hackyhacky

9 ms·

211.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> Mere ownership (as in a legal title) does not and cannot yield an income. To have a yield, something must be put to use. Money is used by loaning it out, which requires no effort and most importantly: the amount of money you can loan o
212.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> I recommend you start a commune. Or a business. It's a free country, there are no laws against it. So in your view, there are only two options: (a) unlimited astronomical compensation for CEOs while line workers get minimum wage o
213.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> This is classic Marxism. Correct. Are you going to dispute it or is "this is Marxism" the extent of your argument? > The employees were compensated commensurate with the value they produced. If they were compensated commen
214.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
Here is evidence. https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/china-the-land-of-less...
215.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
That is consistent with my earlier statement: capitalism creates wealth, but you need another system to distribute it fairly. It's crazy to think that capitalism alone will "raise all boats" when this has been shown to be u
216.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument why. Don't just call people names. You are operating under the misapprehension that pointing out bad-faith arguments is "call[ing] people names." No. We should not enga
217.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system Treating an obviously racist and xenophobic immigration agenda as good-faith government policy does not help the country. It only serves to len
218.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
You are missing the point in spectacular fashion. This is not a debate about immigration policy. This is a debate about government-sanctioned racist scapegoating under the guise of immigration policy. Honest discussion requires calling a sp
219.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
Okay, I'm surprised by how much you are missing the point, so let's imagine a dialog taking place in the 1930s in Europe. A: Hey, I think we should murder all people of <ethnicity> because they are a threat to national secur
220.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> Calling someone a liar is not an argument. Correct. On its own, calling someone a liar is not an argument. However, if a person is a liar, that fact provides useful context in evaluating statements made by that person. Traditionally,
221.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
The fact that the current US administration lies is indisputable. I'm not calling them liars because they "disagree with [my] rhetoric" but because they have been shown to have repeatedly lied. Saying that Trump is a liar is
222.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> The only question I have asked is for you to make an affirmative argument. You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Reme
223.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
You said the other side has reasons that I hadn't considered. So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider?
224.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider? Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual.
225.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
Thanks for the reminder. Are you implying that EM does not invest in real estate or are you just being contrary?
226.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> As I've mentioned several times now, the growth of the wealthy in the 19th century corresponded with the movement of the poor into the middle class. Yes you keep on mentioning that, but I don't know why. Correlation is not ca
227.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> If the goal is to reduce poverty, the number of billionaire is actually irelevant. How you fund reducing poverty might influence the number of billionaires, but, for me it is more important what each society does for the poor, rather t
228.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
It's not irrelevant. It wasn't irrelevant when the same arguments were made in favor of feudal lords. People want to fairly compensated: the premise of "a day's pay for a day's work" is based on it. If the id
229.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> It's not, but if the existence of billionaires correlates strongly with an increase in the median standard of living, I'm all for it. Great, but it doesn't. The gap between the poor and the wealthy has only grown in the
230.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> That makes no sense because labor needs capital to take risks so they get salaries. Total non sequitur. Labor (and salaries) predate the existence of money, as well as capital investment.
231.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
All well and good but you still haven't addressed my point which is that China's reduction of poverty is due to its central control of wages, construction, and capital. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48236489
232.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
Okay so you admit that you did in fact have capital and you were lying before? Did you ever compensate the school for their involuntary loan of that computer or are you now admitting that you are a thief?
233.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
Have we already gotten to the part of the conversation where you just admit that your entire understanding of economics is based on a handful of personal anecdotes?
234.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> The value created by his company. A company is just a legal fiction. It doesn't do anything without people. The value was actually created by the people who work for Musk. In other words, those employees create a large value, an
235.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
Just because they are Marxist tenets doesn't mean they aren't true. Feel free to refute them if you feel otherwise.
236.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
Ah yes, the famous "trickle down" economy of Reaganomics. If only we had more billionaires, then I'm sure I'd be able to afford to get my car fixed. Unfortunately, this economic model has been proven to be wrong. If it w
237.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
Elon Musk is a great example. These days, he mostly writes racist tweets, pretends to play video games, consolidates his own businesses to increase his own apparent net worth, and undermines the federal government.
238.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> That's the communist "Labor Theory of Value" which is nonsense. Can you explain how it's nonsense? Can you think of a valuable product or service that you consume that is not produced by labor? > For example, s
239.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> It was created by the company you invested in. That's right: the value was created by other people, but yet you are benefiting. That makes you a parasite. > I took the risk of providing capital for the company to use to create
240.
by hackyhacky 4mo ago
> You're assuming the economy is zero sum, which it obviously is not. That assumption does not follow from my statement. What I do assume is that the easiest way to make money is to have money, which means that the rich and get ri

More ›