7 ms·

Yep. The real battle is wealthies vs poors. Everything else is just propaganda.

by rc_kas 10mo ago

nyc_data_geek1 10mo ago
No war but class war
WalterBright 10mo ago
[flagged]
- mperham 10mo ago
  99% of zoning is just class-based segregation.
- saubeidl 10mo ago
  Here's a recent American example: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/by-the-numbers-harmful-republican-megabill-favors-the-wealthy-and-leaves https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/by-the-numbers-har...
- tehjoker 10mo ago
  where does profit come from? Simply trading items in a competitive market will not turn profits.
  - freefaler 10mo ago
    No profits == no business. Profits in very competitive markets might be low, but you still need them to survive. Walmart is under 6% of profit, but due to the enormous revenue it is still a lot.
    - tehjoker 10mo ago
      That’s not the question, it’s where do profits come from in the economic equation? What part of the value chain is adding but not subtracting its full cut?
      - freefaler 10mo ago
        As Hayek proved the information in free markets is encoded by prices, so the value is up to the consenting parties. There is no "good" or "bad" or "improper" profit. If there is competition and willing parties that's where the profit will be. It will go down to something more or less sustainable for the market participants that are willing to work for that profit.
        tehjoker 10mo ago
        Sure, there may be a price a customer is willing to pay, but how does the business owner make a profit? Aren't there other people being paid too? If they are paid less, doesn't that sound more like a negotiating position than mere "information" signals?
        WalterBright 10mo ago
        > how does the business owner make a profit? Revenue - Expenses = Profit
        freefaler 10mo ago
        Free market countries are more abundant than non-free market ones because the system is brutally efficient. If you can't sell something for a profit, you might be forced to sell it for a loss and eat the difference. This is the way the system regulates itself. The business owners invest their resources and own the risk. Employees sell their work hours by a fixed price and this is calculated in the total cost for the business to sell. The price their work is bought by is also regulated by free market and is an input to the total price. They aren't forced to be paid less than the going market rate (may be short term until contract expires) so the prices and unforced cooperation based on price it shte "magic" that makes USA to have 100s of types of biscuits and Cuba to have empty stores.
- vkou 10mo ago
  You could do some basic research on this topic, it's been exhaustively covered over the past few centuries, but I'll drop you three starting points. Pushing the tax burden for upkeeping society off people who own more shit than any of us ever will onto people who have to work for a living. Legal protection and structural advantages for landlord interests over tenant interests. Legal protection and structural advantages for employer interests over employee interests vis a vis wage theft, worker safety, worker injuries, etc. There are many others, but even a brief summary of injustice in any one of these topics is big enough for ~a few hundred books, and alas, the margins of this website are too small to contain them.
  - WalterBright 10mo ago
    > Legal protection and structural advantages for landlord interests over tenant interests. Rent control is not in the landlord's business. In Seattle, the other legislation against landlords is pushing them out of business. > Pushing the tax burden for upkeeping society off people who own more shit than any of us ever will onto people who have to work for a living. 1% pay 40% of the federal income tax. Google [percent of federal government spending spent on wealth redistribution] says: "A significant portion of U.S. federal spending, around 60-70%, goes to social insurance and safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Income Security, which function as wealth redistribution by supporting retirees, the needy, and vulnerable populations, though the exact "wealth redistribution" percentage varies by definition but centers on these large mandatory spending categories. In FY 2024, Social Security and Medicare alone were 36% of the budget, with Income Security adding another ~9-10%." > Legal protection and structural advantages for employer interests over employee interests vis a vis wage theft, worker safety, worker injuries, etc. The legal advantage again is for the employee. For example, wage theft is illegal and is aggressively prosecuted.
    - vkou 10mo ago
