Advertisement

Trump Is The Republican Candidate - Now What?

Started by July 20, 2016 06:41 AM
403 comments, last by rip-off 8 years, 1 month ago

Yes dude, I know about European history, thankyouverymuch. :) But you still haven't answered how a European population migrating to the Americas without asking for permission from the populations that already hold the lands there, to see if they want to share resources and all, leads to something "great"(USA), but a Mexican population migrating to the US without strict control is gonna lead to a catastrophe. I'm seeing double standards here, is all I'm saying. Don't you? Why not assume that the free migration of other populations to the USA is eventually gonna lead to something...even greater? Worked in the past, didn't it? Created "the greatest country on Earth" and all.


And I would also note that the simple fact you have access to the internet, that you yourself are above the "Mexican trying to find a job in order to survive" economically. I think the "Mexican trying to find a job" wants a job so that they can reach a higher economic level like where you and I are. No? This Mexican sounds more American than you.

I myself am an immigrant to another country(Czech Republic) because I couldn't find a job in my own(Greece). Though, with both being part of the EU, I moved as freely as possible. Any more bright observations? (and yeah the Mexican sure is more American than me, since...he has lived in the Americas for centuries and I haven't ever set foot there, lol).


I want to be successful and make money!

Cool, then start your own business and make sure to employ illegal immigrants so you can pay them less than the legal ones! Chi-ching!

Oh, you want to become "rich and successful" through "hard work", eh? A fair day's pay for a fair day's work and all? Yeah, let me know how that works out. :)

(Btw, if you want to emulate Trump, be sure to go back in time and make your parents millionaires and real estate tycoons, because his certainly were. Peon! :D )

Yes dude, I know about European history, thankyouverymuch. But you still haven't answered how a European population migrating to the Americas without asking for permission from the populations that already hold the lands there, to see if they want to share resources and all, leads to something "great"(USA), but a Mexican population migrating to the US without strict control is gonna lead to a catastrophe. I'm seeing double standards here, is all I'm saying. Don't you? Why not assume that the free migration of other populations to the USA is eventually gonna lead to something...even greater? Worked in the past, didn't it? Created "the greatest country on Earth" and all.

I already did, but will reiterate for you. North America was not an established civilization. Their was no common law, their was no standard that the population followed, their were no rules established by the existing population. They did not "hold land" by any such mechanism other than through force. Their was no civility, their is no double standard.

And we are the greatest country on earth, you just don't like it.

Advertisement

Being a peaceful nation or peaceful nations has nothing to do with anything. The European countries weren't peaceful nations and they were trying to take over each other all the time. But they still recognized that the land they were trying to take over wasn't theirs and it was sovereign land. The same land grab and biological warfare would have occurred if all the Native Nations were peaceful anyway.

They recognized the sovereignty of the land and the rights of the people that they slaughtered and just gave it back? That doesn't make any sense. Look at the borders through history, I promise you are just confused. This sounds like a desperate attempt to legitimize Europe's violent history that spans over multiple millennia while condemning America's brief history of a colonization period that lasted maybe 100 years.

The point isn't that. We're all very aware that Europe has a bloody history, that populations disposed of other populations and took their lands all the time, and all that. We're not even making moral judgements on that, this is how history works. The point is that you fail to demonstrate why immigration to the US without very strict control is going to lead to something very bad for the country, when immigration of European populations in the past, when they first settled to the "New(to them) World", without strict control at all lead to the best thing in the world, according to you. As I said, there seems to be a double standard here, don't you think?



They did not "hold land" by any such mechanism other than through force.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Okay, and *I* was being comical. :D

Cool, then start your own business and make sure to employ illegal immigrants so you can pay them less than the legal ones! Chi-ching! Oh, you want to become "rich and successful" through "hard work", eh? A fair day's pay for a fair day's work and all? Yeah, let me know how that works out. (Btw, if you want to emulate Trump, be sure to go back in time and make your parents millionaires and real estate tycoons, because his certainly were. Peon! )

You sound so unbelievable ignorant.

