based on changes in resource allocation. Resources include everything from oil to expending energy to wake up in the morning. Allocation of those resources depends on how their use is organized. Wealth derives from when that organization produces stuff people desire. An increase in wealth derives from when that organization becomes more efficient since that produces more of what people desire with the same resources. That also happens if there is a positive supply shock (like discovery of oil fields), but generally changes in supply are only impacted by us through efficiency, so we don't have need to address the supply shock element. Continuing on, an individual's allocation of resources can change dramatically over a short period of time. If you simply wake up one day and decide to work harder, your resource allocation improves markedly and the expectations of your future wealth improves markedly (if your change is essentially permanent).

So, let's take Phil as an example. Phil can start out as a lazy sack of shit who does nothing and learns nothing new, to transforming his life and becoming quite wealthy by merely allocating resources more efficiently while not detracting from somebody else. Phil can plant plants with positive yield that nobody else was going to plant, he can read books that nobody else was reading, he can act kindly to people, he can help other people solve problems and solve his own problems, he can build things that other people like enough that they'll wanna trade with him. He can do all this by using resources that people were not using, by using resources that other people gain by him using (like if he trades for some resources), and by more efficiently using resources than ways they were not being used before (like using a shovel to plant instead of hands or a rock).

There is a lot Phil can do to increase his resource allocation, which ultimately leads to increasing his monetary wealth and investment capital (a shovel or a house or a room full of computers can be thought of as investment capital). The political policies we want are the kind that allow Phil to do this. What we don't want is political policies that deter Phil from doing this. Most people can do what Phil does yet many are deterred. Some are deterred by a lot (like those living under dictatorships), and some are deterred by less but still a significant amount (like people who have to spend $20k on the licensing process to cut hair).

So basically your argument is that if the lazy ass gets up and does something he will have more wealth and not have to ask the government for it.

I wouldn't deny this. My point is not that you should reward people for doing nothing, rather that the rewards should fall within certain boundaries and not be limitless (or nearly so) for certain people at the expense of others.

To take an extreme example: A guy opens a MAGA hat factory. As a confirmed capitalist, he believes that he deserves the lion's share of whatever wealth comes from that factory. He opens it in a depressed area, pays people minimum wage with no benefits, and if they don't like it, fuck 'em he can hire some other poor slob the next day for the same pay. And because MAGA hats sell so well, he barely has to work a six-hour day to make a yuge profit.

As a result he makes $3m a year working a six-hour day while all his workers make $30k a year on eight hours a day. And in twenty years the workers all get cancer from the dye used in the caps because Trump cut the regulations and the employer can also not be sued for any of it.

This seems proper to you?