9% of a bag of apples is the same percentage as 9% of a bag of Oranges.

9% is 9%.

9% of a bag of apples is the same percentage and 9% of a bag of Oranges.

9% is 9%.


Doesn't matter if it a bag, trucload or Trainload. 9% is still 9% of something.

Apples and oranges may be fruit, but you can't compare them to each other.

MATH 101, Never compare apples and oranges.

Apples are different in color, content, and price, so how are they equal? You would have done better with two shoes being equal, but that would be awkward since your feet are not, one is left the other is right, but they come as a set don't they?

Never mind, if you don't understand simple math then Geometry would be really impossible, and forget algebra and physics.

Enjoy your fruit and try not to understand them. Eat your PEAS!!

Percentages of anything are the same no matter what you compare.

9% of any one thing is still the same percentage of 9% of anything else.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/percentage


Per·cent·age (pr-sntj)
n.
1.
a. A fraction or ratio with 100 understood as the denominator; for example, 0.98 equals a percentage of 98.
b. The result obtained by multiplying a quantity by a percent.
2. A proportion or share in relation to a whole; a part: The hecklers constituted only a small percentage of the audience.
3. An amount, such as an allowance, duty, or commission, that varies in proportion to a larger sum, such as total sales: work for a percentage.
4. Informal Advantage; gain: There is no percentage in work without pay.
Usage Note: When preceded by the, percentage takes a singular verb: The percentage of unskilled workers is small. When preceded by a, it takes either a singular or plural verb, depending on the number of the noun in the prepositional phrase that follows: A small percentage of the workers are unskilled. A large percentage of the crop has spoiled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If you want to exempt certain foods I wouldn't object. A consumption tax is a much better idea than an income tax . Where Cain has it wrong is having both . It was only when progressives couldn't figure out a way to pay for government expansion did the Marxist concept of a "progressive" income tax come into play. After elimination of private property ,the progressive income tax was the 2nd of his 10 planks .

---

Well, there you have it. A 10 point plan for a classLESS society.

You said you don't believe in classes.

You can't have it both ways

I said I don't define people by class. Where people are free to succeed and fail there is no class structure to lock people into .

I don't group people into collectives .Marxism may have defined his utopia by a classless society . But his remedy was to lock the proletariat into a state dependency funded by the destruction of the bourgeoisie.In the end there is still 2 classes... the dependent class ;or serfs ;and the government elites and the people they choose to be winners .

Anyone who believes in any degress of self determination would find that an abomination... an evil. Marx in truth longed for the days before capitalism elevated people beyond the "classes" of preindustrial feudalism where class was preordained and irrevocable.

That is the true goal of Marxism and it has never achieved anything less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I said I don't define people by class. Where people are free to succeed and fail there is no class structure to lock people into.

---

WRONG! This creates two classes, Haves, who succeeded, or have not who have failed. Further evidence, the haves can give their kids a silver spoon to suck on, the have nots give theirs food stamps. And the game is rigged so the haves will always have, and get more, and the have nots never will, and will lose what they do have.

Sure some of the have nots escape, but they seldom go far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I said I don't define people by class. Where people are free to succeed and fail there is no class structure to lock people into .

---

You said you don't believe in economic, social or racial classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

I don't group people into collectives .Marxism may have defined his utopia by a classless society . But his remedy was to lock the proletariat into a state dependency funded by the destruction of the the bourgeoisie.In the end there is still 2 classes .... the dependent class ;or serfs ;and the government elites and the people they choose to be winners .

---

Marx and all of the other 18th and 19th political economists are where they should be; in the archives. They are only of curiosity value in modern society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

Anyone who believes in any degress of self determination would find that an abomination ...an evil.

---

No one with any idea of history believes what Marx said. Marx was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

Marx in truth longed for the days before capitalism elevated people beyond the "classes" of preindustrial feudalism where class was preordained and irrevocable.

---

What?? Are you saying Marx was a closet feudalist.

It has nothing to do with being preordained and it certainly not irrevocable. Where do you get this from?

It is the result of the social relations that existed at the time. His dialectic explains the relations of production and the resultant classes. It is a dialectic account of class struggles throughout history.

Its not rigged... being born to parents with some money is no guarantee of success in life... and being born poor is no excuse to be lazy and not try or a guarantee you won't succeed.

I grew up a lot more poor than I am now... my parents were born dirt poor and did very well for themselves. Just not as well a I have managed due to no small amount of hard work and luck. I still am not wealthy.

I know more than a few people born into money that are far from being well off much less rich or successful.

Now of course, the liberals have a vested interest in keeping the poor, poor, and teaching them to play the victim rather than getting off their butts and working their way to success. They want to make them dependent on handouts so they can keep their vote.

