TakeYouToTasker

Damnit Shaq, as if your labia tear wasn't enough...

I think the rate I'm taxed at is immoral and punitive, and find that the confiscation of my property is far greater an affront to personal liberty than being denied the right to carry a particular type of plant around; but I pay my taxes because it's the law, and I understand there are consequences to flaunting the law. In fact, if I didn't pay my taxes while I voiced my opposition, I'd be an abject idiot muppet. The same can be said of anyone carrying around a pocketful of dope where it's illegal regardless of how strongly they feel it's a violation of their personal liberty.

Yeah, that you're an unrepentant druggie who got arrested transporting an illicit substance across state lines. No sympathy ever.

LOL

So the thread has devolved into erotic Bernie Sanders fan fiction? Grand.

This is so wrong headed. An unearned sense of worth and value is a horrible thing. Worth and value must be earned. Having good parents is essential. Good decisions made by parents drastically change the sorts of decisions their children will have to make, and will set a standard of good decision making and hard work as a minimal standard. It's inter-generational.

This is completely untrue: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/23/news/economy/wealthiest-americans-background-family/index.html?section=money_news_economy

"If you make just one poor decision, you're screwed." The article then goes on to list a litany of poor decisions made by this individual: he bought a new car he couldn't afford with a $265/mo. payment, his $300/mo. Verizon bill because he was streaming videos, his decision to have a second child despite not being able to handle $600/mo. for rent, the decision not to go to college and instead work at a vape shop trying to support a family as an adult, the fact that he has luxury items like a PlayStation 4 which costs around $400 and a pile of games which retail for around $60 each, the fact that despite his financial situation he doesn't have a second job and thinks he should be able to coast by on a 40 hour work week. He made, and continues to make, the decisions which put him in this situation, and I have no sympathy for him.

God's own work.

Not having to pay taxes is not a form a welfare.

You opened a Hooters equivalent lemonade stand?

And there you have it. If you connect the dots you can clearly see that it's well past time to add necrophilia to the list of Bill's perversions...

To be both legitimate and prosperous, a nation state must act in a way attracts investment and encourages wealth creation and capital formation. Your preferences undermine those things. Yes, they have. You should take careful note of these impacts in the Asian economy from the 1960's until now. In Third World economies? It's not hyperbolic at all. This demonstrates exactly how little you know about business. I'm sure you'll be able to breathe underwater just fine if only you try just a little bit harder to grow gills. Businesses aren't going into business to lose money or diminish profits. These businesses will simply either shutter their doors, or they will relocate to an area of the world who treats their money better.

Every pursuit has an end purpose. For CRT it is to grant special privilege to certain groups, CRT is the tool invented to create this outcome.

You're over thinking what I said. I was refining CRT down to it's most basic elements: it's purpose is to create victim status, and thereby privilege, by manufacturing racism where none exists. That the purpose of CRT is to make Azalin (and the rest of we cis gendered, white, heterosexual males) a racist.

Strawman. "Corporations incorporating somewhere" does not somehow magically confer credit for a business' growth and achievement on the country in which they are incorporated. It does not make those fortunate enough to have their standard of living raised by being born in the nation in which that country is incorporated because it is incorporated there be owed something by those businesses. The overwhelming majority of outsourcing and off-shoring is done for access to cheap labor, lower standards of labor, and fewer burdensome regulations. Logistics and opening markets comes years down the line once capital inflows drawn in with cheap labor have worked to modernize economies, and create consumers out of former agrarianites. Without First World capital, those areas of the world will remain tribal wastelands ruled by warlords. I was speaking hyperbolicly, but then, you already knew that. Also, on what planet do you believe businesses are not already straining themselves to take advantage of cost saving energy efficiency, innovation to lead their industries, and employee efficiency? In what alternate reality do you feel firms will devote more capital towards the things that make them the most money when they have less capital in total?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q1PVOIqQAns" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's absurd on so many levels. First of all, those companies are private entities and do an immense service to the countries that are located in by providing their citizens with the lifestyle which today defines what a First World country is. Those companies do no owe the residents of the United States anything. Conversely the residents of the United States owe them everything that they have. Secondly, doing this would decimate the Third World and emerging economies. Without the current incentives to invest there, those labor markets would go completely untapped, and there would be zero capital inflows. Lastly, your suggestion, if implemented, would exponentially increase the domestic costs of good and services making everyone not sitting at the top of the economy much, much poorer.

Organized labor is on the way out in this country, and it's largely self inflicted. Unionized labor has priced itself out of the global market place.

That's the entire point of CRT.

You haven't, nor have Biven and Mitchell, made any rational or compelling argument that those dollars would be diverted into labor rather than earnings. Labor prices itself in a competitive market, just like everything else. Labor does not magically become more valuable once CEO pay is reduced. Yours is an argument that only seeks to pay some less rather than others more.

That's a fantastic comparison.

I'll ask again, since you ignored me the first time: How many times more important to a company's short and long term success is the CEO than a low level factory or warehouse worker his company employs? 20x? 100x? 1000x? Or is the difference between an industry leader capable of negotiating billion dollar deals, and making billion dollar decisions, and an essentially fungible cog in his creation so unfathomably large that it's absurd to compare the compensation of the two? I'll then ask you a second question: Why do you believe a reduction in CEO pay would lead to higher salaries for low level employees?

It's what it takes to attract the highest levels of talent in a competitive market. Let me ask you a question: How many times more important to a company's short and long term success is the CEO than a low level factory or warehouse worker his company employs? 20x? 100x? 1000x? Or is the difference between an industry leader capable of negotiating billion dollar deals, and making billion dollar decisions, and an essentially fungible cog in his creation so unfathomably large that it's absurd to compare the compensation of the two?

Tom Woods is a long-time favorite of mine. If you have kids, I highly recommend his Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.