#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Which is a more effective economic strategy?
The Trickle Down is basically give a tax break on the rich so they can invest in new businesses creating new jobs.
Pump Prime being what the Obama Administration tried: putting a lot of money into the system and hoping for the best.
Trickle Down
Side Score: 108
|
 |
Pump Prime
Side Score: 117
|
|
Though this is the less popular technique to reviving an economy; I am unable to find one example of the Pump Prime working, whereas I am able to find at least two where the Trickle Down ended up working. I feel like the Obama Administration should have gone with the Trickle Down opposed to the Pump Prime; my reason being that the unemployment rate didn't go down it actually went up even after the massive stimulus bill was put into effect. Side: Trickle Down
2
points
The poor don't pay enough taxes to make a difference! BTW, if you really think that the Rich don't use the tax breaks to hire more employees then you are not rich and all you want is a hand out. Me, on the other hand, no longer wants to do yard work, clean the pool, etc. I hire all that stuff out. If I were to get another tax break, I'd hire a cleaning lady. But the tax break would have to be big enough to cover anything she may steal ;) Side: Trickle Down
The poor don't pay enough taxes to make a difference! Yes, but in general they are more frivolous with their money and tend to spend their tax breaks on "stuff". BTW, if you really think that the Rich don't use the tax breaks to hire more employees then you are not rich and all you want is a hand out. Me, on the other hand, no longer wants to do yard work, clean the pool, etc. I hire all that stuff out. If I were to get another tax break, I'd hire a cleaning lady. But the tax break would have to be big enough to cover anything she may steal ;) Except the tax break is just as likely to be spent on a new addition to the mansion, to buy a fancy new helicopter, to be put in their bank account and saved, to be invested into the stock market, or just about anything else. There is no real reason why the tax break would be spent on hiring more employees, rather than any of the other things I described. The fact that tax breaks tend to be temporary actually DISCOURAGES the rich from hiring more employees, because they know that the money may not always be there. Furthermore, why do you assume that all rich people own businesses? Why not apply these tax breaks on the businesses themselves? Why not have tax breaks based on the number of employees a business has? Side: Pump Prime
2
points
Yes, but in general they are more frivolous with their money and tend to spend their tax breaks on "stuff". Like alcohol ;) Except the tax break is just as likely to be spent on a new addition to the mansion, to buy a fancy new helicopter,... to be invested into the stock market. These things keep people employed. So you just made my point for me. Thanks ;) Furthermore, why do you assume that all rich people own businesses? I don't own a business but I do hire people to do all kinds of stuff. Side: Trickle Down
Like alcohol ; Like anything. These things keep people employed. So you just made my point for me. Thanks Putting money into your savings account to accumulate interest does not keep people employed, nor does investing in the stock market. Buying a helicopter or building an addition to your mansion may help help certain businesses, but it doesn't help small businesses that much, who are in the most need. I don't own a business but I do hire people to do all kinds of stuff. And you are rich? Side: Pump Prime
1
point
2
points
1
point
Like anything [being a declaration of the wont belonging to rich persons to exchange disposable income for material goods]. Not to favour this "Trickle Down" tactic, what argument can be produced against the economic implications of increased private expenditure? Putting money into your savings account to accumulate interest does not keep people employed, nor does investing in the stock market. Theoretically speaking, the more moneys that are deposited into a bank, the greater the credit available to private enterprises. Buying a helicopter or building an addition to your mansion may help help certain businesses, but it doesn't help small businesses that much We understand local contractors to constitute a small or medium business. Perhaps you might be entreated to admit that "buying a helicopter" is not a particularly accurate representation of the expenditure of the affluent? Side: Trickle Down
Not to favour this "Trickle Down" tactic, what argument can be produced against the economic implications of increased private expenditure? No one here is arguing against 'increased private expenditure', there are just different ways to go about it, and certainly concentrating wealth in the hands of the already wealthy through Government benefits (ie tax cuts) is not a good way to do that. We know this to be true, because it has been tried multiple times. Theoretically speaking, the more moneys that are deposited into a bank, the greater the credit available to private enterprises. Wherever it goes, it's going to be available to someone, but to improve economic conditions it needs to change hands more fluidly. To accomplish this, putting money in your bank is the last place you want it to go, if you want to improve the economy. We understand local contractors to constitute a small or medium business. Who is to say they are hiring local contractors? And who is "we"? Perhaps you might be entreated to admit that "buying a helicopter" is not a particularly accurate representation of the expenditure of the affluent? Perhaps not the best example, but you understand my point. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
No one here is arguing against 'increased private expenditure', there are just different ways to go about it, and certainly concentrating wealth in the hands of the already wealthy through Government benefits (ie tax cuts) is not a good way to do that. Not the point I was disputing. Your description of the spending of moneys by the rich was negative, and I was wondering what you (apparently) considered wrong with buying "things" (that being the foundation of an economy). Wherever it goes, it's going to be available to someone, but to improve economic conditions it needs to change hands more fluidly. An economy with a banking system is generally more prosperous than an economy without one. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there is a limit to the ability of "fluidity" to energise an economy. There is no way to compensate for low private expenditure with credit, but a sensible mix of both is required. To accomplish this, putting money in your bank is the last place you want it to go, if you want to improve the economy. That would depend on what is wrong with economy in question. Who is to say they are hiring local contractors? Who is to say that they are not? And why should one support a small business when another, larger business might do a better job? And vice versa? Perhaps not the best example, but you understand my point. I understand the point, but fail to see why supporting the various industries involved in the manufacture of any product (barring the obvious illegal ones) can be bad for the economy. What if nobody bought helicopters? Side: Trickle Down
Not the point I was disputing. Your description of the spending of moneys by the rich was negative, and I was wondering what you (apparently) considered wrong with buying "things" (that being the foundation of an economy). I'm not against the rich spending money, in fact I'm in favor of it. What I'm against is giving the rich extended benefits that simply are not afforded to the middle and lower classes. This only further perpetuates a system which makes it very easy for the Rich to stay rich and very difficult for those in poverty to escape thus promoting a rigid class structure. A hierarchical society. An economy with a banking system is generally more prosperous than an economy without one. Impossible to say. We would require two nearly identical economies, one with a banking system and one without and a sufficient period of time to examine them, to make such a determination. Banks exist in the most prosperous nations, because this is where they can make the most money simply by manipulating the flow of debt in their favor by providing a useful service. This is to digress from my original point. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there is a limit to the ability of "fluidity" to energise an economy. Although true, this by itself does nothing to support your notion that holding money in your bank account 'improves' the economy by any significant amount. I would posit that it is the production/refinement of natural resources and the creation of desired services that propels an economy. This and monetary fluidity are the biggest factors affecting the health of an economy. With banks, it's actually the loans that increase monetary fluidity, but if the capital is being horded by the wealthy few, this is not going to improve the conditions for the rest of society. The very nature of our economic system requires that the richer the rich get, the poorer everybody else gets. This is why the gap between the rich and the poor is growing worldwide and it will continue to do so. That would depend on what is wrong with economy in question. Not necessarily. We need not not what is wrong with a patient to know hitting them in the head with a shovel is not going to improve their condition. The only possible situation I can think of where depositing more money would improve an economy is if the banks themselves were going out of business, and I don't think giving the wealthy a tax break would do much to fix that problem. Who is to say that they are not? And why should one support a small business when another, larger business might do a better job? And vice versa? Smaller businesses have a greater propensity for spreading profit on a lower economic level. Otherwise you have profit being sucked up by the rich again, thus defeating the 'DOWN' part of the 'Trickle DOWN Theory'. As for an individual motivator of going with the smaller businesses if the Larger business can do it more cheaply, there really isn't one which is part of the reason Trickle Down theory does not work. I understand the point, but fail to see why supporting the various industries involved in the manufacture of any product (barring the obvious illegal ones) can be bad for the economy. These businesses and manufacturers will do quite fine without concentrated tax cuts for the rich. What if nobody bought helicopters? Side: Pump Prime
1
point
Impossible to say... This seems to be an affected ignorance. Without a banking system it would be virtually impossible for your beloved lower classes to start a business or buy their first house. Such would be available only to those persons already possessed of wealth; the rich. Although true, this by itself does nothing to support your notion that holding money in your bank account 'improves' the economy by any significant amount. If you consider the act of holding one's funds in the bank to be detrimental to the economy, I suggest you consider what would happen to said if all deposits were withdrawn (which is of course impossible in practice) from every bank in the country. As with all things economic a balance is required, but to repudiate the banking system entirely is patently ludicrous. I would posit that it is the production/refinement of natural resources and the creation of desired services that propels an economy. Such enterprises require capital, and without a banking system that would be very difficult to acquire. We must also remember that for an economy to grow, outside money must be brought into it. Unless you intend to have people cross the Atlantic ocean with chests of gold (because without a banking system, promissory notes and base metals do not function as currency), it behoves us to maintain a banking system. With banks, it's actually the loans that increase monetary fluidity, but if the capital is being horded by the wealthy few, this is not going to improve the conditions for the rest of society. That is pure ignorance of how a bank works. If the money wasn't "hoarded" (or deposited, as I like to say), the bank couldn't lend. Again, we encounter the niggling "balance". Not necessarily. We need not not what is wrong with a patient to know hitting them in the head with a shovel is not going to improve their condition. So it is your opinion that one should never, under any circumstances, place one's money in a bank? The only possible situation I can think of where depositing more money would improve an economy is if the banks themselves were going out of business, and I don't think giving the wealthy a tax break would do much to fix that problem. I'm uncertain as to what you contrive to accomplish with this point. You have provided a scenario in which depositing money would help an economy, defeating your last point, and then used that to defeat a solution which I neither advocated nor proposed. Smaller businesses have a greater propensity for spreading profit on a lower economic level. Otherwise you have profit being sucked up by the rich again, thus defeating the 'DOWN' part of the 'Trickle DOWN Theory'. I honestly couldn't care less about the size of the business one deals with, or the effects. The aim is to support the business which provides the best service. Regardless of that, you speak as though small businesses are motivated by anything other than wealth. As for an individual motivator of going with the smaller businesses if the Larger business can do it more cheaply, there really isn't one which is part of the reason Trickle Down theory does not work. Who mentioned that? And why do you still attempt to defeat a system which obviously doesn't function, when regarded with some degree of sanity? These businesses and manufacturers will do quite fine without concentrated tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts are irrelevant. I wanted to know why buying a helicopter was any worse than buying a garden table, or a pencil. If anything, it is the direct opposite of the hoarding which is so abhorrent to you. What if nobody bought helicopters? Then jobs would likely be lost in every business involved in the construction and sale thereof. Side: Neither
This seems to be an affected ignorance. Without a banking system it would be virtually impossible for your beloved lower classes to start a business or buy their first house. Such would be available only to those persons already possessed of wealth; the rich. The lower class is much more likely to rent, and when they do buy a home, as this failing economy has shown us, they are often unable to make their payments and sink far into debt. So some people are able to improve their situation using loans, but many people get in an even worse situation. Most Americans are spending more than they can afford to spend. The average debt load for every American is $43,874, and nearly 70% of that is from mortgages alone. While the United States provides a particularly good example, this is happening almost everywhere. WORLD DEBT: http://www.economist.com/content/ If you consider the act of holding one's funds in the bank to be detrimental to the economy, I suggest you consider what would happen to said if all deposits were withdrawn (which is of course impossible in practice) from every bank in the country. No. That is not what I said. What I said is that the money the Rich will gain from a tax cut, if put directly into a bank account is not going to improve the economy. Remember that the government is actually losing money by granting such a tax cut, so for this tax cut to be beneficial to the economy, it would have to spur more economic activity than it would cost to institute such a tax cut. Remember the context of the debate... Such enterprises require capital, and without a banking system that would be very difficult to acquire Banks do not create capital, they simply manipulate the flow of it. Yes, Banks provide opportunity to start new enterprises. The purpose is not to criticize banks, but to criticize tax cuts for the rich. That is pure ignorance of how a bank works. If the money wasn't "hoarded" (or deposited, as I like to say), the bank couldn't lend. Again, we encounter the niggling "balance". Yes, but for someone to have more someone else must have less. This is the most fundamental of all economic principals. Look at it this way: -->Tax cut for the Rich= Guaranteed (no risk) -->Being able to make mortgage payments= Not Guaranteed (risky) There is only a finite amount of wealth at any given time, so who is most likely going to benefiting from this? So it is your opinion that one should never, under any circumstances, place one's money in a bank? I never said that. I'm uncertain as to what you contrive to accomplish with this point. You have provided a scenario in which depositing money would help an economy, defeating your last point, and then used that to defeat a solution which I neither advocated nor proposed. {Sigh} You need to keep the context of the debate in mind. As I have stated over and over again...this is all in reference to Tax cuts for the Rich. If you continue to ignore the context of the debate then of course the arguments aren't going to make sense to you. My point is not to say that saving money is bad, or that the rich buying expensive things is bad. Only that as a result of a tax cut for the wealthy, these things are not going to help the economy significantly, if at all. As I have stated before, the tax cut means a great loss of revenue for the government so the economic benefit would have to exceed the cost. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
The lower class is much more likely to rent, and when they do buy a home, as this failing economy has shown us, they are often unable to make their payments and sink far into debt. Yes, and cars are very convenient, but they occasionally collide with people at great speed. I believe the general sentiment is that when it works, the benefits of a banking system far outweigh the costs. So some people are able to improve their situation using loans, but many people get in an even worse situation. While I have been unable to find the exact figures, I do not dispute this. The material point, however, is that without bank lending modern business would be nigh impossible, and economies would be left worse than they are. That is no excuse for the lack of political initiative we have observed, however. It would appear to any rational mind that as the banks have been recapitalized by public moneys, it is reasonable to assume that they don't need to be repaid privately. In other words, give them the money, but make them cut $100,000 or so from every mortgage in the nation. But of course we could never do that; it would be far too sensible! No. That is not what I said. What I said is that the money the Rich will gain from a tax cut, if put directly into a bank account is not going to improve the economy. I have never favoured the tax cut, never said I favoured it or said anything which could be construed as a direct support for it. By the near guess of memory I have attempted to defend the worthiness of a modern banking system and the economic implications of purchasing expensive items which require the efforts of a great many industrious persons to produce. So it would behove you to stop harking to the context of the debate, which is an unfortunately narrow-minded view of the problem, forasmuch as it is concerned with two solutions, neither of which actually work. Remember that the government is actually losing money by granting such a tax cut, so for this tax cut to be beneficial to the economy, it would have to spur more economic activity than it would cost to institute such a tax cut. Correct, but the economic role of the government is first and foremost to create a good environment for the generation of wealth. As the object of both programs here discussed is the improvement of economic conditions, your point is somewhat redundant. Remember the context of the debate... Is that ellipsis supposed to frighten me? Banks do not create capital, they simply manipulate the flow of it. Yes, Banks provide opportunity to start new enterprises. The purpose is not to criticize banks, but to criticize tax cuts for the rich. And yet you have criticized banks, particularly the number of people who are currently indebted to them. And as I have already said, I have never favoured the trickle-down system. Yes, but for someone to have more someone else must have less. This is the most fundamental of all economic principals. That is correct. I never said that. Then perhaps you should say only whatever it is you mean to say. That tax-breaks for the rich don't work is obvious, and mainly for the reasons you have described, but don't turn that into a vilification a banking or capitalism. {Sigh} Is that a possible value for a misplaced variable or where you looking for these "[]"? You need to keep the context of the debate in mind. As I have stated over and over again...this is all in reference to Tax cuts for the Rich. If you continue to ignore the context of the debate then of course the arguments aren't going to make sense to you. What puzzles me is why you keep regarding the context at all when my points didn't even address it. Side: Neither
Yes, and cars are very convenient, but they occasionally collide with people at great speed. I believe the general sentiment is that when it works, the benefits of a banking system far outweigh the costs. And that very well might be the general sentiment, it might even be true, but it's not true when the banking system is being abused. Again this is not central or even all that important to my point. My point being, that Trickle Down theory doesn't work. The material point, however, is that without bank lending modern business would be nigh impossible, and economies would be left worse than they are. In most instances this would be true, but as I previously stated not when such a system is abused. The national debt of my country exceeds It's GDP. This is a problem with the banking system, something which needs to be fixed. So it is true that the banks certainly deserve criticism, at least the way they are run. I would never advocate the total elimination of banks entirely unless there was some economic mechanism to fulfill the same role. In other words, give them the money, but make them cut $100,000 or so from every mortgage in the nation. But of course we could never do that; it would be far too sensible! I would not be opposed to that, but don't you think it's a little late to dictate the terms of a deal which has already come to pass? economic implications of purchasing expensive items which require the efforts of a great many industrious persons to produce. Yes, and you must understand the crucial difference between purchasing expensive items as the result of a tax cut for the rich and purchasing expensive items under normal circumstances. Do not conflate the two. This is why I must hark at the context of the debate, without the context the argument doesn't work. I have not once stated, nor argued, nor implied that purchasing expensive goods or services hurts the economy. If this is what you have derided from my statements then you have misread my statements. Context is critical! an unfortunately narrow-minded view of the problem, forasmuch as it is concerned with two solutions, neither of which actually work. In this sense we can agree. Pump prime and Trickle down are not the only two methods in bettering an economy. Correct, but the economic role of the government is first and foremost to create a good environment for the generation of wealth. As the object of both programs here discussed is the improvement of economic conditions, your point is somewhat redundant. No it's not. I have never said that Pump prime is the best method. The exigent difference is that Trickle Down actually perpetuates classism, which is detrimental to a democratic society. Is that ellipsis supposed to frighten me? No. If an ellipsis frightens you, I can only imagine what a semi-colon would do! And yet you have criticized banks, particularly the number of people who are currently indebted to them. Correct. Then perhaps you should say only whatever it is you mean to say. That tax-breaks for the rich don't work is obvious, and mainly for the reasons you have described, but don't turn that into a vilification a banking or capitalism. I have. Trickle Down Theory does not work. Not only does it not work, it promotes classism. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
