[blacksport]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

For instance, it has just been over half a century since the Civil rights movement ended in USA. That is history.

Half a century is a lot of time, and race relations had been good in the recent past. In an absolute sense, you will never reach a stage where everybody attains equal status. Equality is a myth. What has to be seen is whether somebody is discriminated because of their race, gender etc. When I have to hire somebody I will hire somebody who can do a job better than the others at a cost that is affordable to me. It is true that some people tend to hire some races more or some races less. That is because they are making a decision based on the parameters that are available with them. It is called bias, not discrimination. Problem is the left takes this and calls it discrimination. Contrast this with the caste based discrimination, where you won't hire somebody because he is untouchable.

Staying with the issue of race, the new Democrats have recently started talking about reparations for slavery. What convoluted logic is that? Why should the present generation whites pay reparations to present generation blacks when none of the current generation whites enslaved any of the current generation blacks. These are the policies of the left that the Alt Right uses to gain prominence.

The list you had in "virtual groups" has nothing virtual about it. Discrimination is a real thing, and a cursory reading of recent history itself will clear that. it may make a good whatsapp forward, but it does not have historic facts behind it. The Left did not create the segregated bunch just to advance any political agenda. They always existed, and exist even now to varied degrees.

The question is whether you should distribute freebies based on group identities. If there is a bias against a group, its better to work towards changing that than handing out freebies. For example, handing out freebies to blacks have made them seeking lesser jobs, which in turn makes them seem lazy, which makes employers hiring even lesser of them. Provide freebies to individuals (black, white, brown, yellow all included) who are unable to work not based on identities.

When a person is the victim of a crime, nobody says lets move on with our life and not talk about it. When the marginalized sections point out and fight against discrimination, saying lets move on and ignore the whole thing in recent history and now, may be peace for some; but not all.

Sorry, a crime is not a valid example here. And a crime against an individual does not automatically become a crime against an identity group.

I have no clue how anyone would not know the charade of corporations in changing the world. All the billion dollar corps project themselves as change agents and some of the CEOs clearly are at that. But, I digress.
Corporations need public approval because they need people to buy stuff. Or they need people for their data.

I wouldn't take those claims any more seriously than Close Up claiming that they have cooling crystals in it. Corporations market themselves in different ways. One can't create public policy based on that.

Politicians are not "acting" as change agents. They "are" change agents. Of course most of them suck at what they should do. If you think the cheap price of a product denotes change of some sort, more power to you.

It is also incredible how tax avoidance is never part of the "anti socialism" arguments. A couple of pages before, we did have actual cited sources which said Amazon paid 0 in federal tax. What AG here is basically after is the kind of tax avoidance practised by giants

Tax avoidance is not a crime, only tax evasion is. I buy health insurance to avoid taxes. If the government thinks that Amazon's tax avoidance is not just, it is for the govt to change the laws, not vilify Amazon. As a business, their prime goal is to profit from the business and they should explore every avenue to further that.

By being "giants" their avoidance does not become a crime if my tax avoidance does not become a crime.

Get this. There is no Jealousy that's the baseline. One side usually says the corps provide jobs, so they must be allowed all the great profits with zero tax.

No, corporations does not need to be handed freebies. They need to be allowed to operate in a free manner in which they deem fit for their business. They owe taxes just like anybody else. No need to treat them like criminals just because they are rich. Socialists have a problem with "rich" corporations only because they are told to believe that they are becoming rich at the expense of the poor.

The government anyways is useless.

I wouldn't say so, but governments are definitely inefficient. As I said in one of my earlier posts, they eat away more than they collect leaving nothing to the beneficiaries. Hence it is important that they only do those things that are important to be done by governments. Running companies, making people rich, administering services, etc should be left to the free market

Not that a discussion on Socialism is unwarranted in this thread, but that's not what that video and that author was about.

Mine was not necessarily a tirade against the person. But a tirade against what he represents, which is obvious from his words - socialism.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Mine was not necessarily a tirade against the person. But a tirade against what he represents, which is obvious from his words - socialism.

I heard it on whatsapp that socialists also kidnap babies, and some even eat them. Such is the conspiracy and vitriol that is unleashed against socialists. Thanks god I am not a socialist, I clarified that couple pages ago.

