Again, it seems like you have a really vague notion of what value actually is which is what makes you incapable of understanding the concept of labor exploitation. You need to understand the difference between marginal theories of value, which is defined by a circular logic where price determines value and value determines price, and labor theories of value, where people interact with the material world to modify it in some way that gives it added utility.

How is it that simply by being an employer, you are exploiting staff?

It’s not that simple. You can be an employer and not exploit the people that work for you. However, doing that means you will not have a profitable business. Profits come from exploitation. Please understand that when I use the word exploitation I’m not making an inherently moral argument about whether exploitation is good or bad. Exploitation is simply a material phenomena. I believe it only becomes a moral issue when undue suffering occurs as a result of said exploitation.

Is the guy selling kabobs down the street from me exploiting his staff?

He might be. Small business are often some of the most exploitive workplaces because of how unprofitable they can be. It’s not uncommon for a small business to be forced into situations where they really have no choice but to exploit their staff if they want to continue operating. This is why so many restaurants in the US rely on undocumented immigrants who they can pay less than the minimum wage. It’s a flaw in the way our economy works.

I mean, I admit I’m totally being exploited at my current job but I’ve had other jobs where I was paid extremely well and given great opportunities.

This happens to a lot of people in industries where profitability declines. When profits are high, workers in those industries often get paid that they can afford their basic needs. However, as profits wane investors look to bolster them by taking more from their employees. What’s happening in the tech sector is a prime example of such a phenomenon. Unfortunately, this is a tendency that’s baked into the our economy. It prevents long term sustainable from being achieved in industries that are key to our economy but where the opportunities for new markets or innovations are lacking.

You guys are either being dishonest with me or dishonest with yourselves. Or you really have no idea what you’re talking about and just regurgitating what you’ve heard other people say.

Have you thought that maybe you’re the one who’s more confident that you really should be? I get that a lot of what I’ve said may contradict vague notions about how the economy works that you may have absorbed simply because you exist within a world steeped in corporate propaganda. However, your beliefs are not ones that any worthwhile economist would take seriously.

It’s not the type of change people want. However if violent retribution is all that’s on offer it makes perfect sense that someone would eventually take that deal and that people would celebrate it.

I reject this notion that all businesses exist to exploit workers.

That’s because you don’t understand the basic economic principles under which businesses operate. You think value is created out of thin air and is not a product of human labor.

I know my own city has often invested in programs that weren’t really helping those it intended to help. From what I learned this past year, it’s striking how little government knows who is in need of what.

It’s almost like governments do not operate in the democratic interests of the civilian populations they govern…. So strange. I wonder why that could be?

Yeah and then you won’t be able to pay for housing built by other working class people and food grown by other working class people. Wait that’s weird. I can’t seem to find the billionaires in that equation. It’s almost like the needs of working class people could be met by… other working class people.

I was not aware media outlets were talking about how amazing and hardworking billionaires are. No. Do you have some examples?

Oh come on. If you really are in the room with billionaires at charitable events you know the press is often invited to write puff pieces about how generous they are.

Are you saying that wealthy people should not use their money to build hospitals or help dying kids?

I’m saying we shouldn’t let people undemocratically decide whether or not working class people build hospitals and treat dying kids. By advocating that billionaires hold that power you are literally siding against democracy. But hey I guess all those super yachts just need to be built. For the good of society right?

Where in your answer did you say. “Cuba has the most doctors per capita”? Because all I see is you trying to weasel your way out of answering directly. I mean like do you even understand how absurd you sound trying to relativize Cuba with Monaco?

That’s what your buddies want you to believe top maintain the class war.

What class war? All I see is a one sided massacre. This murder doesn’t event register on the scale of horror working class people are forced to endure daily.

Speak with the people who run it and fund the operation.

What makes you think I haven’t? I know you’re right when you say they aren’t just in for the PR. Billionaires love getting their egos stroked publicly at fundraisers, ribbon cuttings, or other “charity” events. These are such nauseating displays of narcissistic behavior. I’m sorry you’re too wrapped up in their emotional sob stories to have any reasonable perspective when you’re in the room with these people.

How can possible think billionaires are better stewards of the power bestowed upon them by their immense wealth than a democratic society entrusted with that same power would be?

It’s not me who’s out of touch it’s all you plebs! Don’t you understand the divine right of CEOs?!

It generates value.

It’s true! Value just springs forth into this world from the ether. It’s basically alchemy. No other more rational expiation for it.

What if I plan to create more products and need the extra revenue to invest in the new business opportunity?

