Trump names oil executive with ties to Russia as US secretary of state

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

reprisals against VW if their employees formed a union?

 

pretty sick this US of A

 

Here's a link

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140210/OEM01/140219986/tenn.-politicians-threaten-to-kill-vw-incentives-if-uaw-wins-election

[DM07]

Wow! How stern he gives the middlefinger to the establishment! 

Really living up to all the promises/ lies he told during the campaign!

[Srikcir]

13 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

The only reason places like Carrier pay their workers reasonably well is because it is unionized

While Trump made himself a supposed hero by saving 700-1,000 Carrier jobs in Indiana using Indiana State funds that would have to be authorized by Gov. Pense, one might ask why Gov. and VP-elect Pense didn't himself take any proactive role to save those jobs?

 

But the fact is that those Carrier jobs going to Mexico meant Indiana UNION workers lost their jobs - weakening union membership that traditionally vote Democrat. So Pense who has an anti-union, anti-worker voting record would presumbly not cared about those lost Carrier jobs. http://www.labor411.org/411-blog/1235-5-reasons-mike-pence-is-against-the-working-class

 

Effectively by saving union jobs with Carrier by using State funds, Trump shafted Gov. Pense. But I'm sure the attraction of the office of VP will keep Pense submissive.

[melvinmelvin]

15 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

While Trump made himself a supposed hero by saving 700-1,000 Carrier jobs in Indiana using Indiana State funds that would have to be authorized by Gov. Pense, one might ask why Gov. and VP-elect Pense didn't himself take any proactive role to save those jobs?

 

But the fact is that those Carrier jobs going to Mexico meant Indiana UNION workers lost their jobs - weakening union membership that traditionally vote Democrat. So Pense who has an anti-union, anti-worker voting record would presumbly not cared about those lost Carrier jobs. http://www.labor411.org/411-blog/1235-5-reasons-mike-pence-is-against-the-working-class

 

Effectively by saving union jobs with Carrier by using State funds, Trump shafted Gov. Pense. But I'm sure the attraction of the office of VP will keep Pense submissive.

 

no problem with what you are saying,

but have some problem with your quote of my "statement"

 

I never wrote or stated what you quoted. Smth must have gone somewhat astray in the TV  database

 

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Typical Pavlovian response of extreme right wingers. And it's nonsense  For example, while American industry has made big productivity gains from 1990 onwards virtually none of that has been shared with the lower 80%. Most of it has gone to the 1 percent. A big reason for that is the decline of unions. The Taft Hartley act passed by the Republicans started that decline and they've worked mightily ever since to accelerate it. And they've largely succeeded. There's this ridiculous notion going around subscribed to by gullible Trump supporters that if manufacturing jobs return to the USA they will be good paying jobs. The only reason places like Carrier pay their workers reasonably well is because it is unionized. In Tennessee, where there was a campaign to union Volkswagen - a campaign Volkswagern had not problem with - the Republican governor and senators threatened reprisals against Volkswagen and the workers if they voted to unionize. A Trump hotel in Vegas is the object of a union campaign. It keeps on breaking the rules to stop unionization.  But I guess once Trumps fast food owning, decent minimum wage opposing Labor Secretary gets into office, all that will change.

 

You seem to have a much better understanding of how the US economy works than the typical Trump supporter.  Although I'm not a huge fan of unions (having been in management and having to deal with unions), there's no question that unions have increased wages in America.  The decline in unions in America does coincide with the overall decrease in manufacturing in America and wages in general (blue collar wages in particular).  It will be interesting to see what Trump and a Republican Congress decides to do in this regard.  The GOP is traditionally anti-union, so it's pretty comical that any member of a union would support Trump.  Which goes to show you how uninformed people tend to vote against their own self interest. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

 

You seem to have a much better understanding of how the US economy works than the typical Trump supporter.  Although I'm not a huge fan of unions (having been in management and having to deal with unions), there's no question that unions have increased wages in America.  The decline in unions in America does coincide with the overall decrease in manufacturing in America and wages in general (blue collar wages in particular).  It will be interesting to see what Trump and a Republican Congress decides to do in this regard.  The GOP is traditionally anti-union, so it's pretty comical that any member of a union would support Trump.  Which goes to show you how uninformed people tend to vote against their own self interest. 