Originally Posted by blacksport

Staying with the issue of race, the new Democrats have recently started talking about reparations for slavery. What convoluted logic is that? Why should the present generation whites pay reparations to present generation blacks when none of the current generation whites enslaved any of the current generation blacks.

I am not a supporter of reparations for acts of the past, because it re-creates the hatred and divisions of the past. But it is based on a very good reason. The inequity between whites and blacks in USA, was not caused because the latter was lazy. It was caused because of laws that kept the blacks under the boots of the whites, for 200 years. You can't pretend like they both had level playing field.

Originally Posted by blacksport

Tax avoidance is not a crime, only tax evasion is. I buy health insurance to avoid taxes. If the government thinks that Amazon's tax avoidance is not just, it is for the govt to change the laws, not vilify Amazon.

Hmm, so it is alright if laws allow it.

Did you know who all could vote when USA was created? Only property owning white men. The following folks couldn't vote:

1) Women of all color.
2) Indentured labour (mostly Europeans who came to work in USA)
3) Native Americans
4) Black slaves

In other words, only 6% of the population could vote at first. This was legal and perfectly acceptable... right? By what convoluted logic should the remaining 94% be allowed vote?

However, 200 years later all those ignored folks can vote. That happened because they fought back against the oppression decade after decade, until the ruling minority were forced to give up their privileges one by one. The fight isn't over yet.

Now there are new kinds of ruling minority, the new 6% or more like 0.01% that rules the world, without any international border. The MNCs. And it is legal and perfectly acceptable... oh wait!

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Half a century is a lot of time, and race relations had been good in the recent past. In an absolute sense, you will never reach a stage where everybody attains equal status. Equality is a myth. What has to be seen is whether somebody is discriminated because of their race, gender etc. When I have to hire somebody I will hire somebody who can do a job better than the others at a cost that is affordable to me. It is true that some people tend to hire some races more or some races less. That is because they are making a decision based on the parameters that are available with them. It is called bias, not discrimination. Problem is the left takes this and calls it discrimination. Contrast this with the caste based discrimination, where you won't hire somebody because he is untouchable.

I downright disagree. It is not a long period of time drawn to any scale or to any calendar.
This idea of "I hire the best guy to do a job" in itself is basically a farce when most of the corporations hand down leadership to friends and family. And applying semantics on discrimination to transform into bias may be a nice literary exercise, though it does not mean anything in real terms. If I had two resumes of two races equally competent, and I preferred one over the other purely on race terms, I am discriminating and I am a racist. If I preferred on based on youth, I am an ageist.

Staying with the issue of race, the new Democrats have recently started talking about reparations for slavery. What convoluted logic is that? Why should the present generation whites pay reparations to present generation blacks when none of the current generation whites enslaved any of the current generation blacks. These are the policies of the left that the Alt Right uses to gain prominence.

We will discuss this on a different thread, but I have no clue why Democrats reparation policy is any kind of reasoning in this whole discussion. This is another type of strawman argument.

The question is whether you should distribute freebies based on group identities. If there is a bias against a group, its better to work towards changing that than handing out freebies. For example, handing out freebies to blacks have made them seeking lesser jobs, which in turn makes them seem lazy, which makes employers hiring even lesser of them. Provide freebies to individuals (black, white, brown, yellow all included) who are unable to work not based on identities.

Work towards changing "bias" which is your comfort word for "discrimination" is by public policy. And political movements are people working towards that. Your whole anecdote(I hope; and not hearsay) about a certain race has to have data to back it up. There has to be a causative connection with whatever "freebies" (I do not know nor have I heard of freebies, except for schools and other social welfare systems) to actual data of that particular race seeking lesser jobs.

Sorry, a crime is not a valid example here. And a crime against an individual does not automatically become a crime against an identity group.

I wouldn't take those claims any more seriously than Close Up claiming that they have cooling crystals in it. Corporations market themselves in different ways. One can't create public policy based on that.

Tax avoidance is not a crime, only tax evasion is. I buy health insurance to avoid taxes. If the government thinks that Amazon's tax avoidance is not just, it is for the govt to change the laws, not vilify Amazon. As a business, their prime goal is to profit from the business and they should explore every avenue to further that.

