the necessity of bare equity

[Sculptor]

Someone making the average amount of money in 1978 would be able to buy an average house by saving all their money for 4 years. Wages have been stagnant since, when accounting for inflation, but today it would take 45 years.

My Mum, bought a house in Brighton, as a single parent for £5500, which was about 3.5 times her salary.
I sold that same house 12 years ago for £375,000, as a wreck. Houses of the same kind in good condition now sell for £800,000

Do the maths!
For a couple wishing the buy the same house now, at the same salary realtionship woud have to be earning well over £220,000 per year. Average wages are now £31,000, giving a buying potential of £108,000 house. There are

That is neoliberalism in a nutshell.

[Impenitent]

government is not created to ensure sufficiency

What is it created for? I would like a serious answer.

waging war and to benefit politicians

promises of sufficiency are simple plays to human greed...

The word sufficient seems alien to you. It's certainly an alien concept to millions of Americans, who produce mountains of surfeit for their overlords, and never have enough trickle down to them. The desire for a warm home, a safe environment, a chance to learn, a reliable source of food is not greed; it is the nature of all living things. The desire to take a thousand times one's share of a community's resources is greed.

one's share of that which belongs to others is greed and envy

be a good citizen and we'll give you utopia...

Who said this? In what context of 'good citizenship'?

any politician

revolution is closer than we dream

No, it isn't close at all. But the strumpite camo-shirts might yet precipitate an armed show-down of some kind.
It won't change anything.

sing your song of utopia louder

the "right" people aren't listening

-Imp

[Skip]

[What is [government] created for? ]

waging war and to benefit politicians

I would have preferred a serious answer, but okay. Yes, defence of the realm (whatever that realm happens to consist of) is a function of all governments. Politicians, as an occupation or as a class are not required for the functioning of government: there are different models to choose from.
The original purpose of government was to conserve and allocate resources, organize co-operative undertakings, keep peace within the community and protect it from threats, natural or human, internal or external.
The variants; the ways in which government has been expanded, altered, disfigured and compromised over the course of history does not change its basic purpose.

one's share of that which belongs to others is greed and envy

How do you mean "share" and "belongs"?

[ who said: be a good citizen and we'll give you utopia?]

any politician

And you are the only one who heard it? Odd.
In what context of 'good citizenship'?

sing your song of utopia louder

Sorry; don't know what you're blithering about.

[Impenitent]

[What is [government] created for? ]

waging war and to benefit politicians

I would have preferred a serious answer, but okay. Yes, defence of the realm (whatever that realm happens to consist of) is a function of all governments. Politicians, as an occupation or as a class are not required for the functioning of government: there are different models to choose from.
The original purpose of government was to conserve and allocate resources, organize co-operative undertakings, keep peace within the community and protect it from threats, natural or human, internal or external.
The variants; the ways in which government has been expanded, altered, disfigured and compromised over the course of history does not change its basic purpose.

glad we agree.

one's share of that which belongs to others is greed and envy

How do you mean "share" and "belongs"?

the same way you do.

[ who said: be a good citizen and we'll give you utopia?]

any politician

And you are the only one who heard it? Odd.
In what context of 'good citizenship'?

you simply aren't listening- not my problem

sing your song of utopia louder

Sorry; don't know what you're blithering about.

of course not

"get your hand out of my pocket"

-Imp

[Skip]

[How do you mean "share" and "belongs"? ]
the same way you do

I don't think so.

[commonsense]

government is not created to ensure sufficiency

promises of sufficiency are simple plays to human greed... be a good citizen and we'll give you utopia...

revolution is closer than we dream

-Imp

Sufficiency and greed are polar opposites.

no, sufficiency and excess are polar opposites- greed underlies both

gimmie gimmie gimmie utopia

-Imp

Insufficiency and excess are polar opposites. Sufficiency is their fulcrum.

[Immanuel Can]

(aka leveling the playing field)

Because money and power inherently perpetuate themselves without regard for the distinction between merit and opportunity, price and value, it is a primary function of government to ensure equality of sufficiency and equality of opportunity in particular. To the extent that is impossible, redistribution is necessary.

So...people have unequal benefits, and these simply can't ever be because they earned any of them, or because of merit or reasonable opportunity. So the job of government is to make the fortunate the same as the unfortunate, the industrious the same as the lazy, the clever the same as the dull, the skilled the same as the unskilled, the gifted the same as the untalented, the creative the same as the unproductive, the wise the same as the foolish, the sane the same as the crazy, and the healthy the same as the sick and disabled. All will simply have to come down to the lowest possible denominator, and will all be happy and fulfilled when they do.

And government can be trusted to do this, because government is never made up of ordinary people. It's made up of superhuman individuals who only ever seek the common good, rather than their personal advantage...standup guys, like Joe and Hunter Biden. Real pillars of equality, like Nancy Pelosi, and people who distain personal advantage, like Gavin Newsome.

And the money to do this will come from the rich...who aren't allowed to be rich anymore...but money will flow from nowhere, in infinite supply. The economy won't collapse, even though there are no longer any people producing wealth. It will just keep humming right along forever.