 

On the other hand, well could just keep the status quo and do nothing, let jobs, companies, etc... Just leave because there is 'nothing we can do' apparently. 

 

But yeah I'm just uninformed and gullible. Lets just let them leave, tax the shiiiiiiit out of them, squeeze business even more, push more jobs and companies either out of the country or out of business completely. 

 

Cause that is working so well right now, things are so great & stuff. 

[Berkshire]

Just now, Strange said:

 

On the other hand, well could just keep the status quo and do nothing, let jobs, companies, etc... Just leave because there is 'nothing we can do' apparently. 

 

But yeah I'm just uninformed and gullible. Lets just let them leave, tax the shiiiiiiit out of them, squeeze business even more, push more jobs and companies either out of the country or out of business completely. 

 

Cause that is working so well right now, things are so great & stuff. 

 

The US economy is not a "disaster" as many on the right claim it is.  But yes, we have winners and losers.  Having said that, one should recognize that there are changes occurring which have been ongoing for some time.  Yes, some globalization, but technological advances as well.  The US does not have a comparative advantage in producing any number of products, which is why they migrated overseas.  If you bring these jobs back, it's guaranteed that prices would rise for consumers.  I'm not saying that things are perfect, but the free market tends to make decisions better than any government.  Or do you think that government should decide for private industry?

[Opl]

12 hours ago, avander said:

Big business has been running the US for a long time.  Trump is putting it squarely in the open.

 

By the people, for the people......yeah sure.

 

 

Till now, professional politicians have been acting as mediators between lobbyists and decision-makers 

With Trump it is less hypocritical, the businessmen are directly in command.

His position as a shareholder of Exxon Rex Tillerson holds more than $ 150 million of securities based on stock exchange documents, could create conflicts of interest as his decisions as US Secretary of State would be likely to influence the value of the security. A lifting of the sanctions against Russia would certainly cause an outbreak of the Exxon action.

 

This New York Times article shows how Rex Tillerson put American diplomacy into a false position by defending his company's interests around the world:

" Under Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil Forged Its Own Path Abroad. Under its chief executive, Rex Tillerson, the giant oil company sidestepped Baghdad and Washington, signing a deal directly with the Kurdish administration in the country’s north. The move undermined Iraq’s central government, strengthened Kurdish independence ambitions and contravened the stated goals of the United States."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/world/americas/tillersons-company-exxon-mobil-follows-its-own-foreign-policy.html?_r=1

Edited December 14, 2016 by Opl

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

no problem with what you are saying,

but have some problem with your quote of my "statement"

 

I never wrote or stated what you quoted. Smth must have gone somewhat astray in the TV  database

 

Quoted originally by ilostmypassword , and taken from your re-quote than to search back to ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

On the other hand, well could just keep the status quo and do nothing, let jobs, companies, etc... Just leave because there is 'nothing we can do' apparently. 

 

But yeah I'm just uninformed and gullible. Lets just let them leave, tax the shiiiiiiit out of them, squeeze business even more, push more jobs and companies either out of the country or out of business completely. 

 

Cause that is working so well right now, things are so great & stuff. 

Do you actually have any real knowledge of business taxation in the US as compared to the rest of the world.  And what is this nonsense about companies being pushed out of business? Companies always go out of business. And other companies are created. The US economy is actually growing quite well. In fact, out of all the countries in the OECD, I think the USA is now doing the best in growth except for a few small and still developing nations. That's very impressive considering the size of the U.S. economy.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you actually have any real knowledge of business taxation in the US as compared to the rest of the world.  And what is this nonsense about companies being pushed out of business? Companies always go out of business. And other companies are created. The US economy is actually growing quite well. In fact, out of all the countries in the OECD, I think the USA is now doing the best in growth except for a few small and still developing nations. That's very impressive considering the size of the U.S. economy.

 

Ah ok then yeah makes sense now. Lets just continue to roll on like we are doing then. Lets add more tax on those businesses too.  Yep good plan. Oh, also, lets go ahead and fiddle with americans tax rates also, since we are doing so well. Lets jumble the numbers around confusingly so that some small portion of people get like an extra $800 in their return. Sounds great, since we are doing so well. 

