Comments by "BaltimoreAndOhioRR" (@BaltimoreAndOhioRR) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
39
-
11
-
10
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
bduhe219
yes, you ARE the one who doesnt understand economics.
do you think the high school dropout that mops the floor should get paid the same amount as the manager who had to take a business course and is responsible for knowing every position in the establishment, hiring & firing employees, making sure employees get paid, and making sure the business is profitable enough to stay in business?
you need to grow up. there will always be low paying jobs, under any system. at least with our system, everyone has the opportunity to advance in numerous ways, even by starting his own business or inventing something.
"greed & power" is what makes people do better. if you want that expensive car, house, clothes, then go to college, work an extra job, or create your own business.
"greed & power" even benefits businesses. each business wants to stay in business and make a profit. they need to stay as good or better than the next business to keep profits coming in. so they work hard to develop new & better products, offer better service, or keep prices low. if another business figures how to do something better, that business will reap the rewards.
that benefits all of us, as we get the best products that the market price sets. whether thats a fast food burger & fries, a new car, or a new iphone, it all works the same.
1
-
1
-
bduhe219
OK, so in your 'fair' world, the ditch digger and floor mopper would be making millions, and the owner of a medium to large business, along with the heads of multi-million dollar corporations would be making minimum wage (or a 'living wage'?).
so in your world, there would not be any businesses left, to pay those ditch diggers and floor moppers! who wants to go through all that schooling, or take on all that responsibility, for a low, average class wage?
you are talking like a communist (or socialist, they're very similar). the thing is, the American people dont want mediocracy. we dont want everyone to be equal - at a lower level. we want people to be able to become rich! we want people striving to become better. to invent new things, to figure out better ways to do things, to make breakthrough discoveries.
in your world where everyone's equal, there is no striving to succeed, because first, there's no necessity for it, and second, there's no reward for doing so. it's against human nature.
and anyway, the whole thing is a moot point.
capitalism is the system we have. people already own businesses. people have worked and invested their whole lives to be able to pass a successful business to their children.
and by the way, no one in the US is living in 'abject poverty' unless they have had a large role in making sure they are.
1
-
1
-
bduhe219
Again, you're deceiving yourself and misrepresenting the situation.
Big bad capitalists are not invading cities and laying waste to them, leaving the inhabitants to starve in the gutters. The US is not full of homeless, poverty stricken, starving working people just trying to survive.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Somalia?
Or Africa in general? Remember "USA For Africa"? That capitalist endeavor to raise millions for the TRUE poverty stricken people in Africa? That is real poverty, and truthfully, I dont know the exact govt type of each country in Africa, but I will go out on a limb and suggest it's not American Capitalism.
Even the poorest person in the US is better off than many people in many other countries. And in the US, that person has multiple chances to improve his lot in life, unlike many other places.
I still dont quite get what you're arguing for. To me, it basically sounds like you're just complaining about 'the system'.
And what I'm trying to explain is, although it's not perfect, our system has proven to be the best one, in real-world actual use. All systems have inequity. they always will. Ours has many built in checks and balances to correct itself.
Many people of all walks of life have become very successful under our system. Something that wouldnt have happened if we were all 'equal'.
1
-
bduhe219
we seem to be arguing two different things. you are arguing on a personal level, such as how we should treat our fellow man - every single person should have compassion for those less fortunate and should make some sacrifices to help them.
i am arguing on a grand all-emcompassing scale. all people are not the same. we cant force every person to care for the poor. we cant force every poor person to accept help.
what we have done, is provide a form of govt that gives the most 'mobility' - the most chances for those who desire, to advance the fullest of their capabilities.
we certainly have plenty of safety nets for people who for one reason or another cant seem to make it.
we just disagree on form of govt is best. you prefer a flat, unexceptional society where everybody is fairly even (at a lower-middle class level) but very stable and secure.
i prefer a more wide spectrum of individualism, where yes, there are more lower class people, but there are also more upper class people, and the possibilities of the lower moving to middle or upper is greater than in an 'even' but secure society where there is no movement.
its just a difference of opinion, and as ive said, i think my way has proven to be the most productive in the real world - the rise of the US in the last century being the example.