And that very well might be the general sentiment I care very little for the general sentiment. it might even be true, but it's not true when the banking system is being abused. Your overall point is that the banking system doesn't work as intended when it is abused? Nothing works as intended when it is abused. My point being, that Trickle Down theory doesn't work. I haven't contested that. I have in fact done quite the reverse, quite unambiguously. In most instances this would be true, but as I previously stated not when such a system is abused. And an aeroplane is an expeditious and safe mode of transport betwixt two points; until it is used to destroy a building. The national debt of my country exceeds It's GDP. I am aware of this. It is quite a joke in Europe. We were particularly amused to hear that your Times Square debt clock ran out of digits. This is a problem with the banking system, something which needs to be fixed. So it is true that the banks certainly deserve criticism, at least the way they are run. The worst excesses of a system's misuse are no grounds upon which to call into question the efficacy of the system. I would not be opposed to that, but don't you think it's a little late to dictate the terms of a deal which has already come to pass? It's a little late for this entire discussion. Yes, and you must understand the crucial difference between purchasing expensive items as the result of a tax cut for the rich and purchasing expensive items under normal circumstances. The tax cut hadn't even entered into my mind when I asked the question. It's an incredibly naive belief to entertain, that increasing the wealth of the rich could possibly benefit the poor. Of course, the entire tax system needs to be reformed. The government should control 40% of a nation's wealth and not a penny more. The maximum percentage that should be paid by anyone is 47%. Yet for some reason governments contrive incessantly to increase their own wealth. It seems ludicrous to believe that taking more and more money out of the private sector can benefit the economy as a whole. This is why I must hark at the context of the debate, without the context the argument doesn't work. My original question was out of context, so our arguments have been incoherent (I had to excise a "slightly" there - as if there were levels of coherence!). For this, my apologies. If this is what you have derided from my statements then you have misread my statements. I have tried to avoid deriding anything you say, on account of the extraordinary esteem I hold you in. Mocking aside, I fear you may be correct in your criticism of my derivations. In this sense we can agree. Pump prime and Trickle down are not the only two methods in bettering an economy. Would that the means of bettering those in control of it were so multifarious. No it's not. I'm afraid that saying "for this tax cut to be beneficial to the economy, it would have to spur more economic activity than it would cost to institute such a tax cut." is quite redundant, when we consider that such is the stated aim of the Trickle-Down system. Back to my aeroplanes: "For an aeroplane to fly, the force accelerating its mass upward must be greater than or equal to the force contriving to push it down". That is an equivalent redundancy, when said in a debate concerning possible methods of flight. I have never said that Pump prime is the best method. I implied nothing of the sort. The exigent difference is that Trickle Down actually perpetuates classism, which is detrimental to a democratic society. I'd say its about as detrimental to any other form of society. If an ellipsis frightens you, I can only imagine what a semi-colon would do! We do not speak that name! Trickle Down Theory does not work. Indeed not. Not only does it not work, it promotes classism. Also correct. Side: Neither
It appears to me that whatever disagreement it appeared we had was simply illusory. We agree that trickle down doesn't work. We agree that it perpetuates classism. We agree that classism is detrimental. We agree that buying expensive items will not hurt the economy nor will depositing money into a bank account. We agree that eliminating the banking system entirely would be harmful. We agree that trickle down and Pump priming are not the best solutions to our economic woes. The only real difference seems to be a difference of attitude towards banks and/or Capitalism. I see them both as necessary evils, which need to be regulated until we can find something better. Side: Pump Prime
Tax Breaks for the POOR? the poor do not get tax breaks, because they pay NO taxes!! are you aware that 49% of americans DO NOT pay taxes AT ALL!! the other 50% cover 100% of the tax burden with the "rich" paying 90% of that! middle class covers 10% so if you make "everyone poor" who is going to pay for your foodstamps? healthcare? welfare? Get a clue, and read a book or something, stop watching MSNBC. Its wonderful how the government can brainwash everyone against the "rich" and in doing so avert the attention from themselves, who keep getting richer and richer off of the backs of the hard working americans. I love how our liberal politicians complain about the "rich" not paying while they themselves are dodging their own tax obligations. Side: Trickle Down
Tax Breaks for the POOR? the poor do not get tax breaks, because they pay NO taxes!! are you aware that 49% of americans DO NOT pay taxes AT ALL!! Sorry, you need to check your sources, friend. The figure is 47% of households, that do not pay any Federal Income tax, either because they do not make enough or because they have already paid into the system and the credits they receive are greater than what they would pay in taxes, as a result of a new and temporary act of congress. This of course is still ignoring EVERY OTHER TAX. middle class covers 10% so if you make "everyone poor" who is going to pay for your foodstamps? healthcare? I never suggested making "everyone poor". I suggested not giving the rich even more money, which seems like a reasonable statement. welfare? Get a clue, and read a book or something, stop watching MSNBC. I don't watch MSNBC but I'd be willing to bet that you got this information from Fox News... Its wonderful how the government can brainwash everyone against the "rich" and in doing so avert the attention from themselves, who keep getting richer and richer off of the backs of the hard working americans Or how they can brainwash people into thinking that we should give the rich even more money. What makes you think the Rich are any harder working than the middle and lower classes? So one person can work a 12 hour day and barely make enough to get by and another person can work a 12 hour day and make millions? Generally I'll say, Rich people are better at handling money, but that doesn't make them harder workers. In fact, you don't find very many Rich folks working two full-time jobs. Of course there are lazy poor people, but there are also a lot of hard working poor people as well, who are simply too uneducated, too mentally or physically impaired. Most people who are poor come from very poor families. The system is stacked against them. Side: Pump Prime
So you believe that there is a point where someone has made "too much money", at what point is that? I am not a millionaire, billionaire or anything of the like, but I do know what it is like to work 15 hours a day 7 days a week to make a business prosper. But everytime i turn around there is a new tax, or a lawsuit that raises prices on products in order to "redistribute". I am tired of the "nancy pelosi's" of the world preaching that you should do what you love and not have to worry about healthcare or you shouldnt be punished because the line of work you love doesnt make as much money as someone else, I LOVE laying on my couch! Should you have to give 40% of your income to me so i can do what I love? Whenever you create an entitlement society, you create abuse, this makes it harder for those who are UNABLE to get aid and easier for those who are not UNWILLING to work. As for the millionaire, did you follow in his footsteps over the years to see what he gave up to get there? It is not up to an individual to determine how much is too much. And yes I proudly watch FOX news occasionally, but most of my information comes from books, I can recommend a few if you wish. So in summary, yes there are the "greedy" rich and there are the "gimme me more" poor, and you will never get away from that with the system you propose. Most love to be charitable until you tell them you HAVE to give, and you will create people who will take and take the free stuff and only want more. An example, I have always been a very generous person, but when the Haiti earthquake happened, and our President came out and immediately stated we would send billions and billions even though we dont have it, I watched the commericals urging me to donate and decided that my tax increase i would be facing because of this outrageous spending would be enough so i did not give privately. And what happened to all that money the government and private entities gave? No one is really sure, since those people are not living like the just got billions poured on to them. Side: Trickle Down
So you believe that there is a point where someone has made "too much money", at what point is that? When your doghouse costs more than most people's actual house. I am not a millionaire, billionaire or anything of the like, but I do know what it is like to work 15 hours a day 7 days a week to make a business prosper. Kind of supports my point that the Rich are not the hardest working people. But everytime i turn around there is a new tax, or a lawsuit that raises prices on products in order to "redistribute". I am tired of the "nancy pelosi's" of the world preaching that you should do what you love and not have to worry about healthcare or you shouldnt be punished because the line of work you love doesnt make as much money as someone else If you ask me, I think small businesses should get every reasonable advantage. As for the millionaire, did you follow in his footsteps over the years to see what he gave up to get there? Did you? Did you follow the footsteps of the nurse who went to college to help people but is working 12 hour days and is barely making ends meet? How can you say the rich are harder working than the middle and lower classes? And yes I proudly watch FOX news... Funny that you say this, because you accuse me of watching MSNBC, which I don't. most of my information comes from books, I can recommend a few if you wish. Not books written by political pundits, I hope. So in summary, yes there are the "greedy" rich and there are the "gimme me more" poor, and you will never get away from that with the system you propose. Most love to be charitable until you tell them you HAVE to give, and you will create people who will take and take the free stuff and only want more I think there is a difference between forcing people to donate to charity, and using tax money to help the poor. Of course, I like any reasonable person, see the problem with giving unemployment checks. It removes the motivation to get a job, but we should not forsake our fellow citizens. I do not mind giving to those who really need it. also you ignore this: Sorry, you need to check your sources, friend. The figure is 47% of households, that do not pay any Federal Income tax, either because they do not make enough or because they have already paid into the system and the credits they receive are greater than what they would pay in taxes, as a result of a new and temporary act of congress. This of course is still ignoring EVERY OTHER TAX. Side: Pump Prime
So your dog house comments tells me that you DO think you should cap income for people. Ok. good starting point. Do you also think that government should make more money off your hard work than you do? I own a bar/pizza place, last year, the government made four times what i took home on taxes, and fees. Is that fair? Do you think that had I been able to keep some of that money I wouldnt have hired people so I didnt HAVE to work seven days a week? I think the point you are missing here is that the "rich" are not the only ones getting the shaft with these policies and the tax code. So maybe youre right, but I am a little defensive of the "rich" because I can only imagine how hard they had to work to get there. And you are right, some didnt work very hard, i.e. inheritence, etc..but this is America, you cannot pick and choose who you want to villianize and who you want to praise, we would be a totally different country at that point, you think corruption is bad now, try that theory. So when you say that you think small business should get every reasonable advantage, I agree, but it is not working that way in reality. I assumed MSNBC because you seemed to have their talking points down pat...I do follow all forms of news, even liberal. And no books by political pundits, I have read a few, but those arent the ones I would recommend to you :) Next point: there is no difference forcing people to donate to charity and forcing people to pay higher taxes in an effort to redistribute and cover entitlements. AND we totally agree on one thing! Unemployment! I think the major problem with these entitlements are the ease at which it is gained, you dont even have to go into the office anymore, just make a call, those who really needed it would go the extra effort, those who do not would not. The stories were rampant this year about ppl who refused to take a job paying less than their unemployment. If their line of work is gone, and some ppl's are, then a lifestyle change is in order to compensate, not a tax increase from me for them to maintain that lifestyle, meanwhile changing mine. I ignored your tax statement because I stand by my statement. And you basically agreed, you say "households" i say People is that the difference, you are wanting me to conceed? because i think that all those in that household are voters even if they file their taxes together. As far as ignoring every other tax, i can only assume you mean real estate? or sales tax? Side: Trickle Down
So your dog house comments tells me that you DO think you should cap income for people. Ok. good starting point I will say this. I do not think people should be living in great excess, while others live in squalor. Nor do I think this huge gap between rich and poor is merely the result of differing work ethics, in fact I KNOW this gap is not due solely to differing work ethics. But I do not think simply capping incomes would solve the system, there are many factors which contribute to this problem which need to be addressed. Do you also think that government should make more money off your hard work than you do? I own a bar/pizza place, last year, the government made four times what i took home on taxes, and fees. Is that fair? I do not think politicians should be living any better than the people running such businesses, no. The role of government should be to simply utilize taxes to repair roads, fund schools, fund emergency services etc...The government should be taking only what it needs to run efficiently. So maybe youre right, but I am a little defensive of the "rich" because I can only imagine how hard they had to work to get there. And you are right, some didnt work very hard, i.e. inheritence, etc..but this is America, you cannot pick and choose who you want to villianize and who you want to praise Of course I can. But this isn't about "villianizing" anybody. There are many factors that give the rich an inherent advantage over the poor. For instance, if you have enough funds in your bank account you could live off of the interest alone, without contributing absolutely anything to society. This is just one of many examples, I could literally write a book on all of the mechanisms that keep poor people poor, and keep the rich rich...and I probably will. Of course it's possible to transcend classes with a little bit of smarts. One thing is clear, everybody is not starting from the same starting gates. Next point: there is no difference forcing people to donate to charity and forcing people to pay higher taxes in an effort to redistribute and cover entitlements. Would you feel the same, if your taxes did not increase? If their line of work is gone, and some ppl's are, then a lifestyle change is in order to compensate, not a tax increase from me for them to maintain that lifestyle, meanwhile changing mine. I do not think expecting a lifestyle change is a practical solution. If many people are acting the same way in response to the same stimuli, then we must conclude that their response is the natural response to a given stimuli. To change behavior you need to change the stimuli. by "all other taxes" I mean every tax except federal income tax. And there are a lot of them. Side: Pump Prime
Well first let me start by telling you how much I have enjoyed our exchange. I dont think we disagree totally, I just think our conflict comes from how to achieve the results. 1. I am not sure if maybe we are arguing different positions. I am never against helping those who are unable, or opressed, i am against helping those who are "unwilling". I could site several examples of this from personal experience, I will give you one: A friend of mine passed away at an early age, she was 23, left behind a husband and two children. He now collects $1500.00 a month for the two minor children thru Social Security, money which the mother NEVER paid in, because she only worked for four years before passing. Now, knowing this, and keeping in mind he is an able bodied male who could support his own kids, do you think he works? NO! why should he? he can stay home and collect $1500 to do NOTHING! These are the people I have a problem with, these are the people that are driving up taxes. 2. We agree totally on this point, yet you do not mention entitlements as being the responsibility of government, which is where we disagree. All those listed by you i definately agree with, the problem is that the funds being collected for those things are being gobbled up by entitlements and therefore our schools and such are suffering, some areas of the country are now charging fees in addition to the taxes you pay for emergency services, again, because the lock box has been robbed for other things. 3. Keep in mind that government regulations, red tape, lawsuits, licensing, etc are making it very impossible for the next Thomas Edison to emerge. The poor and down on their luck may have a great idea, but would never be able to tackle the red tape required to be able to build and market their ideas. So the rich do keep getting richer. Government decries the rich, until they have control over them, then they coddle them and make it easier for them and harder for their comeptition (i.e. GE, GM). 4. Would I feel the same if my taxes did not increase? Well that would not be possible, unless money starting magically appearing (printing press) to cover the waste and abuse of tax money, which would in turn make the dollar worthless, so my answer is yes? i would feel the same. As a side note, those "poor" are suffering as well, with inflation that is being created to keep their entitlements going and any xtra burden/taxes on businesses because this cost only gets passed down to the consumer. And if you think that would be any different if governemnt were in control of business, look at how many times they have raised postage in the last four years. 5. How can you say that someone should not have to change their lifestyle if their circumstances change? So if i can no longer afford my house, internet, cellphone, cable, I should go to the government and request a hand out to keep these luxuries? Or should I sell my house, downgrade, cancel my cellphone, internet, cable and stop eating out? We have forgotten what are the necessities, heat, health, clothing, food, I would help anyone who needed these things as long as they didnt text, cellphone or email me to ask. We are losing site of who is truly in need in our country, now anyone who cant pay their car payment bill is in need. Is the doctor who saved your life important any more? or just skip out on the bill? Trust me this is coming from someone with experience! I have been in the position of hand washing my kids clothes because I didnt have money for the laundry mat, we ate Aldi soup and Mac and Cheese, and I never went for a hand out, I got a second job. We came out of it due to hard work, and my kids and I are better people for having lived it. And i have raised kids that WILL cancel their cellphones, internet, cable if needed to pay for their health insurance, heat, clothing and food. Trust me, I feel bad for the single mom/dad who cant afford to pay daycare in order to make a living, I DO NOT feel sorry for the guy/girl who wont take a job paying $10 an hour because they make more money on unemployment, unemployment is not a job! Our Priorities are severly distorted. Side: Trickle Down
A friend of mine passed away at an early age, she was 23, left behind a husband and two children. He now collects $1500.00 a month for the two minor children thru Social Security, money which the mother NEVER paid in, because she only worked for four years before passing. Now, knowing this, and keeping in mind he is an able bodied male who could support his own kids, do you think he works? NO! why should he? he can stay home and collect $1500 to do NOTHING! These are the people I have a problem with, these are the people that are driving up taxes. Just wanted to chime in to say that I don't see how this is motivation for most people to stop working. Have you ever lived on a mere 1500 dollars a month, while supporting two children? If he is doing this, he must severely lack ambition. It's not a blessed life. Most apartments cost more than 500 dollars a month, so that's less than 250 dollars a week to pay for food, school, transportation, utilities, and health. I can hardly imagine planning a life on such a budget with two others to feed. I've had to live on 50 to 70 dollars a month but I was lucky to have the rent and utilities covered, and I didn't have others to feed and care fore, in addition to medicine, etc. Side: Pump Prime
1. I am not sure if maybe we are arguing different positions. I am never against helping those who are unable, or opressed, i am against helping those who are "unwilling" Yet in practice it's not so easy distinguishing the two. If you know of a way to help only those who need it, and not those who simply abuse the system, then I would be in favor of that. In most cases it's really hard tell who really needs help and who is simply looking for a handout. We agree totally on this point, yet you do not mention entitlements as being the responsibility of government, which is where we disagree. All those listed by you i definately agree with, the problem is that the funds being collected for those things are being gobbled up by entitlements and therefore our schools and such are suffering, some areas of the country are now charging fees in addition to the taxes you pay for emergency services, again, because the lock box has been robbed for other things. Entitlements such as what? Medicaid? Medicare? You don't seem to include public education as an entitlement. Please elaborate on what precisely you mean by "entitlements". Keep in mind that government regulations, red tape, lawsuits, licensing, etc are making it very impossible for the next Thomas Edison to emerge. The poor and down on their luck may have a great idea, but would never be able to tackle the red tape required to be able to build and market their ideas. So the rich do keep getting richer. Government decries the rich, until they have control over them, then they coddle them and make it easier for them and harder for their comeptition (i.e. GE, GM). What exactly is it that you're saying? "Red tape" is a pretty broad term. Would I feel the same if my taxes did not increase? Well that would not be possible I didn't ask if it was possible, I asked if you would feel the same way. How can you say that someone should not have to change their lifestyle if their circumstances change? It's not a matter of what they "should" do, it's a matter of what they "will" do. You can expect someone to change their lifestyle until the moon turns red, but that doesn't mean they are going to. Trust me, I feel bad for the single mom/dad who cant afford to pay daycare in order to make a living, I DO NOT feel sorry for the guy/girl who wont take a job paying $10 an hour because they make more money on unemployment, unemployment is not a job! Like I said before: Yet in practice it's not so easy distinguishing the two. If you know of a way to help only those who need it, and not those who simply abuse the system, then I would be in favor of that. Side: Pump Prime