Oh, yeah, hey, Obamacare, yeah thats doing great too, more expensive? No problem. We are doing so well, Americans won't mind, you know, we have all those "statistics" telling us how well we are doing. 

 

Yep, doing so well. Whew! 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

The US economy is not a "disaster" as many on the right claim it is.  But yes, we have winners and losers.  Having said that, one should recognize that there are changes occurring which have been ongoing for some time.  Yes, some globalization, but technological advances as well.  The US does not have a comparative advantage in producing any number of products, which is why they migrated overseas.  If you bring these jobs back, it's guaranteed that prices would rise for consumers.  I'm not saying that things are perfect, but the free market tends to make decisions better than any government.  Or do you think that government should decide for private industry?

 

If its too expensive for them to operate in the USA and maintain profit margins, we should try and free up these businesses from bureaucracy and taxation (to a point, don't get all extreme) so that these businesses can operate here. This same logic applies to all the small businesses so they can develop, innovate, stay ahead, invest in themselves, etc... 

 

HRC wanted to punish business more, Trump less. You can look at it any way you want, but adding bureaucracy and taxation will not ever improve anything. 

[Srikcir]

18 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you actually have any real knowledge of business taxation in the US as compared to the rest of the world.  And what is this nonsense about companies being pushed out of business? Companies always go out of business. And other companies are created. The US economy is actually growing quite well. In fact, out of all the countries in the OECD, I think the USA is now doing the best in growth except for a few small and still developing nations. That's very impressive considering the size of the U.S. economy.

US businesses are hardly being pushed out of business by the government. 

Overall, US Corporations pay low taxes compared to the published tax schedules and to other developed countries. From US Corporate Income Tax Returns for All Sectors, Table 14b, data for 2013 published in the IRS Statement of Income (SOI), the overall income tax was about 19% with some corporations paying as low as 7% in some sectors. https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-historical-table-14b

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Strange said:

 

If its too expensive for them to operate in the USA and maintain profit margins, we should try and free up these businesses from bureaucracy and taxation (to a point, don't get all extreme) so that these businesses can operate here. This same logic applies to all the small businesses so they can develop, innovate, stay ahead, invest in themselves, etc... 

 

HRC wanted to punish business more, Trump less. You can look at it any way you want, but adding bureaucracy and taxation will not ever improve anything. 

Have you got any evidence for that? Business has been saying this since forever.  America compares very favorably to most industrialized countries. The World Bank rates the USA eighth for ease of doing business out of all the countries in the world.

Of course, Trump does have a plan for keeping American business competitive. Keeping labor costs down. That's why he's against the minimum wage And against salaried workers earning less than 24K per year being eligible for overtime, And he's selected for his Labor Secretary , a guy who agrees with him 100%.A.  Trump himself has been fighting unionization at one of his hotels in Vegas. The NLRB has ruled that Trump violated Federal Labor Law by refusing to negotiate with a Union selected by the workers there.  

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Have you got any evidence for that? Business has been saying this since forever.  America compares very favorably to most industrialized countries. The World Bank rates the USA eighth for ease of doing business out of all the countries in the world.

Of course, Trump does have a plan for keeping American business competitive. Keeping labor costs down. That's why he's against the minimum wage And against salaried workers earning less than 24K per year being eligible for overtime, And he's selected for his Labor Secretary , a guy who agrees with him 100%.A.  Trump himself has been fighting unionization at one of his hotels in Vegas. The NLRB has ruled that Trump violated Federal Labor Law by refusing to negotiate with a Union selected by the workers there.  

 

Evidence? You need proof that adding more taxation and bureaucracy negatively impacts business, hell, everything, except for the government itself? 

 

I know we are doing well compared to other countries, I'm not arguing that, but that argument has zero relevance to improving the state of things currently in the United States. 

 

Unions suck for business. They are like little mafias. Also, "Trump" didn't violate Federal Labor Law - "Trump Ruffin LLC" did. 

 

You can't raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. Thats just crazy-speak. Individual states can raise their minimum wage over the federal minimum as they see fit. 

 

On this subject we are debating, Trump Vs HRC, Hands down trumps got it. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

 

Evidence? You need proof that adding more taxation and bureaucracy negatively impacts business, hell, everything, except for the government itself? 

