Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You have a very confused understanding of power. Activism painting a street or throwing paint at paintings are NOT examples of power any more than Hong Kong Pro Democracy Activists against China. To have power is to have the ability to significantly and measurably change the structures and outcomes and policies of a society or a nation in the direction one wants.
True. Media does have power. That is why they have all been bought by rich people or the govt.
Or at least not so unhappy with it that you start actively opposing it.
Good question. People define the word differently. I would say that if institutionalized or normalized bigotries unfairly limit your economic opportunities while enriching others greatly, you are being exploited. Others would say that anybody who generates more for the company than they receive from it - the usual reason people are hired and paid what they are - is exploited. I think Marx would.
When? I graduated from Inglewood High in 1970, also a little rough neighborhood. I spend a lot of time at the poker clubs in Gardena, also a seedy area. Didn't get to El Segundo or Compton much, but spent time in Watts. I live in Mexico now. They've completely taken over here.
Some would say that a business that doesn't generate enough revenue to pay its full-time staff a living wage such that they are taxpayers rather than tax consumers shouldn't be publicly supported, but rather, should be allowed to fail.
Agreed.
I referred to the goal of the person going into business, which is usually to own a profitable business. You shifted the perspective to that of the philosopher. That's utilitarianism, which is the humanist view of the optimal society, and applies to greatest economic opportunity as well as the greatest social opportunity for the greatest number. But we don't expect shopkeepers to be philosophers or architects of societies. Their self-interest - making money - is assumed. Likewise with employees and customers, whose self-interests are earning more (they like raises) and spending less (and sales) respectively.
It does if it falsifies your claim. You said that exploitation was the purpose of engaging in commerce. I answered that it wasn't mine. That makes your claim wrong. I told you what my purpose was, but it didn't comport with your evil capitalism trope, so you tried to dismiss it away with that comment.
That's unregulated (or insufficiently regulated) capitalism, your straw man. In a healthy political climate, that can be managed as it is in the Western European democracies. America has lobbying.
The Proletariat
Ahhh….So rather than answer my question, you tell me a bunch of obvious stuff I already know? Let me put it this way; if you say 100%, that’s impossible no business enterprise can do that; if you say a reasonable percentage, an argument can be made that they already do that; and for those few that don’t aren’t in business for very long.
First of all; what you are calling “exploitation” is completely subjective. What YOU call exploitation, someone else might call a unique opportunity.
www.forbes.com
If that were true, they would have prevented those laws from being on the books in the first place.
Sounds like what you are trying to describe is more of an east coast thing with the project housing common in those areas, my experience is on the west coast in neighborhoods that used to be good but became bad when good people moved out when bad people began move in. If cops were afraid to enter such neighborhoods, half the stuff gangsta rappers said about the cops wouldn't have been said because criminals would be free to act on their own
I never claimed statistics, I claimed common sense and real life experience.
When the territory of California became a State, Vigilantism became outlawed. But that has never stopped outlaws from resorting to Vigilantism, gang-banging, drive-by shootings and other such crimes are common in these areas.
That's power also! Black Lives Matter had the power to do so, but their lack of leadership prevented them from coming up with ideas that warrant seriousness. But the fact that the idea of getting rid of the police was actually taken seriously for a while rather than getting dismissed immediately as it should have been, proves they had much power. Now imagine what they could have done had they had leadership with the common sense of a billy goat?
Activist throwing paint at a painting and running away before the cops show up is not in the same stratosphere as activists painting a street and the police allowing it to happen.
Just because you have power does not mean you have the wisdom to demand issues resulting in permanent change. They did change the structures and policies of the nation for a short period of time; until common sense reared its head forcing their ideas to be dismissed. But the fact that BLM was taken seriously for the time that it was proves they were powerful during that time.
ANY expense on lower incomes will be significantly more impactful then on higher incomes.
You are going to have to explain that to me.
Yeah; I lived off of Rosecrans ave. Some of my family still live in the LA area tell me every since the blacks got run out of Compton, most live in Inglewood now; but that was years ago, they probably got run outta Inglewood by now. If Eazy-E were still alive today, I doubt he would still be wearing his Compton Hat (LOL)eazy-e photos - Yahoo Image Search Results
I doubt many of these low wage paying jobs are actually full time; Walmart, fast-food type jobs are usually part time and only full time for those in supervisor positions; which may get paid a little more.
I can understand your point; and I think a good argument can be made either way.
How are the Proletariant different from Blue Collar workers?
Flat tax is when everybody regardless of income pay the same percentage of taxes, IOW the rich pay the same percentage of their income as the poor; rather than the system we have now where the bottom 50% pays no taxes at all. Obviously the poor don't like this idea.
The rich don't like it either as their tax rate in the US is usually lower than that of middle class people.
No; income taxes are progressive; the higher your income, the larger percentage of taxes you will pay.
In theory and as long as you have only wage income. Income from not working (i.e. dividends) is taxed at lower rates. E.g. Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, as he himself said.