The difference between leftists and the truth.

storker

realitykeeper wrote: »

Doing nothing solves nothing and demanding others to look after you is brat like behaviour. People should make themselves useful.

You need to tie on a different fly, Mr Angler.

realitykeeper

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Massive amounts of wealth and money are being amassed into ivory towers and money pyramids for no other reasons because they can. They dont even know what to do with the money anymore. Thats why anything and everything is gobbled up driving everyone else into even bigger dependency.

Yes we need entrepreneurs and investment but its long gone past that. Nobody buys that trickle down lie anymore. Well, not nobody obviously..

Huge amounts of normal people (not billionaires) actually buy into those lies and will fight tooth and nail to defend it as 'the only way'. Talking about being brainwashed....

At last someone who understands reality. QE is to blame for this.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote: »

At last someone who understands reality. QE is to blame for this.

im fairly sure rising wealth inequality, millionaires and billionaires etc, existed long before qe, i could be wrong though

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im fairly sure rising wealth inequality, millionaires and billionaires etc, existed long before qe, i could be wrong though

No you are not wrong, in fact you are very right. Then came the credit crunch which caused a good deal of panic among stock traders and bankers before governments stepped in with QE. Since then, inequality has increased enormously. The super rich have a lot more and the middle class cannot get a return on their savings without taking risks ie investing. The growing negativity on some bond yields shows something is very wrong and unsustainable about all this. Without QE, equality would have had a chance to somewhat lower the mountains and fill the valleys.

Junkyard Tom

The problem isn't necessarily with QE but who is issuing it and where it gets used first. Close to half-a-trillion GBP was created by the Bank of England in the years after the 2008 crash. If a fraction of that money had been spent in the real economy in the form of public works, investment in education and training, and so on, it would benefit wider society instead of 5% of the population.

rossie1977

realitykeeper wrote: »

At last someone who understands reality. QE is to blame for this.

QE didn't create wealth inequality

There was massive amount of QE in the 1930s in the US and wealth became more balanced. Something obviously happened in the 1980s to shift tide of change and that something is Reagans two huge tax cuts which in the end sent all the wealth to one place.

QE wasn't the reason Netflix didn't pay a single penny of tax last year or Amazon didn't pay any last year or won't this (in fact they got $130m tax back) or Apple dodged 13 billion in taxes here in Ireland

BloodBath

realitykeeper wrote: »

In truth, it is better that we citizen`s all pull together for the common good.

One way to do this is to sell our labour cheap.

The concept of a minimum wage flies in the face of this logic, after all, not every enterprise is profitable and thereby sustainable with our existing minimum wage and so in principle, it should not exist.

By capitulating to the demands of the low paid, all higher paid workers demand more and we end up borrowing much of this money from abroad through the issue of bonds to pay for our high pay. Granted interest on these bonds are low but even if Irish bonds yielded negative interest, the small profit we make is not enough because we spend the principle of the bond too without the means to pay it back should the economy go south.

The point here is that by demanding more than we are worth, we are all pulling against each other instead of pulling together.

Union members are also part of this selfish movement, because they are only out for themselves as opposed to society at large.

That as I say is truth. The left is different to the truth. Leftists favour the trade union movement so they are opposed to the truth that working for the common good is a desirable outcome. They also favour a minimum wage which is also anti truth as the truth is that we should be trying to do as much as we can for a little as possible for each other.

Thinking about it logically, if nothing gets done, that is bad. By contrast, if lots gets done, that is good. To gets lots done, lots of work must be carried out. For lots of work to be carried out, work must be cheap. After all, if something is cheap, it is likely to be produced and consumed more than something that is expensive.

For example, liter for liter, shops in this country sell a lot more cheap wine than expensive wine. High priced labour means nothing gets done. Is that not the truth?

Are you off ranting about this again?

There is nothing logical about any of your arguments. You're also a religious freak who hates women, children and gay people.

Now you want to bash the poorest members of society as well. I've had this argument with you before too. Tell me how Dublin city survives without it's low paid workers already struggling with minimum wage? Or most towns and cities at this stage with the crazy rents.

A retarded government who blows billions on **** like rural broadband when it will be brought by Elon Musk for free in a few years time anyway making our 3 billion (estimated, probably 6 billion) expenditure on it totally redundant.

Why not target the wealthiest who are paying little to no tax, snapping up properties left and center, pushing prices and rents up out of reach for anyone not making 50k a year.

Companies like Amazon making obscene amounts of money, paying no tax and causing the closure of a lot of high street shops because they simply can't compete on price, convenience or customer service.

Nah as a loyal RCC supporter you love ****ting on the little people. You're either a troll or have serious mental issues or both.

realitykeeper

rossie1977 wrote: »

QE didn't create wealth inequality

There was massive amount of QE in the 1930s in the US and wealth became more balanced.

Precisely. In the 30s there was comparatively very little QE and the QE they did have was used on infrastructure, eg the Hoover Dam. The lack of QE back then helped bring down the gamblers and presented opportunity to the responsible.

realitykeeper

BloodBath wrote: »

Are you off ranting about this again?

There is nothing logical about any of your arguments. You're also a religious freak who hates women, children and gay people.

Now you want to bash the poorest members of society as well. I've had this argument with you before too. Tell me how Dublin city survives without it's low paid workers already struggling with minimum wage? Or most towns and cities at this stage with the crazy rents.

A retarded government who blows billions on **** like rural broadband when it will be brought by Elon Musk for free in a few years time anyway making our 3 billion (estimated, probably 6 billion) expenditure on it totally redundant.

Why not target the wealthiest who are paying little to no tax, snapping up properties left and center, pushing prices and rents up out of reach for anyone not making 50k a year.

Companies like Amazon making obscene amounts of money, paying no tax and causing the closure of a lot of high street shops because they simply can't compete on price, convenience or customer service.

Nah as a loyal RCC supporter you love ****ting on the little people. You're either a troll or have serious mental issues or both.

I will not grace your opening comment with a response.

Let us park our victim mentality for a moment so as to consider the points you raise. Had the banking sector and housing markets not been interfered with by government, many of those who are landlords would have become homeless and many of those who are struggling tenants would have become landlords. Also remember that raising the minimum wage brings very short term benefit and over the medium term it makes their situation worse. They keep raising the minimum wage precisely because raising the minimum wage has made matters worse for the low paid.

The broadband blitz does not concern me because the country is so hopelessly in debt and has blown so much money already that another few billion isn`t going to make any difference. Besides, if I were a rural dweller, such promises would mean nothing as I do not give my vote based on a promise, only on delivery.

As for targeting the wealthy, David McWilliams suggested that and he may be right but my thinking used to be that the country needed to undo what was done post the banking crises but it is too late for that now.

I would not be opposed to taxing Amazon because they are just a retailer. Multinationals that make stuff here are needed although I think the long term plan should be on developing large indigenous exporters.

s7ryf3925pivug

Geuze wrote: »

Rising labour productivity has led to higher real wages.

Now, they may have de-coupled somewhat, ok, but over the long-run, higher real wages are due to higher labour productivity.

Wages are determined by supply versus demand for specific skills (or for raw manpower), as it is a market system. They are not determined by productivity.

Productivity affects whether jobs exist. If a job becomes more expensive than productive then the market system dictates it should cease to exist.

Automation lowers the skill level required for most roles, and creates a few high skill positions. When there is a lack of qualified people to fill high skill positions it leads to inflated salaries for them. The productivity level associated only allows them to continue to exist with inflated salaries, it does not actually cause the salaries to inflate. If supply overtakes demand then the market dictates the high paid workers will be replaced with slightly less productive but significantly cheaper new staff.