- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Economic Racism
Posted on 2/25/25 at 4:28 pm to UtahCajun
Posted on 2/25/25 at 4:28 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
By default, 1/2 of the population, any population, is below average in intelligence, drive, or whatever it is that helps one rise above the rest.
This is fact and nothing can change it. Those who are in the lower 1/2 have always, throughout history, performed menial tasks.
I understand that we need ditch diggers, dishwashers, etc. The author asserts that Black people are deprived of opportunities to ensure that they would fill these low-wage, low-skilled jobs. I'm wondering if society/our economy can function if even the workers (despite their race) who did these jobs were paid better. Do we need poor people?
2
Posted on 2/25/25 at 4:29 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Do we need poor people?
As long as we have capital...
Yes
Posted on 2/25/25 at 4:33 pm to UtahCajun
I guess because "poor" is a relative term, there will always be people who have less than others and could be called "poor." So even if everyone made at least $20/hour and worked 40 hours a week, the people who only made $20 would be poor in comparison to people who made $200.
Assuming prices were the same as they are now - would prices just keep increasing until there was an imbalance and the $20/hour workers were in the same situation as the workers who make $10/hour are today? Do we need a big disparity between rich and poor? These are just thoughts/questions that I legitimately haven't worked out answers to.
Assuming prices were the same as they are now - would prices just keep increasing until there was an imbalance and the $20/hour workers were in the same situation as the workers who make $10/hour are today? Do we need a big disparity between rich and poor? These are just thoughts/questions that I legitimately haven't worked out answers to.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 4:37 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I'm just wondering why such a brilliant man like you continues to reply to my posts. I'm sure there are much smarter people you can respond to.
Because you THINK you are smarter than you are by playing the ”I’m just asking questions” game. Then, you turn around and argue for your leftist point of view while ignoring the discussion you asked for in your OP. You are a dishonest Marxist who has an inflated self opinion of yourself.
This thread is the perfect example of what I’m talking about:
1) OP, I'm neutral, just asking questions
2) OP, your wrong because (some leftist bs)
3) Then you ignore post challenging your thoughts or assertions
3) Finally, you get defensive and start insulting other posters
Wash, rinse, repeat
This post was edited on 2/25/25 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 2/25/25 at 4:41 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I guess because "poor" is a relative term, there will always be people who have less than others and could be called "poor." So even if everyone made at least $20/hour and worked 40 hours a week, the people who only made $20 would be poor in comparison to people who made $200.
Assuming prices were the same as they are now - would prices just keep increasing until there was an imbalance and the $20/hour workers were in the same situation as the workers who make $10/hour are today? Do we need a big disparity between rich and poor? These are just thoughts/questions that I legitimately haven't worked out answers to
Take money out of it. Money has nothing to do with it. Capital is not money. Capital is the worth of whatever it is you create. Even if we had no money (many historic societies had no idea of money), there would still be tiers of the haves and have nots. The have nots are greatly needed. Someone has to be sacrificed, clean shite stalls, stand in front on the battle lines, etc. It is these masses who have done it and will continue to do it.
Prudhon's greatest sin was not understanding human nature. Ignore it at peril.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 4:46 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Do we need poor people?
quote:
4cubbies
Folks, this is the dumbass LaLa land lefties live in. Holy shite, I bet you want to give everyone 30 acres and a unicorn. Your Marxist utopia is not possible, I hate to break it to you sweetheart
This post was edited on 2/25/25 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 2/25/25 at 7:51 pm to OWLFAN86
Still needing attention? Aren't your friends on the OT kissing your arse enough?
Posted on 2/25/25 at 7:55 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
there would still be tiers of the haves and have nots. The have nots are greatly needed. Someone has to be sacrificed, clean shite stalls, stand in front on the battle lines, etc. It is these masses who have done it and will continue to do it.
Right. We need people to do all the various jobs that make society function. I hear what you’re saying about the tiers in society. It makes me wonder how society got here and if it’s possible for society to function without these tiers, which makes me think of The Commons. Seems like capitalism requires the tiers, which I suppose is what you were getting at when you mentioned capital… Unless the whole world could travel back in time to a period when The Commons was how society functioned, there will always be tiers of society. Even if another type of economy was installed like communism or socialism, we’ve already bitten the forbidden fruit. Like we’re already corrupted by the desire to be better than others and would figure out a way to rank members of society regardless.
Thanks for participating in this little thought experiment. I appreciate your insight
Posted on 2/25/25 at 7:58 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Seems like capitalism requires the tiers,
The tiers are the result of human nature, not capitalism.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 8:00 pm to 4cubbies
Do you think playing dumb when you’re called to explain is a new concept here?
Posted on 2/25/25 at 8:10 pm to NIH
I did change gears to respond to a few posts that were about the racial inferiority of black people but then I realized I was basically being trolled and those little detours weren’t getting me anywhere so I focused back on the question in the OP.
I don’t understand your “playing dumb” question. I’m fairly certain you have called me stupid numerous times on here so it’s weird that now you’re claiming I’m “playing dumb.”
I think the disconnect is that many or most posters come here to prove they are right about things. This topic isn’t an attempt to prove I’m right about something. It’s an attempt at an actual discussion rather than a pissing contest. It seems like most participants in this thread wanted a pissing match, yourself included
I don’t understand your “playing dumb” question. I’m fairly certain you have called me stupid numerous times on here so it’s weird that now you’re claiming I’m “playing dumb.”
