Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
TPP axed
Comments
-
This appears to be a classic example of "inficient markets" lacking competitiveness.
-
*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality. -
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics? -
-
Fuck that!!!! I want to enforce the rule of law and have my lobster dinner for $7.11UWhuskytskeet said:
I don't disagree, wealth inequality is definitely one of their many problems.RaceBannon said:
Mexico has plenty of money. They just keep it at the top. You want to help join the call for the 51st state.UWhuskytskeet said:I hear the best way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico is by making their economy even worse than it currently is.
I'd just rather see a stronger Mexican economy. There is a reason why we aren't really concerned with illegal Canadian immigration.
In other words Abundance mother fucker. -
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality. -
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality. -
I'm not sure which totalitarian regime you are referencing, but most had way worse income inequality than the US does. I'm not sure you even know what the metric is.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
Qualitative opportunity equality sounds great, but you still haven't provided any data or measurements. Where does the US rank in that regard? -
Heche en Mejico
When dynamiting fish goes bad.salemcoog said: -
Once again you're missing the point and conflating issues. Are you really that stupid? Never mind, rhetorical question.2001400ex said:
Please tell me how reducing the tax rate for those with taxable income over $450k a year from 39% to 33% will help with the merits of earning money.Southerndawg said:
Income equality means fuck all and is achievable only by force. Totalitarian regimes the world over have excelled at "income equality" with the masses all being equally poor.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a factual statistical measurement. Your not liking the results doesn't change that.Southerndawg said:*inefficient, and I agree.
By the way, income equality is a nonsensical metric, a Marxist battle cry used to divide classes. The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
The pertinent metric is opportunity equality.
Sounds neat, have a link to the metrics?
Merit based systems necessarily preclude income equality. In a merit based system, income is based on demand. Income inequality is ultimately what drives people to excel in fields deemed valuable by the population as a whole. The issue is whether or not the opportunity for advancement exists. If opportunity is restricted for reasons other than merit, then the restriction needs to be lifted. If the merit based opportunity does exist and you choose not seek that or other opportunities out, that's on you, you have no right to some else's gains. I know this is a foreign concept to you snowflakes, but the only truly fair system is one based on merit, and that necessarily precludes income equality.