I almost get the feeling you are trying to dodge the actual point either way but here it goes. Big Corporation is using its fat wallet to rig the politics to its advantage so that the policy is directed towards them not paying taxes. Their prime goal of profiteering is making them find ways to influence the government. Which means, what could have been tax evasion 10 years before is tax avoidance now, because the giant corporation influenced the democratic process to make it so. People like AG are calling that out.
The giant corp advocates are labelling socialist on him, so they can burn the socialist strawman. I cannot make it clearer than this.

By being "giants" their avoidance does not become a crime if my tax avoidance does not become a crime.

No, corporations does not need to be handed freebies. They need to be allowed to operate in a free manner in which they deem fit for their business. They owe taxes just like anybody else. No need to treat them like criminals just because they are rich. Socialists have a problem with "rich" corporations only because they are told to believe that they are becoming rich at the expense of the poor.

Who is saying a tax paying corporation is what Socialists have a problem with ? They are becoming rich at the expense of the poor because they do not pay their taxes. A corporation earning 10bn does not pay a single dollar in tax means that they are building about 1/5th of their wealth at the cost of the general public. It is not complicated and not philosophical and it is so much out in the open; hence the renewed clamour for Corporate taxes in the last decade or so.

I wouldn't say so, but governments are definitely inefficient. As I said in one of my earlier posts, they eat away more than they collect leaving nothing to the beneficiaries. Hence it is important that they only do those things that are important to be done by governments. Running companies, making people rich, administering services, etc should be left to the free market


Mine was not necessarily a tirade against the person. But a tirade against what he represents, which is obvious from his words - socialism.

The inefficient government ( I do not think so by definition anyways) is being made more inefficient by strangling its revenue by some giant corps. That is all that AG and his book represents. He also mentions about public policy being the only to truly represent democracy and truly bring about change. If you want to label socialism on that, and keep bashing socialism about that, that's certainly one way to go.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Did you know who all could vote when USA was created? Only property owning white men. The following folks couldn't vote:

1) Women of all color.
2) Indentured labour (mostly Europeans who came to work in USA)
3) Native Americans
4) Black slaves

In other words, only 6% of the population could vote at first. This was legal and perfectly acceptable... right? By what convoluted logic should the remaining 94% be allowed vote?

However, 200 years later all those ignored folks can vote. That happened because they fought back against the oppression decade after decade, until the ruling minority were forced to give up their privileges one by one. The fight isn't over yet.

Samurai, I used to argue like this with points related to Universal suffrage etc, until I started hearing arguments from the other side like -- the successful are successful because they are smart and we just need the smart to make decisions, and in that sense democracy is a bad thing, etc etc. Some of the current narratives around the world make me think that humanity as a whole has taken a huge hit in the last few decades.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

-- the successful are successful because they are smart and we just need the smart to make decisions, and in that sense democracy is a bad thing, etc etc.

Isn't that logic one of the weakest ever? First of all, it is wellknown that intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated. Secondly, are we assuming that descendants of successful people are also smart? Anil Ambani is related to two brilliant businessmen, Dhirubhai and Mukesh. He started with billions, and yet ended up in negative. This is not anecdotal at all. We all have seen many rag-to-riches millionaires whose highly educated next generation doesn't have even the half the sense as the parent. Same can be seen in the political families. Think of the second or third generation politicians we all know, not one of them have the brilliance or cunning of the first generation who made it big, despite all the advantages of growing with the best education and networking.

This is a big fallacy, which ailed the feudal and monarchy system of governments since the dawn of time. The biggest empire (Mongols) ever built, didn't last beyond 100 years. The 3rd generation after Genghis Khan, didn't have the ability to even maintain the empire, that Genghis Khan built from scratch.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I have become a big fan of this guy... he makes very hard hitting points without pulling any punches.

Anand Giridharadas is on the roadshow, promoting his book. It is natural that he brings out arguments supporting his book. His roadshows are mainly interviews with news media, talks which are time-limited and one-way conversations. Haven't seen him defending his arguments in the debate from the opposite camp. His primary focus is on the ineffectiveness of philanthropy of high networth individuals. From the society standpoint, HNIs are not required to do philanthropy and in most cases, except cash, they are ill-equipped in other criteria of philanthropy to solve any of the problems afflicting the world.

But his title 'Winners Take All' is interesting. The premise of capitalism is if the individuals in a society act in self-interest while doing business, then it will benefit the economy of the state. All - most of the developed countries (read those with high per capita income) have followed this principle and improved the lives of its citizen.