This is your theory?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=485154 time=1608151268 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=484478 time=1607791497 user_id=15238]
(aka leveling the playing field)

Because money and power inherently perpetuate themselves without regard for the distinction between merit and opportunity, price and value, it is a primary function of government to ensure equality of sufficiency and equality of opportunity in particular. To the extent that is impossible, redistribution is necessary.
[/quote]
So...people have unequal benefits, and these simply can't ever be because they earned any of them, or because of merit or reasonable opportunity. So the job of government is to make the fortunate the same as the unfortunate, the industrious the same as the lazy, the clever the same as the dull, the skilled the same as the unskilled, the gifted the same as the untalented, the creative the same as the unproductive, the wise the same as the foolish, the sane the same as the crazy, and the healthy the same as the sick and disabled. All will simply have to come down to the lowest possible denominator, and will all be happy and fulfilled when they do.

And government can be trusted to do this, because government is never made up of ordinary people. It's made up of superhuman individuals who only ever seek the common good, rather than their personal advantage...standup guys, like Joe and Hunter Biden. Real pillars of equality, like Nancy Pelosi, and people who distain personal advantage, like Gavin Newsome.

And the money to do this will come from the rich...who aren't allowed to be rich anymore...but money will flow from nowhere, in infinite supply. The economy won't collapse, even though there are no longer any people producing wealth. It will just keep humming right along forever.

[i]This[/i] is your theory? :shock:
[/quote]

Nope.

[Immanuel Can]

Nope.

Better explain your theory, then.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=485158 time=1608151789 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=485157 time=1608151705 user_id=15238]
Nope.
[/quote]
Better explain your theory, then.
[/quote]

I did, and then you ignored the bits like "inherently" and "to the extent" which make all the difference. Straw man is what they call that. No thanks.

[Immanuel Can]

Better explain your theory, then.

I did

Not really. You said you think you want equity, and government's going to help get it, through redistribution. That's pretty much just raw Communism. Meanwhile, sliding in conditionals like "to the extent" and even "inherently" doesn't make your plan clear at all...it just makes it more equivocal. It makes it look like you're not even committed to THAT plan.

So if you have a view, you owe us more. Essentially, you've left us to believe quite reasonably that you're nothing but an old-style Communist.

[Sculptor]

Corprations are parasitic on society.
Their wealth and power rely on many things provided at great cost by the people.
These include all aspects of the intfrastructure and human resources.
Corporations would be unable to make their profits were it not for the provision of a healthy educated workforce to run their businesses and to provide their sales with demands, and for the road, bridges, etc., water, energy ... and security through police and armed forces.

It is those corporation that ought to bear the entire burden of taxation freeing the ordinary person from all but the minimal taxes; taxes sufficient only to encourage people to seek work.

Sadly what has happened is that the rich who own those corporations, are also the politicians, and the media bosses, or are major donors to controlling political parties.
Poltical parties, even those of the left have decended from mass membership organisations depnedent on small donations from a wide range of people, to parties wholly funded by a handful of BIG donors.

[Sculptor]

Better explain your theory, then.

I did

Not really. You said you think you want equity, and government's going to help get it, through redistribution. That's pretty much just raw Communism. Meanwhile, sliding in conditionals like "to the extent" and even "inherently" doesn't make your plan clear at all...it just makes it more equivocal. It makes it look like you're not even committed to THAT plan.

So if you have a view, you owe us more. Essentially, you've left us to believe quite reasonably that you're nothing but an old-style Communist.

You area just spouting your old prejudices. Nothing you are saying is of any relevance.

[Skip]

Because money and power inherently perpetuate themselves without regard for the distinction between merit and opportunity, price and value, it is a primary function of government to ensure equality of sufficiency and equality of opportunity in particular. To the extent that is impossible, redistribution is necessary.

IC --- So...people have unequal benefits, and these simply can't ever be because they earned any of them, or because of merit or reasonable opportunity. So the job of government is to make the fortunate the same as the unfortunate, the industrious the same as the lazy, the clever the same as the dull, the skilled the same as the unskilled, the gifted the same as the untalented, the creative the same as the unproductive, the wise the same as the foolish, the sane the same as the crazy, and the healthy the same as the sick and disabled. All will simply have to come down to the lowest possible denominator, and will all be happy and fulfilled when they do.

You missed the kitchen sink the same as the swimming pool and the part where Advocate said "equality of sufficiency and equality of opportunity" and not a word about fortune and talent and all that other crap.

And government can be trusted to do this,

He also didn't say government can be "trusted"; only that it is the function of government to govern for all, rather than just the privileged. Government, as we know it, cannot be trusted to do so, precisely because it is

... never made up of ordinary people. It's made up of

members of the privileged classes who never seek the common good, but their own self- and class interest.

And the money to do this will come from the rich

Money does not necessarily play a part in equal opportunity; only in unequal opportunity.

and rich ...who aren't allowed to be rich anymore...

especially if they became rich through capital crimes, like mass murder, ecocide, treason - but perhaps not even if it was ordinary venal crimes like theft and fraud

but money will flow from nowhere, in infinite supply.

That's exactly what money does.

The economy won't collapse, even though there are no longer any people producing wealth.

Farmers and miners and machinists and truck drivers will go extinct... because their children are allowed to get an education? Don't see the cause-effect chain.

It will just keep humming right along forever.

Rather than crashing every time the speculators over-heat the stock market?
Yes, probably.

i]This[/i] is your theory?

No, this was your balloon-man.
like this one:

That's pretty much just raw Communism.

Is there a cooked version?

[Advocate]

The dollar is now a thing created from debt and representing nothing. You lose money all the time just because the rules change. Planned obsolescence gets ingrained, vested interests get more vested, and more interest. Risk goes down, definitions get legislated, profits go up.