 

I know we are doing well compared to other countries, I'm not arguing that, but that argument has zero relevance to improving the state of things currently in the United States. 

 

Unions suck for business. They are like little mafias. Also, "Trump" didn't violate Federal Labor Law - "Trump Ruffin LLC" did. 

 

You can't raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. Thats just crazy-speak. Individual states can raise their minimum wage over the federal minimum as they see fit. 

 

On this subject we are debating, Trump Vs HRC, Hands down trumps got it. 

I haven't got time for all your nonsense. But let's just stick to the first piece: more taxation is bad.  More than what? More than they are now?  Trump is proposing a massive tax cut. He claims that will boost the economy. Just like George Bush did in 2001.  And the state of Kansas did in 2012. How did that work out?  Clinton raised taxes in 1994 amidst predictions of economic doom from Republicans. How did that work out?  Taxes were raised on the wealthy in the USA in 2014.  Subsequently, the economy is doing better and better. Income inequality actually declined. The lowest paid workers rose the fastest.

In the 50's and 60's taxes on the wealthy were much higher than they are now.  I guess to your way of thinking, those were bad years for the economy. 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I haven't got time for all your nonsense. But let's just stick to the first piece: more taxation is bad.  More than what? More than they are now?  Trump is proposing a massive tax cut. He claims that will boost the economy. Just like George Bush did in 2001.  And the state of Kansas did in 2012. How did that work out?  Clinton raised taxes in 1994 amidst predictions of economic doom from Republicans. How did that work out?  Taxes were raised on the wealthy in the USA in 2014.  Subsequently, the economy is doing better and better. Income inequality actually declined. The lowest paid workers rose the fastest.

In the 50's and 60's taxes on the wealthy were much higher than they are now.  I guess to your way of thinking, those were bad years for the economy. 

 

Impasse then. Feel the same about your crazy-speak. Yeah lets just hike minimum wage to $15, apply more tax, tax business more, etc. all will be better. 

[onthesoi]

Quote

Donald Trump has announced that the new US secretary of state will be Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson.

 

Not so much putting the fox amongst the chickens more putting the fox in charge of the farm.

[ilostmypassword]

39 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Impasse then. Feel the same about your crazy-speak. Yeah lets just hike minimum wage to $15, apply more tax, tax business more, etc. all will be better. 

Once again a reply without evidence. If consistency is a virtue, you're well on your way to sainthood.

[Scott]

Please keep the discussion civil and on topic.  

 

You may have hit an impasse and it is one of the core differences in the approach to business and taxation.  

 

Feel free to discuss your position, but others may not change their mind.   Keep in mind this topic is about the nominee for Secretary of State.  

 

 

[Olik]

Interesting discussion. Keep going.

[Linzz]

23 hours ago, Rob13 said:

 

Good for you standing up for the minority 1%. They need all the support they can get.

 

Your emoticon is perfectly revealing. The little green man has shown up

[Linzz]

23 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Typical Pavlovian response of extreme right wingers. And it's nonsense  For example, while American industry has made big productivity gains from 1990 onwards virtually none of that has been shared with the lower 80%. Most of it has gone to the 1 percent. A big reason for that is the decline of unions. The Taft Hartley act passed by the Republicans started that decline and they've worked mightily ever since to accelerate it. And they've largely succeeded. There's this ridiculous notion going around subscribed to by gullible Trump supporters that if manufacturing jobs return to the USA they will be good paying jobs. The only reason places like Carrier pay their workers reasonably well is because it is unionized. In Tennessee, where there was a campaign to union Volkswagen - a campaign Volkswagern had not problem with - the Republican governor and senators threatened reprisals against Volkswagen and the workers if they voted to unionize. A Trump hotel in Vegas is the object of a union campaign. It keeps on breaking the rules to stop unionization.  But I guess once Trumps fast food owning, decent minimum wage opposing Labor Secretary gets into office, all that will change.

 

Throw Pavlov's dog a bone and you get class warfare.