You are telling me that we have sent men to the moon yet we cannot figure out a way to determine who is and who is not gaming the system? I am not saying I am an expert at figuring this out, somone out there smarter than me must have ideas, Policies that have made it easier to game the system, have not helped. What entitlements i am talking about? There are many I will not waste your time naming them all, but how about the commericals that are currently being run for "government subsidized cell phones" Or three years of unemployment? I currently have a part time employee that refuses to work more than 18 hours per week because he would be unable to continue to collect his unemployment that he has been collecting for THREE YEARS! even though I could give him more hours, or considering the fact that he has not even tried to look for a job. And before you argue the fact that he may not make "as much" money working for me as he collects on unemployment, let me also state that he is "letting" his duplex go into foreclosure and is still collecting rent from his tennant and putting it in his pocket, he figures he has atleast 6-8 months of collecting before the bank takes over, and he is proud of this, not even making an attempt at paying his mortgage with the tennants money. When it comes to Unemployment, people have the misconception that they "paid in" this money, therefore should be able to collect it, this couldnt be farther from the truth. Public education? that's a can of worms that should be left to another debate. Give me back my taxes I pay and I will send my kids to private school. Not so sure I would call this an "entitlement" for most. yes Red Tape is a broad term, try to open and run a business these days, you will find out what a tangled web they weave, atleast in my state. And i did answer the question regarding if i would feel the same if i did not have to pay taxes...my answer was yes. Side: Trickle Down
You are telling me that we have sent men to the moon yet we cannot figure out a way to determine who is and who is not gaming the system? For the most part, yes. There are many I will not waste your time naming them all, but how about the commericals that are currently being run for "government subsidized cell phones" No I have not seen the commercials. Do you consider subsidies to be an entitlement? It almost sounds as if any spending you deem wasteful to be an entitlement. Which would make your argument that entitlements are wasteful a tautology. Public education? that's a can of worms that should be left to another debate. Give me back my taxes I pay and I will send my kids to private school. Not so sure I would call this an "entitlement" for most. I dislike private schools simply because those with more money have greater educational opportunities. yes Red Tape is a broad term, try to open and run a business these days, you will find out what a tangled web they weave, atleast in my state. Red tape is one of those things just about everybody dislikes, but when pressed with what should be changed about it nobody seems to have any idea. Many procedures which look like they serve no purpose actually do, so there is always a benefit and a cost with eliminating it. And i did answer the question regarding if i would feel the same if i did not have to pay taxes...my answer was yes. So despite the fact that we eliminate the primary reason you would feel that, and you still feel the same makes me wonder. If not for that reason, why are you be opposed to government charity for the poor and disabled? Side: Pump Prime
So you dont consider something that is a luxury to most as being an entitlement to those who get it for free but dont "need" it. Our basic needs to survive being food, clothing, heat and shelter now should include cell phones? why because someone else has them and that's not fair? i really wish I had central vac, couldnt afford it, can we raise taxes so I can have it? Basically what I am saying is our central government, which cannot determine who is or isnt gaming the system because they are too far removed from the community to know who is in need, and can therefore be easily played, should only be focusing on safety, defense and infastructure, I dont think cell phones and "coming soon" subsidized internet, should be their main concern. And I have explained in detail that I am not opposed to "charity" for the poor and disabled, but since you and I are even unable to agree, it is obvious over time the definition of charity is being changed. Side: Trickle Down
I understand, I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you mean by "entitlements". The only real distinction I see between public services and entitlements is that entitlements are things you think are unnecessary. In the most traditional sense welfare, medicare, and medicaid are generally considered entitlements. But you seem to expand the definition to include certain subsidies and other services. So it's not clear exactly what you mean by entitlements. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
In fact, you don't find very many Rich folks working two full-time jobs. Why is it that in popular imagination the only form of work meriting praise is hard labour? It might be wise to disclaim that I do not consider pure capitalism to be the most efficient economic system &c;. Side: Trickle Down
Why is it that in popular imagination the only form of work meriting praise is hard labour? I don't know that it is, but it was the subject of this debate. Someone makes the claim that the wealthy have universally worked hard to get to the point where they are, I was simply providing a counter example. It might be wise to disclaim that I do not consider pure capitalism to be the most efficient economic system Then we are in agreement. Side: Pump Prime
Trickle Down is more effective than Priming the Pump. Priming the Pump has never worked and it has been tried many times ex. FDR, Obama, and probably others. Trickle down as far as I know did not work the one time it was tried. But consider this what if we did neither but simply did this. Decrease spending and slightly increase taxes on the rich. They can obviously handle it. I understand many of the rich earned it shouldn't tax them too much. But as much as I hate compromise. Spending more doesn't reduce debt or help the economy. No one is willing to simply cut taxes because its quote "unfair to the poor" so we compromise and something actually gets done. Side: Trickle Down
Trickle Down is more effective than Priming the Pump. Priming the Pump has never worked and it has been tried many times ex. FDR, Obama, and probably others. The same could be said for Trickle Down theory, which has also been tried many times and has also never worked. Side: Pump Prime
I understand many of the rich earned it shouldn't tax them too much. Whether or not it was earned has nothing to do with it. When you don't heavily tax the rich, you allow a small fraction of the population to both concentrate wealth, AND the power that comes with wealth. A small fraction of the population should not have political voices hundreds or even thousands of times louder than the rest of us. This is a democracy, not a plutocracy. Side: Pump Prime
2
points
Actually, assuming that the rich possess an unattainable status is completely false. Steve Jobs, Steve Wynn, Mark Zuckerberg (to name the more well-known examples), in addition to thousands of others, many of whom did not become billionaires but still affluent, have risen up to earn that status. It is far less likely to become this affluent in a system with higher taxation. Indeed, these people have created companies that have created millions of jobs. A system that provides all with equal opportunity is vastly superior to one that limits innovation and achievement. Side: Trickle Down
But if you put heavy taxes on the rich for this reason, you're punishing them for making good choices and working toward that wealth. If you cut taxes (or leave them alone) to the wealthy, they're much more likely to put that money to something useful than giving it freely to the poor. If you constantly give money to the poor it takes away their motivation. Why should they try and get their own money when they're being given money for doing nothing? If they stay poor, they keep getting handouts! Side: Trickle Down
But if you put heavy taxes on the rich for this reason, you're punishing them for making good choices and working toward that wealth. No you aren't. You're preventing them from gaining personal power which can undermine free society. People do not need to own multiple mansions and armadas of limousines in order to feel purpose and satisfaction. When you simply let people horde wealth, you invite power into the hands of a very small minority, and then everyone else's voice becomes muted. How does it feel being able to only vote for a democrat or republican president? The majority of people are not truly satisfied with either, but the wealthy have given us this choice because their voice, that of mass media especially, is much louder than ours. We are fed opinions by them and led by the nose into decisions which are against our interests. If you cut taxes (or leave them alone) to the wealthy, they're much more likely to put that money to something useful than giving it freely to the poor. That money becomes squandered on political campaigns, public relations propaganda designed to silence criticism and critical inquiry, advertisements, lobbying, and the personal extravagances of that lifestyle. You probably believe quite honestly that whatever immediate bad things happen due to the excesses of the wealthy, it is for the greater good in the long term. It isn't. It's a constant cycle of self-interest and greed, with no long-term vision. If you constantly give money to the poor it takes away their motivation. One might say the same thing of the serfs in the feudal days of Europe. Why give men the freedom to own land and read and learn? It will just take away their motivation to earn a good afterlife. The reason we seek to give more to the poor is two-fold. The first is that as our society stands, most of us are not capable of living to our full potential, instead we spend our lives for someone else struggling out of debt, and remain ignorant and simple. The second is that a society where everyone is capable of seeking out their potential is a richer society. Instead of a population of bigots who think that Obama is a secret Muslim and the Earth is 6000 years old, we could have a nation of men and women who read, who do not live in fear of hell, and are not easily led by the radio. People will always seek to have more of something, that is their nature. This is about making our society healthier. Why should they try and get their own money when they're being given money for doing nothing? If they stay poor, they keep getting handouts! It is not an enviable life, or one that most people would want to live. You need to think your argument through before you state it. Poverty is a miserable life. Side: Pump Prime
You probably believe quite honestly that whatever immediate bad things happen due to the excesses of the wealthy, it is for the greater good in the long term. And you probably believe quite honestly that whatever immediate bad things happen due to the excesses of the government, it is for the greater good in the long term. The result I see from having rich people is around $300 billion a year given to charities by the American People. I can almost guarantee that most of that money didn't come from the working class. And charities are far more effective at getting things done than governments (especially our government) are. we could have a nation of men and women who read, who do not live in fear of hell Due to our free education system, there really is no reason people shouldn't be learning how to read. As for Hell, the idea of hell was created a long, long time ago as a way of controlling people through fear. The Bible does not support it. I could give you sources, but this is neither here nor there for this argument. It is not an enviable life, or one that most people would want to live. You need to think your argument through before you state it. Poverty is a miserable life. And yet, we see the street beggars (who get an average of around $20,000 a year) who never change, and people having kids so they can live in mansions on welfare (yes, this actually happened--they were getting free food from a government program and one of my friends handed it to them in their mansion, them an their 11 kids). I know that's not real poverty, but that's what our government is doing instead of actually fixing the problem. You can't just throw money at something and hope it goes away. Side: Trickle Down
And you probably believe quite honestly that whatever immediate bad things happen due to the excesses of the government, it is for the greater good in the long term. You think you're spinning this against me, but you're not. That isn't my position. The result I see from having rich people is around $300 billion a year given to charities by the American People. I can almost guarantee that most of that money didn't come from the working class. And charities are far more effective at getting things done than governments (especially our government) are. That's really nothing compared to how much the wealthy actually own. It's almost like if you gave a twenty dollar bill to a pan-handler. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/ Jump to "The Wealth Distribution." How does it feel to own about 1/185th the net worth of your rich neighbor? Or, in terms of financial wealth, 1/488th their wealth? Sure, that's a lot of wealth to invest into business but it also means that they will be investing it into politics as well. In a democracy where everyone is supposed to have an equal voice, an equal vote, it means that for every dollar you invest in a political idea or reform bill, they are investing 488 dollars (or more, since it's easier for them to make investments which return losses). Now, they're only 1% of the population, right? Maybe they need a disproportionate voice in their favour to balance things out? Well, if that's the case, in terms of proportion they have over 6 times your voice (488x your financial wealth, divided by 80, the number of times your income bracket outnumbers their own). Any way you look at it, there is nothing fair about giving so much power in the hands of so few people. Due to our free education system, there really is no reason people shouldn't be learning how to read. As for Hell, the idea of hell was created a long, long time ago as a way of controlling people through fear. The Bible does not support it. I could give you sources, but this is neither here nor there for this argument. It's not about whether they can read, it's about most people these days being so busy, overworked, and kept in fear that they can never just sit down and crack open a novel. That was the point I was trying to make. We keep our workers in fear and mentally pliable so they vote based on bellyfeel. And yet, we see the street beggars (who get an average of around $20,000 a year) who never change, and people having kids so they can live in mansions on welfare (yes, this actually happened--they were getting free food from a government program and one of my friends handed it to them in their mansion, them an their 11 kids). I know that's not real poverty, but that's what our government is doing instead of actually fixing the problem. Some people live in voluntary poverty. Others live as nomads. Some people have children in excess of ten. You cannot represent a population based on the oddballs and rarities. The general rule is that poverty is miserable for most people, the rich live in opulent luxury, and the middle class is sheltered. If your concerns were a major problem we should expect to see most of the working class living on welfare and unemployment, but this isn't the case. It also neglects the fact that the rich own far in excess of their representation in wealth, so that when you feel bad at having to shoulder the burden of people who enjoy welfare, you are paying more than your fair percentage of it. The wealthy could afford to support multiple times more than they do, to alleviate your burden. You can't just throw money at something and hope it goes away. Of course not, but we're not at that point anyway. Right now we're at the point where a plutocracy is laughing at us as we fight each other over pennies. Side: Pump Prime
You think you're spinning this against me, but you're not. That isn't my position. But it is. You think we should tax the rich. That money goes into government, which goes into (da-da-da-DA!) government programs. That's really nothing compared to how much the wealthy actually own. It's almost like if you gave a twenty dollar bill to a pan-handler. Yes, people tend to give only around 2% of their wealth to the poor. But, 2% of five billionaires is more than 2% of 5 thousand-airs with an added bonus of more bloated government programs and the possibility of a few more middle-class people. If you made the rich people poor, than charities wouldn't be receiving nearly $300 billion. Some people live in voluntary poverty. Others live as nomads. Some people have children in excess of ten. You cannot represent a population based on the oddballs and rarities That would be a valid argument if there were less examples. The ER at my mother's hospital (no, she doesn't own the hospital, and neither is she wealthy in the least) is filled with people who take advantage of the system. They're mooching anything they can from the government, including healthcare. Which is why medical costs are so high because those of us that do pay have to pay for those who don't. It also neglects the fact that the rich own far in excess of their representation in wealth No, they own exactly their representation in wealth. If you have 100 times more money than me, you represent 100 times more money than me. And 10% tax to the middle class and 10% tax in the upper class means the same--both are paying 10%. Or are you advocating that, no matter how much you actually work, you should get only, say, $50,000 a year (or some other number)? If you make more, you get taxed. If you make less, you are given up to that amount. Then everyone would be 'equal', but everyone would quit working, too! The wealthy could afford to support ... to alleviate your burden. They already do. Someone who makes $5 million a month pays more taxes than I would make in a year. That's supporting more than me. Yes, they could support more than they do, but so could you. Unless you're living in a floor-less hut with a thatched roof and only one interior wall eating rice every day, you can give more. But I don't hear you volunteering your money. Only volunteering others' money. Side: Trickle Down
But it is. You think we should tax the rich. That money goes into government, which goes into (da-da-da-DA!) government programs. I do not treat government as unquestionable, which is what you implied. Yes, people tend to give only around 2% of their wealth to the poor. But, 2% of five billionaires is more than 2% of 5 thousand-airs with an added bonus of more bloated government programs and the possibility of a few more middle-class people. Yes it is, which makes you wonder why they need that extra 98% when they could live quite well on that 2%. If you made the rich people poor, than charities wouldn't be receiving nearly $300 billion. A rich person could live better than an average working-class American if he gave up 99% of his wealth. 1% of a billion dollars is ten million. 1% of ten million is one-hundred thousand. Notice how your abidance to preconceptions which favour the wealthy make you unable to grasp how well-off they are. It doesn't make them poor if you force them to give up much of their wealth to assist others. Notice that you are more concerned with the wealthy being made poor than the millions in poverty right now, who will remain so due to lack of charity. That would be a valid argument if there were less examples. The ER at my mother's hospital (no, she doesn't own the hospital, and neither is she wealthy in the least) is filled with people who take advantage of the system. They're mooching anything they can from the government, including healthcare. Which is why medical costs are so high because those of us that do pay have to pay for those who don't. And you're afraid of what, exactly? Do you find it necessary to punish people because they use the system indiscriminately? What would your reasoning be, that everyone ought not have free healthcare because that will punish those who abuse the system? Leaving aside the fact that we can afford such a system easily (it's nothing compared to our military budget, which occupies over a trillion dollars). http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/ According to this study, the percentage of those welfare recipients who use drugs and alcohol, or have a history of it, are actually quite low. Our estimates using data from the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (NHSDA) indicate that 9 percent of welfare recipients in 1994 and 1995 were alcohol dependent and that 21 percent had used an illegal drug in the past year (mostly marijuana). (Figure 1) Excluding marijuana, 10 percent of recipients had used some other illegal drug during the past year, with 6 percent having used cocaine or crack.7 Only a small minority of recipients (about 4 percent) satisfied the diagnostic screening criteria for illicit drug dependence (i.e., their drug use impairs their functioning in significant ways).8 Our analyses also document that psychiatric disorders, especially major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, are more prevalent than drug and alcohol dependence among welfare recipients. About 19 percent of recipients had at least one of the four psychiatric disorders measured in the NHSDA. No, they own exactly their representation in wealth. I should have been more clear, I meant population representation. The wealthy own in far excess of their population, wealth. Or are you advocating that, no matter how much you actually work, you should get only, say, $50,000 a year (or some other number)? If you make more, you get taxed. If you make less, you are given up to that amount. Then everyone would be 'equal', but everyone would quit working, too! I am advocating that people pay a progressive tax, with severe penalties past certain points. For example, past the point of a 500 thousand dollar annual income, the tax would jump to 50% income tax. Past 1 million it would jump to 75%, past 10 million it would jump to 97%, and if someone is a billionaire it would jump to around 99.9% with a number of steps along the way. This is because personal wealth (of which income is a large part), leads to political power which severely distorts the workings of our democracy. They already do. Someone who makes $5 million a month pays more taxes than I would make in a year. That's supporting more than me. They still do not pay enough. The taxes for those with high incomes is not very high, and all this excess wealth which they keep is used to protect their interests. But I don't hear you volunteering your money. Only volunteering others' money. Why should the poor pay for the burden of the wealthy? Side: Pump Prime