1
-
bduhe219
"equal society where no man is better"
this is my point!
that sounds good, but the truth is, some men ARE better. do i have to explain why i say so?
some men are happy to go to work, get off, and spend their paycheck at the local bar, until the day they die. if thats what they want out of life, fine.
some men have an infatuation with using illegal drugs, even if it costs them their job & family.
some men want to spend their entire life in college, never stopping from exceeding and expanding their portfolio.
some men want the feeling of individuality and personal success, so they prfer to buiild their own business, rather than work for someone else - even if that means less income, less security, and much more work & stress.
some men just dont fit into society and prefer to live totally 'free' under a bridge, and refuse to enter a shelter.
and to your other point, yes, many of us DO resent giving OUR money & food to certain people who have no ambition their whole life, no desire to work, to achieve anything, to improve themselves, to be responsible for anything, and just expect the govt (me) to provide whatever they need, and simply go through doing nothing more than reproducing.
when a society offers things for free, people will use them. they will also abuse them.
1
-
bduhe219
i know you mean well, but there have been thousands of 'pilot programs' and various welfare reform measures, scholarships, grants, energy assistance, etc.
we already have a HUGE abundance of what you talk about. we even have minimun wage laws.
the problem is, these programs never 'solve' the problem, and always end up being a huge money machine, both for the people getting the money or services, and the people administering it (and votes for politicians promising to continue it)
its been pretty well proven, 'solving' the problems will not happen with more money and govt regulations.
only a good economy will.
1
-
bduhe219
have you ever wondered WHY so many jobs are gone from the US?
what drove them away?
i know all on your side like to blame slave/child labor of $1 a day workers, but theres much more to it than that.
dont you ever wonder how it is possible that an existing company in the us can find it cheaper to close shop here and build a new facility overseas? the labor is the one and obvious thing, but how can it still be profitable when thye have to factor in the expenses of having another layer of middlemen overseas, shipping, then the distribution over here?
the answer is govt over regulation. (and unions)
contrary to popular belief, while most foreign workers of 'transplanted' US companies do make less than the ones here, they are not treated as slaves and in fact they are happy and grateful for the jobs these businesses have brought to them. those communities also appreciate the companies because they bring good economic growth to the area.
i will go out on a line and say that unions destroyed this country's manufacturing industry, thereby greatly harming the country in general.
the steel, auto, and garment industry was destroyed by the very 'social fairness' ideas you have been advocating - everyone's equal, nobody is 'better' than the next person, the 'worker' always deserves more pay (at the expense of the owner), healthcare, and all the other perks and costly work rules..
you are basically advocating the govt to enforce similar oversight over the entire US workforce. it is surely NOT the way to build business and encourage growth.
it mat sound all good and utopian on paper, but it just doesnt work in real life.
1
-
1
-
blackfoot
You're the moron. Anyone who uses 'watches fox news' as their argument or as an insult is just a brainwashed moron.
We're not talking about % of the budget, or foreign interests here. I dont know why you mentioned that.
YOU were the one who suggested taking my tax money to pay people's mortgages rather than using it to bail out the banks. Or as you say here, give it to the working class.
Dont you understand economics? (well, obviously you dont, considering which side you're on)
Using your logic, why doesnt the govt just give every citizen a million dollars? then the whole nation will be millionaires and everyone will have everything they ever wanted. there will be no poverty or homelessness!
And as I said, I was / am against the bank bailout, just as i was against the auto bailout.
But just giving the money to people, or paying their mortgage, is shortsighted, idiotic, and shows an extreme ignorance of economics.
Maybe you SHOULD start watching fox news, because whoever's been informing you is severly lacking in intelligent thinking.
1
-
blackfoot well, glad you're voting for Trump, although I worry because many people say he attracts the stupid ones, and you may perpetuate that myth.
Actually, you said instead of giving it to the banks, pay off those mortgages. But that's irrelevant, pretend you said give it directly to the people. Which is my point. I countered by saying, if giving them money to pay their mortgages was good (in your opinion) wouldn't giving them a million dollars be even better?
That would REALLY help the poor!
And I asked you, if you don't believe so, why not? It's the same principle you proposed, just expanded.
You've yet to even mention it. As if you can't grasp the concept.
I HATE the poor??? I AM the poor! But at least I work, and I don't blame anyone else for my lot in life but myself. It's not the govt's or my boss's requirement to pay me more.
And again, you use stupid, EMOTIONAL arguments to try to prove your views. So cutting welfare and foodstamps wont put a dent in the debt, so therefore, dont try to limit the waste and abuse? First, I never said it WOULD do anything to the debt. You try to limit the waste and abuse because it's the right thing to do, not because of the debt.
1
-
1
-
1