Another negative piece

[SUPERPOKES]

Not an opponent just disagree politically.

So, why has the state turned reliably Blue despite all of this conservative success?

Because the hippies of the ‘60s who believed in free love, free drugs, free food, free medicine, and free everything along with tree hugging stuck around, had kids, and then indoctrinated their kids with their ultra liberal ideas. And the LBGTQWTF community flooding the state played a large part, too.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Burns Hargis and Mike Holder need to go.

Coach Gundy will outlast both of them at Oklahoma State University.

 

[Pancreek1]

@dnhall Some honest questions for you.

1. How long have you had socialist tendencies, and are they genuine or simply anti Trump related? In other words, do you really believe there should be a more equal distribution of wealth regardless of work effort, risk taking, creativity or sacrifice?

2. What is more important to you? A) welfare to the inner cities, particularly huge welfare economic incentives to women to be fatherless baby factories (which is the root of inner city violence), or B) supporting small businesses that make up the lion's share of our employment and GDP so that we can continue to pay for the fatherless baby factories?

We will just start with those two for now, and I will take the answers off the air. Thank you. There are more if you care to continue playing.

 

[Ostatedchi]

You can still use the electoral college, but it obviously needs to be tweaked.

Such as?

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Venezuela was the crown jewel of Latin America. Then too many citizens fell for Bernie Sanders' promises of "free stuff."

Socialism is the rest stop on the road to communism. Marx and Engels explains it in The Communist Manifesto 1910 English version. Marx and Engels use small words.

PanCreek1 and Ostatedchi gets all this. This is not classical mechanics. There's nothing hard here.

 

[pokie1]

Such as?

I don’t know, I guess a proportion electoral system makes more sense to me. If both candidates get 47% of the vote and then one candidates gets the entire electors based on having a few more votes, is that a true representation of that state?

Maybe it all works as well as possible. I really just thought most of you were being assholes to dnhall, so I just wanted to see if you could discuss something in a friendly manner with fellow Pokes.

 

[Medic007]

I really just thought most of you were being assholes to dnhall,

This is 24/7 where stupidity is regularly called out. He's going to have to do better than CNN, Don Lemon, and Rachel Maddow talking points to get any traction here.

So, what's the issue with the electoral college? The people who choose to not live like cockroaches have a say in electing the president? It's almost like the Founders could see the future.

 

[davidallen]

Some estimates say 2 million illegals voted in Kalifornia in 2016 after Gov. Moonbeam signed the "Mexican Voter Act." Anyone could qualify for a driver license, then register to vote.

2 million illegals voted in California? A single corroborating document, link, whatever?

Just more copy paste bullshit, I suspect. Otherwise you would have a link, #amiright?

 

[davidallen]

Venezuela was the crown jewel of Latin America. Then too many citizens fell for Bernie Sanders' promises of "free stuff."

Socialism is the rest stop on the road to communism. Marx and Engels explains it in The Communist Manifesto 1910 English version. Marx and Engels use small words.

PanCreek1 and Ostatedchi gets all this. This is not classical mechanics. There's nothing hard here.

In your own words - please do explain Marx's Materialist Theory of History. I doubt you have read it, and certainly not understood it if by chance you read the Cliff's Notes.

 

[MR. TANNER BOYLE]

so I just wanted to see if you could discuss something in a friendly manner with fellow Pokes.

Liberal stupidity is dividing us too...what a shame

 

[Ostatedchi]

I don’t know, I guess a proportion electoral system makes more sense to me. If both candidates get 47% of the vote and then one candidates gets the entire electors based on having a few more votes, is that a true representation of that state?

Maybe it all works as well as possible. I really just thought most of you were being assholes to dnhall, so I just wanted to see if you could discuss something in a friendly manner with fellow Pokes.

States are free to do that today with no tweak to the EC. Maine and Nebraska already do that to a degree. But states have decided to go with a winner take all option to increase the importance of their state elections.

 

[Pancreek1]

In your own words - please do explain Marx's Materialist Theory of History. I doubt you have read it, and certainly not understood it if by chance you read the Cliff's Notes.