Yes it is, which makes you wonder why they need that extra 98% when they could live quite well on that 2%. It's nice to have extra money, even if some would say it's too much. 80% of the world would say you have too much money, and you're not willing to give it up. I'd say that speaks volumes. Notice how your abidance to preconceptions which favour the wealthy make you unable to grasp how well-off they are. I know how well-off they are. I totally understand. It doesn't make them poor if you force them to give up much of their wealth to assist others. And, once again, it wouldn't make you poor to give up a few thousand dollars. Maybe even 10 grand, or 50. I'm not sure how much you have, but if you have internet, you either are financially stable or making very poor choices. As much as it may pain you, you can really only change yourself. Maybe you might inspire others to change, too. Notice that you are more concerned with the wealthy being made poor than the millions in poverty right now, who will remain so due to lack of charity. I care about the people in poverty. But instead of trying to get people to force other people to spend even more other peoples' money, I spend my own money. It's not much, but it's what I have. You should try the first link below. It's interesting. Or maybe donate to the ten charities listed in the second link. do you find it necessary to punish people because they use the system indiscriminately? No, I feel that if people should abuse a good-deed system, the system should be taken from them. When the people in the ER who cannot pay for healthcare are in there three or four times in a row due to drugs (yes, this happens very frequently), they shouldn't be given healthcare! If our doctors work hard for hours to save these guys' lives, and they just go out and throw it all away again, then why help them? Why help those who do not want to be helped? Why give value to those people who do not value themselves? I am advocating that people pay a progressive tax, with severe penalties past certain points. For example, past the point of a 500 thousand dollar annual income, the tax would jump to 50% income tax. Past 1 million it would jump to 75%, past 10 million it would jump to 97%, and if someone is a billionaire it would jump to around 99.9% with a number of steps along the way. So, you are advocating punishing people for being successful. At a track and field event, you don't beat the first- second- and third-place runners because they won. You give them a trophy. They earned it. And you don't give a 15th-place trophy. If you get 15th place, you don't deserve a trophy! This is because personal wealth (of which income is a large part), leads to political power which severely distorts the workings of our democracy. Our country is far too large for democracy to work. What might work (most likely better than our current system) is to nearly eliminate federal government and put most of it into state and city governments. That way, people in north-east Maine are voting for things happening in north-east Maine, and not for things happening in south-western Montana. That would return the voice to the people. But if you're inclined to keep our bloated bureaucratic system, than maybe set a donation limit on large corporations. The taxes for those with high incomes is not very high, and all this excess wealth which they keep is used to protect their interests. And why shouldn't they protect their interests. If you've got an emergency fund and a savings account, you're protecting your interests. If they worked hard to get to where they are, it would be idiotic to not protect it. It's like building a massive castle but not raising the gates at night. Or, probably closer to your view of the rich, building a massive pile of treasure but not guarding it. Why should the poor pay for the burden of the wealthy? That depends on your point of reference. You said it yourself, that Americans are in the top 80% of the world. That means that you have suddenly been included in the 'wealthy' category. Once again, check out the sights, as those charities go to the rest of the world. I'll leave you with this quote: "When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world. I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn't change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family. Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world." --Unknown Monk 1100 A.D. ----- [1] http://www.heifer.org/site/c. [2] http://www.charitynavigator.org/ Side: Trickle Down
It's nice to have extra money, even if some would say it's too much. 80% of the world would say you have too much money, and you're not willing to give it up. I'd say that speaks volumes. I shared my home with impoverished people for a period exceeding five years, these were recovering drug addicts who lived day to day. You as a Christian ought to know the parable of the rich man, there are actually two of them. The one in which Jesus tells a rich man that it isn't enough to follow the commandments, he must be poor, because a rich man cannot make it to heaven. The second is a story about a man who lived in luxury while a pan-handler outside his home lived in anguish. When both died the rich man was in hell, the poor man in heaven, because the rich man had only his earthly rewards. But aside from theology, greed is not an enviable or defensible sin. People who have such excessive wealth harm society because of the power it gives them, and because of the people who suffer by omission of that excess of wealth. And, once again, it wouldn't make you poor to give up a few thousand dollars. Maybe even 10 grand, or 50. I'm not sure how much you have, but if you have internet, you either are financially stable or making very poor choices. As much as it may pain you, you can really only change yourself. Maybe you might inspire others to change, too. I am not the subject here. People who can afford to donate the vast majority of their wealth are the subject. I care about the people in poverty. But instead of trying to get people to force other people to spend even more other peoples' money, I spend my own money. It's not much, but it's what I have. You should try the first link below. It's interesting. Or maybe donate to the ten charities listed in the second link. Whatever your principles about voluntary versus forced donation may be, the results are rather unambiguous: people do not tend to part with their wealth freely, and the result has always been a society in which a small minority owns either the majority, or a great excess of wealth. No, I feel that if people should abuse a good-deed system, the system should be taken from them. When the people in the ER who cannot pay for healthcare are in there three or four times in a row due to drugs (yes, this happens very frequently), they shouldn't be given healthcare! If our doctors work hard for hours to save these guys' lives, and they just go out and throw it all away again, then why help them? Why help those who do not want to be helped? Why give value to those people who do not value themselves? Because it is the nature of the double-edged blade that if you restrict them, you restrict people who value their lives but are fallen upon hard times. You can't punish one without punishing the other. So, you are advocating punishing people for being successful. I prefer to think of it as keeping successful people honest and unable to effectively pay for a special place in government. At a track and field event, you don't beat the first- second- and third-place runners because they won. You give them a trophy. They earned it. And you don't give a 15th-place trophy. If you get 15th place, you don't deserve a trophy! This isn't a contest. This is real life, where every decision leads to suffering or happiness, and where every resource gathered is something taken from the hands of another person. Giving people a trophy in the form of the right to accrue vast wealth is the same as taking that wealth from millions of people who are directly and indirectly connected to this person. Wealth is a zero-sum gain. A person's need to sate their greed is not worth the suffering and toil of others. That is why we disposed of monarchs who elevated themselves above their servants and lived in luxury from the fruits of their labour. Our country is far too large for democracy to work. What might work (most likely better than our current system) is to nearly eliminate federal government and put most of it into state and city governments. That way, people in north-east Maine are voting for things happening in north-east Maine, and not for things happening in south-western Montana. That would return the voice to the people. We already have that in the form of states, mayors and governors. It isn't about the size of our democracy. Our democracy is simply corrupted due to special considerations which the wealthy have bought for themselves. They pay for tax breaks, labour laws, and legislation which favours their business interests. And why shouldn't they protect their interests. Because we live in a democracy, where group consensus is what determines law, not backroom deals. If you've got an emergency fund and a savings account, you're protecting your interests. If they worked hard to get to where they are, it would be idiotic to not protect it. It's like building a massive castle but not raising the gates at night. This is why personal wealth must be limited. It undermines our democracy. That depends on your point of reference. You said it yourself, that Americans are in the top 80% of the world. That means that you have suddenly been included in the 'wealthy' category. Once again, check out the sights, as those charities go to the rest of the world. The implied point of reference is Americans. We, the poor, cannot afford to shoulder the world's burdens because we already shoulder the burdens of the wealthy in this nation. You know as well as I do that when the wealthy car companies and banks failed years ago, the government bailed them out meaning that you and I are paying these people for failure. This is just one example in a long list of where we are continually made to pull up the slack of wealthy self-interest. Side: Pump Prime
I shared my home with impoverished people for a period exceeding five years, these were recovering drug addicts who lived day to day. Good job. That's a very good thing to do! I'm not being sarcastic, here, in case you thought so. You as a Christian ought to know the parable of the rich man Yes, I do. People who love their money more than Jesus won't go to heaven. Jesus doesn't say the rich man must be poor, he asks him to demonstrate that he loves Jesus more than his money, which he didn't. If he really wanted eternal life, and really thought Jesus was the Messiah, than he should have followed Jesus' request. He didn't, thus showing he didn't love Jesus more than his money. greed is not an enviable or defensible sin. I agree, but how is it not greedy to take money away from people and tell them how to live? And if you're going to say that God does that, He doesn't. He asks people to give their money away and asks them to live a certain way (which more often than not proves to be healthier and happier than not living that way). people do not tend to part with their wealth freely, and the result has always been a society in which a small minority owns either the majority, or a great excess of wealth. Then you should be trying to fix the people, not the government. Which is what Christianity's been attempting for a few hundred years (I'm excluding the wrong Christianity of the middle ages). Yes, people don't give enough, but the government shouldn't force people to give. Giving should be voluntary. Because it is the nature of the double-edged blade that if you restrict them, you restrict people who value their lives but are fallen upon hard times. You can't punish one without punishing the other. There might be ways to do otherwise, but you are correct. And that is a sad fact of life. But it seems that those who are misusing the system are taking money away from those who aren't. Just like, to you, the rich are taking money away from the poor. But in the first, the government actually has jurisdiction to do something about it--more regulation on their programs. I prefer to think of it as keeping successful people honest and unable to effectively pay for a special place in government. It doesn't matter how you prefer to think of it, punishment is what it is. If you start taxing heavily on the rich, the most likely outcome is the rich will move. Or pay the government to stop taxing them so much. Either way, it's bad. We already have that in the form of states, mayors and governors. It isn't about the size of our democracy. Our democracy is simply corrupted due to special considerations which the wealthy have bought for themselves. If we already had a reduced federal government, we wouldn't be having this argument. I don't argue that we have small governments, I'm arguing that we take the majority of the power away from federal and put it into state and city governments. I believe the Constitution of the US sets up a system like that, but we've gotten distracted from that. Because we live in a democracy, where group consensus is what determines law Than why not have less federal government? That way, the people could actually vote for what they want, rather than voting for people who will vote how they get paid. That way the rich couldn't pay off the government. This is why personal wealth must be limited. It undermines our democracy. Or our democracy undermines personal wealth. We need a different democracy, not poorer citizens. The implied point of reference is Americans. We, the poor, cannot afford to shoulder the world's burdens because we already shoulder the burdens of the wealthy in this nation. The wealthy are shouldering plenty of burdens. We're not shouldering their burdens, we're shouldering our burdens. You just think the burden is too heavy and want to push it onto somebody else. the government bailed them out meaning that you and I are paying these people for failure. Yes, the government did that, and I was pissed off! If a company fails, they fail, and should be allowed to fail. That is a case of us supporting failure, which I hate. continually made to pull up the slack of wealthy self-interest.* Continually? No. Only when they fail are we forced by the government to support them. Instead of making them poor, why not take the ability to force us to do so away from the government? It would reach the same end, and the US would still be rich as a whole. Side: Trickle Down
Yes, I do. People who love their money more than Jesus won't go to heaven. Jesus doesn't say the rich man must be poor, he asks him to demonstrate that he loves Jesus more than his money, which he didn't. If he really wanted eternal life, and really thought Jesus was the Messiah, than he should have followed Jesus' request. He didn't, thus showing he didn't love Jesus more than his money. I interpreted it as the man building up earthly rewards for himself through greed and privilege, and therefore he had no rewards in the afterlife. I agree, but how is it not greedy to take money away from people and tell them how to live? And if you're going to say that God does that, He doesn't. He asks people to give their money away and asks them to live a certain way (which more often than not proves to be healthier and happier than not living that way). It isn't greedy if that money is divided amongst people, rather than kept for a single individual. Think of it as a community intervention. When a person has a gambling problem or a drinking problem, both activities in excess, for the community's sake an intervention may occur to try and set the man straight. For the rich it is the same thing, they are addicted to wealth and the lifestyle that brings, to the detriment of others. Their greed is a pathology. Then you should be trying to fix the people, not the government. Which is what Christianity's been attempting for a few hundred years (I'm excluding the wrong Christianity of the middle ages). Yes, people don't give enough, but the government shouldn't force people to give. Giving should be voluntary. It doesn't work effectively enough when you try to change people for it. That is why for thousands of years there has been a minority who elevate themselves above everyone else. We accept it as a normal part of life, but it isn't. It is an abrogation of community living to plunder most limited resources for yourself. A healthy society requires that these resources are defended from such greed. There might be ways to do otherwise, but you are correct. And that is a sad fact of life. But it seems that those who are misusing the system are taking money away from those who aren't. Just like, to you, the rich are taking money away from the poor. But in the first, the government actually has jurisdiction to do something about it--more regulation on their programs. I agree that they are affecting the system for others, but according to our budget and according to information on those who abuse the system, we can afford both. This is because healthcare is well within our budget, and because those who abuse it are a small minority. It doesn't matter how you prefer to think of it, punishment is what it is. If you start taxing heavily on the rich, the most likely outcome is the rich will move. Or pay the government to stop taxing them so much. Either way, it's bad. I don't call it punishment because it isn't. It's a part of social responsibility, just as it isn't punishment to expect a business past a certain size to provide healthcare for its employees. They already make efforts to bend government to their whims, for example have you followed ACTA? It's government charity for the wealthy media corporations. If we already had a reduced federal government, we wouldn't be having this argument. I don't argue that we have small governments, I'm arguing that we take the majority of the power away from federal and put it into state and city governments. I believe the Constitution of the US sets up a system like that, but we've gotten distracted from that. Your language needs to be more specific, as far as I observe states' rights are in full power and have been for the last century. They are just subordinate to federal government if major amendments pass. Than why not have less federal government? That way, the people could actually vote for what they want, rather than voting for people who will vote how they get paid. That way the rich couldn't pay off the government. The point of having a tiered government is that sometimes states violate the federal constitution. For example, one state may amend its local constitution to ban firearms. Having a powerful federal government keeps this from happening. The other reason is that a bunch of states leads to a lack of consensus in times of emergency or war, that is why executive power rests in the federal government. If we had a severely reduced federal government it would merely be the case that states would differentiate more in their respective laws, and the rich would corrupt states individually. Or our democracy undermines personal wealth. We need a different democracy, not poorer citizens. Limiting personal wealth as I described does not make poorer citizens. It makes more wealth available to everyone, either in the form of social services and improved infrastructure, or in the form of higher wages and benefits. The wealthy are shouldering plenty of burdens. We're not shouldering their burdens, we're shouldering our burdens. You just think the burden is too heavy and want to push it onto somebody else. No, I'm being quite honest here. We shoulder the burdens of the wealthy when they apply for tax breaks and cuts. We shoulder their burdens when they go bankrupt and are bailed out because they can effectively intimidate government into doing do. We shoulder their burden when we work for minimum wage in dead-end jobs while their take company money which is supposed to exist for the purposes of benefiting the business, and spend it on themselves (buying mansions, sports cars). We shoulder their burdens every time a major ecological disaster is caused by their incompetence and eagerness to cut corners, it means that we must suffer through it because we cannot afford to always move to unadulterated lands when our area is corrupted by oil spills and toxic waste dumps. Yes, the government did that, and I was pissed off! If a company fails, they fail, and should be allowed to fail. That is a case of us supporting failure, which I hate. I would rather have that money fund a year's unemployment and reimbursement for all the employees who lost their jobs and savings, and let the head management go bankrupt. Continually? No. Only when they fail are we forced by the government to support them. Instead of making them poor, why not take the ability to force us to do so away from the government? It would reach the same end, and the US would still be rich as a whole. The government's ability to do this is directly tied to their personal wealth. If they are wealthy they can fund think-tanks and campaigns to alter government. They can bribe senators and fund presidential campaigns to secure a friend in a very high office. Then it is just a matter of government changing its policy to favour them. Side: Pump Prime
It never says he's greedy or privileged, it says he loved his money. Money itself isn't evil. The love of money is. God said "Whatever you do to the least of these, you to to me." When people don't help the poor, that makes God sad. The early Christian church lived in communities and took care of the poor. They were very communistic, sharing everything. But they also had the policy of 'those who don't work don't eat'. Each had to pull their weight still. This is very easy to regulate in small groups, in communities. It is impossible to regulate on a nation-wide scale. Think of it as a community intervention. The US isn't a community, it's a nation. Most cities aren't communities. There are communities in cities, but not the cities themselves. Thus, it's not community intervention, where the person respects and values the opinion of those in the community, but national intervention, where the person really doesn't respect those who are intervening. A healthy society requires that these resources are defended from such greed. A healthy society tends to be small. Not made up of hundreds of millions of people. Yes, such regulations would work in small settings, but not in the US. according to our budget and according to information on those who abuse the system, we can afford both. I don't care if we can afford it, it's wrong. If we didn't pay for those who abuse the system, we could send more money to curing cancer or developing a sun-powered car, or one that runs on water. I don't call it punishment because it isn't. It's a part of social responsibility, just as it isn't punishment to expect a business past a certain size to provide healthcare for its employees. Businesses should provide healthcare. But they don't have to if the government does! But it is punishment. You're taxing them higher for having more money. I can assure you if you did tax at 99.9% for the super-rich, they'd just leave. Then we'd have no taxes from them, nor would they give to charities, hurting both areas. Your language needs to be more specific, as far as I observe states' rights are in full power and have been for the last century. They are just subordinate to federal government if major amendments pass. This may be true, but not so much. The Constitution states what power should go to the federal government. Regulating trade, producing money, providing a military. The rest of the power goes to the states. We shouldn't be worried about amendments being unconstitutional, we should be worried that the government itself is unconstitutional! For example, one state may amend its local constitution to ban firearms. Having a powerful federal government keeps this from happening. No, the Second Amendment prevents this from happening. The F gov't doesn't have to be as powerful as it is. The other reason is that a bunch of states leads to a lack of consensus in times of emergency or war The F gov't is already in control of wars. The power is denied from the states in this case. It's in the constitution. If we had a severely reduced federal government it would merely be the case that states would differentiate more in their respective laws, and the rich would corrupt states individually. States should have different laws. Laws viable in Arkansas don't have to be viable in Idaho, and vise-versa. With stronger State and City governments (and weaker federal), people could vote for things that would directly affect them, and not so much somebody 2,000 miles away. Yes, rich people could corrupt the states individually, but why would a rich person in Washington (state) want to corrupt the government of South Dakota? We shoulder their burdens when they go bankrupt and are bailed out because they can effectively intimidate government into doing do. This is caused by people in government being corrupt in the first place. This would not be so much true if we cut back the salary of those in government and made it so you cannot donate money to them. Problem solved. We shoulder their burden when we work for minimum wage in dead-end jobs while their take company money which is supposed to exist for the purposes of benefiting the business, and spend it on themselves Thus we reveal the benefit of capitalism. If you don't think you're getting paid your worth, you can quit. That's why there's competitive markets. If you don't like your company, you can find another that more matches your standards. when our area is corrupted by oil spills and toxic waste dumps. Which is caused by us being so dependent on oil. If the general public finally decided they don't want oil spills, they'd stop driving gas-guzzlers (or even gas-powered cars at all ... ride a bike, take public transportation). Until that happens, we'll still have oil and all the waste that goes with it. I would rather have that money fund a year's unemployment and reimbursement for all the employees who lost their jobs and savings, and let the head management go bankrupt. I would, too! The bailout was a horrible idea, but it's based on the same thing as 'pump prime'! Side: Trickle Down