      > Rent control is not in the landlord's business... Seattle... Landlords going out of business... And you immediately demonstrate why having a conversation with you on this subject is pointless. There's a million different dimensions in which the problem that I've pointed at manifests. But what you do is you cherry-pick one particular dimension of it in one particular municipality in one particular time period[1], claim that that dimension is (allegedly) biased in the other direction, and thus you reach the universal conclusion that clearly landlords are the real victims[2], and you can just sweep the entire issue off the table. I don't have enough words to describe how incurious and chock-full-of-fallacies this kind of thinking is. You already know everything that you feel you need to, and there's nothing more that needs to be said. It's like you have found the number 2, and conclude that therefore, most numbers are even primes. --- [1] Actually, you don't do even that. You just vaguely wave your hands in its direction. [2] Kind of weird that the market values their real estate to be worth twice what it was a decade ago if they are getting such a raw deal. I'm sure PE is snapping up rental properties because they are money-losing investments, too. After all, serious people who have done the math and are putting billions of dollars into this (and are reaping profits on their investments hand-over-fist) must all be too stupid to understand just how awful renting out property is.
- vlovich123 10mo ago
  Depends how you define it and wether you’re defining it as intentionally en masse or as a byproduct of pure self interest regardless of anything else. There’s plenty of examples, the most famous one in my opinion is that the popularity of legislation is irrelevant for passage, support by wealthy is. Similarly how the vast majority of people obtain political office is by and large courting the influence of wealthy donors (source - the amount of money being spent in politics and particularly dark money). Also how “lobbying” works even in the Supreme Court and pay to play by definition is politically battling the poor.
  - WalterBright 10mo ago
    Obamacare is of no use at all for the wealthy. So why do those in power support it? Everybody says that money buys elections. But consider that Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and lost, Harris outspent Trump 3:1 and still lost. Bloomberg poured money into his presidential bid, and he didn't garner enough votes to be a blip on the radar. Campaign money does buy you a stage, but it doesn't buy the votes. Nobody has ever bought my vote. How about you?
    - piva00 10mo ago
      > Obamacare is of no use at all for the wealthy. So why do those in power support it? They... Didn't? It's been defanged and reduced to the aberration it is right now, instead of being single payer, universal healthcare. > Everybody says that money buys elections. But consider that Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and lost, Harris outspent Trump 3:1 and still lost. Bloomberg poured money into his presidential bid, and he didn't garner enough votes to be a blip on the radar. > Campaign money does buy you a stage, but it doesn't buy the votes. Without campaign money you have no chance at all, could you run a successful presidential campaign on 1/10th or 1/100th of the budget given you had a hypothetical bright candidate, someone that could objectively be a much better president than any of the moneyed ones? No, hence campaign money does buy votes, it just doesn't buy them completely but without campaign money you have absolutely no chance.
      - WalterBright 10mo ago
was8309 10mo ago
maybe i'm doing a No True Scotsman, but i can't see where the Left has ever been against the poors. I thought the the origin of the terms Left and Right was For Democracy (the poors have a voice), and For the King (the wealthies) from the French Revolution. How is 'wealthies vs poors' different from left vs right'?
- civeng 10mo ago
  I appreciate the acknowledgement ofthe 'No True Scotsman' trap. It is easy to define a side by its ideals (e.g., 'The Left is for the poor'), but the reality is that both sides muck it up the moment they take control. Neither side actually supports the poor because both are funded by and literally are the wealthy masters. The evidence is in the trends/facts that for almost 50 years the wealth gap has only widened, regardless of who is in charge. At some point, we have to accept that the 'which side is right' argument is false.
  - defrost 10mo ago
    Neither of the two major parties in US politics supports the poor. Elsewhere there are broader choices in national politics. eg: the current Prime Minister of Australia grew up with a single mother on a disability pension in council housing. His actions and politics are at least informed by real life experience as one of "the poor".
    - cassianoleal 10mo ago
      Brazil’s President faced famine as a child, lost a pinky in a factory accident and is a life-long union leader.
nec4b 10mo ago
Not true, the battle between wealthy and poor is the propaganda. In reality where revolution did occur, poor were used to battle the rich, so the communist party could enrich it self. By destroying the rich, they also destroyed the economy and made poor even poorer.
thrance 10mo ago
So, the left is right?