There are 2 problems with capitalism:

1) The self-interest of business may not be in the interested of citizens of the state.
Hence the Govt steps in with regulations to prevent exploitation of citizens, environment in that business. For instance, minimum wage, working hours, paid vacation, pollution checks are some of the govt intervention.

2) The religious focus on the self-interest of the businesses will lead to a monopoly.
If firm A and firm B are in the same business, if firm A gets a slight advantage, then firm A will make better products, which in turn translates to better sales, then to higher market share and eventually to a monopoly.
This 'winner take all' will lead to the exploitation of the citizens and bad for the state. Hence Govt intervention is required to keep the businesses in check. Regulations on monopolistic practices, antitrust laws are instances of Govt intervention.

Before 1850s, Govts didn't intervene in the affairs of the business. The head of the State reigned supreme and whoever swore allegiance had full rights to do business in however they want. The advent of the industrial revolution towards the latter part of the 19th century saw the rise capitalists and the 2 main problems associated with it. Govt had to intervene and form laws to safeguard the welfare of the citizens from capitalists' interests. The current labour laws, financial regulations are the result of Govt's intervention when the society moved from primarily agriculture to primarily industrial one.

Cut to 21st century, we are in the early stages of IT/Internet revolution. We are moving from an industrial age to information age. The laws we have is for industrial society. The Govt and society have to figure out what is acceptable/not-acceptable, what is good/bad and how to go about the business in the information age.

Some of friction areas are,

* Skills required in the information age are different from industrial age. Hence the talk of UBI (Univeral Basic Income) to compensate for those who lack the new age skills.

* In the industrial age, goods could be taxed when manufactured (locally built) or at the port of entry (imported). In the information age, goods (which is data) can be manufactured in the country where labour is cheapest, tax paid in the country which has least business tax and sold anywhere in the world without paying any import duty. This situation is *not* comprehended by Industrial age law.

We are in this transition state. People like Anand Giridharadas point out one of the many anomalies during this transitional state. It is always healthy to debate on these issues. After listening to Anand Giridharadas, I feel he makes some strange recommendations like,
* No individual should have worth more than $500,000.
* Monopolistic business like Google, Amazon, Facebook must be split.

How to go about these, or enforce these is not clear from him - how to split Google (by search, browser, maps, youtube?), Amazon (online retail & cloud?), Facebook (by regions?).

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Isn't that logic one of the weakest ever? First of all, it is wellknown that intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated. Secondly, are we assuming that descendants of successful people are also smart? Anil Ambani is related to two brilliant businessmen, Dhirubhai and Mukesh. He started with billions, and yet ended up in negative. This is not anecdotal at all. We all have seen many rag-to-riches millionaires whose highly educated next generation doesn't have even the half the sense as the parent. Same can be seen in the political families. Think of the second or third generation politicians we all know, not one of them have the brilliance or cunning of the first generation who made it big, despite all the advantages of growing with the best education and networking.

This is a big fallacy, which ailed the feudal and monarchy system of governments since the dawn of time. The biggest empire (Mongols) ever built, didn't last beyond 100 years. The 3rd generation after Genghis Khan, didn't have the ability to even maintain the empire, that Genghis Khan built from scratch.

I totally agree of course, but see how you had to start from history and the narrative got shifted. What should have been completely obvious is being made as a debate point.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Before you blame Trump you should understand that Trump is only riding on what was a byproduct of the extreme left politics played by the Democrats.

I find it amusing that the poor people in the US would vote for a party that practically says (subtly) "your are poor because you are lazy" ... and seeing that majority of people are not really rich even in the great US of A.

As with the left anywhere in the world, they played identity politics to garner votes. Just create virtual groups (poor, black, women, LGBT etc), tell them they are oppressed, show them an oppressor (rich, white, men, straight etc) and offer them free stuff as compensation. Like, hey you are oppressed, so how about some free money. Problem is, every election year they have to better the offer or find new target groups.

While I agree money can't solve all the problems and oppression, it strange that you believe these "groups" are not oppressed.

[blacksport]

I could appreciate having some element of compassion in everything we do in our lives, including those to do with economics. But I would resent an entire takeover of a system by emotion.

I like how Bernie Sanders' compassion for the poor. But the problem is he wants the "unwilling" rich to pay for it. I would like if every socialist out there sells half his worth and distribute to the poor. Am sure that would melt the heart of every rich man and those evil corporations. No? Every socialist wants the people richer than themselves to pay for it.