It never says he's greedy or privileged, it says he loved his money. Money itself isn't evil. The love of money is. God said "Whatever you do to the least of these, you to to me." When people don't help the poor, that makes God sad. Please forgive my laziness as I'm finishing my writing, and did not want to hunt down each and every verse that I could draw from memory. This link seems to contain most of the verses I was talking about: http://www.usbible.com/Jesus/ I was particularly interested in this one however: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ The early Christian church lived in communities and took care of the poor. They were very communistic, sharing everything. But they also had the policy of 'those who don't work don't eat'. Each had to pull their weight still. This is very easy to regulate in small groups, in communities. It is impossible to regulate on a nation-wide scale. You might be right. Mainly because on the state level populations diverge in their cultures. The US isn't a community, it's a nation. Most cities aren't communities. There are communities in cities, but not the cities themselves. Thus, it's not community intervention, where the person respects and values the opinion of those in the community, but national intervention, where the person really doesn't respect those who are intervening. I was using the words in a non-literal manner. I realise that there is a stark difference between a community and nation, but what I was really looking at was the effect of intervention on restoring decency. I don't care if we can afford it, it's wrong. If we didn't pay for those who abuse the system, we could send more money to curing cancer or developing a sun-powered car, or one that runs on water. I just think it is more wrong to let more people suffer because a few are disagreeable. Businesses should provide healthcare. But they don't have to if the government does! But it is punishment. You're taxing them higher for having more money. I can assure you if you did tax at 99.9% for the super-rich, they'd just leave. Then we'd have no taxes from them, nor would they give to charities, hurting both areas. You're right, I hadn't considered that possibility. What you'd have to do is tie them here via leverage. If they leave, for example, all their assets in state boundaries would be taken by the state and divided amongst other businesses through auctions, with the earnings going to charity. If they are foreigners starting a business here by proxy, a stiff tax would be levied to make it less profitable for them to stay outside of state boundaries. This may be true, but not so much. The Constitution states what power should go to the federal government. Regulating trade, producing money, providing a military. The rest of the power goes to the states. We shouldn't be worried about amendments being unconstitutional, we should be worried that the government itself is unconstitutional! If you find the government is unconstitutional you can always take it up with the higher courts, maybe even get an amendment to fix it. No, the Second Amendment prevents this from happening. The F gov't doesn't have to be as powerful as it is. States do not always obey the constitution. But maybe a more subtle example would suffice. Segregation was eventually abolished at the federal level and thus forced all states to rescind it. States should have different laws. Laws viable in Arkansas don't have to be viable in Idaho, and vise-versa. With stronger State and City governments (and weaker federal), people could vote for things that would directly affect them, and not so much somebody 2,000 miles away. Yes, rich people could corrupt the states individually, but why would a rich person in Washington (state) want to corrupt the government of South Dakota? Maybe because he operates a franchise and is opening a new South Dakota branch? Look at the RIAA, MPAA, BSA and the intellectual property interests and how they throw their weight around across the world to intimidate other countries into forming versions of the DMCA. Thus we reveal the benefit of capitalism. If you don't think you're getting paid your worth, you can quit. That's why there's competitive markets. If you don't like your company, you can find another that more matches your standards. Remember that I'm talking about capitalism in practice, not theory. In practice it means that you either persist in poorly-paid conditions, or try to find work with a company which does the same thing, or if you're REALLY lucky, you'll find work work in a small company or someone will be fired from a dream job which EVERYONE applies to. In other words, it doesn't work like you think it does, or more precisely, it works in favour of businesses which behave this way. It also does not address my point: we shoulder the burdens of corrupt businesses like these. Which is caused by us being so dependent on oil. If the general public finally decided they don't want oil spills, they'd stop driving gas-guzzlers (or even gas-powered cars at all ... ride a bike, take public transportation). Until that happens, we'll still have oil and all the waste that goes with it. Oil, 3M, Corporation #453-X. They are all big polluters. What you describe is an oil hegemony. There is no way boycott them because their financial tentacles are invested at every level of our society. Ride a bicycle? Oil was used to fuel the transport of aluminum or steel, and weld it together, and make the paint for it, and the foam which is the seat, and drive it over to the store you buy it from. It's more or less the same with walking, skateboards, and just existing (as in eating and drinking water) because oil was involved in every way, either directly or indirectly. I would, too! The bailout was a horrible idea, but it's based on the same thing as 'pump prime'! I don't agree with Trickle-Down, and I don't agree with how the bailouts were executed, but if there is one point in favour of pump prime, it is that we did not suffer as much over the last major recession. Side: Pump Prime
Please forgive my laziness as I'm finishing my writing, and did not want to hunt down each and every verse that I could draw from memory. This link seems to contain most of the verses I was talking about.... Good verses. But do you think God would have sent the rich man to hell had he taken care of Lazarus (this, by the way, is not the dead-to-life Lazarus)? Yes, Jesus hates wealth when wealth isn't used to care for those in need. what I was really looking at was the effect of intervention on restoring decency. It would be easier to restore decency if people in Maine weren't able to vote for things happening in New Mexico. If we broke lots of power from the federal government and put in into state and locals, there would be more of a sense of community, and, thus, decency (at least, in theory. Or people would be total jerks to each-other.) What you'd have to do is tie them here via leverage. If they leave, for example, all their assets in state boundaries would be taken by the state and divided amongst other businesses through auctions, with the earnings going to charity. If they are foreigners starting a business here by proxy, a stiff tax would be levied to make it less profitable for them to stay outside of state boundaries. First, it is possible to run a company from outside a country. Second, I'm interested to see how you could make it less profitable to stay in a 99.9% tax bracket. It would be profitable to sell the company and leave with what you have and slowly eat through it over 500 years of family inheritance. If you find the government is unconstitutional you can always take it up with the higher courts, maybe even get an amendment to fix it. Possibility, as long as the courts aren't in the pockets of the courts (or even vise-versa). But I'm sure plenty of americans are opposed to weakening the F Government to put power in State and City governments. Remember that I'm talking about capitalism in practice, not theory. Most, if not all, governments are fine in theory. In practice it means that you either persist in poorly-paid conditions, or try to find work with a company which does the same thing, or if you're REALLY lucky, you'll find work work in a small company or someone will be fired from a dream job which EVERYONE applies to. Or, if you have a skill set learned in our free education system that is in high demand, you could play two companies against each other. If companies actually like you, they'll pay you more. Especially if another company wants you, too. If enough people got sick and tired of poor conditions, and they all quit for other jobs, that company would tank. I'm pretty sure that's what companies try and protect against: tanking. if there is one point in favour of pump prime, it is that we did not suffer as much over the last major recession. Compared to what, the Great Depression? They tried a few pump-prime techniques, and none of them worked back then. Maybe the reason we didn't suffer as much this time was because the conditions weren't the same, that the economy wasn't going to tank, anyway. The convenient thing for the government is nobody can see what would have been. So they could do anything (say, make it mandatory to neuter all pets if you live in a city with a population density between 1.2 and 10.7 people per square mile) and say after words: "Imagine what it would have been like if we didn't do that!" Then the fear-filled populace would nod their heads and say, "Yes, pet-fixing is a great way to fix the economy! Look: we didn't tank nearly as much as last time!" Side: Trickle Down
Good verses. But do you think God would have sent the rich man to hell had he taken care of Lazarus (this, by the way, is not the dead-to-life Lazarus)? The impression I get is that god would have looked more kindly to the rich man, but his wealth would still be seen as a vain tie to the worldly, if I take all the verses on wealth into consideration. Yes, this isn't the Dead-to-life Lazarus. It would be easier to restore decency if people in Maine weren't able to vote for things happening in New Mexico. If we broke lots of power from the federal government and put in into state and locals, there would be more of a sense of community, and, thus, decency (at least, in theory. Or people would be total jerks to each-other.) I really cannot comment in an educated manner, as I don't have data to draw from which would allow me to resolve a prediction. Intuitively it seems that dividing powers up further like that gives people more power over their local jurisdictions, but at the same time makes them more prone to affect from entities bigger than the state. First, it is possible to run a company from outside a country. Right. That's why I thought a major tax penalty could be employed to such men and women who work out of state. Regulatory efforts could be made to keep all the business assets within borders, and make it severely unprofitable to work by proxy. Second, I'm interested to see how you could make it less profitable to stay in a 99.9% tax bracket. The intent actually is to motivate people to not grow so big, to stop acquiring competition and trade routes. If you stay below the multinational or corporate level you'd be safe from it. Those who acted out of greed and conquest could find state intervention which forces excess profits, which drove them to that 99.9% tax bracket, to be transferred to working employees' retirement accounts. These are just ideas, however. Surely there are better ways to make it far from worthwhile to be a mega-corporation. Possibility, as long as the courts aren't in the pockets of the courts (or even vise-versa). But I'm sure plenty of americans are opposed to weakening the F Government to put power in State and City governments. Why do you suppose this? Or, if you have a skill set learned in our free education system that is in high demand, you could play two companies against each other. If companies actually like you, they'll pay you more. Especially if another company wants you, too. Been there already. Even for skills in high demand, companies seemingly conspire with each other to pay you next to nothing. The Healthcare industry (particularly the part dealing with caregivers) is a booming one. High demand for skilled caregivers, nurses, and CNAs. Even so, facilities will pay you nothing even when there are several of them within a town owned by separate entities. In big cities it's a different situation, however. That's why I'm in Portland now, and it stole my heart for having the best parts of a big city and the small town I used to live in all together. If enough people got sick and tired of poor conditions, and they all quit for other jobs, that company would tank. I'm pretty sure that's what companies try and protect against: tanking. Doesn't work that way. Do you know how employees think in these conditions? They think, "if I leave this company, even though they pay me NOTHING, I'll have no work, and I'll be on the street! I'm lucky to have work!" or "I better not demand a raise or rock the boat with a union. If I do they'll FIRE me!" In the employee mind, bad pay is better than nothing, and these companies can fire you for no reason. Compared to what, the Great Depression? They tried a few pump-prime techniques, and none of them worked back then. Maybe the reason we didn't suffer as much this time was because the conditions weren't the same, that the economy wasn't going to tank, anyway. Actually yes, that was what I had in mind, The Great Depression. I'm glad we didn't have to suffer through one. However I'm beyond perturbed that our government practically gave a blank check to those banks. I think maybe I'll start a bank and bankrupt it. Then I too can have a 700 billion dollar check from the government. The convenient thing for the government is nobody can see what would have been. That also occurred to me. I have no defense though, because I can only look at likely scenarios, not alternate histories. So they could do anything (say, make it mandatory to neuter all pets if you live in a city with a population density between 1.2 and 10.7 people per square mile) and say after words: "Imagine what it would have been like if we didn't do that!" It's not really analogous but the way our government was quick to bail those banks out, one wonders how many of the politicians were in the pockets of those banks. Then the fear-filled populace would nod their heads and say, "Yes, pet-fixing is a great way to fix the economy! Look: we didn't tank nearly as much as last time!" What really angers me is how after this whole folly, some libertarians advocate a free market. The brick wall fell on us two times, the first time being the Great Depression which followed from stock market corruption (lack of oversight) and this recession hits us after the Regan era deregulated the market after decades of safety (and oversight). I guess libertarians only learn after a brick wall falls on them three times. Or maybe the brick wall gave them a concussion and that's why they still advocate it. Side: Pump Prime
Why do you suppose [that the majority of Americans are against weakening the F government]? I dunno. It seems to be a general consensus. Even for skills in high demand, companies seemingly conspire with each other to pay you next to nothing. I guess that probably only works for small companies.... What really angers me is how after this whole folly, some libertarians advocate a free market. The brick wall fell on us two times, the first time being the Great Depression which followed from stock market corruption (lack of oversight) and this recession hits us after the Regan era deregulated the market after decades of safety (and oversight) I thought the cause for this recession was the housing market deal. I think our problem is that when things are going well, we thing they'll continue to go well. Nobody stopped to ask "What would happen if house values started dropping?" Side: Trickle Down
I thought the cause for this recession was the housing market deal. It was. It was sub-prime loans that caused the Housing bubble to pop. Essentially mortgages given to people who could not pay them back. Many companies did this intentionally knowing that if consumers could not pay back the loans, they could milk the consumers for YEARS, and they did. Why do you think so many homes went up for sale? people could not pay back their mortgages. Why did the government allow predatory lending? Bush had actually eliminated many of the regulations on housing lending so that more people could own homes, the result? Predatory lending on a massive scale happened. Massive debt. Bankruptcy. Housing market crashed. All of which could have been avoided. Side: Pump Prime
I guess that probably only works for small companies.... I don't know what qualifies as small, but this facility was like a franchise, owned by a central managing office with different branches across Oregon. I'll never forget what it was like trying to get a Union in the Southern Oregon branch. It failed because ultimately the employees, despite having NO benefits, job security, and just-above minimum wage pay, were unwilling to donate 2% of their pay to union dues even though in the coming months the union would raise the pay by several dollars an hour. They were all happy after the union failed when the company gave them a 50 cent raise. It's pathetic. It almost made me want to renounce my relationship to the species, how little people in mass will stand up for themselves. I thought the cause for this recession was the housing market deal. I think our problem is that when things are going well, we thing they'll continue to go well. Nobody stopped to ask "What would happen if house values started dropping?" As I understanding it the housing market bubble formed because of a lack of regulations which allowed predatory lending and trading of debt. It's all really complicated though and I've yet to understand all the details. Side: Pump Prime
First, I agree. You make good points. Well done. Second, this has nothing to do with your previous post, but it does have to do with previous arguments we have had. ----- The idea I'm refuting is that rich people have too much power with their money, and we should distribute that to the poor people to balance the power. I've noticed that, at the time of this post, you have 1748 reward points, while I only have 115, and poor little infamous84 has but but 18. With your massive stockpile of points, you could go to any argument and vote one side all down and the other all up, severely tipping the scales in one direction. I say that's too much power. Should we take your points and distribute them evenly, so everyone has the same voting power? Side: Trickle Down
The idea I'm refuting is that rich people have too much power with their money, and we should distribute that to the poor people to balance the power. I thought I went over this before, but the wealthy own hundreds of times the per capita wealth of the working class. Wealth directly correlates with power and influence. Your statement couldn't be more contradictory with nature. I've noticed that, at the time of this post, you have 1748 reward points, while I only have 115, and poor little infamous84 has but but 18. Correct. Points are basically a scoring mechanism here, and for votes. With your massive stockpile of points, you could go to any argument and vote one side all down and the other all up, severely tipping the scales in one direction. I say that's too much power. Should we take your points and distribute them evenly, so everyone has the same voting power? It means nothing because this is a website. Side: Pump Prime
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Hey! Its your wacky story book, not mine! Tell me, how has reforming people gone? For the last two Millennia, you've sure been doing a shitty job of it! Clearly Christianity does not support giving to your fellow man and helping those who cannot help themselves! Or does it? I wonder how you reconcile those two? Side: Pump Prime
Clearly Christianity does not support giving to your fellow man and helping those who cannot help themselves! Or does it? I wonder how you reconcile those two? This is true. Christianity doesn't seem to support helping those who cannot help themselves. Christlikeness, which should be Christianity, but isn't, does support it. It's sad that Christianity has turned into a religion. Side: Trickle Down
I love when people pull this one. FDR launched the single greatest government initiative for the American Economy. EVER. That was turning America into, basically, a command economy, during WWII. Unemployment was nearly non existent. Then post war demobilization occurred and we suffered a minor bout before returning to normal unemployment. Also, if spending more doesn't help the economy, then why did our economy grow so much during WWII as the government created massive demand for things? Don't tell me it was free enterprise, because what they needed was demand, something that the market can't supply by itself. AD=C+I+G+(X-M) baby! Side: Pump Prime
2
points
Trickle-down economics is more accurately known as supply side economics. It is far more effective in that it encourages investment both because the reduction in taxes (which are, for all intents and purposes, penalties), particularly for upper-income tax brackets, stimulates a mindset in which affluent individuals recognize that they will be taxed less, but also simply because it keeps more financial resources in private hands. Thus, people who see the potential for profit, and who, after the enactment of a supply side policy have more resources, will indeed begin to spend, thus ensuring a flow of money throughout the economy. Side: Trickle Down
1
point
1
point
2
points
Therefore we should give the rich more money, and therefore power, and hope for the best? You act as if the government controls the economy and owes all the money in the U.S., yet in fact, government doesn't posses a dime without looting, you think that the government is giving the rich more money as if government owes it, yet they are the ones who earned it in the first place. Nobody is giving them more money, they are only keeping what they earned. Nobody can get as rich as you think without the help of government or lack of competition; therefore, if government favors are eliminated through different level of taxes on business, subsidies, regulation, big business would vanish, which would competition to expand. Side: Trickle Down
You act as if the government controls the economy and owes all the money in the U.S., yet in fact, government doesn't posses a dime without looting, It basically does, because of the Federal Reserve. Taxes are not theft, but part of a contract you submit to as a United States Resident. Of course, if you do not like this contract, you're free to change your income bracket or move to a different country, or create your own. I hear that Antarctica is largely unconquered by human civilisation. you think that the government is giving the rich more money as if government owes it, yet they are the ones who earned it in the first place. Government gives handouts to the rich in the form of tax cuts and corporate welfare. Because they have much louder voices than you, they get more government favour. One could observe that this class difference undermines the principles of democracy, since your voice is supposed to be equal to a rich man's voice, in political matters, but it isn't. The principles you defend about ownership of that wealth are merely points of dogma. If you have a different social worldview, then they do not exist as natural rights and we may make rational claims such as, "If wealth is a means to power, and a democracy is based on giving equality to citizens' voices, then wealth undermines this principle in favour of the wealthy. Therefore it is in the interests of the majority that personal wealth never become too great, lest it break our political system." Nobody is giving them more money, they are only keeping what they earned. Pardon? Tax cuts and corporate welfare mean that we as in the working class, the poor, are giving our earnings to the rich. This is readily apparent if you look at the figures for distribution of private wealth in America in the last thirty years. Care to guess what happened? Far from the richest 1% losing their wealth to the working class, or it even remaining equal (as you suggest it is or ought to be), the wealth from the working class changed hands into the wealthy, they gained 42% of our nation's private wealth up from 35% and the working 80% of America now own 15% of that wealth, while the middle class remained largely unaffected. This is like reverse socialism. Why aren't you protesting this? You're always against the wealthy being taxed to help everyone, but when they siphon money from everyone else I hear not a peep from you. What are you then, a shill for the greedy? Nobody can get as rich as you think without the help of government or lack of competition; therefore, if government favors are eliminated through different level of taxes on business, subsidies, regulation, big business would vanish, which would competition to expand. It doesn't work this way. We've been over this old chestnut. Suffice to say that nature does not impose your moral restraints upon herself, and so an unregulated market is just as prone (if not more) to monopoly and government corruption than our modern form of capitalism, because free-market capitalists do everything that they can get away with in order to succeed. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