Yep. The real battle is wealthies vs poors. Everything else is just propaganda.

by rc_kas 10mo ago

Yep. The real battle is wealthies vs poors. Everything else is just propaganda.

nyc_data_geek1 10mo ago

No war but class war

WalterBright 10mo ago

[flagged]

mperham 10mo ago
99% of zoning is just class-based segregation.
saubeidl 10mo ago
Here's a recent American example: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/by-the-numbers-harmful-republican-megabill-favors-the-wealthy-and-leaves https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/by-the-numbers-har...
tehjoker 10mo ago
where does profit come from? Simply trading items in a competitive market will not turn profits.
- freefaler 10mo ago
  No profits == no business. Profits in very competitive markets might be low, but you still need them to survive. Walmart is under 6% of profit, but due to the enormous revenue it is still a lot.
  - tehjoker 10mo ago
    That’s not the question, it’s where do profits come from in the economic equation? What part of the value chain is adding but not subtracting its full cut?
    - freefaler 10mo ago
      As Hayek proved the information in free markets is encoded by prices, so the value is up to the consenting parties. There is no "good" or "bad" or "improper" profit. If there is competition and willing parties that's where the profit will be. It will go down to something more or less sustainable for the market participants that are willing to work for that profit.
      - tehjoker 10mo ago
        Sure, there may be a price a customer is willing to pay, but how does the business owner make a profit? Aren't there other people being paid too? If they are paid less, doesn't that sound more like a negotiating position than mere "information" signals?
        WalterBright 10mo ago
        > how does the business owner make a profit? Revenue - Expenses = Profit
        freefaler 10mo ago
        Free market countries are more abundant than non-free market ones because the system is brutally efficient. If you can't sell something for a profit, you might be forced to sell it for a loss and eat the difference. This is the way the system regulates itself. The business owners invest their resources and own the risk. Employees sell their work hours by a fixed price and this is calculated in the total cost for the business to sell. The price their work is bought by is also regulated by free market and is an input to the total price. They aren't forced to be paid less than the going market rate (may be short term until contract expires) so the prices and unforced cooperation based on price it shte "magic" that makes USA to have 100s of types of biscuits and Cuba to have empty stores.
vkou 10mo ago
You could do some basic research on this topic, it's been exhaustively covered over the past few centuries, but I'll drop you three starting points. Pushing the tax burden for upkeeping society off people who own more shit than any of us ever will onto people who have to work for a living. Legal protection and structural advantages for landlord interests over tenant interests. Legal protection and structural advantages for employer interests over employee interests vis a vis wage theft, worker safety, worker injuries, etc. There are many others, but even a brief summary of injustice in any one of these topics is big enough for ~a few hundred books, and alas, the margins of this website are too small to contain them.
- WalterBright 10mo ago
  > Legal protection and structural advantages for landlord interests over tenant interests. Rent control is not in the landlord's business. In Seattle, the other legislation against landlords is pushing them out of business. > Pushing the tax burden for upkeeping society off people who own more shit than any of us ever will onto people who have to work for a living. 1% pay 40% of the federal income tax. Google [percent of federal government spending spent on wealth redistribution] says: "A significant portion of U.S. federal spending, around 60-70%, goes to social insurance and safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Income Security, which function as wealth redistribution by supporting retirees, the needy, and vulnerable populations, though the exact "wealth redistribution" percentage varies by definition but centers on these large mandatory spending categories. In FY 2024, Social Security and Medicare alone were 36% of the budget, with Income Security adding another ~9-10%." > Legal protection and structural advantages for employer interests over employee interests vis a vis wage theft, worker safety, worker injuries, etc. The legal advantage again is for the employee. For example, wage theft is illegal and is aggressively prosecuted.
  - vkou 10mo ago
    > Rent control is not in the landlord's business... Seattle... Landlords going out of business... And you immediately demonstrate why having a conversation with you on this subject is pointless. There's a million different dimensions in which the problem that I've pointed at manifests. But what you do is you cherry-pick one particular dimension of it in one particular municipality in one particular time period[1], claim that that dimension is (allegedly) biased in the other direction, and thus you reach the universal conclusion that clearly landlords are the real victims[2], and you can just sweep the entire issue off the table. I don't have enough words to describe how incurious and chock-full-of-fallacies this kind of thinking is. You already know everything that you feel you need to, and there's nothing more that needs to be said. It's like you have found the number 2, and conclude that therefore, most numbers are even primes. --- [1] Actually, you don't do even that. You just vaguely wave your hands in its direction. [2] Kind of weird that the market values their real estate to be worth twice what it was a decade ago if they are getting such a raw deal. I'm sure PE is snapping up rental properties because they are money-losing investments, too. After all, serious people who have done the math and are putting billions of dollars into this (and are reaping profits on their investments hand-over-fist) must all be too stupid to understand just how awful renting out property is.
vlovich123 10mo ago
Depends how you define it and wether you’re defining it as intentionally en masse or as a byproduct of pure self interest regardless of anything else. There’s plenty of examples, the most famous one in my opinion is that the popularity of legislation is irrelevant for passage, support by wealthy is. Similarly how the vast majority of people obtain political office is by and large courting the influence of wealthy donors (source - the amount of money being spent in politics and particularly dark money). Also how “lobbying” works even in the Supreme Court and pay to play by definition is politically battling the poor.
- WalterBright 10mo ago
  Obamacare is of no use at all for the wealthy. So why do those in power support it? Everybody says that money buys elections. But consider that Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and lost, Harris outspent Trump 3:1 and still lost. Bloomberg poured money into his presidential bid, and he didn't garner enough votes to be a blip on the radar. Campaign money does buy you a stage, but it doesn't buy the votes. Nobody has ever bought my vote. How about you?
  - piva00 10mo ago
    > Obamacare is of no use at all for the wealthy. So why do those in power support it? They... Didn't? It's been defanged and reduced to the aberration it is right now, instead of being single payer, universal healthcare. > Everybody says that money buys elections. But consider that Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and lost, Harris outspent Trump 3:1 and still lost. Bloomberg poured money into his presidential bid, and he didn't garner enough votes to be a blip on the radar. > Campaign money does buy you a stage, but it doesn't buy the votes. Without campaign money you have no chance at all, could you run a successful presidential campaign on 1/10th or 1/100th of the budget given you had a hypothetical bright candidate, someone that could objectively be a much better president than any of the moneyed ones? No, hence campaign money does buy votes, it just doesn't buy them completely but without campaign money you have absolutely no chance.
    - WalterBright 10mo ago