What if I need my peasants to each give me a bit more grain this season because the plague killed half of them? What if I also need to feed my knights so I can conquer new territories? Why should those lousy peasants have a say in any of that?

No one is telling the good stories about good billionaires.

Omg this right here is so funny. You must be blind. Media outlets talk non stop about how amazing, smart, caring, and hardworking billionaires supposedly are.

Those who build hospitals, contribute to fighting childhood cancer, who support public schools and build homes for the homeless.

Oh right so do the billionaires actually pour the concrete? Do they administer the chemo to the kids with cancer? Do they put together assignments for students? Do they hammer the nails to frame the house they’re supposedly building? Because as I see it if all they’re doing is signing check then they really haven’t done anything for anyone. It’s just our fucked up society means all the people that actually do good in the world need the sign of from a billionaire. If you don’t have their approval but you still want to work for the benefit of all, tough luck. Rent is still due at the end of the month.

Charitable organizations are basically PR for billionaires. You’re just foolish enough not to realize that.

Do you have any idea how an economy actually works? Money doesn’t build buildings. It doesn’t treat sick patients. It doesn’t conduct medical research. People and their labor do all of that.

So many words and yet you didn’t answer the question.

She would likely gain voters because she would be distinguishing herself from Biden who remains deeply unpopular.

There’s no diplomatic solution if the US decides there’s none to be had and doesn’t even try. Diplomacy fails at times but putting in a serious effort to resolve conflicts peacefully is almost always preferable to the hardships of war. Even if you think the PRC is belligerent it’s worth actually trying.

That’s why Taiwanese people prefer maintaining the status quo. To them it seems like the best of the bad options available to them as long as they have no control over what the PRC or US does.

Im seriously trying to work with you here. It’s very clear when I said “full autonomy” I did not mean only a “high degree of autonomy” as was the case with Hong Kong. Please listen to what I said and don’t get side tracked by imagining how a made up solution that you invented is doomed.

Hong Kong doesn’t have full political autonomy. It never did, not under the British nor under the PRC. How’s that at all relevant to what I said?

That’s not how diplomacy works. You can’t just declare the outcome you want and expect the PRC to abide by it when they have no incentive to. The PRC also likely believes that if they ever recognized Taiwan as independent the US would immediately look to set up military bases on Kinmen and other islands Taiwan controls. They rightly see that as massive threat to their ability to trade if the US ever decided to try and enforce a blockade.

Don’t doubt that the US has always wanted to exert military pressure on the PRC. It’s why the US supported Chiang Kai-shek’s militarily and then protected his retreat to Taiwan with the US navy. It’s why they continued to support the KMT and the ROC as the legitimate government of China even as they were massacring the indigenous people’s of Taiwan. The Korean War was also viewed by the PRC as an extension of US aggression against its regional security. They weren’t really wrong either. Douglas MacArthur famously wanted to go so far as to nuke the PRC into submission during the Korean War. US-PRC relations only really got better after the Soviet-Sino split when the US saw they could use the PRC as an instrument against the USSR. However, even today the US aims to maintain military supremacy in the region and so it continues its military first approach towards the situation with Taiwan. The ROC’s transition to a liberal democracy means nothing to them.

The PRC looks at that all and it just confirms their fears about the US. If you wanted an actually diplomatic solution it would almost certainly require that the US military is excluded from Taiwanese land. With that, I’d be willing to bet the PRC would agree to a solution which maintains the pretext of “one China” under the guise of an economic union even as Taiwan maintains full political autonomy. The reality is though that neither the US nor the current Taiwanese government have given any indication that’s a negotiation they’re willing to have. As such, tensions rise and the people of Taiwan are left to wonder if war is coming without having any serious ability to stop it.

It’s not black and white like that! Saying Taiwan is pro US is incredibly reductive. It’s true that the majority of Taiwanese people welcome US support. The majority of them also think that the military first way in which the US is supporting them is going to push Taiwan towards war, something they do not want. A majority also voted for parties that prefer to find diplomatic solutions to the tensions with the PRC.

Also, Taiwan doesn’t have to trust the PRC to for a diplomatic solution to be possible. Rarely is diplomacy solely based on trust. I genuinely believe they could find some sort of compromise that is amenable to all parties. However both Taiwan’s current president, elected with only a plurality of the vote, and the US are not working to find a permanent diplomatic solution and are therefore escalating tensions against the will and interests of the Taiwanese populace. This isn’t good for anyone except the US which wants to use Taiwan as a pawn to contain its adversary, the PRC.