It basically does, because of the Federal Reserve. HA, HA, HA!! This only proves that you have not a slightest clue what you are talking about. Please read on any Federal Reserve note, and it says “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." It means that these notes can be used to pay debt to government such as legalized theft. Otherwise, why should they also be accepted by private persons in private transactions in exchanged for goods and services? Well, private persons accept these pieces of paper because they are confident that others will, so the Federal Reserve doesn't own the economy because if nobody would accept them, the paper suddenly becomes worthless. The pieces of green paper have value because everybody thinks that they value. Gold would be still the standard for monetary exchange if the federal government didn't go off the gold standard in 1971, which means the gold will not be accept as payment for debts to government, which is then why gold is not freely exchanged between private citizens due to the government going off the gold standard. The Federal Reserve only provides paper as a general medium of exchange instead of gold. Taxes are not theft, but part of a contract you submit to as a United States Resident. I agree government has a role but not the role that you want, courts, law, and military. Really, are taxes voluntary? Is the amount paid voluntary? If not, then it is force. If you don't pay, then guns are used and threat of jail are imposed, which means theft; in other words, taking without consent. I hear that Antarctica is largely unconquered by human civilisation. Maybe, what should happen is let half of America form into a free limited government and the other half socialist statist government, and see who prospers. My guess is the former. Government gives handouts to the rich in the form of tax cuts and corporate welfare. I don't support these policies, which is a good reason to get rid of business tax, so all business are equal playing field. Wait, I thought you supported tax cuts and corporate welfare, You supported the bailout of GM and Chrysler, which they received both. Therefore it is in the interests of the majority that personal wealth never become too great, lest it break our political system. Blah, blah, blah, Free Market capitalism would never allow personal wealth become too great, yet it is odd that in your ideal regulated capitalism, personal wealth has become great. Tax cuts and corporate welfare mean that we as in the working class, the poor, are giving our earnings to the rich. Again, you support tax cuts and corporate welfare, remember, GM and Chrysler bailout. I don't support those government polices, all business taxes should be eliminated. This is readily apparent if you look at the figures for distribution of private wealth in America in the last thirty years. Care to guess what happened? I was right, see this before, you must have this paragraph saved somewhere just for these moments. Remember this distribution of private wealth in America in the last thirty years is DUE TO REGULATED CAPITALISM, not free market. Crony capitalism is much more prevalent in the last 30 years than ever before, and you proved it, congratulations. It doesn't work this way Actually, it does because you proved it with your "pre-written statement about the personal wealth in America" when government and business create regulated markets, and it turns into crony capitalism where businesses use the help of government to steal from the public. Side: Trickle Down
I agree government has a role but not the role that you want, courts, law, and military. Really, are taxes voluntary? Is the amount paid voluntary? If not, then it is force. If you don't pay, then guns are used and threat of jail are imposed, which means theft; in other words, taking without consent. Are you still using this same flawed argument after it has been dismantled multiple times by multiple people? Have you ever driven or walked on a road? Do you know that where ever you go in the united states you are being protected by Police and military? This means you are using services, but you don't think you should have to pay for those services? That is a closer approximation of theft. If you really don't want to pay taxes go someone where you are not protected by the military, and by the police. Go somewhere that doesn't have roads. And if you're still being taxed, then and only then will you have the right to complain. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
My mistake typo. I agree with government in courts, law and military. You know as well as I do, roads could be easily privately owned, highways by companies and roads by homeowners. Roads This means you are using services, but you don't think you should have to pay for those services? That is a closer approximation of theft. I agree with paying for courts, law enforcement and military, but everything should be privatized because I shouldn't have to pay for things that I don't consume, so, then the only ones who are committing theft are those on welfare, they receive more than they put in. Side: Trickle Down
I really cannot think of a single benefit of privatizing roads. First of all privatizing roads would essentially be a massive flat tax that would screw over the poor making it even harder for them to escape poverty. The poor would be greater restricted in not only in their social mobility but in physical mobility. "Out of the way" businesses would suffer even more. It would greatly decrease efficiency because drivers would be forced to stop at a toll booth every time they changed roads. The trucking industry would be greatly impaired. Now include the fact that these roads would not just be generating enough funds to keep them operational, but to generate a profit for whomever owns them. Our roads seem to be functioning just fine as they currently are, there is no reason for such a radical reform. I agree with paying for courts, law enforcement and military, but everything should be privatized because I shouldn't have to pay for things that I don't consume And you don't use roads? Paying for roads with taxes is much more sensible because we use roads with such frequency it is much more efficient to pay for them ahead of time. Roads like other essential services are paid for with taxes because they are necessary for a minimal standard of living and are required for a healthy society, regardless of any individuals ability to pay for them. This is because the service provided is much more important than any revenue they might provide. Side: Pump Prime
HA, HA, HA!! This only proves that you have not a slightest clue what you are talking about. Please read on any Federal Reserve note, and it says “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." It means that these notes can be used to pay debt to government such as legalized theft. Otherwise, why should they also be accepted by private persons in private transactions in exchanged for goods and services? The Federal Reserve owns the production and management of our currency. Self-contradicting statements like "legalised theft" and non-sequiturs do not change this. Well, private persons accept these pieces of paper because they are confident that others will, so the Federal Reserve doesn't own the economy because if nobody would accept them, the paper suddenly becomes worthless. Non-sequitur. The Federal Reserve maintains the standard which allows these notes to be traded for value. The pieces of green paper have value because everybody thinks that they value. They have value because they are backed by an institution which supports them. Confidence is a market property that does not negate this fact, it merely modifies it. Gold would be still the standard for monetary exchange if the federal government didn't go off the gold standard in 1971, which means the gold will not be accept as payment for debts to government, which is then why gold is not freely exchanged between private citizens due to the government going off the gold standard. The Federal Reserve only provides paper as a general medium of exchange instead of gold. Not relevant. I agree government has a role but not the role that you want, courts, law, and military. Really, are taxes voluntary? Is the amount paid voluntary? If not, then it is force. If you don't pay, then guns are used and threat of jail are imposed, which means theft; in other words, taking without consent. Taking services without paying is theft. You either pay your taxes and accept services like military protection, roads, water, schools, healthcare, welfare, unemployment, courts, police, fire departments, etc. or you do not pay and are no longer entitled to these services. It's the same as if you enter a lease with a landlord. If you don't pay your rent, he may evict you with force. Try an argument that isn't so spectacularly dull. If you don't like the social contract of the United States, move to Canada, or Britain, or Brazil, or China. Each country has its own tax system and services offered. You aren't forced to stay here and pay taxes, you are forced to pay taxes for using the state. Maybe, what should happen is let half of America form into a free limited government and the other half socialist statist government, and see who prospers. My guess is the former. We already did that. The South (libertarian) side lost. They were such spectacular libertarians too, believed in the freedom to own black people. Nothing's more libertarian than that, but the evil controlling North had to limit that freedom, and as we say, the rest is history. Anyway you evaded my argument. If you want to live in Libertopia, conquer Antarctica and set up base there. I don't support these policies, which is a good reason to get rid of business tax, so all business are equal playing field. Wait, I thought you supported tax cuts and corporate welfare, You supported the bailout of GM and Chrysler, which they received both. Of course you do. Free-market capitalism leads to big business, which leads to government entanglement and corporate welfare. Free Market capitalism would never allow personal wealth become too great, yet it is odd that in your ideal regulated capitalism, personal wealth has become great. Personal wealth becomes great because it is a feedback mechanism, known as economy of scale. But hey, let's just ask J.D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie how it felt to be wealthy barons in their day, where the market was free and unregulated. Again, you support tax cuts and corporate welfare, remember, GM and Chrysler bailout. I don't support those government polices, all business taxes should be eliminated. Of course you support them. Not taxing business lets it grow in wealth and that means more meddling in politics and class warfare. Then we see that the poor are given an even bigger bill due to the greed of businessmen. I was right, see this before, you must have this paragraph saved somewhere just for these moments. Remember this distribution of private wealth in America in the last thirty years is DUE TO REGULATED CAPITALISM, not free market. Crony capitalism is much more prevalent in the last 30 years than ever before, and you proved it, congratulations. What is special about the last thirty years? Care to guess? That's right, in the '80s business was heavily DEREGULATED and now we see that far from the pattern of growth in the working class which was the pattern up until the 80s, the working class has become increasingly poor. Gee, I wonder why? I know, let's deregulate even further. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics Actually, it does because you proved it with your "pre-written statement about the personal wealth in America" when government and business create regulated markets, and it turns into crony capitalism where businesses use the help of government to steal from the public. Right, which means that we have to intervene in politics and the market to overcome crony capitalism which is the natural result of the free market. Side: Pump Prime
2
points
The Federal Reserve owns the production and management of our currency. Correct, that is different from owning the economy. The Fed doesn't own the economy. It attempts to central plan but it fails spectacularly. One link that states the Federal Reserve owns the economy rather than the production and management of the currency. Again, the currency is only used as a means of exchanging goods and services; if the federal reserve didn't managed the currency, gold and silver would be used. Tobacco was used as currency before the Revolutionary War. Did tobacco planters own the economy then, no. Former Chairman Greenspan: “Well first of all the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically that a there is no other agency of Government that can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the Administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don’t frankly matter." Therefore, what this means is the Federal Government does not control or influence Monetary Policy in any way. The Federal Reserve is private bankers. The Federal Reserve maintains the standard which allows these notes to be traded for value. Only since it went off the gold standard; otherwise it was gold and other metals. National money and other forms of money (bank deposits and notes) were freely converted into gold at the fixed price." A counrty under the gold standard would set a price for gold based on number of goods and services, say $100 an ounce and would buy and sell gold at that price. This effectively sets a value for the currency; in our fictional example $1 would be worth 1/100th of an ounce of gold. Almost every country, including the United States, is on a system of fiat money, which the glossary defines as "money that is intrinsically useless; is used only as a medium of exchange". They have value because they are backed by an institution which supports them. The sentence doesn't have any meaning. What the hell does that even mean besides you heard it from the Liberal Rhetoric idiots. Again, people think the money has value because others think the same thing, if they didn't it would just be a piece of paper. If I have toilet paper in my bathroom, and it is backed by Walmart and its suppliers, does it have monetary value? No. It is just paper. Taking services without paying is theft. You either pay your taxes and accept services like military protection, roads, water, schools, healthcare, welfare, unemployment, courts, police, fire departments, etc. or I use so I pay: Military, Police, courts, and fire departments, water and roads, schools. I don't use, so I shouldn't have to pay; Never been Unemployed, don't use public healthcare insurance, never been on welfare. HOWEVER, water is already privately supplied, roads are already being privatized and numerous private schools are in function. There are private fire departments and healthcare insurance and providers. Therefore, all of those are already privatized in some portion except military, police, and courts. If you don't like the social contract of the United States, move to Canada, or Britain, or Brazil, or China. Each country has its own tax system and services offered. You aren't forced to stay here and pay taxes, you are forced to pay taxes for using the state. I have agreed to the contract of the United States, I don't accept your social contract. Maybe you should move there because they have immense use of government services, that you would love. Of course you do. Free-market capitalism leads to big business, which leads to government entanglement and corporate welfare. Wrong, the only time when there has been numerous big business is in your regulated business. Fortune 500. We already did that. The South (libertarian) side lost. Pre civil war was hardly libertarian. The then Republican party was anti-free trade, for “corporate welfare” to railroads, for a national bank, for expansive executive powers, and wanted to use the federal government’s powers to ban marriages not between one man and one woman during the polygamy controversy. Once the Civil War was over, they pretty much got what they wanted. Of course you support them. Whatever, you are trying to tell me what I belief. Taxing business is an Non-sequitur statement because businesses are people, and the last time I checked, only people can be taxed. As for corporate welfare, GM and Chrysler should have failed. What is special about the last thirty years? Care to guess? That's right, in the '80s business was heavily DEREGULATED and now we see that far from the pattern of growth in the working class which was the pattern up until the 80s, the working class has become increasingly poor. Gee, I wonder why? I know, let's deregulate even further. The disparity in wealth is regulated capitalism, inflation and government programs and subsidies. Schiff Right, which means that we have to intervene in politics and the market to overcome crony capitalism which is the natural result of the free market. No, stealing is crony capitalism. Side: Trickle Down
Again, the currency is only used as a means of exchanging goods and services; if the federal reserve didn't managed the currency, gold and silver would be used. Almost every country, including the United States, is on a system of fiat money, which the glossary defines as "money that is intrinsically useless; is used only as a medium of exchange". Which is basically what gold, and silver are. They have little intrinsic value to them except as a means to facilitate trade. The sentence doesn't have any meaning. What the hell does that even mean besides you heard it from the Liberal Rhetoric idiots. Again, people think the money has value because others think the same thing, if they didn't it would just be a piece of paper. If I have toilet paper in my bathroom, and it is backed by Walmart and its suppliers, does it have monetary value? No. It is just paper. If Wal-Mart decides that that toilet paper has value and decides to advertise it as such, then it will have trade value. The influence of such a large organisation would be creating confidence in this currency. It's kind of like how coupons function, except one step further. I use so I pay: Military, Police, courts, and fire departments, water and roads, schools. I don't use, so I shouldn't have to pay; Never been Unemployed, don't use public healthcare insurance, never been on welfare. It doesn't matter. Those programs are always available to you and others, and for this to be it requires that everyone pay into it so that the individual costs may be low. HOWEVER, water is already privately supplied, roads are already being privatized and numerous private schools are in function. There are private fire departments and healthcare insurance and providers. Therefore, all of those are already privatized in some portion except military, police, and courts. Only in certain jurisdictions. I have agreed to the contract of the United States, I don't accept your social contract. Maybe you should move there because they have immense use of government services, that you would love. The social contract is your agreement to pay your share for the services offered through the state. Wrong, the only time when there has been numerous big business is in your regulated business. Fortune 500. An unregulated business will use backhanded (as in non-market-related) ways to rise to the top. Once it does, it becomes a monopoly, and buys into government because there are no laws prohibiting this. Government becomes bloated as a result of this and attempting to fight it. This is the story of capitalism. Pre civil war was hardly libertarian. Buying and selling people is libertarian, why would you initiate force against slaveholders in order to steal their property and release it? The then Republican party was anti-free trade, for “corporate welfare” to railroads, for a national bank, for expansive executive powers, and wanted to use the federal government’s powers to ban marriages not between one man and one woman during the polygamy controversy. Once the Civil War was over, they pretty much got what they wanted. The South bought and sold people, and there was no oversight on business against abuse of workers (in this case slaves). That's extremely libertarian. Whatever, you are trying to tell me what I belief. Taxing business is an Non-sequitur statement because businesses are people, and the last time I checked, only people can be taxed. As for corporate welfare, GM and Chrysler should have failed. Libertarians are for policies which allow businesses like GM and Chrysler to to grow, to the point that they become too large and a threat to our economy should they ever fail. The disparity in wealth is regulated capitalism, inflation and government programs and subsidies. Schiff The policies of Reaganomics (deregulating business) saw a slow decline of the personal wealth of the poor, and a sharp rise of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. No, stealing is crony capitalism. Again, a product of the free market. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
Which is basically what gold, and silver are. They have little intrinsic value to them except as a means to facilitate trade. Gold and silver have intrinsic value because intrinsic value denotes value forever, and that value remains relatively unchanged and equal to the same amount today as it was thousands of years ago as well as they've been demanded for thousands of years. Fiat money has no intrinsic value because it hasn't been in demand for thousands of years, and it is that the whims of inflation, and anything that suffers to inflation does not have intrinsic value. If Wal-Mart decides that that toilet paper has value and decides to advertise it as such, then it will have trade value. Seriously, how stupid are you Toilet paper has value only in the means of exchange, no monetary value. McDonald's will accept toilet paper as a medium for exchange for a Big Mac because nobody sees in value in it unlike Gold or Silver or the fiat money. It doesn't matter. Those programs are always available to you and others, and for this to be it requires that everyone pay into it so that the individual costs may be low. I should be able to opt out of the unemployment insurance, welfare, public insurance. Why would I need unemployment insurance, welfare, and public health insurance if I have a job? Only in certain jurisdictions. As government begins to become broke due to continuous welfare state providing health care and whatever, these services will have to be privatized at more frequency, and the very fact that they exist shows that they can be privatized. The social contract is your agreement to pay your share for the services offered through the state. Again, since you are incapable of reading, it is not my share for the services offered through the state if I don't use or consume them, then that is forcefully stealing because I earned and the state is giving to those of the unearned. There is a point where other can help others only to a certain degree, and those individuals must want to help themselves. Buying and selling people is libertarian, why would you initiate force against slaveholders in order to steal their property and release it? Keep telling yourself that. The South bought and sold people, and there was no oversight on business against abuse of workers (in this case slaves). That's extremely libertarian. What don't you understand here? Are you that inept that you think that slavery was a byproduct of libertarianism. That is wrong. Slavery was a result of government failure. Been over this before. Government permitted slavery through laws, if libertarian was apparent, government would have protected all humans through their inalienable rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Government failed because it permitted people to own others by laws. Libertarians are for policies which allow businesses like GM and Chrysler to to grow, to the point that they become too large and a threat to our economy should they ever fail. Seriously, this is back and forth is really tiring and unproductive. The myth is widespread and deeply rooted that big business and big government are rivals—that big business wants small government. BGBB Today's largest corporations have mastered the art of working with government officials at every level to stifle market competition. They reap billions through a complex web of higher taxes, stricter regulations, and shameless government handouts. BR No serious scholar denies that businessmen played important parts in creating the interventionist state. Big Business and Big Gov The policies of Reaganomics (deregulating business) saw a slow decline of the personal wealth of the poor, and a sharp rise of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Acutally, Reagan saved the nation from the disaterous polices of Carter. Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years. Reagan No, stealing is crony capitalism. No, crony capitalism is corporatism, which is a the older sister of regulated capitalism. Side: Trickle Down