was8309 10mo ago

maybe i'm doing a No True Scotsman, but i can't see where the Left has ever been against the poors. I thought the the origin of the terms Left and Right was For Democracy (the poors have a voice), and For the King (the wealthies) from the French Revolution. How is 'wealthies vs poors' different from left vs right'?

civeng 10mo ago
I appreciate the acknowledgement ofthe 'No True Scotsman' trap. It is easy to define a side by its ideals (e.g., 'The Left is for the poor'), but the reality is that both sides muck it up the moment they take control. Neither side actually supports the poor because both are funded by and literally are the wealthy masters. The evidence is in the trends/facts that for almost 50 years the wealth gap has only widened, regardless of who is in charge. At some point, we have to accept that the 'which side is right' argument is false.
- defrost 10mo ago
  Neither of the two major parties in US politics supports the poor. Elsewhere there are broader choices in national politics. eg: the current Prime Minister of Australia grew up with a single mother on a disability pension in council housing. His actions and politics are at least informed by real life experience as one of "the poor".
  - cassianoleal 10mo ago
    Brazil’s President faced famine as a child, lost a pinky in a factory accident and is a life-long union leader.

nec4b 10mo ago

Not true, the battle between wealthy and poor is the propaganda. In reality where revolution did occur, poor were used to battle the rich, so the communist party could enrich it self. By destroying the rich, they also destroyed the economy and made poor even poorer.

thrance 10mo ago

So, the left is right?