Quote:

---

And the game is rigged so the haves will always have, and get more, and the have nots never will, and will lose what they do have.

---

If you are calling the game rigged then you are proving my point about the government determining winners and losers.

I know many people in my industry who follwed a model similar to Steve Jobs... start up on a shoe string budget in a garage.

Jobs himself was the son of Syrian refugees . The Horatio Alger story is alive and well and it doesn't require government subsidies to determine winners and losers in a rigged system.

If the system is rigged you can point a finger at government socialist policies and not capitalism .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If you are calling the game rigged then you are proving my point about the government determining winners and losers.

---

Tom isn't that the very point of government? I think you are a basic anarchist at heart.

Quote:

---

I know many people in my industry who follwed a model similar to Steve Jobs... start up on a shoe string budget in a garage.

Jobs himself was the son of Syrian refugees . The Horatio Alger story is alive and well and it doesn't require government subsidies to determine winners and losers in a rigged system.

If the system is rigged you can point a finger at government socialist policies and not capitalism .

---

You are suggesting that the system isn't rigged in favour of capitalists. That is certainly a long bow. The government policies are meant to bring balance into the system. To enable some people to attain the basic necessities they cannot otherwise gain for themselves because they have no access to capital. Tell me Tom, how is this capitalist utopia working out for you? From the reports I hear there is wide spread dissatisfaction with the inequalities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

The government policies are meant to bring balance into the system. To enable some people to attain the basic necessities they cannot otherwise gain for themselves because they have no access to capital. Tell me Tom, how is this capitalist utopia working out for you? from the reports I hear there is wide spread dissatisfaction with the inequalities.

---

Hi Clete,

Exactly right.

Under Capitalism two realms of authority have always existed. To suggest otherwise is to promote Capitalism as a utopian.

Tut

Quote:

---

Tom isn't that the very point of government? I think you are a basic anarchist at heart.

---

Nope the government can of course make laws so long as they are universally applied. The OP I started yesterday however is an example where crony socialism picked an electric car company and gave it an advantage over it's competitors.

Don't get hung up on a scam Tom

The repubs did the same thing when they were in power, helped their friends. That's why they all want power. Wouldn't you, when it was your turn? That doesn't make it right, but this is the system we have allowed to be built. You think Wall Street will change it? Or a rich guy that profits from it? Green has no loyalty to left or right, just a proclivity to multiply, and enrich whoever it touches.

Tom is complaining that the system has enriched someone outside the US, but the US has been subsidising the export of its industries for years. Capital doesn't care who does the work so long as it gets the profits. This is a lesson those who like the capitalist system of open borders and the free market don't like, they don't like the market to be that free

Quote:

---

You think Wall Street will change it? Or a rich guy that profits from it? Green has no loyalty to left or right, just a proclivity to multiply, and enrich whoever it

---

It's not up to Wall Street to change it . It's up to the elected officials . And tal for the record . I never defended the Repubics for playing that game ;nor did I say hehehe... the Repubics are in so it's their turn to suckel at the public teat .

Quote:

---

US has been subsidising the export of its industries for years.

---

Correct... more bad policies out of Washington like intrusive over regulation and taxation ;and the silly devaluation of the currency.

Keep it up guys. You prove my point with every paragraph.

Maybe we all have been saying the same thing in different ways since people do see what they can see, from wherever they are sitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It's not up to Wall Street to change it . It's up to the elected officials . And tal for the record
Keep it up guys. You prove my point with every paragraph.

---

And you prove mine. Now that statement you just made

Quote:

---

It's up to the elected officials

---

That is the same as saying the government, or is the government that inconvenient thing called the administration, I find it confusing as to what you actually mean when you say elected officials, is that the President but excluding his cabinet? Or some high and mighty Senator? Or some lowly representative? But certainly not a sepreme court justice.

So Tom you are in favour of government changing things, that's is a flip flop from you.

Hello:

I agree with tom. He calls it crony socialism, and I call it crony capitalism. Whatever you want to call it, it's the same thing. The government starts picking winners and losers...

Although tom will point out the subsidy to Solyndra as an example of how right he is, I point to the BILLIONS we give to the oil companies, who had a VERY GOOD QUARTER, I might add.

It's ALL based on the same thing.. Some businessmen found out they could get their congressman to tilt the market in their favor so they could make money WITHOUT having to COMPETE for it. BOTH sides do it, and it must stop.

To solve it, my FIRST thought would be to get RID of money in politics. Tom of course, thinks the solution is MORE money in politics.. He's wacked, isn't he?

excon