Gold and silver have intrinsic value because intrinsic value denotes value forever, and that value remains relatively unchanged and equal to the same amount today as it was thousands of years ago as well as they've been demanded for thousands of years. That is because they have traditionally been used as a facilitator of trade for centuries. Tea, spices, and salt were also historically used as items to facilitate trade traditionally but one wouldn't argue that they have intrinsic value that never changes. One day gold and silver will have little demand, and it will move to something else. What gives these items lasting value is that they are state-agnostic. The pitfall of a state creating its own currency is that when the state collapses (which must always happen as politics change over periods of centuries) the currency goes with it. However as long as it stands, that currency has a state-regulated value. Seriously, how stupid are you Toilet paper has value only in the means of exchange, no monetary value. McDonald's will accept toilet paper as a medium for exchange for a Big Mac because nobody sees in value in it unlike Gold or Silver or the fiat money. If a powerful economic agency stood behind it, then it would gain value as a means of facilitating trade, as long as scarcity existed. I should be able to opt out of the unemployment insurance, welfare, public insurance. Why would I need unemployment insurance, welfare, and public health insurance if I have a job? If you were able to opt out, then others who don't use the service would too, and the price for it would raise individually in the taxes of those who do use it, thus eliminating the purpose of it being a tax in the first place. Again, since you are incapable of reading, it is not my share for the services offered through the state if I don't use or consume them, then that is forcefully stealing because I earned and the state is giving to those of the unearned. There is a point where other can help others only to a certain degree, and those individuals must want to help themselves. It is your share as part of the contract you hold while staying here, that you will pay a small portion of the bill for others who cannot afford it. It is not theft, because it is both a legal transaction, and because you consent to it by living here and taking the services of the state in the form of government, courts, police, military, etc. In other words, if you don't like the contract, move to another country or state. Don't whine about something you consented to in the first place. Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure that the libertarians in those days would call you a communist for wanting to free the slaves and rob them of their property. That is, if communism existed back then. What don't you understand here? Are you that inept that you think that slavery was a byproduct of libertarianism. That is wrong. No, I think it is very well-supported by libertarian values on property, contracts, and support of business over the rights of individuals. In other words, I think that if Libertarians did not have the cultural background of our nation on slavery, they would support slavery as a logical extension of property rights. After all, libertarians support segregation and it's only a few decades removed from our culture. They also support sweatshops and child labour, so they have no problem supporting the oppression of others. Slavery was a result of government failure. Been over this before. Slavery was a natural cultural manifestation of the attitudes towards property which existed for thousands of years. Government merely legitimised the culture, much like how government presently legitimises your ownership of your house. One day it may come to pass that house ownership is illegal, viewed as theft of land from others. Then the libertarian pundits of the day will claim that home-ownership was a result of government failure. if libertarian was apparent, government would have protected all humans through their inalienable rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. They did. They protected the property owners' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It just so happens that slaves were property, not people, so they didn't have those rights. Again, why are you supporting the initiation of force by MEN WITH GUNS over slave-holders to FORCE them to release their slaves? Why should a slave-holder be forced to give up HIS PROPERTY to the land? That's not very libertarian of you, to support the initiation of force. Government failed because it permitted people to own others by laws. You mean, government allowed an expanded definition of property. Property is sacred to the libertarian. I'm surprised you're not defending that old definition of property where humans could be counted amongst it. The myth is widespread and deeply rooted that big business and big government are rivals—that big business wants small government. BGBB It's not a myth when it's true. Tell me, why would a big business want rules and regulations which could hold it accountable? No, they want total unaccountability, and no interference from government unless it is in their favour. Today's largest corporations have mastered the art of working with government officials at every level to stifle market competition. They reap billions through a complex web of higher taxes, stricter regulations, and shameless government handouts. BR Right. That's the natural progression of capitalism: start small, grow bigger, and fund lawmakers to make competition illegal. That's why the face of big government through the last century has been one long line of regulations favouring business, because businesses got big and funded political campaigns and lawmakers. This made them bigger and more powerful. No serious scholar denies that businessmen played important parts in creating the interventionist state. Big Business and Big Gov Then why do you dispute it? The problem with the libertarian mindset is that it only solves half of the problem and fervently opposes efforts to solve the remaining half. The only way to solve the problem of big business and big government is to completely abolish all those tax breaks, and regulations which exist to support big business monopolies and hegemonies. This would invite competition. The SECOND half of the problem is to create new laws and regulations which severely punish corporate and business meddling in politics. If the second measure isn't taken, big government will form anew as big businesses buy laws again. Acutally, Reagan saved the nation from the disaterous polices of Carter. Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/ No, crony capitalism is corporatism, which is a the older sister of regulated capitalism. Unregulated capitalism becomes crony capitalism and corporatism. Side: Pump Prime
I'm gonna go bold point by bold point here: 1. I'm not quite sure I understand, but what you are talking about there would be quantitative easing, the act of buying government bonds by the Fed. The Fed, under Woodrow, was seen to the business community as a welcome asset to assist in stabilizing the market place. 2. The social contract theory, as afore mentioned, is social, not singular, one man cannot have his own government, otherwise, that would be anarchy. Where each man governs himself by his own rules. No one LIKES taxes, but, when we think about it, it is for the best, most of the time. 3. And maybe we should have a middle state of a mixed economy? Human motives cannot be clearly defined, what makes China prosper so greatly as of late? It is mostly culture, culture has a lot to do with it, but also the liberalization of markets, as China has permitted, however small, after all, China will soon exceed the number of research papers published in the US per annum. Something must drive the Chinese to work so fervently, and, without the proper capital motive, there must be a cultural motive. Basically what I'm trying to say is, there is no perfect system, only one that is best for a certain people, fi the pursuit of wealth is frowned upon, a society will be poor, yes, and will not develop a highly competitive market place or capitalist system, sort of like Feudal Japan. 4. I think that when companies fail of no fault of their own they should most often fall, no matter what, creative destruction. But, in times like these, letting them fail would create a worse economic recession. There are very few times these interventionist policies should be pursued. 5. JP fucking Morgan. Bailed out the economy TWICE! I always get weak (laugh) at that, its a funny thought to me that a single individual can do that, but he did. Gilded Age of American history. Horizontal and Vertical consolidation in cutthroat competition in a highly unregulated market place created so many trusts and such, that the Sherman Antitrust act was put into place. It led to the Gospel of Wealth (by rockefellar?) which advocated the rich "nannying" the poor by establishing libraries and other public or private institutions that would help the poor education themselves for personal betterment, but not for the increase in their personal livelihood. 6. I'm pretty sure thats the same thing as 4, right? 7. This is where we go awry, Reagan led to greatest deregulation movement, a counter to the Great society movement, the most important piece of legislation, in my opinion, the Glass-Stegall Act, was removed and other union busting and deregulatory moves were made, and guess what, after that we had our first major economic recessions since the GD. 8. I'm lazy right now and I'm not bothering to figure what the other poster meant by "it" XD Side: Pump Prime
No, we should let the rich keep the money they've earned. There's no point in taking what's rightfully theirs! Except it isn't rightfully theirs. The preconception you face is that property is sacred and owned by no one else, to the possible detriment of others. Society doesn't work this way. Side: Pump Prime
Except it isn't rightfully theirs. The preconception you face is that property is sacred and owned by no one else, to the possible detriment of others. Society doesn't work this way. So who does their money belong to? People who set up successful companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft ... you can't blame rich parents for those guys!) have rightfully worked for and earned their money! But you're saying their money doesn't belong to them. So who does it belong to? And, say we did put a tax on them just because they're big corporations, and suppose your faith in the government isn't misplaced and that people did start making small businesses. Those very small businesses, if run properly, will become big businesses in ten or fifteen years, and then you'll be pushing to "cut their profits to humble levels" to start small businesses! Side: Trickle Down
So who does their money belong to? Society, really. Money serves two purposes. The first is the facilitation of relationships and exchanges which drive invention and allow people to survive. The second is an extension of the first, where an excess in wealth allows the facilitation of relationships which serve one's political interests. An equal society would abhor the second, because it undermines democracy. People who set up successful companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft ... you can't blame rich parents for those guys!) have rightfully worked for and earned their money! The only right they have is to invest that money into their employees and technologies, however it goes beyond that because they are now corporations, which means that their wealth is used to give them a level of political access that no ordinary person can hope to attain or compete with. Therefore, it isn't simply about them earning money, is it? But you're saying their money doesn't belong to them. So who does it belong to? It belongs to society, as a tool. And, say we did put a tax on them just because they're big corporations, and suppose your faith in the government isn't misplaced and that people did start making small businesses. Those very small businesses, if run properly, will become big businesses in ten or fifteen years, and then you'll be pushing to "cut their profits to humble levels" to start small businesses! Right, sort of. If such taxes (or penalties) were put into place, it would lead to an endless cycle of businesses growing bigger, hitting a financial ceiling, and then being forced to compete with small businesses, who may grow to face the same problem. It would drive competition at the local level because big businesses would have a major handicap which would make them an undesirable pursuit, so small businesses would compete to reach the level just below that major tax point. Side: Pump Prime
Society, really. So no matter how much money you make, it all could be taken away from you if society deems it right? What if, by a sheer stroke of luck, you won the lottery. Would you accept to having the government take all of it away because you've suddenly become too rich? Therefore, it isn't simply about them earning money, is it? No, it's about providing people with computers and internet and better technologies to make life easier (although more complex) for the rest of us. And if they work hard like that, they deserve to have a better voice in government. If such taxes (or penalties) were put into place, it would lead to an endless cycle of businesses growing bigger, hitting a financial ceiling, and then being forced to compete with small businesses, who may grow to face the same problem. So the world would be filled with medium-sized businesses, who have neither the advantage of growing like a small business nor the success of a large one. Excellent. Job well done. Side: Trickle Down
So no matter how much money you make, it all could be taken away from you if society deems it right? What if, by a sheer stroke of luck, you won the lottery. Would you accept to having the government take all of it away because you've suddenly become too rich? You have a severe difficulty dropping this sense of "mine." No, it's about providing people with computers and internet and better technologies to make life easier (although more complex) for the rest of us. And if they work hard like that, they deserve to have a better voice in government. Except, as previously stated, they do not work hard for that, do they? Remember that they inherited the positions of their fathers and grandfathers. Also remember that they are not individually providing those services which you credit them, instead they are managing the production of those services. Finally, I feel you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that they deserve a larger government voice. This is directly contradictory towards the values of our nation. We are a democracy. That means everyone must have the same voice in politics, represented by one vote per person. We do not live in an aristocracy where people are given greater social prominence due to their bloodline or inheritance. If you want this type of government, try living in a monarchy. So the world would be filled with medium-sized businesses, who have neither the advantage of growing like a small business nor the success of a large one. Excellent. Job well done. Correct. This would keep business powers in check, since they would not be able to effectively buy government favours. Side: Pump Prime
You have a severe difficulty dropping this sense of "mine." So what is 'mine'? If what you're saying is true, than what do I work for? If I don't get to keep what I work for, than why work at all? After all, in a socialistic society, if I don't work, then I'll be given money to survive on! From all those rich people who do work. At least, they would until everything's taken away. People work for their own good. That's a fact of human nature. We're greedy. And capitalism is based on that greed, helping the greed fuel the rest of the economy. Socialism would take motivation away from the greed. People would stop working, and the government would quickly run out of other peoples' money. Remember that they inherited the positions of their fathers and grandfathers. Also remember that they are not individually providing those services which you credit them, instead they are managing the production of those services. Steve Wozniak was not from a wealthy family. He started building computers by hand with is friend in a garage. And now that garage company is Apple. So, yes, they had to work for it. They had to sell a brand-new product, which people thought had no practical use in the world. In fact, they were selling computers for the sole purpose of gaming, a very real luxury in today's world. But now computers are considered vital to many jobs. They worked for it, and they should keep their profits. Correct. This would keep business powers in check, since they would not be able to effectively buy government favours. I think you missed that my 'job well done' was sarcastic. Anyway, you know what else would keep power in check? Putting a cap on corporate donations. However, that cap was destroyed by the government. I wonder why, seeing as the destruction of the cap allowed people to put more money into the pockets of those in the government. Convenient, eh? Side: Trickle Down
So what is 'mine'? If what you're saying is true, than what do I work for? In the most fundamental sense "mine" is what I can take from someone or someplace and defend for my sake. This evolved over many ages to mean that what is "mine" is what I can convince society to recognise as legitimate in my possession so that it will defend it for me. The end result of this is that work is now perceived as a means to earn legitimacy in transactions. It need not always be that way however. If I don't get to keep what I work for, than why work at all? Change of priorities. We don't live in small groups where self-interest is paramount, any longer. We live in giant societies now, which means the focus must be on communal survival and health. After all, in a socialistic society, if I don't work, then I'll be given money to survive on! Right. Is there a problem with society caring for its own? Would you find it satisfying to forever remain on just enough allowance to survive? Wouldn't you find it greater to benefit others and grow as a person? Socialism would take motivation away from the greed. People would stop working, and the government would quickly run out of other peoples' money. Apparently not. Try looking at Europe. Also, to take the inverse of your position, why then has the United States been in debt for decades? Steve Wozniak was not from a wealthy family. He started building computers by hand with is friend in a garage. And now that garage company is Apple. Yes, a few people make it big. Now his children live on with his wealth at their disposal. This is how wealth works. They worked for it, and they should keep their profits. You keep hovering around that assumption, almost dogmatically. Why must they keep their profits? What justification is there for a person to keep obscene wealth? Put another way, what justification is there for a person to hold a scare resource in great excess, when their community needs it? Put yet another way, shouldn't you be trying to save their souls by forcing poverty upon them? He and his family is hell-bound because of their wealth. Isn't it your moral duty to save them from such a fate? I think you missed that my 'job well done' was sarcastic. Anyway, you know what else would keep power in check? Putting a cap on corporate donations. We can't do that. Do you know why? Because like your quote, it starts at the person, then the family, and then greater. Right now we can never hope to get legislation out that effectively ends corporatism, because we have too little wealth at our disposal, too little influence to stand against such behemoths. What we can do is prevent future generations from becoming wealthy enough to repeat the corporate cycle. Then maybe we can expand it to end corporate meddling. Just my thoughts, anyway. However, that cap was destroyed by the government. I wonder why, seeing as the destruction of the cap allowed people to put more money into the pockets of those in the government. Convenient, eh? It was ended most likely because corporations want government in their pocket. They want as few barriers to this as possible. Side: Pump Prime
The end result of this is that work is now perceived as a means to earn legitimacy in transactions. It need not always be that way however. What is work than? The majority of humanity won't work because it benefits society. They work because it benefits them. If you take that away, then they won't work. which means the focus must be on communal survival and health. Working for communal survival and health only works when the community is small. That's why it's called a community. Right. Is there a problem with society caring for its own? Would you find it satisfying to forever remain on just enough allowance to survive? Wouldn't you find it greater to benefit others and grow as a person? Yes, there's a problem. If nobody works, there's no money to give out! I might find it rewarding to help others, but the number of people who share my thoughts are too small to support those who would take advantage of the system. Apparently not. Try looking at Europe. Also, to take the inverse of your position, why then has the United States been in debt for decades? And people are flocking to immigrate to socialistic European countries? And the US has been in debt because they did run out of other peoples' money. Yes, a few people make it big. Now his children live on with his wealth at their disposal. This is how wealth works. Shouldn't people be able to work to benefit their families? That's a form of communal sharing. You keep hovering around that assumption, almost dogmatically. Why must they keep their profits? What justification is there for a person to keep obscene wealth? Because they worked for it! They put the time and effort into it, and struck it big. They should enjoy their wealth, not have it taken from them. It's like waiting lazily for somebody to dig a well and then taking that well from them, saying they suddenly have too much water. They dug the well, the get to keep the well. Put another way, what justification is there for a person to hold a scare resource in great excess, when their community needs it? The justification that the resource is theirs, that they worked for it, or their parents worked for it, and if they choose not to help others, that's their choice. It may be harsh, but it's true. Luckily, when their 'community' is actually a community (people living close to each other and knowing each other), the rich people tend to give to the benefit of the community. However, Bill Gates in Seattle does not live in a community with the poor person in Portland, OR, or even the poor person in Seattle, let alone the people in Florida, Maine, California, or any other state. We can't do that. Why can't we put a cap on corporate donations? The quote I had was that if you wanted to change the world (which you obviously want to do so), you must first change yourself. This has nothing to do with putting caps on corporate donations. It was ended most likely because corporations want government in their pocket. They want as few barriers to this as possible. Which happens because the government wants money in their pocket. If that were not so, they couldn't be paid off, and we wouldn't have this problem. Side: Trickle Down