You illustrate perfectly my previous post on the culture of entitlement,  with your demands for shareholding without buying shares. If an industry fails you want to share in the losses? No you never hear of that, only share the profits. If the 1% take the profits they also take the risks. The difference of America with socialist Europe is that there still is largely a belief in not coveting your neighbor's goods. Rather you get out there and create your own. It's the American dream. But the socialists want to tax everything into the ground and shrink the world economy and the money stays off shore, and at the same time never address vast waste  and corruption and like control freaks, regulate like crazy. Part of the American dream is the belief in freedom, not Marxism. Also free to form or join a union and bargain without political interference from whether Trump or Pence or anyone else.

 

The Marxist/ Socialists on here predicted the share market would crash and the dollar tank with a Trump win. Wrong again because he's business friendly and it's Confidence with a capital C that creates it's own success. 15% tax reduction for business will bring trillions back home because people and businesses go where they're least taxed, just as water flows to the lowest levels. Good paying jobs? That will depend on confidence. When there's confidence. people take risks. The only unforeseen drag on the return of competitive manufacturing is technology replacing people but we've always known that.

 

Minimum wages? Regulation across the board one size fits all can end up creating more unemployment with a reluctance to hire. Not all businesses are wealthy corporations, Most are small and finely tuned without stacks of loot out the back and are more likely to create emerging technology which in turn creates jobs.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

Throw Pavlov's dog a bone and you get class warfare.

You illustrate perfectly my previous post on the culture of entitlement,  with your demands for shareholding without buying shares. If an industry fails you want to share in the losses? No you never hear of that, only share the profits. If the 1% take the profits they also take the risks. The difference of America with socialist Europe is that there still is largely a belief in not coveting your neighbor's goods. Rather you get out there and create your own. It's the American dream. But the socialists want to tax everything into the ground and shrink the world economy and the money stays off shore, and at the same time never address vast waste  and corruption and like control freaks, regulate like crazy. Part of the American dream is the belief in freedom, not Marxism. Also free to form or join a union and bargain without political interference from whether Trump or Pence or anyone else.

 

The Marxist/ Socialists on here predicted the share market would crash and the dollar tank with a Trump win. Wrong again because he's business friendly and it's Confidence with a capital C that creates it's own success. 15% tax reduction for business will bring trillions back home because people and businesses go where they're least taxed, just as water flows to the lowest levels. Good paying jobs? That will depend on confidence. When there's confidence. people take risks. The only unforeseen drag on the return of competitive manufacturing is technology replacing people but we've always known that.

 

Minimum wages? Regulation across the board one size fits all can end up creating more unemployment with a reluctance to hire. Not all businesses are wealthy corporations, Most are small and finely tuned without stacks of loot out the back and are more likely to create emerging technology which in turn creates jobs.

 

 

 

Actually, when corporations were surveyed about what they would do with all the cash that they repatriated, they overwhelmingly replied that they would use it to buy  back shares. That way executives could either sell their shares for an elevated price or boost the values of the shares they hold.

As for needing to repatriate cash to finance new ventures. Nonsense. With interest rates so low, there's plenty of money available in the form of low interest loans.

And as for talking about predictions. Remember what conservatives were saying would happen if Obama got reelected? The stock market would crash and what's more, no one would be hiring full time workers because of Obamacare. How did those predictions pan out?

Of course, the stock market is doing well with Trump's election. He's slashing corporate tax rates.  So dividends will shoot up.

And if his plans go through, he's about to engage in massive deficit spending. So that should stimulate the economy.  Thank you , John Maynard Keynes. Odd how Republicans denounce deficit spending until they actually get into office.

And your remarks about how socialist Europe is faring are just cliched nonsense.  The most socialistic states - the northern European ones - are doing just fine. And they have a strong and healthy middle class unlike the USA.  If a person there falls ill, they don't have to worry about going bankrupt.  Illness is the chief cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA. Can't happen over there.  But of course there's a price to pay for socialized medicine: it costs less on the one hand, but on the other it provides superior care.  

As for the confidence nonsense. As you may have heard, Europe did try that. It was called expansionary austerity. The theory ran that if the Europeans exerted fiscal discipline during the financial crisis, they would be rewarded by, well, what is now called the confidence fairy. Somehow, she never came to visit.