I have started a business. It wasn't successful because I was a little too young and naïve at time, but it is very easy to start a business. You can too! And hard work does pay off, you just weren't taught that apparently. How do you think people became successful in the first place? Successful people did not just pop into existence.

You know what sounds better than going back in time and trying to have rich parents, is becoming successful and rich myself. I want to make sure my children have a bright future ahead of them. Are you saying that you don't wont to provide the best possible future for your children?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Okay, and *I* was being comical.

Not an argument. Typical liberal misdirection when they have been caught with an indisputable fact that they don't agree with.

How do you think people became successful in the first place?

Well, in the *very* first place, the guy with the bigger stick decided a piece of land, which was there about 4 billion years before he was born, was his, carved it out for himself, and kept others away from it and its resources, because he had the bigger stick and all(the biggest stick is always the most effective means of persuation). He then passed the land and the sticks to his sons, which multiplied both, and even paid some peons a few crumbles to help them keep others away from their ever-growing property(I mean, it wasn't ever going to become the peons' property, but the crumbles were kind of okay, certainly preferable from starving). And so on and so on. At some point, he even got a piece of paper that said that the land he got by banging sticks into other people's heads was legally his own now, and then he even got the nation's army and police force to guarantee that(the..."civility" you're talking about). Which was pretty awesome, it liberated him from the burden of having to pay his own private army and all.

Industrialization came later and now wealth is not necessarily tied to land ownership, but it always traces back to it nevertheless.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Okay, and *I* was being comical.

Not an argument. Typical liberal misdirection when they have been caught with an indisputable fact that they don't agree with.

Oh, you misunderstood me. I completely agree that "They did not "hold land" by any such mechanism other than through force.". What I find hilarious is that apparently you think there has ever been employed any *other* mechanism, by anyone, in order to "hold land". :D

(Btw: you're arguing with a European socialist, not a USA "liberal". Don't think I hold any delusions that history ever worked, or works, in a "civilized" manner, because I'm well aware it's always been, and is, bloody and violent).

That being said, if I could buy a javelin, I probably would. The launcher + missile cost around $200k~ just to manufacture, and gun markup is pretty high... I don't think I'd be willing to pay that much for one. Maybe $80k max.

Please tell me you're joking.

@ExErvus Congratulations on ignoring the key point, (that Canada, Australia, and NZ have plenty of guns).

-Awful weather is not an argument for a lack of guns in the UK, maybe it is because of the onslaught of gun legislation put into law by parliament.

As for the UK, while I was being flippant, my statement is actually partially true. The UK's gun laws are roughly comparable with NZ (basically, you need a licence and a clean record, but you can still get a gun for hunting or target shooting, just not a handgun), but there are many more guns in NZ, because NZ is more "outdoorsy". Hunting is much more popular here.

-Their is no "paranoid psychopath" level of guns, that is a rather subjective opinion. America has a gun culture, nothing to do with paranoia.

It might be subjective, but when you can arm every man, woman and child and still have some guns left over (and this is just civilian weapons) I call that paranoia. Unless you think all these people are hunters/target shooters?

- Americans use guns for the same exact reason as well.

Blatantly untrue. I have never heard any gun control proponent talk about banning guns for hunting or sport. The focus is on guns for "protection". Again, nowhere else in the developed world do people feel the need for this.

-A Simpsons video used as a tool to portray Americans as idiotic only belittles your stance.

You made the point that because of all the guns, Americans are "familiar with firearms". I countered that by pointing out that you have one of the worst rates of accidental gun deaths in the developed world (sort that list by unintentional deaths and you'll find the US is number 12 on the list). The Simpsons video was just an addendum to illustrate your attitude to firearms.

if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight
Advertisement

And hard work does pay off, you just weren't taught that apparently.

Both my parents worked hard(my dad engineer in ships, my mother office employee) since they were 20. They're now 60. My father still works. They have a house, a car, they could pay for our education, and they could afford to pay for my sister's wedding. That's it.