I think the disconnect is that many or most posters come here to prove they are right about things. This topic isn’t an attempt to prove I’m right about something. It’s an attempt at an actual discussion rather than a pissing contest. It seems like most participants in this thread wanted a pissing match, yourself included
This post was edited on 2/26/25 at 9:34 am
Posted on 2/25/25 at 8:10 pm to Bourre
Spot the HELL on brother!
Posted on 2/25/25 at 8:33 pm to 4cubbies
It was your party that started this with the civil rights movement that was just a front to keeping blacks on the plantation. But you’re trying sooooo hard to win. Sorry for another loss.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 8:36 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
This topic isn’t an attempt to prove I’m right about something. It’s an attempt at an actual discussion rather than a pissing contest.
Then delete the absolutes you listed in your first three or four replies.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 9:55 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Right. We need people to do all the various jobs that make society function. I hear what you’re saying about the tiers in society. It makes me wonder how society got here and if it’s possible for society to function without these tiers, which makes me think of The Commons. Seems like capitalism requires the tiers, which I suppose is what you were getting at when you mentioned capital… Unless the whole world could travel back in time to a period when The Commons was how society functioned, there will always be tiers of society. Even if another type of economy was installed like communism or socialism, we’ve already bitten the forbidden fruit. Like we’re already corrupted by the desire to be better than others and would figure out a way to rank members of society regardless
The Commons? That in and of itself was brought on by a tiered system. Nobility owned all land. Those on his land worked it and was taxed for working it. It wasn't some romantic thing. It was very harsh.
We are also not capitalistic. We are corpro-fascistic. Corporations oen our governement and tell it what to do. We let them because they placate us with beer, sports and drugs.
Capitalism is the best thing to ever happen to humans as well as one of the worst. Capital, as stated, is not money. It is the worth of what you can produce. Capitalism allows you and only you to own and keep what you produce. No other economic structure did that. The disappearance of "the commons" means there were even more landed people and less living in squalor. This is a good thing.
But there have always been tiers. Always will be. Yes, true capitalism requires there be poor and rich. Merchantilism, fuedalism, socialism, all isms require a percentage of poor. Capitalism requires less of a percentage as the rest, or all the rest we have seen. Another system may spring up that is better, but not yet. We would need to learn how to live without a ruling class first and we are centuries from that.
Only problem with capitalism is that it leads to what we have now....corportism. In true capitalism, corporations could not exist. We allow them by setting up the building blocks of monopoly. Things like patents and copyrights. Capitalism requires true competition. Not choked trough lawfare competition we see today. But I am an Austrian Capitalist so what do I know.
Edit-please forgive mispellings. It is late and I do not have .my reading glasses.
This post was edited on 2/25/25 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 2/26/25 at 3:39 am to DefCon1
quote:LBJ: "If we pass this, we'll have these n*****s voting democrat for 200 years.'
The liberal policies in the 1960s and onward helped the breakdown of black families and contributed to many of the woes still facing black communities.
Also, percentage of black families with 2 parents in the home was around 75% in the mid 60s.Now it's more like 20%.
Malcome X:
quote:
“The White liberal is the worst enemy to America and the worst enemy to the Black man
Posted on 2/26/25 at 5:12 am to 4cubbies
quote:Yes...been trying to do this for a very long time. If only it was brought up every 2 seconds.
Even if you remove the race aspect
quote:
relief-giving in America is a supportive institution that serves the larger economic and political order
And that is that.
Money and power.
Posted on 2/26/25 at 5:33 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Do you think those policies were put in place to ensure a black lower-class that would have no choice but to work menial jobs for little pay?
The man who put them in place literally said this out loud in public and it is recorded. Democrats fought to keep slavery and when they lost, they made a point to destroy the black family and community and then they spent the next 4 decades keeping those people as ignorant and dependent as possible. It’s a horrible stain on American history and it is 100% the fault of racist progressive Marxists like LBJ and his radicalized dipshit sheep like yourself.
Posted on 2/26/25 at 9:24 am to UtahCajun
quote:
The Commons? That in and of itself was brought on by a tiered system. Nobility owned all land. Those on his land worked it and was taxed for working it. It wasn't some romantic thing. It was very harsh.
The grass is always greener on the other side. It was funny reading the article in the New Yorker than I linked, because the people who still live in The Commons romanticize living in the USA (they think we're all cowboys), but my friends and I who read that article together thought that living in The Commons sounds better than living here in a lot of ways.
quote:
We are also not capitalistic. We are corpro-fascistic. Corporations oen our governement and tell it what to do. We let them because they placate us with beer, sports and drugs.
100%
quote:
Capitalism is the best thing to ever happen to humans as well as one of the worst.
I totally agree. Innovation is great, but societal and environmental destruction... not so much.
quote:
We allow them by setting up the building blocks of monopoly.
Why do we do this?
If you don't mind sharing, what is your background like? There are only a handful of posters here who are willing to discuss topics like this in this way.
Posted on 2/26/25 at 9:26 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I did change gears to respond to a few posts that were about the racism inferiority of black people
Because racial politics are your thing. Youre obsessed with it.
Its the typical trap marxist find themselves in.
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News