There have been plenty of studies done about the minimum wage.  The bad consequences predicted by conservatives somehow never come to pass.  Consider the recent case of Seattle.  You might try reading Pickety on the consequences on the economy when income inequality gets too severe. But that's macroeconomiics and it's clear that your notion of economics is pretty much identical with bookkeeping. Well, maybe not, if you endorse the massive deficit spending that Trump and the Republicans most likely will embark on.

[scorecard]

On 12/14/2016 at 2:58 PM, Linzz said:

 

Typical socialist victimhood post that believes that entitlement to other folks money is a human right. Trickle down worked for you didn't it? Are you not better off than your parents? But no, you believe in redistribution, because if you haven't got enough then it's not fair. You don't believe in growth, just the politics of envy and so cut up the ever reducing cake into smaller and smaller pieces and redistribute. Bet you believe  the government should look after you as well. 

 

" Typical socialist victimhood post that believes that entitlement to other folks money is a human right."

 

Wow, ever heard of sharing, helping each other, equal opportunity, compassion? Ever heard of the idea of a civil society where we try to balance things out so everybody has at least a quality of life where we all have a non-leaking roof over our heads, we all eat OK, our kids can all attend good schools, we all have access to at least basic and quality health care, etc?

 

Perhaps your not realizing that globally and certainly in the good old USA the poor and progressively getting poorer and poorer and the rich are getting richer. Perhaps you see this as all OK.

 

Did you ever think that this might ever reach a point where societies react and demand some better balance.

 

In reality none of us have any guarantee that one day 'wealth' might be measured in a different way, and your monetary materialistic wealth might collapse in terms of overall value and we might suddenly and unexpectedly and heaven forbid we might find ourselves closer to equal. 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by scorecard

[MajarTheLion]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

" Typical socialist victimhood post that believes that entitlement to other folks money is a human right."

 

Wow, ever heard of sharing, helping each other, equal opportunity, compassion? Ever heard of the idea of a civil society where we try to balance things out so everybody has at least a quality of life where we all have a non-leaking roof over our heads, we all eat OK, our kids can all attend good schools, we all have access to at least basic and quality health care, etc?

 

 

 

These are wonderful ideas and ideals- when the individual chooses to do so out of the goodness of their heart. When it is done by government taking by force, it's no longer sharing, helping each other , equal opportunity. It's just government force.

[Linzz]

6 hours ago, scorecard said:

Wow, ever heard of sharing, helping each other, equal opportunity, compassion? Ever heard of the idea of a civil society where we try to balance things out so everybody has at least a quality of life

 

Yes I have heard of that and indeed practise it too. Quality of life is achieved always at someone's expense or effort. If the balance you talk about produces an intergenerational entitlement culture , that is where you also produce the division between the rich and the poor. 

[scorecard]

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

 

These are wonderful ideas and ideals- when the individual chooses to do so out of the goodness of their heart. When it is done by government taking by force, it's no longer sharing, helping each other , equal opportunity. It's just government force.

 

I accept your points however I suggest there are other possibilities.

 

There's also the possibility that it generates from the overall values of a specific society, even to the points where the general thinking / values means the populace will elect into power a government which espouses a philosophical approach of, in simple words, 'sharing the wealth / supporting each other'. 

[Linzz]

7 hours ago, scorecard said:

In reality none of us have any guarantee that one day 'wealth' might be measured in a different way, and your monetary materialistic wealth might collapse in terms of overall value and we might suddenly and unexpectedly and heaven forbid we might find ourselves closer to equal. 

 

 

I find this hard to understand. Are you talking about nirvana? Of course we measure people in many different contexts but we're talking about economics here. I have no problems with equality. Equality of achievement and endeavor springs to mind. But if you're talking about  giving everyone certificates regardless of aspirations and achievement then you are creating a dumbed down sub class. 

[scorecard]

7 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

I find this hard to understand. Are you talking about nirvana? Of course we measure people in many different contexts but we're talking about economics here. I have no problems with equality. Equality of achievement and endeavor springs to mind. But if you're talking about  giving everyone certificates regardless of aspirations and achievement then you are creating a dumbed down sub class. 

 

No I'm not talking about nirvana or certificates.

 

" There's also the possibility that it generates from the overall values of a specific society, even to the points where the general thinking / values means the populace will elect into power a government which espouses a philosophical approach of, in simple words, 'sharing the wealth / supporting each other'."

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by scorecard