Socialism would work just fine if all the socialism supporters redistributed their wealth among themselves.

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

This idea of "I hire the best guy to do a job" in itself is basically a farce when most of the corporations hand down leadership to friends and family.

That's inheritance. Doesn't fit here.

And applying semantics on discrimination to transform into bias may be a nice literary exercise, though it does not mean anything in real terms. If I had two resumes of two races equally competent, and I preferred one over the other purely on race terms, I am discriminating and I am a racist.

One, it is practically impossible to find two people with exactly the same competencies. Five minute into the interview your biases alone would have tilted the scales. Biases are not deliberate. Capitalism will ensure that you don't discriminate. You will do anything possible to profit.

If I preferred on based on youth, I am an ageist.

If you hire somebody younger you are assuming that he would be able to do the job better than a old man. If it is a consultant's job you might prefer the old man.

We will discuss this on a different thread, but I have no clue why Democrats reparation policy is any kind of reasoning in this whole discussion. This is another type of strawman argument.

If you followed my posts, I am explaining how the left works with identity groups. Race is just one example.

Work towards changing "bias" which is your comfort word for "discrimination" is by public policy. And political movements are people working towards that. Your whole anecdote(I hope; and not hearsay) about a certain race has to have data to back it up. There has to be a causative connection with whatever "freebies" (I do not know nor have I heard of freebies, except for schools and other social welfare systems) to actual data of that particular race seeking lesser jobs.

There is data. Am just too lazy to google.

I almost get the feeling you are trying to dodge the actual point either way but here it goes. Big Corporation is using its fat wallet to rig the politics to its advantage so that the policy is directed towards them not paying taxes. Their prime goal of profiteering is making them find ways to influence the government.

This, I agree. The ill is the government. And the solution that the left propose is more government. When you give a body the power to regulate, it is only natural that "evil" corporations bribe them to form policies to their benefit. So get id of the regulator, don't make it bigger.

Who is saying a tax paying corporation is what Socialists have a problem with ? They are becoming rich at the expense of the poor because they do not pay their taxes. A corporation earning 10bn does not pay a single dollar in tax means that they are building about 1/5th of their wealth at the cost of the general public. It is not complicated and not philosophical and it is so much out in the open; hence the renewed clamour for Corporate taxes in the last decade or so.

I partly agree. Partly, because I don't think any rich person owe anybody anything. Ideally everybody should foot the public bill equally. We tax the rich only because we could. They have the money, so they can pay. Does not mean they owe you anything.

The inefficient government ( I do not think so by definition anyways) is being made more inefficient by strangling its revenue by some giant corps. That is all that AG and his book represents. He also mentions about public policy being the only to truly represent democracy and truly bring about change. If you want to label socialism on that, and keep bashing socialism about that, that's certainly one way to go.

You cannot reform an inefficient entity by handing over more cash to it. If it wastes away 90 million of the 100 million it handles, how much more it will waste if we handed over a billion to it.?

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by blacksport

I could appreciate having some element of compassion in everything we do in our lives, including those to do with economics. But I would resent an entire takeover of a system by emotion.

I like how Bernie Sanders' compassion for the poor. But the problem is he wants the "unwilling" rich to pay for it. I would like if every socialist out there sells half his worth and distribute to the poor. Am sure that would melt the heart of every rich man and those evil corporations. No? Every socialist wants the people richer than themselves to pay for it.

Socialism would work just fine if all the socialism supporters redistributed their wealth among themselves.

When clearly the whole AG talk is about there is no point in giving away in "charity" and not paying any taxes, you are talking about compassionate charity.
Paying your taxes is not compassion, it is a requirement by the law. Tax dodgers need to be taxed, and that is whole root of Bernie sanders' campaign now and 4 years before.

That's inheritance. Doesn't fit here.

One, it is practically impossible to find two people with exactly the same competencies. Five minute into the interview your biases alone would have tilted the scales. Biases are not deliberate. Capitalism will ensure that you don't discriminate. You will do anything possible to profit.

If you hire somebody younger you are assuming that he would be able to do the job better than a old man. If it is a consultant's job you might prefer the old man.

Lets say there is a law in my country which says I have to hire for the job of a clerk any individual with a graduate degree and I am not supposed to discriminate. In this case, if I think a man would be able to do that job better than a woman, I am not a person with bias, I am an ignorant fool who has no clue of society. History is proof that there is no scientific evidence in discriminating based on race, gender etc. Glossing over discrimination as bias is only a literary exercise in justification. The para I have quoted above, some sentences from your message, itself is clearly strife with contradictions. "You will do anything for profit" and "Inheritance does not fit here" and "Capitalism forces you to hire the best guy" are all contradictory with each other.

If you followed my posts, I am explaining how the left works with identity groups. Race is just one example.

I did not see any explanation. You are only stating your view point that the left invented the identity groups, which you changed above that the left worked with the identify groups.

There is data. Am just too lazy to google.

Please let us all know when there is data to analyze.

This, I agree. The ill is the government. And the solution that the left propose is more government. When you give a body the power to regulate, it is only natural that "evil" corporations bribe them to form policies to their benefit. So get id of the regulator, don't make it bigger.

It is not the "bribe" action that is the greatest evil of this. It is the effect of the bribing that is the greatest evil. The bribe is just an evil tool. Getting rid of the regulator is a pointless exercise in working towards reducing the evil.
If there is an office which is supposed to regulate and businesses are bribing that office to get undue advantage, the issue there is the undue advantage. Getting rid of the office would only legalise the undue advantage.
I know the capitalist answer for that -- the money spent in running the office should be disbursed to level the undue advantage. Nobody explains with numbers though.

I partly agree. Partly, because I don't think any rich person owe anybody anything. Ideally everybody should foot the public bill equally. We tax the rich only because we could. They have the money, so they can pay. Does not mean they owe you anything.

You cannot reform an inefficient entity by handing over more cash to it. If it wastes away 90 million of the 100 million it handles, how much more it will waste if we handed over a billion to it.?

Every person, rich, poor or destitute owes the society their fair share. "Rich does not owe anybody anything" would be a nice message on the rich club napkins, but that is not how society is founded or run.
The fair share is fixed by democracy. Those who undermine democracy to get their fair share reduced or eliminated are not some sort of winners. They are incidental criminals and must be brought to justice -- this is the crux of the thinking that AG represents.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

When clearly the whole AG talk is about there is no point in giving away in "charity" and not paying any taxes, you are talking about compassionate charity.

Every socialist in the USA talks like this. What they stop short of saying is that they want to banish all the rich and let communism take over, but don't say so because there is stigma attached to communism. All communist movements in the world started like this. First by vilifying the successful, then calling for a takeover of the rich's assets. As somebody said "a socialist in the USA is just a communist who is too lazy to throw a revolution". But come the revolution they would stand in line to sign up to operate the guillotine. If such movements aren't curbed in its infancy, USA will become another USSR or Venezuela or at best some impoverished socialist country.

Paying your taxes is not compassion, it is a requirement by the law. Tax dodgers need to be taxed, and that is whole root of Bernie sanders' campaign now and 4 years before.

Tax avoidance is legal and not a crime. If you want to avoid tax avoidance get rid of those provisions.

Lets say there is a law in my country which says I have to hire for the job of a clerk any individual with a graduate degree and I am not supposed to discriminate. In this case, if I think a man would be able to do that job better than a woman, I am not a person with bias, I am an ignorant fool who has no clue of society. History is proof that there is no scientific evidence in discriminating based on race, gender etc. Glossing over discrimination as bias is only a literary exercise in justification.

Racial discrimination was when blacks were not allowed to use the same public spaces, was not allowed to do certain things or when they didn't have equal rights as the whites. Not being able to find equal job opportunities is not discrimination. I would more likely hire a burly black man than a frail white woman if I am looking for a bouncer at my bar. That is not discrimination. There exists a possibility that the frail white woman would end up doing a better job than the burly black man, but hiring decisions are based on data available at hand at the time of hiring and hence biases play a big role.

The para I have quoted above, some sentences from your message, itself is clearly strife with contradictions. "You will do anything for profit" and "Inheritance does not fit here" and "Capitalism forces you to hire the best guy" are all contradictory with each other.

You bequeath your wealth to your children even if they didn't do well at school, and not give it to the neighbor's child because he stood first in his class. That's inheritance.

I did not see any explanation. You are only stating your view point that the left invented the identity groups, which you changed above that the left worked with the identify groups.

