How gracious of him. LMAO. We all know Republicans do their damnedest to keep those fast food workers earning pennies on the dollar.
Then there would be a great opportunity to start a business catering to an underserved market. Yes. No, they are both free. The consumer doesn't have to shop in the store of anyone he doesn't like. I am against forcing either party to do business with someone they don't want to do business with. That favors neither party, each has the same opportunity to reject the other.
Okay how do I start a business of owning enough property to be able to rent to underprivileged people at a discount?
I work 50 hours a week and 60% of my income goes to rent. I own zero property. My parents didn't leave me with any property as a starter package.
That's going to make it tough for you to buy property then. Perhaps someone with more funding would be in a better position to start that business.
That isn't free for the consumer. They aren't free to have the same options, for shopping/renting/owning/purchasing services as others when providers are allowed to discriminate.
Wouldn't that make them have exactly the same freedom as the producers? No one is forced to shop at any particular store, they are free to discriminate.
Just when I think her posts couldn't get much stupider. The GOP has a bunch of idiots getting paid for doing nothing worthwhile.
What they don't have is the same freedom as other consumers. Some consumers end up having more freedom. Producers also have total freedom. The only group that has their freedoms restricted are those consumers that are discriminated against.
How do producers have total freedom. Aren't there customers who reject one producer and deal with another. How is that at all different than the store selling to one customer but rejecting another?
I never thought of this. The way for the poor to fix rent prices is to buy property and rent it out. it’s so simple.
In your system producers have the total freedom to sell to who they want and to discriminate. Consumers that are being discriminated against don't have the freedom of consumers who aren't being discriminated against. Discriminating producers create an inequality among the consumers. Outlawing desceimination theoretically eliminates that inequality.
No more so than discriminating consumers create an inequality among the producers. The consumer already has the absolute right to reject any producer for any or no reason. Granting that same right to the producers doesn't create any more inequality than already exists going the other direction.
Definitely more so. The consumer pool is exponentially larger than the producer pool and includes producers as well.
Choosing to purchase and choosing to sell are different actions anyways. If you choose to not purchase you still have the option. If you choose to not sell to a group they’re ****ed. I thought this was a free country?
Well see, once you figure out who the racist stores are, you'll just shop at the other non-racist stores. It's the market at work. Oh, "those people" who aren't allowed to shop at those stores? Sorry, f**k them, find your own place. What a freedom-centric world to live in. Yay.
Trump fans do lead the league in fat rolls on the back of their neck. What is it with fat inbreds thinking they’re intimidating? You’re not strong, you’re a slob that doesn’t take care of your body.
The problem with the arguments of unfettered economy as the solution to social problems is that bias is often not rational. For example segregation created a market distortion. That limited the amount of wealth that discriminated groups could build but it also created isolated enclaves where any wealth created could not be tapped by the wider market. Black Wall Street in Tulsa was a mater of successful black businesses not facing competition from the wider market. As such some businesses could gain a lot of wealth essentially in a captive market. If economics were truly free of bias White businesses in Tulsa would’ve recognized that the black Community was a market that could be tapped and profited from. Instead the white community decided to destroy Black Wall Street and the wealth and market that was there was wiped out not benefiting the overall Tulsa economy. So the argument that producers and consumers should have complete freedom in who they buy and sell doesn’t necessarily lead to good out comes because discrimination isn’t always rational.