OK, I will bite

As an Economist who also has spent 40 years exclusively providing capital to the entrepreneurial realm, I've studied it for sure. It was developed during the industrial revolution (mid 1800's) and made ZERO sense then, but as we progressed in the late 20th century and moved from a capital goods economy to an intellectual property economy, it makes even LESS sense.

The basic tenets of the absolute nonsense can be summarized by the following 8 tenetts (with my comments in bold)

1. Social progress is driven by progress in the material realm as a society has at its disposal labor and capital goods

2. Humans are inevitably involved in productive relationships largely determined by the division of labor, which in turn determines social class.

3. Relations of production are both determined by the forces of production and set the conditions of their development. Capitalism tends to increase the rate at which the forces develop and stresses the accumulation of capital (high capital expenditures necessary in the industrial revolution)

4. The relations of production define the mode of production, e.g. the capitalist mode of production is characterized by the polarization of society into capitalists and workers.

In 1. through 4., the analysis is very simple. They were super pissed off that the industrial revolution forever changed the world from the simple life of agriculture (agrarian economy) to very large industrial capital expenditure requirements that required the accumulation of capital to be "the boss" and "the workers" had no shot at being "the boss" lest they figured out a way to accumulate capital. In the agrarian world, the lowest peon had a chance. In the industrial world, the inevitability of haves and have-nots was, to them, unconscionable.

5. Every type of State is a powerful institution of the ruling class; the state is an instrument which one class uses to secure its rule and enforce its preferred relations of production and its exploitation onto society (i.e., the working class).

They INTENTIONALLY ignored the absolute success of the US Constitution because they were against true democracy from the beginning. They were myopic that all governments (States) in history had been totalitarian and did not believe a true democracy would work. And that was simultaneous with the belief that the new "haves and have-nots" phenomena caused by high capital expenditures of industrial development was CAUSED by the State (ignoring simple economic forces that the state had nothing to do with). Simply stated, they thought the economic forces were because of a ruling class (government) while completely ignoring the fact that the State had NOTHING do do with the seachange in capital requirements.

6. State power is usually only transferred from one class to another by social and political upheaval

7. When a given relation of production no longer supports further progress in the productive forces, either further progress is strangled, or 'revolution' must occur.

In their experience and thought (i.e., their narrow minded world), States move from one totalitarian regime to another because a true democracy was the furthest from their minds. Their own words of "social and political upheaval" and "revolution" are very telling. In their pea brains, that was the only path. AND in their pea brains, the fact that the industrial revolution (again high capital expenditures) caused a divide between the capitalist owners and the lowly workers, was prima facia evidence that the system wasn't working and the only solution would be "upheaval" and "revolution". It never dawned on them that the world had changed for the better and that the "lowly worker bees" were actually exponentially better off....not worse off. Simply stated, they were jealous.

8, The actual historical process is not predetermined but depends on class struggle, especially the elevation of class consciousness and organization of the working class.

Their view was base on THEIR history, when there simply wasn't a big enough data set on true democracies for them to understand how utterly wrong they were.

Their simplistic mid-1800's thought has been proven them wrong by 1,000x in the last 150 years. The democracies of the world have worked beautifully. So beautifully, in fact, that the last remaining true communist "state" (China) had to aggressively figure out a creative way to capture the unstoppable power of capitalism and literally unleashed unfettered (and even state subsidized) entrepreneurial spirit while maintaining some semblance of control.

And instead of their beliefs being that history is a function of the working class, history has proven it is the risk taking entrepreneur that has determined history. And in the intellectual property economy that has evolved, their ideas are even more asinine.

As irony would have it, in an IP economy, capital accumulation comes from "creative ideas", something the lowest peon worker bee has an equal opportunity to accomplish.

 

[dnhall]

@dnhall Some honest questions for you.

1. How long have you had socialist tendencies, and are they genuine or simply anti Trump related? In other words, do you really believe there should be a more equal distribution of wealth regardless of work effort, risk taking, creativity or sacrifice?

2. What is more important to you? A) welfare to the inner cities, particularly huge welfare economic incentives to women to be fatherless baby factories (which is the root of inner city violence), or B) supporting small businesses that make up the lion's share of our employment and GDP so that we can continue to pay for the fatherless baby factories?

We will just start with those two for now, and I will take the answers off the air. Thank you. There are more if you care to continue playing.

I’m no socialist like I’m sure you are no fascist.

I knew Trump would be an embarrassment as President because he’s never SERVED anyone! He doesn’t have the slightest understanding that Presidents SERVE the American people. You can’t be a raging narcissist with no sense of history and no inclination to inform himself of anything related to the job. It is NO PLACE to shoot from the hip and lead by TWEET and show the world just how ignorant you are on a daily basis!

I have no problem with people enjoying wealth they earned. I do have a problem with the 1% buying Congressmen to line their pockets with tax favors and a tax code that lets them escape paying taxes because they are wealthy enough to park money overseas and use an army of tax lawyers to avoid paying taxes. Ninety nine percent of Americans can’t do the same so why should the one percent not give their fair share to the country that made them wealthy to begin with?

As to helping people it should only be a helping hand to get on your feet not a way of life. The damn billionaires didn’t need a penny of the economic incentive money but Moscow Mitch and your Republican Senators made damn sure they got millions they DIDN’T NEED! Pandering to the one percent is today’s Republican Party because that one percent has bought most of the Party ever since the Citizens United ruling which guarantees undue influence of money and monied interests in our politics.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

Alpha Woke and OKSTATE1 have clearly demonstrated they can define math's simplest equation.

Lawton city council thanks Sacramento to this day for sending them the biggest Goodyear tire plant in the world in 1978. 60% of Los Angeles porn industry has moved to Las Vegas. Sony Pictures moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Buck Knives moved to Idaho. Charles Schwab, founded in San Fran, should complete their move to Texas by the end of 2020. San Fran is to expensive and dangerous for Schwab employees. Toyota North America headquarters moved from Torrence to Plano, Texas.

California consistently ranks #50 on SMU's School of Business business friendly list. "Brilliant" one party management is turning Kalifornia into Tom Cruise and the homeless. The middle class is being destroyed or run out of state.

Alpha Woke and OKSTATE1 gets it. This is not hard. This is not classical mechanics.

Dang, SBI.
I'm abundantly glad you're on Team Trump.
If you worked for the lib dems, you'd kill us.

 

[dnhall]

Dang, SBI.
I'm abundantly glad you're on Team Trump.
If you worked for the lib dems, you'd kill us.

Cali just threw a bone to the poor Okies in 1978 because they knew there would be dancing in the streets in Oklahoma to have ANY new jobs since they are so rare here. To say there is a dearth of economic investment in conservative heaven Oklahoma is an understatement as evidenced by touting a plant that moved here in 1978? Sheesh!

Come on SBI, surely you can cite some Cali jobs moving to the economic powerhouse Oklahoma since 1978? Crickets........

 

[Pancreek1]

I’m no socialist like I’m sure you are no fascist.

I knew Trump would be an embarrassment as President because he’s never SERVED anyone! He doesn’t have the slightest understanding that Presidents SERVE the American people. You can’t be a raging narcissist with no sense of history and no inclination to inform himself of anything related to the job. It is NO PLACE to shoot from the hip and lead by TWEET and show the world just how ignorant you are on a daily basis!

I have no problem with people enjoying wealth they earned. I do have a problem with the 1% buying Congressmen to line their pockets with tax favors and a tax code that lets them escape paying taxes because they are wealthy enough to park money overseas and use an army of tax lawyers to avoid paying taxes. Ninety nine percent of Americans can’t do the same so why should the one percent not give their fair share to the country that made them wealthy to begin with?

As to helping people it should only be a helping hand to get on your feet not a way of life. The damn billionaires didn’t need a penny of the economic incentive money but Moscow Mitch and your Republican Senators made damn sure they got millions they DIDN’T NEED! Pandering to the one percent is today’s Republican Party because that one percent has bought most of the Party ever since the Citizens United ruling which guarantees undue influence of money and monied interests in our politics.

As to your point one, that is only an opinion from the left....not based in fact. Tweets aside, his list of actual accomplishments are long. I don't like his style, but I love his substance, style aside. And I'm not alone

As to your second paragraph, I challenge you (seriously) to name ONE 1%'er (with facts, not leftist bullshit) that has become a billionaire without paying a shit-ton of taxes. Every single one of them is taxed on global earnings (we are sole country in the world that does so). Every single one of them has either paid 9 figures in taxes OR will once their pent-up capital gains are monetized upon exit. The party line that the rich don't pay their fair share is utter bullshit.

As to your third paragraph, pot meet kettle, and again you are misguided. Guess who leads in ALL FUNDRAISING CATEGORIES in this cycle. Democrats. Guess where the preponderance of Democrats get their dough? From Billionaire 1%'ers. Guess where the preponderance of Republican dough comes from? From rank and file little people. FACT

Stop listening to your "media sources" and Left wing propaganda and do your OWN research.

I guess the most interesting question is "why do tech billionaires support the left?" Having some as friends and having asked the question over many scotches, there is one simple reason. They feel guilty for their largess and feel a need to show that they actually care for the 'little people', but interestingly they preach that in the public but don't take care of their own "little people" like they preach. It is, in spades, "Do as I say, not as I do"

 

[dnhall]

As to your point one, that is only an opinion from the left....not based in fact. Tweets aside, his list of actual accomplishments are long. I don't like his style, but I love his substance, style aside. And I'm not alone

As to your second paragraph, I challenge you (seriously) to name ONE 1%'er (with facts, not leftist bullshit) that has become a billionaire without paying a shit-ton of taxes. Every single one of them is taxed on global earnings (we are sole country in the world that does so). Every single one of them has either paid 9 figures in taxes OR will once their pent-up capital gains are monetized upon exit. The party line that the rich don't pay their fair share is utter bullshit.

As to your third paragraph, pot meet kettle, and again you are misguided. Guess who leads in ALL FUNDRAISING CATEGORIES in this cycle. Democrats. Guess where the preponderance of Democrats get their dough? From Billionaire 1%'ers. Guess where the preponderance of Republican dough comes from? From rank and file little people. FACT

Stop listening to your "media sources" and Left wing propaganda and do your OWN research.

I guess the most interesting question is "why do tech billionaires support the left?" Having some as friends and having asked the question over many scotches, there is one simple reason. They feel guilty for their largess and feel a need to show that they actually care for the 'little people', but interestingly they preach that in the public but don't take care of their own "little people" like they preach. It is, in spades, "Do as I say, not as I do"

The damning part for all 1% CEOs is they are never burdened by the reality of how many hundreds or thousands of their employees are more important to the overall success of their companies than they are! So when they are that wealthy principally due to the labor and expertise of others and then fight their compensation levels and fail to recognize their real contributions to the success of the CEO, they are showing the greed and hypocrisy too many of them have.

I know they pay taxes it’s those who manage to not pay any INCOME TAX while earning literally billions that’s galling for many.

I am a capitalist, but I recognize at times it can be carnivorous to many have nots. Greed is real and insatiable and the ugly side of Capitalism.

At any rate, the tax code doesn’t need to benefit the wealthy more so than the average American. It unequivocally does at the present time because the wealthy have ensured it by buying politicians and therefore the government we all live under.

 

[Pancreek1]

The damning part for all 1% CEOs is they are never burdened by the reality of how many hundreds or thousands of their employees are more important to the overall success of their companies than they are! So when they are that wealthy principally due to the labor and expertise of others and then fight their compensation levels and fail to recognize their real contributions to the success of the CEO, they are showing the greed and hypocrisy too many of them have.

I know they pay taxes it’s those who manage to not pay any INCOME TAX while earning literally billions that’s galling for many.

I am a capitalist, but I recognize at times it can be carnivorous to many have nots. Greed is real and insatiable and the ugly side of Capitalism.

At any rate, the tax code doesn’t need to benefit the wealthy more so than the average American. It unequivocally does at the present time because the wealthy have ensured it by buying politicians and therefore the government we all live under.

Each IPO annual year produces between 4,000 and 15,000 NEW millionaires....all the way down to the secretary/admin level. Those poor people don't become billionaires like their bosses, but in last 5 years ALONE they have become 40,000 new millionaires. Poor Poor pitiful employees

 

[Medic007]

The damning part for all 1% CEOs is they are never burdened by the reality of how many hundreds or thousands of their employees are more important to the overall success of their companies than they are! So when they are that wealthy principally due to the labor and expertise of others and then fight their compensation levels and fail to recognize their real contributions to the success of the CEO, they are showing the greed and hypocrisy too many of them have.

I know they pay taxes it’s those who manage to not pay any INCOME TAX while earning literally billions that’s galling for many.

I am a capitalist, but I recognize at times it can be carnivorous to many have nots. Greed is real and insatiable and the ugly side of Capitalism.

At any rate, the tax code doesn’t need to benefit the wealthy more so than the average American. It unequivocally does at the present time because the wealthy have ensured it by buying politicians and therefore the government we all live under.

Have you ever fact checked yourself? You should. Relying on bogus political claims as a basis of fact will make you look dumb every single time.

 

[Marocain Poke]

"YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!"

 

[dnhall]

Have you ever fact checked yourself? You should. Relying on bogus political

Each IPO annual year produces between 4,000 and 15,000 NEW millionaires....all the way down to the secretary/admin level. Those poor people don't become billionaires like their bosses, but in last 5 years ALONE they have become 40,000 new millionaires. Poor Poor pitiful employees

SO, out of the MILLIONS of Americans working today you come up with 40,000 that benefitted from their benevolent CEOs to invest in their companies and become millionaires? Wow, I’ m actually surprised it was that many. Still leaves millions fighting to make ends meet and most stuck at minimum wages because of the greed of their CEOs and companies they work for.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Dang, SBI.
I'm abundantly glad you're on Team Trump.
If you worked for the lib dems, you'd kill us.

If I worked for the lib dems, I'd be joining WalkAway. WalkAway was founded for Democrats who think for themselves. A common characteristic of WalkAway members is a 3 digit IQ.

Being 1/4 Sub Saharan African, I am a money contributing member of Candace Owens' Blexit. Blexit was formed after the Messiah's 8 years of failing black America. Thinking black Americans know Obama failed us all, except elite white Leftists. Low IQ liberals of course haven't caught on. As you well know, The U. S. average IQ is 98.

 

[trapped_in_tx]

SO, out of the MILLIONS of Americans working today you come up with 40,000 that benefitted from their benevolent CEOs to invest in their companies and become millionaires? Wow, I’ m actually surprised it was that many. Still leaves millions fighting to make ends meet and most stuck at minimum wages because of the greed of their CEOs and companies they work for.

Not sure if you are trolling.

If not, you are either incredibly obtuse or consumed by envy.

 

[dnhall]

Not sure if you are trolling.

If not, you are either incredibly obtuse or consumed by envy.

No envy here! Don’t imply Billionaires in this country are producing large numbers of millionaires in their employ when the number cited was over a five year period and was a fraction of the total employed nationwide. If the 40,000 number was correct over five years, I’m glad it’s that many. But don’t think that number is great when considering the millions living paycheck to paycheck, working multiple jobs just to put food on the table! Especially if their employers fight daily to keep the minimum wage at the low level it is all across the nation.

 

[Pancreek1]

No envy here! Don’t imply Billionaires in this country are producing large numbers of millionaires in their employ when the number cited was over a five year period and was a fraction of the total employed nationwide. If the 40,000 number was correct over five years, I’m glad it’s that many. But don’t think that number is great when considering the millions living paycheck to paycheck, working multiple jobs just to put food on the table! Especially if their employers fight daily to keep the minimum wage at the low level it is all across the nation.

@dnhall

you've entered my area of expertise and every day life and you are simply wrong. the 40,000 number is only from the top companies where your angst for billionaires exists. And, being a millionaire is a pretty high bar to use for setting such an example. There are HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS that have made high six figures but not millions. Secretaries and admin that make hundreds of thousands

Here is a clue for you. If you take the median salary of ALL EMPLOYEES at companies where the founders are the billionaires you are accusing of mistreating their employees, it is only about 125,000 ABOVE the minimum wage you refer to. That's right, the median salary for all of their employees.

Brin and Page pay a median salary of 256,000
Zuckerberg pays a median salary of 240,000
Ballmer and Gates pay a median of 167,000
Larry Ellison averages a measely 110,000
The Koch's in stodgy energy and chemicals (non tech) pay 128,000

AND THAT IS SALARY, NOT TOTAL COMP

I could go on all day, but to say the billionaires are treating their employees less than wonderfully is utter BS.

Stop making claims for your political stance without First understanding what you are saying. Please

When i referred above that they don't share their total wealth, I was saying they aren't making their employees billionaires. But if making them millionaires isn't good enough, then there's a bigger problem in your argument.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

@dnhall

you've entered my area of expertise and every day life and you are simply wrong. the 40,000 number is only from the top companies where your angst for billionaires exists. And, being a millionaire is a pretty high bar to use for setting such an example. There are HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS that have made high six figures but not millions. Secretaries and admin that make hundreds of thousands

Here is a clue for you. If you take the median salary of ALL EMPLOYEES at companies where the founders are the billionaires you are accusing of mistreating their employees, it is only about 125,000 ABOVE the minimum wage you refer to. That's right, the median salary for all of their employees.

Brin and Page pay a median salary of 256,000
Zuckerberg pays a median salary of 240,000
Ballmer and Gates pay a median of 167,000
Larry Ellison averages a measely 110,000
The Koch's in stodgy energy and chemicals (non tech) pay 128,000

AND THAT IS SALARY, NOT TOTAL COMP

I could go on all day, but to say the billionaires are treating their employees less than wonderfully is utter BS.

Stop making claims for your political stance without First understanding what you are saying. Please

When i referred above that they don't share their total wealth, I was saying they aren't making their employees billionaires. But if making them millionaires isn't good enough, then there's a bigger problem in your argument.

Dr. Walter Williams taught me never to engage in debate in a field in which you know little. I can present no plausible argument to Pancreek1.

 

[dnhall]

Dr. Walter Williams taught me never to engage in debate in a field in which you know little. I can present no plausible argument to Pancreek1.

It is still an argument in semantics. Pancreek thinks they are benevolent and pay the talent appropriately and I don’t think they do in terms of their entire work force. Another agree to disagree which was likely anyway.

 

[Pancreek1]

Pancreek thinks they are benevolent and pay the talent appropriately and I don’t think they do in terms of their entire work force.

Simple math. I used the word median and not mean/average. It is impossible to have a six figure median and have people not being paid appropriately.

WTH is appropriate to you?

 

[Medic007]

It is still an argument in semantics. Pancreek thinks they are benevolent and pay the talent appropriately and I don’t think they do in terms of their entire work force. Another agree to disagree which was likely anyway.

Do you have a clue how the billionaires became billionaires? It looks like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hint... it isn't from an annual salary...

 

[aix_xpert]

It is obvious Okstate1 you are a CPA because your reading comprehension outside number crunching could use some real improvement.

No thoughtful person truly seeking social justice is for rioting, looting, violence against police or defunding police. Of course no one I know supports any violence associated with any aspect of BLM! I certainly don’t!

You and others like you lump EVERYONE supporting or within BLM seeking social justice legally and peacefully with those who aren’t. That’s disingenuous and just wrong.

I only support the purest intention of BLM which is the quest to change society enough to end racism in all its forms, ensure equal treatment for all, and allow all Americans the right to peace, prosperity, and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by our Constitution.

Besides rioting, looting and violence, what has BLM done? They've raised millions of dollars, yet I see NOTHING positive being offered. Just Molotov cocktails, cement balloons, and the destruction of local businesses.

 

[OKSTATE1]

It is still an argument in semantics. Pancreek thinks they are benevolent and pay the talent appropriately and I don’t think they do in terms of their entire work force. Another agree to disagree which was likely anyway.

This is what you do, when presented with facts, and not being able to either define your position in a granular way or provide any sourced materials other than your opinion, you say let's agree to disagree. What I see you mostly post is emotional BS that is opinions based on emotions. But that is ok, that is exactly what Dims are right now, so emotional that you can not even step back and evaluate things unemotionally.

 

[aix_xpert]

Not a gross domestic product greater than all but five nations on Earth! Cali’s population isn’t that large compared to countries around the world!

I hope you aren't trying to turn us into California. For all its GDP, they are the epitome of the no middle class syndrome that follows Socialism everywhere it goes. You have uber-wealthy living in multi-million dollar, walled-off, mansions living alongside the largest homeless populations in the country.

 

[xplor58]

No relation to any politician past or present. As usual, you deflect from the FACTS presented to go on some tome about Nixon and two former Oklahoma Governors. Straying from the question at hand to attempt some personal attack which is typical of you but completely off base and as usual wrong. LOL

The challenge remains, name a conservative state and or city that approach the wealth created in Democratic run cities and states that I listed. You can’t because they don’t exist.

In terms of generating wealth, I would say the world considers them very successful something you infer is impossible under democratic politics.

I have not read most of this thread but I would like to point out that the state of Texas is second only to California in gdp and Texas has a lot less people.

Since a lot of companies are moving out of California and some of them are moving to Texas it won't be long b4 Texas is larger gdp wise

 

[Medic007]

I haver read most of this thread but I would like to point out that the state of texas is second only to California in gdp and Texas has a lot less people.

Since a lot of companies are moving out of California and some of them are moving to Texas it won't be long b4 Texas is larger gdp wise

But but but California is the shit! They have 12% of the population and 14% of the GDP! Nevermind that Hollywood is 500 billion of that GDP and California has the highest population of homeless people in the US! Cali Cali Cali!!!

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Simple math. I used the word median and not mean/average. It is impossible to have a six figure median and have people not being paid appropriately.

WTH is appropriate to you?

It is evident, Pancreek1, Medic007, xplor58, aix_xpert, and OKSTATE1 can clearly define math's simplest equation. Both the axiom and the argument.

 

[davidallen]

OK, I will bite

As an Economist who also has spent 40 years exclusively providing capital to the entrepreneurial realm, I've studied it for sure. It was developed during the industrial revolution (mid 1800's) and made ZERO sense then, but as we progressed in the late 20th century and moved from a capital goods economy to an intellectual property economy, it makes even LESS sense.

The basic tenets of the absolute nonsense can be summarized by the following 8 tenetts (with my comments in bold)

1. Social progress is driven by progress in the material realm as a society has at its disposal labor and capital goods

2. Humans are inevitably involved in productive relationships largely determined by the division of labor, which in turn determines social class.

3. Relations of production are both determined by the forces of production and set the conditions of their development. Capitalism tends to increase the rate at which the forces develop and stresses the accumulation of capital (high capital expenditures necessary in the industrial revolution)

4. The relations of production define the mode of production, e.g. the capitalist mode of production is characterized by the polarization of society into capitalists and workers.

In 1. through 4., the analysis is very simple. They were super pissed off that the industrial revolution forever changed the world from the simple life of agriculture (agrarian economy) to very large industrial capital expenditure requirements that required the accumulation of capital to be "the boss" and "the workers" had no shot at being "the boss" lest they figured out a way to accumulate capital. In the agrarian world, the lowest peon had a chance. In the industrial world, the inevitability of haves and have-nots was, to them, unconscionable.

5. Every type of State is a powerful institution of the ruling class; the state is an instrument which one class uses to secure its rule and enforce its preferred relations of production and its exploitation onto society (i.e., the working class).

They INTENTIONALLY ignored the absolute success of the US Constitution because they were against true democracy from the beginning. They were myopic that all governments (States) in history had been totalitarian and did not believe a true democracy would work. And that was simultaneous with the belief that the new "haves and have-nots" phenomena caused by high capital expenditures of industrial development was CAUSED by the State (ignoring simple economic forces that the state had nothing to do with). Simply stated, they thought the economic forces were because of a ruling class (government) while completely ignoring the fact that the State had NOTHING do do with the seachange in capital requirements.

6. State power is usually only transferred from one class to another by social and political upheaval

7. When a given relation of production no longer supports further progress in the productive forces, either further progress is strangled, or 'revolution' must occur.

