First World Problems vs. Third World Problems: The Ultimate Showdown
Once upon a time there was a group of starving kids in africa. They were really smug and self-righteous. They came up to a rich man and began to taunt him. "Your problem is less important than ours, and twitter agrees. People openly feed us, while you have to feed yourself." The african kids began to starve in a very condescending manner as a group of protestants began to feed them and tend to their every whim, at the expense of the poor rich white man.
The rich white man then told them "It does not matter, at the end of the day, although my fridge may not be filled with wine, my faucet may not produce clean water, at least my heart is filled with honesty, and I am true to myself." This comment shocked the smug starving children, and then they rejected the kind rich white man's words, and prompty begged for more food.
The moral of the story is the starving children are assholes, and we shouldn't tax rich white people.
The rich white man then told them "It does not matter, at the end of the day, although my fridge may not be filled with wine, my faucet may not produce clean water, at least my heart is filled with honesty, and I am true to myself." This comment shocked the smug starving children, and then they rejected the kind rich white man's words, and prompty begged for more food.
The moral of the story is the starving children are assholes, and we shouldn't tax rich white people.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Why not?
The second world was basically the Soviet Union
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
But that's OTC. It's full of shut-in entitled teenagers with little to no grasp on reality.[/quote]
Not cool man :(
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
Because making charity donators give up all of their money for revenge taxes instituted by poor people isn't very nice, when in general they want to backlash at people wasting money on diamond encrusted PS2 controllers.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Yes because it's
so possible to have a utopia where everything is free if we just get rid of any
notion that people can make money. Squid you're argument relies on assuming
knowledge of what that money would be used for. You're saying that treating
people unequally is justified because people can afford to be treated unequally
and therefore should. You're also making an argument out of an assumption that
that money will be spent frivolously rather then contribute to the economy.
This paradox that
we can tax the entrepreneur far more money and then expect things like cheep
prices on goods that they produce, high wages for their employees, and
compliance with every expensive regulation in the books is frankly absurd. So you
want to tax them more because they can afford more but then you want to create
price controls and regulations to make their businesses more costly to run and
still expect them to comply? That's very reasonable. It's genius really.
Listen to
yourselves. I've never seen this so clearly before. You think that expenses
don't pile up? You can't predict what people will do with their money not even
the greatest economist can.
This sort of
mentality only drives businesses to outsource therefore removing competition at
home and creating oligopoly and monopoly. Combine that with corporate
privileges such as personhood, subsidies, and limited liability, and you're
pretty much creating what you sought to destroy. The first half was driving the
business sector out of the country and the second was creating the circumstances
that give the corporate entity power in the first place.
Furthermore you're
Idea that people shouldn't get paid so much for certain jobs is moot due to the
subjective theory of value. It's not that persons fault if they get paid that
much for a given job. It's because the person or persons willing to pay them
place a high value on that job or the specific person or person’s ability to do
that job.
There is no way to
objective way to calculate how much someone "should" be paid for a
job because everybody places different values on the job. If you don't like that
they get paid that much for the job, don’t support their trade by seeing movies
or watching TV or any sporting event.
Two or more parties agree on a contract and
that contract is carried out at the agreed upon terms. That is how the market
works. Create unequal bargaining power through some of the methods I outlined
above (like limited liability and driving business out of the area and then you
have the situation of unequal bargaining power.
Edited for spelling mistakes and planned editing for semantics and clarity. There, spelling has been dealt with, undesired terminology removed, spacing and paragraphs handled to the best of my ability. Let me know if anything else is wrong.
paradox that we can tax the upper classes far more money and then expect
things like cheep prices on goods that they produce,[/quote]
Except that happens though, Inflation in my country is coming down despite being a 50% tax on earnings above £150,000
[quote] high wages for
their employees, and compliance with every expensive regulation in the
books is frankly absurd [/quote]
Its not absurd though because it can happen if the national government has enough teeth.
.[quote] So you want to tax them more because they can
afford more but then you want to create price controls and regulations
to make their businesses more costly to run and still expect them to
comply? That's very reasonable. It's genius really. Listen to
yourselves. I've never seen this so clearly before. You think that
expenses don't pile up? [/quote]
Why don't you listen to yourself, you have no proof that what you want is good for a society, you've bought into the bullshit of the US Far Right AKA the GOP.
[quote]You can't predict what people will do with their
money not even the greatest economist can. This sort of mentality only
drives businesses to outsource therefore removing competition at home
and creating oligopoly and monopoly. [/quote]
So create incentives to stay in a country then.
[quote] Furthermore you're Idea that people shouldn't get paid so
much for certain jobs is moot due to the subjective theory of value.
It's not that persons fault if they get paid that much for a given job.
It's because the person or persons willing to pay them place a high
value on that job or the specific person or person’s ability to do that
job.[/quote]
Hence why man created something called the trade union which helps out the common man and not get swindled by companies.
[quote] There is no way to objectively calculate how much someone "should"
be paid for a job because everybody places different values on the job.[/quote]
Thats why you have minimum wage laws so people who work aren't starving.
[quote]Two
or more parties agree on a contract and that contract is carried out at
the agreed upon terms. That is how the market works. Create unequal
bargaining power through some of the methods I outlined above (like
limited liability and driving business out of the area and then you have
the situation of unequal bargaining power.[/quote]
But companies have unequal bargaining power though from the start.
This is a single issue wonk but did you just accuse me of
being a Republican? A Right-Winger? Did you accuse me of being in favor of a
fascist theocracy where homosexuals and people with other views are
discriminated against by law? Did you accuse me of being some sort of bigot? I
just don't think doing all of that for the economy is even workable outside of
a totalitarian state or a very very small country.
EDIT: Also if you wouldn't mind quoting the revised version of my post that
would be appreciated.
EDIT: Fixed some spelling.
However, what usually happens is that companies will always good for the cheapest option regardless of the costs to a society or the planet. This is why there needs to be regulation, not to be nasty to companies but to protect society and the planet.