If I said to that effect, I am sorry. The failing should be my incompetence with the language. Nobody can invent identity groups (if you excuse hutus and tutsies). Identity groups always existed, and identities form the basis of societies. But what the left (and the right) do is pit one identity group against another and side with one (mostly vulnerable ones) and ask for their vote to "fix" the situation. When major differences become non existent (like racism), they take minor differences and highlight it and then blame every ill on the other group. Like, tell women that they get hired lesser because men are misogynist even though even women at hiring positions tend to hire lesser women.

Please let us all know when there is data to analyze.

You will have to wait.

It is not the "bribe" action that is the greatest evil of this. It is the effect of the bribing that is the greatest evil. The bribe is just an evil tool. Getting rid of the regulator is a pointless exercise in working towards reducing the evil.
If there is an office which is supposed to regulate and businesses are bribing that office to get undue advantage, the issue there is the undue advantage. Getting rid of the office would only legalise the undue advantage.
I know the capitalist answer for that -- the money spent in running the office should be disbursed to level the undue advantage. Nobody explains with numbers though.

Take a step back. You give an individual the power to do something and then you expect him to not abuse it. You then hire somebody else to keep a tab on him. Then you hire a third guy to keep a tab on the second one. And it goes on. Regulation is done by individuals who do not have any stake in the process. The success or failure of what he does does not affect him. He has no incentive to make sure he does the right thing.

Every person, rich, poor or destitute owes the society their fair share. "Rich does not owe anybody anything" would be a nice message on the rich club napkins, but that is not how society is founded or run.

How do you define what is fair? Obama felt that 30% was fair. Ocassio-Cortez takes it to 70%. Tomorrow somebody will advocate 100%. How is it fair that I pay 30% and some rich guy is asked to give all he makes.

The fair share is fixed by democracy.

Democracy is two wolves and a chicken voting what to have for dinner.

Those who undermine democracy to get their fair share reduced or eliminated are not some sort of winners. They are incidental criminals and must be brought to justice -- this is the crux of the thinking that AG represents.

Democracy is not paramount. The constitution is. People speak through elections. If socialists are not able to appeal to the people, then they should stop whining or throw a revolution.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Every socialist in the USA talks like this. What they stop short of saying is that they want to banish all the rich and let communism take over, but don't say so because there is stigma attached to communism. All communist movements in the world started like this. First by vilifying the successful, then calling for a takeover of the rich's assets. As somebody said "a socialist in the USA is just a communist who is too lazy to throw a revolution". But come the revolution they would stand in line to sign up to operate the guillotine. If such movements aren't curbed in its infancy, USA will become another USSR or Venezuela or at best some impoverished socialist country.

These are not any kind of valid arguments. I can say something like every rich man wants to create a bogey out of people who want change and that is how they want to inch to oligarchy or plutocracy etc. These may be okay to mention in a whatsapp group where all the readers are waiting to hear such statements.

Tax avoidance is legal and not a crime. If you want to avoid tax avoidance get rid of those provisions.

What exactly are people like AOC saying ? Get rid of such schemes by voting is what all your opposite camps were saying while you were labeling them as socialists and communists.

Racial discrimination was when blacks were not allowed to use the same public spaces, was not allowed to do certain things or when they didn't have equal rights as the whites. Not being able to find equal job opportunities is not discrimination. I would more likely hire a burly black man than a frail white woman if I am looking for a bouncer at my bar. That is not discrimination. There exists a possibility that the frail white woman would end up doing a better job than the burly black man, but hiring decisions are based on data available at hand at the time of hiring and hence biases play a big role.

I wonder how it has to be a black man and a frail white woman for a job that cannot be provided based on equal opportunities. In all your examples, you are glossing over discrimination by picking specific cases, or using the term bias as a synonym. Try advertising for a black/white man based on your biases and see where that lands you. Of course you can blame the socialists for that too.

You bequeath your wealth to your children even if they didn't do well at school, and not give it to the neighbor's child because he stood first in his class. That's inheritance.

When that is what is the normal course for most capitalists, please do not say the system forces you to hire the best guy. I am writing this sitting in India, where most people would have trouble to find a large scale business not owned by families.