That's AS GOOD AS IT GETS, son, with "honest hard work". Stop deluding yourself. Nobody got rich by working for a month salary and putting aside a little something every month. With "hard work", you can sort-of make it to middle class, if you're lucky and you live in a nation in late-stage capitalism, like the US. *Maybe* you can have enough life savings so your kids can open a small restaurant or something. Stuff like that. Some really educated people like neurosurgeons or top-notch engineers can make it to upper-middle class. But If you want to get *rich*, you have to get your hands on some capital, then have other people work for you, and pay them less than their work is actually worth, so you can accumulate that as profit, invest a portion of it to other enterprises, and so on. That's the perfectly legal part of course : most, if not all, rich people will not be above taking "illegal shortcuts" either. That's the only way. It's not even morally bad, I'm not making judgements as I said, it's just how it is.


Well, that or win the lottery, I forgot about that. Or my indie game can become a hit and 5 million people can decide to give 9.99 for it and, due to the wonders of digital distribution, pocket all(well, most) of it, but I won't hold my breath for that either(it's not unlike winning the lottery). :D

Here, let's take a look how Donald's dad became super rich and successful starting as a poor immigrant's son. How did the son of a gun boot-strapped himself and managed to reach the "critical mass" required in order to *really* make it big?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump


Trump was investigated by a U.S. Senate committee in 1954 for profiteering from public contracts, including overstating his Beach Haven building charges by US$3.7 million.[4] In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in 1954, William F. McKenna, appointed to investigate "scandals" within the FHA, cited Fred C. Trump and his partner William Tomasello as examples of how profits were made by builders using the FHA. McKenna said the two paid $34,200 for a piece of land which they then rented to their corporation for over $60,000 per year in a 99-year lease, so that if the apartment they built on it ever defaulted, the FHA would owe $1.5 million on it. McKenna said that Trump and Tomasello then obtained loans for $3.5 million more than the apartments cost.[5]

Trump testified before the Senate Banking Committee the following month as it investigated "windfall profits." He said that builders would not have built apartments under an expired post-war loan insurance program if regulations had set inflexible limits on loans issued by the FHA.[6] In September 1954, following Trump's testimony, 2,500 tenants of the Beachhaven apartments sued Trump and the FHA, claiming the builder made windfall profits and that the builder had received loans for $4 million more than the construction actually cost, and that rents were consequently inappropriately inflated.[7]

Yep, "hard work" indeed. :)

(But, seriously, do take notes, since you want to become rich and successful and you don't want your next business to not fail. This is how you don't fail.)

It takes a combination of skill/luck/hard work/business smarts to make it above high-middle income.

Working hard does nothing without the others.

Please tell me you're joking.

It seems like a fun conversation piece. And I mean, never know when some you need to destroy a tank while your drone's refueling in America.

It takes a combination of skill/luck/hard work/business smarts to make it above high-middle income.

Sure, but lots of people are confused on what is the actual mechanism of how one *gets* rich.

And let's be clear, by "rich" I don't mean the highly-educated and highly-skilled Google engineer that may earn even 500K a year - that is surely an income many would die to have, but still not that kind of "rich" we're talking about.

I can't but cite Marx's "surplus value" theory here, because, really, it's the only one that makes sense(please let's not start "but you know what happen in marxists states" though, this is not the point, his analysis of how capital works is irrelevant of how marxist states turned out).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value


Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine with which the worker produces $10 worth of work every fifteen minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.

The worker cannot capture this benefit directly because he has no claim to the means of production (e.g. the boot-making machine) or to its products, and his capacity to bargain over wages is restricted by laws and the supply/demand for wage labour.

Effectively, first accumulate sufficient capital in order to be able to employ people, then pay them wages that are lower than the actual worth of their work. Accumulate that, invest it in new enterprises, and so on. Sure, you might be a good-hearted boss and give them good wages - you still need to pay them less than their actual worth though. Some would call that exploitation, other would insist there's nothing wrong with that, regardless, it's important to recognize that this is the basic mechanism, in order to not be lost in "oh you know, there are many ways to get rich, hard work, smarts, luck, etc etc". Of course skill, luck and smarts are essential - but the mechanism is this.

Not really. It neglects the value that the capitalist provides to the workers. Workers can make exactly what their labor's worth, and the company can still turn a good profit based off of contributions from the capitalist.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement