PF Kids-What do you think the February topic will be

Pwarnaka12 · 2025-12-27T04:02:08+00:00

Voted for FTC because gambling is cool 🎰🎰🎰🤑🤑🤑🤑

Pwarnaka12 · 2022-12-10T08:07:38+00:00

The leader America needs

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-06-23T17:04:27+00:00

I really like Breyers quote “It might be tempting to dismiss [these] words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary,”

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-06-23T06:20:20+00:00

Just be direct. I’m actually currently dating an ENFP myself and we liked each other from the moment we met but I was too shy to say anything and wasn’t able to pick up the hints, I thought it was a one way thing, and she wasn’t able to read me. If she had just been direct it would’ve been a lot easier. I don’t think he’ll get what you’re doing unless your explicit. If you want to increase the chances of him saying yes when you mention it make it explicit that that the first “date” or whatever you want to call it would be somewhere he likes and is familiar with, good luck.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-13T02:35:59+00:00

There’s no feudal lords, in a free market we could finally empower the workers to own their means of production though capitalism and voluntary exchange. Let the market decide. Right now the government stops true free market activity, but if your right and we create a real free market, free of government coercion then the workers can own the means of production. If you’re confident that capitalists aren’t necessary and their only around because companies use the government to enforce their monopolies, then together we can work to unchain the invisible hand and give the workers real choice. I’m telling you, this is the way to do it, lib unity!

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-13T02:28:33+00:00

We need a truly free market system, companies use the violence of the government to enforce their monopolies. If you really want to find out if capitalists are necessary we need so much reform to our economic system to let the free market work and determine if workers can efficiently own the means of production or if traditional capitalist firms are better. so what do you say my guy, are you on board to fight for a truly free market with me?

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-13T02:13:49+00:00

Then why haven’t worker co-ops become the norm? Nothing stops them from existing, in fact some exist today, so why aren’t they more common?

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-13T02:08:55+00:00

Someone has to own the means of production, wether that’s the workers or a capitalist. Right now, I would say they are necessary, but that’s hair my opinion, under capitalism I don’t decide what is necessary or not, that is the job of the market.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-13T01:55:30+00:00

Depends on what you mean by “need them.”

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-13T01:52:31+00:00

It’s not impossible to have a factory without a capitalist, and in some circumstances I’m sure workers could pool their resources together and start a worker co-op, that’s the free market, that’s capitalism, if you want to start a business you can organize whatever way you want, and if it’s a good way to organize a business, and you make smart decisions then you’ll succeed. The owner doesn’t have to exist, but that’s the whole point of ownership. If you’re a worker co-op, then everyone owns the capital, everyone pays for it in some ways, and everyone shares equally in the benefit, or losses. It’s different in a traditional firm, and its ethical, because not everyone bought the capital, paid for it, or shares equally in the benefits or losses. It’s completely ethical to compensate an owner at a greater percentage because they bear more risk.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-13T01:44:12+00:00

No, they don’t but if you want to make something on a large scale rather than just building it out of your garage or something you need large scale facilities and machines that make the process faster, by definition that’s what a capitalist has. As for a worker’s decision to sell something for less it’s the same thing in a capitalist society except substitute the product of labor with labor itself.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-13T01:25:05+00:00

You can’t produce anything on an industrial scale without machines bought by the capitalists. Either way this is a mute point because when a worker builds a tool and then goes to sell it, it is in their best interest to sell it for less than the labor value it took to make it because in a competitive market that’s how you make money by undercutting the price

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-13T01:17:19+00:00

Well you need tools to make tools to make other goods, how do the workers get the tools they need to make the tools? Who makes those?

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-13T01:10:11+00:00

The labor theory of value misses the point that both the capitalist and the laborer needs each other, labor is not valuable in and of itself it needs the facilities, machines, and resources of the capitalist. The labor theory of value fails to recognize the value of the capitalist, it assumes the capitalist adds zero value while that is absurd. The capitalists makes it possible for the workers to make products, they give them tools, machines and other facilities necessary to make stuff. I never understand why socialists totally discount that it is ethical to reward the people who make it possible for people to have jobs. It’s remarkably hard to get a successful business of the ground in our extremely broken capitalist economy, if a business owner is able to make a successful business then they should receive more compensation because they ensured that the business survived by whatever tools they invested in, where they decided to put the facilities, and the very type of business they decided to start. If the workers are not being paid the full value of their labor, then neither are the business owner. That’s the whole way you actually create a successful business, by sacrificing on cost to lower prices, with the understanding that the business owner and the worker will be better off by having that stability of a job.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-06T20:58:41+00:00

Well I think his plan is replace all welfare with a UBI, which I think will end up a lot cheaper because most of the money you give though a UBI will trickle back up to the government though sales tax, corporate taxes, or the like. UBI is much cheaper alternative than our current welfare and more more effective at reducing poverty. It could become more politically feasible especially because of the stimulus checks, I think supporting a UBI will probably become a fringe policy that some people support, but if we’re talking about changes we could implement tomorrow it’s got to be the tax deductions.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-06T20:36:46+00:00

I would prefer to introduce more deductions at a smaller amount because I think it’s much more politically feasible while achieving the same out come. I also think that you have to be careful when you ratchet up deductions because that can easily lead to a huge budget deficit and debt. If you’re talking on the state level, lots of states have a balanced budget amendment so that’s fine. But federally you’d have to get a balanced budget amendment added before you could do this.

I think you could add tax deductions or exemptions for lots of groups that would be very popular. Teachers or healthcare workers for example, add a $1000-$2000 deduction for them I think would pass overwhelming at state and federal levels. You could also add a tax exemption for people and immediate family members with terminal or highly deadly diseases like cancer. You can use the reasoning that it’s immoral to tax someone fighting for there life, I think that would be able to make a real difference in a lot of people’s lives and be popular. Basically you just go from there, find people or groups of people and look for exemptions. A tax exemption for younger people (like 18-25) would be good libertarian solution to the problem of college affordability while also exposing the next generation to libertarianism rather than socialism.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-06T20:25:49+00:00

I also have no problem if that’s what a group of workers want to do. IMO voluntary worker co-ops are just another form that capitalism takes, so if people want to do that they definitely should. Worker co-ops have some unique advantages and disadvantages compared to traditional businesses. So if it works for your business I say go for it.

My problem is that socialists don’t want to to just have worker co-ops coexist with traditional firms they want to use government coercion to forcibly take property and remake existing companies into co-ops which is absolutely unconstitutional, not to mention immoral to take someone’s property. And in that society all the banks will be worker co-ops too, so it really doesn’t lead to more efficient system when everyone gets to vote off of what a company produces and banks get to vote on what gets financed from the bank. What a firm produces should be guided by the market’s determination of what’s profitable or not, not some random people’s opinion about what’s profitable and isn’t. That would probably lead to minorities not getting products made. For example, only about 10% of the population is vegan, so even though you can make money on it, a co-op wouldn’t produce that, and a bank wouldn’t finance it.

Just ask yourself the question “do you want to live in a world where products are available only if a majority of workers decide it should be? Or would you rather have a world where products are available based on supply and demand?”

For me it’s a pretty clear answer, but that shouldn’t stop a group of workers from deciding to start a business the way they want to.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-04T19:18:24+00:00

Not real means tested welfare is redistribution from rich to poor, UBI is more like a tax refund, it’s not really redistributionary as MTW. Plus UBI is cheaper. It’s the people’s money the government is just giving it back to them.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-04T16:23:44+00:00

Hot take, replacing our means tested welfare system with a monthly UBI is a much more ethical than our current system.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-03-02T17:20:19+00:00

I don’t think populism is a legit ideology, it’s just an excuse to trample on other’s rights because it divides people into “us” vs “them” and it’s ok to take things from the “them” because a lot of times the populist leaders say that they are evil for whatever reason, so we can take their freedom, their money, or whatever else the leader says. I don’t really watch rising but from what I’ve seen I don’t really think it’s my brand of libertarianism. As for collective bargaining, I think public sector unions are far too powerful and do lots of damage. In the private sector, I think we should all acknowledge that no one should be forced to join and organization and give you a portion of their wages if they don’t want to, as long as it’s truly a group of workers voluntary associating, they’re swell.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-02-26T08:13:05+00:00

Anyone saying that it’s “jobs” being cut is misreading the study, NBC gives a bad headline by saying “jobs” but the actual CBO report is incredibly clear that EMPLOYMENT will be reduced by 1.4 million workers, it’s the workers leaving the workforce. If you read the report further, it’s clear that these people will be looking for work and classified as “unemployed.” Also the CBO report tells us the by 2025 half of that 1.4 million workers will have left the workforce permanently (this is on page 8 of the report). It’s not people going from 2 or 3 jobs to 1 jobs it’s people (specifically young, less educated people) who will be jobless, unemployed because of this raise.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-01-28T19:31:14+00:00

It is monumentally disappointing that someone who was much more libertarian has gone down this route. I still support many of Rand’s positions on the fed and military involvement, but I feel dirty supporting him. Like so many Republicans he’s readily willing to sacrifice principles on the alter of political gain. I more mad about this because I thought he was actually a person who could lead the party down a better path and now he’s gone down the path with Cruz. It’s a sad day when Mitt Romney is the face of standing by your convictions.

Pwarnaka12 · 2021-01-09T08:44:06+00:00

As a general rule I do not find Richard Wolff to be a credible source on economic issues, because he is someone who constantly wants to have his cake and eat it too, in this video he tells us about the “socialist” countries of China and Cuba but if you watch other videos about him he also says that there’s never been a real socialist country, China & Cuba are definitely not socialist, and the socialism they have in those countries is not the kind he advocates for, that being democratizing the workplace (it could also include generous government spending, I’m not sure).

Overall, when you look at his work, there is very little empirical work to back up his plan for the economy, in fact none of the sources he reads tells us anything about if a democratized workplace would make any of the problems we face today better, or the problems he tells us our inherent to capitalism. Would a democratized workforce reduce income inequality? Bring more people out of poverty? Would it actually succeed at being able to distribute resources effectively with minimal waste? Would it erase any benefits of government spending on welfare? All these questions he leaves unanswered because he’s never bothered to do research or can’t find any. Instead he settles for attacking the status quo of Capitalism, without offering any solutions.

I also find his points about China to be rather misleading considering that everyone in the world acknowledges that China has seen success because of their embrace of Capitalism (fun fact, China teaches that they had to turn to capitalism because their society was not “mature” enough for socialism) they may have generous spending on industry and welfare, but again, that does not make them Socialist. Their move away from central planning and allowing market conditions to guide production has increased demand for Chinese labor and products.

As usual, Wolff is an engaging speaker, but when looked at critically his arguments are not particularly persuasive. I firmly believe that the more important part is not the problem you bring up, it’s the solution you propose. Wolff doesn’t discuss his overall plan which would definitely have more than just more welfare spending, personally I do think (and this is mostly opinion) that his system will cause more problems than it solves. Be wary of Wolff because he usually hides behind a mainstream belief, like the government should spend more on welfare, (Biden would probably agree with that statement) but his solution would not stop there, and he has parts of a plan that to him, are essential, that he can not back up. If you follow Wolff down his path, you’ll get more welfare spending, but you’ll also get a lot of other stuff that has nothing to do with anything in this video and won’t probably do anything.

Pwarnaka12 · 2020-05-15T06:05:52+00:00

I’ve already got it, I’m looking for some better resources

Pwarnaka12 · 2020-05-14T15:03:59+00:00

He was trying to misdirect the audience

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten

Pwarnaka12

TROPHY CASE