If I said to that effect, I am sorry. The failing should be my incompetence with the language. Nobody can invent identity groups (if you excuse hutus and tutsies). Identity groups always existed, and identities form the basis of societies. But what the left (and the right) do is pit one identity group against another and side with one (mostly vulnerable ones) and ask for their vote to "fix" the situation. When major differences become non existent (like racism), they take minor differences and highlight it and then blame every ill on the other group. Like, tell women that they get hired lesser because men are misogynist even though even women at hiring positions tend to hire lesser women.

When a group is discriminated and marginalized, the left sometimes rallies for it. Women wouldnt hire other women because they are also part of the society and share the same evils perpetuated into the psyche. There are misogynists amongst women too, just like some severely old ( in mind) people amongst the young, and unnaturally young(and energetic) people among the old. Some people want to put an end to all discrimination, a few even make it their life's mission.

Take a step back. You give an individual the power to do something and then you expect him to not abuse it. You then hire somebody else to keep a tab on him. Then you hire a third guy to keep a tab on the second one. And it goes on. Regulation is done by individuals who do not have any stake in the process. The success or failure of what he does does not affect him. He has no incentive to make sure he does the right thing.

Here, the rich guy that makes money thru business does not have any power, he just goes about doing what he does best. And the people hire the second and the third guy to do whatever regulations. You think it is a pointless exercise because you do not see why the regulations are there. For people, regulations are checks and balances in the system to not to return to any of the evils of the past. If it is important, the system will keep on forcing it. Of course the regulators are accountable and answerable. Even the least effective political systems have these built in to them in varied measures.

How do you define what is fair? Obama felt that 30% was fair. Ocassio-Cortez takes it to 70%. Tomorrow somebody will advocate 100%. How is it fair that I pay 30% and some rich guy is asked to give all he makes.

Democracy.

Democracy is two wolves and a chicken voting what to have for dinner.

Or two chickens and a wolf depending upon where you stand. Nice bumper sticker.

Democracy is not paramount. The constitution is. People speak through elections. If socialists are not able to appeal to the people, then they should stop whining or throw a revolution.

The constitution is a creation of democracy. There is a reason why some things are called "Amendments". Who is whining ? The rich guys are whining thru their paid media, the socialists are actually running political campaigns. I thought that was the crux of the Amazon discussion a couple of pages back. The populist right wing and left wing politicians are actually running full force all over the world organizing political movements. We will have to wait and watch were it goes. The only people whining are the business and money channels and their anchors as I see it.

[rovingeye]

There are some headlines today that say an eminent economist who very recently was the chairman of RBI thinks its a good idea (well, he's putting his weight behind a moron who came up with the idea in the first place) to redistribute wealth to the poor by taxing the "rich" a bit more. 2% more is the number being thrown around. "Rich" is defined as someone having assets more than 2.5 cr INR. Really? All retirement calculators say - we cannot afford to retire unless we have amassed at least 8 cr by the time we retire.

This is making me livid to the point that I feel like it's time to consider leaving my country and moving elsewhere. I'm sick and tired of paying tens of lakhs in taxes every year and yet, see the tax rate go up as doles are handed out to lazy jobless folks who did not care to go to school, even though the opportunity was there.

Anyone else feeling angry?

(Sorry for venting!)

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by rovingeye

This is making me livid to the point that I feel like it's time to consider leaving my country and moving elsewhere. I'm sick and tired of paying tens of lakhs in taxes every year and yet, see the tax rate go up as doles are handed out to lazy jobless folks who did not care to go to school, even though the opportunity was there.

Good idea. Just avoid the following countries which have even higher tax rate.

https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/c...-income-taxes/

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by rovingeye

All retirement calculators say - we cannot afford to retire unless we have amassed at least 8 cr by the time we retire.

8 crores is >1 million USD . Even in the country of most millionaires - US of A, just 5% population are millionaires. If you have 8 crores, you are recognized as HNI anywhere in the world.

There are some headlines today that say an eminent economist who very recently was the chairman of RBI thinks its a good idea (well, he's putting his weight behind a moron who came up with the idea in the first place) to redistribute wealth to the poor by taxing the "rich" a bit more. 2% more is the number being thrown around.

The bane of capitalism is it created income inequality. Though poor get better, rich get far even richer and the gap widens. This is a universal phenomenon. There is a concern on this worldwide and organization like World Inequality Database (https://wid.world/) have made it their agenda. 2% tax idea is from them.