In their experience and thought (i.e., their narrow minded world), States move from one totalitarian regime to another because a true democracy was the furthest from their minds. Their own words of "social and political upheaval" and "revolution" are very telling. In their pea brains, that was the only path. AND in their pea brains, the fact that the industrial revolution (again high capital expenditures) caused a divide between the capitalist owners and the lowly workers, was prima facia evidence that the system wasn't working and the only solution would be "upheaval" and "revolution". It never dawned on them that the world had changed for the better and that the "lowly worker bees" were actually exponentially better off....not worse off. Simply stated, they were jealous.

8, The actual historical process is not predetermined but depends on class struggle, especially the elevation of class consciousness and organization of the working class.

Their view was base on THEIR history, when there simply wasn't a big enough data set on true democracies for them to understand how utterly wrong they were.

Their simplistic mid-1800's thought has been proven them wrong by 1,000x in the last 150 years. The democracies of the world have worked beautifully. So beautifully, in fact, that the last remaining true communist "state" (China) had to aggressively figure out a creative way to capture the unstoppable power of capitalism and literally unleashed unfettered (and even state subsidized) entrepreneurial spirit while maintaining some semblance of control.

And instead of their beliefs being that history is a function of the working class, history has proven it is the risk taking entrepreneur that has determined history. And in the intellectual property economy that has evolved, their ideas are even more asinine.

As irony would have it, in an IP economy, capital accumulation comes from "creative ideas", something the lowest peon worker bee has an equal opportunity to accomplish.

Who asked you?

Much to discuss in your analysis as it extends well beyond the scope of the question.

For bonus points how does Marx both affirm and deny Hegels Dialectical Method?

 

[davidallen]

It is evident, Pancreek1, Medic007, xplor58, aix_xpert, and OKSTATE1 can clearly define math's simplest equation. Both the axiom and the argument.

You however can't answer a simple question. Not surprised PC has a cogent (though awry) response, not surprised you can't even provide the easy answer.

 

[OUSOONER67]

You however can't answer a simple question. Not surprised PC has a cogent (though awry) response, not surprised you can't even provide the easy answer.

Maybe SBI like the rest of us are waiting for you to answer the White Guilt question?
You said you would answer when you have more time. You have plenty of time to do early morning drive by's so what gives? Still trying to come up with a reasonable excuse why you have the White Guilt so we won't laugh?
Do you feel White Guilt because you think you are better than everyone else?

Do you pass by all the homeless people in that Shithole and feel guilty because you have a $20,000 treehouse but have not invited any of them to come and stay in it until you help them get back on their feet?
When you were younger did you take the virginity of a young woman of color? Yes Dave fingers count if thats all you did.
Do you sit in your Ivory Tower counting all the money you make and say to yourself, I could do so much to help those less fortunate than myself but you sit there and procrastinate and sip on wine?
Don't let it eat you up inside, we can't help until you address the problem.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Who asked you?

Much to discuss in your analysis as it extends well beyond the scope of the question.

For bonus points how does Marx both affirm and deny Hegels Dialectical Method?

You get owned and this is your reply? Weak sauce. Do better.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Maybe SBI like the rest of us are waiting for you to answer the White Guilt question?
You said you would answer when you have more time. You have plenty of time to do early morning drive by's so what gives? Still trying to come up with a reasonable excuse why you have the White Guilt so we won't laugh?
Do you feel White Guilt because you think you are better than everyone else?

Do you pass by all the homeless people in that Shithole and feel guilty because you have a $20,000 treehouse but have not invited any of them to come and stay in it until you help them get back on their feet?
When you were younger did you take the virginity of a young woman of color? Yes Dave fingers count if thats all you did.
Do you sit in your Ivory Tower counting all the money you make and say to yourself, I could do so much to help those less fortunate than myself but you sit there and procrastinate and sip on wine?
Don't let it eat you up inside, we can't help until you address the problem.

Answer a question for Dave? Like most of us here, my getting through to Dave is completely beyond my reach. If 2012 Bearcat can't get through, how can I be expected?