What is work than? The majority of humanity won't work because it benefits society. They work because it benefits them. If you take that away, then they won't work. I do not know if this principle is inviolable. It seems to me that we lived for thousands of years with the interest of the group in mind, since we were surviving. Working for communal survival and health only works when the community is small. That's why it's called a community. That's what towns and cities are, effectively. Yes, there's a problem. If nobody works, there's no money to give out! I might find it rewarding to help others, but the number of people who share my thoughts are too small to support those who would take advantage of the system. It would be more accurate to say that society needs a certain threshold of workers, and your concerns are over most people violating this threshold, while at the same time a minority is amassing resources which could lower this threshold. And people are flocking to immigrate to socialistic European countries? And the US has been in debt because they did run out of other peoples' money. Yes, people are flocking to Europe. It's very popular there, contrary to what Minitrue says. We were in debt for decades. It isn't simply the result of sudden social programs, it has existed further back than World War 2. Shouldn't people be able to work to benefit their families? That's a form of communal sharing. In theory, yes, but what this does in practice is steepen class divides. A child born into wealth never experiences hardships and is far removed from the difficulties of living as a working class father or mother. Therefore when they take over dad's business, they are callous to the needy and feel privileged, entitled to that wealth. Therefore they will work fervently to oppose laws which make it easier to live in the bottom 80%. Because they worked for it! They put the time and effort into it, and struck it big. They should enjoy their wealth, not have it taken from them. It's like waiting lazily for somebody to dig a well and then taking that well from them, saying they suddenly have too much water. They dug the well, the get to keep the well. Then those workers who support them deserve the wealth equally. They work hard and put time and effort into their job. Why aren't they receiving an even slice of that wealth? The justification that the resource is theirs, that they worked for it, or their parents worked for it, and if they choose not to help others, that's their choice. It may be harsh, but it's true. Except they didn't work for it in your second example, but inherited it. Wealth acquired by luck of genetic inheritance, sounds a lot like the old policies of monarchs and nobility. In actuality there is no justification for their ownership of that wealth outside of mutual agreement. If everyone is made to respect selfishness and greed then they will honour it. What originally started as ownership by forced defense of scarce goods has become the tacit acceptance of men's claims over scarce resources. There is no justification other than they can convince everyone of the legitimacy of their claim. Luckily, when their 'community' is actually a community (people living close to each other and knowing each other), the rich people tend to give to the benefit of the community. However, Bill Gates in Seattle does not live in a community with the poor person in Portland, OR, or even the poor person in Seattle, let alone the people in Florida, Maine, California, or any other state. They never give enough, with rare exceptions, because they are greedy. What they give ends up acting as a means of appeasement, a way to keep the destitute willing to accept tradition of ownership. Why can't we put a cap on corporate donations? The quote I had was that if you wanted to change the world (which you obviously want to do so), you must first change yourself. This has nothing to do with putting caps on corporate donations. I believe I answered why I thought we couldn't. Which happens because the government wants money in their pocket. If that were not so, they couldn't be paid off, and we wouldn't have this problem. Are you blaming people for being people? People are corruptible through money and goods. Side: Pump Prime
That's what towns and cities are, effectively. Towns, maybe. But cities are not communities. Portland, OR (where I live) has around two million people living in or around it. How is that a community? A community would maybe be a neighborhood in that city. If a population center has more than around 5,000 people, it is no longer a community, but a collection of communities. In theory, yes, but what this does in practice is steepen class divides. A child born into wealth never experiences hardships and is far removed from the difficulties of living as a working class father or mother. Therefore when they take over dad's business, they are callous to the needy and feel privileged, entitled to that wealth. Therefore they will work fervently to oppose laws which make it easier to live in the bottom 80%. So let's move into example-land. You live in a dry place where water is scarce. You put years of your life into digging a well, and the well gets built. People who live near you get angry at you for suddenly having too much water. They take the well from you and your children. Or, say they don't. They just get angry, but you keep the well. But your children don't, because they didn't work for the well. The angry people say that since they grew up with the water, they don't know what it's like to be thirsty, and thus are making decisions against helping other people dig their own wells. And so they take the well from your children. Meanwhile, the water taken from this well is given to people who dig wells for other people, but those people throw dirt into their wells and pee in them, throwing trash in there and poisoning the water. But it's not their fault, because those few who've dug their own wells have oppressed them, so we need to dig them more wells and hope they get the picture. Then those workers who support them deserve the wealth equally. They work hard and put time and effort into their job. Why aren't they receiving an even slice of that wealth? Workers get what the companies think they are worth. If you are one in 10 million workers for a large company, that doesn't mean you get 1/10 millionth the profits. You get paid what you're worth. If you want more, you work harder. If you save up your money and invest it properly, you can increase your wealth, maybe start your own business. You move up in the world, and create more jobs. Except they didn't work for it in your second example, but inherited it. Wealth acquired by luck of genetic inheritance, sounds a lot like the old policies of monarchs and nobility. The wells thing applies here, too. They never give enough, with rare exceptions, because they are greedy. What they give ends up acting as a means of appeasement, a way to keep the destitute willing to accept tradition of ownership. What would* be enough? So everyone in their community has the same amount of money? Even the guy who spends all he has on comic books and expensive food, without caring for where he lives or healthcare? Or the guy who buys only alcohol? Do they deserve that same median of money? I believe I answered why I thought we couldn't. No, you haven't answered why. And it seems you're trying to change the subject and question. I'll ask you plainly this time: Why can't we set caps on corporate donations? Are you blaming people for being people? People are corruptible through money and goods. Yes, people are corruptible, and as long as they are corruptible, they will be corrupted. No matter what you do. Unless we take corruption away, making it illegal to donate to senators, make them limited to one term so they focus on leading and not re-election, cutting their salary so they apply for the job to lead, not to make money. Side: Trickle Down
Towns, maybe. But cities are not communities. It depends on the size and how they are divided up into counties. Portland, OR (where I live) has around two million people living in or around it. How is that a community? Well, from my experience Portland feels like a community in each county, with each county divided into neighborhoods. Granted that it isn't as small as southern Oregon, where everybody knew your business, people still seem to form their groups here. Where I live there is a nice hub of transit, lots of markets and an Asian (Korean, Japanese, and Pakistani) community nearby. I noticed a similar feeling of community around the Belmont area. Lots of little things going on, and people with routines and acquaintances. I just moved here five months ago, however. I still have a lot to discover about what goes on around here. A community would maybe be a neighborhood in that city. If a population center has more than around 5,000 people, it is no longer a community, but a collection of communities. So we are agreed then. A nation is a collection of communities. So let's move into example-land. You live in a dry place where water is scarce. You put years of your life into digging a well, and the well gets built. People who live near you get angry at you for suddenly having too much water. They take the well from you and your children. It would be a better example if there was a state as well, but moving on, would you blame them for taking a technology to benefit the group rather than a single family? Or would you rather that a single family is sated and a whole community (by your reckoning, as much as 5000 people) is deprived of such a vital resource? Or, say they don't. They just get angry, but you keep the well. But your children don't, because they didn't work for the well. The angry people say that since they grew up with the water, they don't know what it's like to be thirsty, and thus are making decisions against helping other people dig their own wells. And so they take the well from your children. Again, in such a situation, could you blame them for not wanting to be lorded over by people who have never experienced dehydration? Meanwhile, the water taken from this well is given to people who dig wells for other people, but those people throw dirt into their wells and pee in them, throwing trash in there and poisoning the water. But it's not their fault, because those few who've dug their own wells have oppressed them, so we need to dig them more wells and hope they get the picture. I think you kind of broke your metaphor at this point. Anyway, I would extrapolate from your metaphor and add that the family which builds a well earns the scorn of their peers because when the community wants to share the well, the family decides to refuse the invitation and instead shares its water supply with some well-armed men in exchange for their guardianship of the well from any but the family and themselves. Then you have capitalism and government in a nutshell. Workers get what the companies think they are worth. If you are one in 10 million workers for a large company, that doesn't mean you get 1/10 millionth the profits. You get paid what you're worth. If you want more, you work harder. If you save up your money and invest it properly, you can increase your wealth, maybe start your own business. You move up in the world, and create more jobs. So if you're free to defy your premise that wealth is earned by effort, then I am free to defy that premise as well and demand that wealth be tightly regulated for the public good. Otherwise stick to your premise which supports your dogma about property. What would be enough? So everyone in their community has the same amount of money? Even the guy who spends all he has on comic books and expensive food, without caring for where he lives or healthcare? Or the guy who buys only alcohol? Do they deserve that same median of money? I cannot specify a target figure, but can describe what it should look like. We will know that enough has been given when the gulf between rich and poor isn't separated by magnitudes of over one hundred, but instead is less than ten. We will know that enough has been given when the richest 1% own at most 10% of private wealth, but preferably under 5% and optimally less than 2%. The poorest 80% would possess a private wealth closer to 80%, meaning no less than 70%. In such a society it would be much harder to buy out government because the wealth needed to corrupt so many men and women would bankrupt the individual. Why can't we set caps on corporate donations? I said that corporations are presently too big, too well-funded to compete with directly in congress. Instead we would need to work on financially weakening them, before their voice would be mute enough to legislate against. I suggested that we work on limiting individual wealth first. Yes, people are corruptible, and as long as they are corruptible, they will be corrupted. No matter what you do. Unless we take corruption away, making it illegal to donate to senators, make them limited to one term so they focus on leading and not re-election, cutting their salary so they apply for the job to lead, not to make money. Corruption won't just vanish because you make it illegal, although your suggestions show some thought behind them and sound like a way to reduce the level of corruption. Side: Pump Prime
Well, from my experience Portland feels like a community in each county, with each county divided into neighborhoods. Granted that it isn't as small as southern Oregon, where everybody knew your business, people still seem to form their groups here. Where I live there is a nice hub of transit, lots of markets and an Asian (Korean, Japanese, and Pakistani) community nearby. I noticed a similar feeling of community around the Belmont area. Lots of little things going on, and people with routines and acquaintances. So you agree with me that cities are made of communities. But the city itself is not a community. A nation is a collection of communities. Yes, a nation is a collection of areas populated by groups of communities (country, state, city, communities, respectively). Or would you rather that a single family is sated and a whole community (by your reckoning, as much as 5000 people) is deprived of such a vital resource? No, I'd have the whole community sated, but each family should dig their own wells. Again, in such a situation, could you blame them for not wanting to be lorded over by people who have never experienced dehydration? If this really is a community, than the people with the water wouldn't lord it over them. At least, not as much as they do now. I think you kind of broke your metaphor at this point. Anyway, I would extrapolate from your metaphor and add that the family which builds a well earns the scorn of their peers because when the community wants to share the well, the family decides to refuse the invitation and instead shares its water supply with some well-armed men in exchange for their guardianship of the well from any but the family and themselves. Then you have capitalism and government in a nutshell. Yes, but I would certainly pay water-guards with water if the people in my 'community' were trying to take my well from me! So if you're free to defy your premise that wealth is earned by effort But I'm not defying it. You work harder, you get more money. You work with that money, you get more money. You increase your wealth. Through work. (But make sure you don't will that wealth to your kids, otherwise people will take it from them to give to others) In such a society it would be much harder to buy out government because the wealth needed to corrupt so many men and women would bankrupt the individual. But it would also be harder to improve your day-to-day life. And your ultimate goal wouldn't be as high as it is now. Kids grow up wanting to be millionaires. But if you tell them it's impossible (or illegal), then you crush their dreams. I said that corporations are presently too big, too well-funded to compete with directly in congress. Instead we would need to work on financially weakening them, before their voice would be mute enough to legislate against. I suggested that we work on limiting individual wealth first. But if 80% of the population agreed there should be a cap, two things could happen: 1) The government hears reason and puts a cap on it. 2) The government says "we really know what's best for you", and the people revolt against their government. I'd say we're long overdue for a revolt, but it's probably too late, now. A revolt would end in a bloodbath, as the government would probably call in our military to protect themselves. Unless, of course, the military were part of the revolt, in which case it would go off without a hitch. Corruption won't just vanish because you make it illegal, although your suggestions show some thought behind them and sound like a way to reduce the level of corruption. Why thank you. I realize there will always be under-the-table deals. If we ever find a way to eliminate them..... Side: Trickle Down
So, if it's society's money and not mine, then I'll just sit back and let society work for it. They can earn their own #$&ing;money! It strikes me as odd how Christians (according to your profile, anyway), are often among those most eager to defend personal property and protest socialism. I find this odd because it is strictly against the views of the god you supposedly follow. Being Christlike means that you give away all your personal possessions and show disdain for personal wealth. It's all there in the bible. Side: Pump Prime
It strikes me as odd how Christians (according to your profile, anyway), are often among those most eager to defend personal property and protest socialism. I'm defending peoples' rights to choose what they want to do with their property. God tells us that we should support the poor, and that's what I try to do, but who am I to decide what other's have to do? They're their own people, and have their own choices. I am in no position to force anyone to do anything, even if I believe my views are correct. Being Christlike means that you give away all your personal possessions and show disdain for personal wealth. It's all there in the bible. Yes, it means to show disdain for my own personal wealth, not the wealth of others. If I do all I can, what more can I do? Once again, nothing makes me think I can, or should, force other people to follow my convictions. So where do you think you get the power to tell people what to do? Side: Trickle Down
I'm defending peoples' rights to choose what they want to do with their property. That's not very Christian, though, is it? Shouldn't you be pushing for ways to encourage them to lead a life of voluntary poverty? God tells us that we should support the poor, and that's what I try to do, but who am I to decide what other's have to do? They're their own people, and have their own choices. I am in no position to force anyone to do anything, even if I believe my views are correct. If that's the case then why do Christians typically meddle in government to affect public morality? If you're not this type of Christian then I have no leg to stand on concerning you but it is my observation that Christians take every opportunity to tell everyone how they ought to live, and yet voluntary poverty is never one of these items. Yes, it means to show disdain for my own personal wealth, not the wealth of others. As compared with most other Christians, doesn't that strike you as convenient? If I do all I can, what more can I do? Once again, nothing makes me think I can, or should, force other people to follow my convictions. Again, if you believe this way completely, then my comments do not apply. So where do you think you get the power to tell people what to do? There are a number of ways I could answer that. The simple answer is that I tend to see people making mistakes and feel the need to correct them. The more complicated answer is that the whole of society is a mess and I find it relaxing to tell others how to fix it. However the answer which supersedes the first two is that I really cannot tell anybody what to do, as they are not bound to my wishes, but I do so anyway because it amuses me. Side: Pump Prime
That's not very Christian, though, is it? Shouldn't you be pushing for ways to encourage them to lead a life of voluntary poverty? I do. But what you're suggesting isn't voluntary poverty, it's forced poverty. If the government requires people to pay higher taxes, that's not voluntary! Christians take every opportunity to tell everyone how they ought to live, and yet voluntary poverty is never one of these items. Yes, they do, and it makes me sad. I wish I could do something to change it, but that would mean I would be doing what they're doing--telling people how to live. I just hope the right Christianity wins out over the others. As compared with most other Christians, doesn't that strike you as convenient? I'm confused at the convenience of this. My own wealth is the only thing I have a say over. There are a number of ways I could answer that. The simple answer is that I tend to see people making mistakes and feel the need to correct them. The more complicated answer is that the whole of society is a mess and I find it relaxing to tell others how to fix it. However the answer which supersedes the first two is that I really cannot tell anybody what to do, as they are not bound to my wishes, but I do so anyway because it amuses me. The first applies with me, too. But the government isn't a way to fix that. I'm not sure how to get people to make the right choices, but you cannot force it. Side: Trickle Down
I do. But what you're suggesting isn't voluntary poverty, it's forced poverty. If the government requires people to pay higher taxes, that's not voluntary! I take it that my questions aren't really directed at you given what I've read. I assumed that your policies on this matter were closer to the common religious right. Yes, they do, and it makes me sad. I wish I could do something to change it, but that would mean I would be doing what they're doing--telling people how to live. I just hope the right Christianity wins out over the others. Well, I've often heard it put that you can't expect change by hoping for it, you have to have a voice. I'm confused at the convenience of this. My own wealth is the only thing I have a say over. I suppose I was unclear, I meant convenient in the sense that it fits in with your beliefs about property. The first applies with me, too. But the government isn't a way to fix that. I'm not sure how to get people to make the right choices, but you cannot force it. I've thought about working at the social level to foster an attitude of disgust at greed. I think if it became a common, pervasive attitude that greed was despicable, unattractive, wretched then maybe people would start regulating themselves on the higher level. Sort of like how what's attractive now is being absurdly thin. I want that same attitude towards wealth, so that people are eager to not live in excess. But like you I'm not in the present position to foster communal change. It is within my near plans though. I am still riddled with a sort of hopelessness when it comes to the state level on this matter. I've seen how loud and obnoxious corporate voices are, and it seems impossible to fight them at times. Side: Pump Prime
Well, I've often heard it put that you can't expect change by hoping for it, you have to have a voice. I realize I have a voice, or am supposed to have a voice. I vote, but I don't think my voice should be more powerful than others' voices. That puts a hefty limit on my voting power, no matter how much money I have. But I might earn influence over people by befriending them, and via influence and ... what's the word? ... you know, when people see the way you live and get inspired ... by ... example!, I just might change something. I suppose I was unclear, I meant convenient in the sense that it fits in with your beliefs about property. I guess it does. I never really thought about it. I've thought about working at the social level to foster an attitude of disgust at greed. I think if it became a common, pervasive attitude that greed was despicable, unattractive, wretched then maybe people would start regulating themselves on the higher level. A very noble goal, and I'd stand with you to achieve it. But rules and regulations won't do that. Influence and friends might. And those require no money. Side: Trickle Down
The right to keep what you earn is incumbent upon the state which insures the general welfare of its citizens, the definition of freedom to an American fundamentally changed in the great depression, freedom to live at a certain standard. Look at the Gilded Age, there was so much pain in that era as the rich literally could bail out America single handedly, JP Morgan did it TWICE!, the point is, we don't want to go backwards to the gilded age, we won't to make progress and forge ahead to future where the sweets of wealth don't manage to concentrate at the top, where the net worth of the top 5% is almost half of that of the bottom 95%, statistic vary depending on what you count as "wealth" I use the most reasonable one, in my opinion. If they could, they would use slave labour to export their goods to enrich themselves, but the system of free labour was established after the Civil War in America for good. Side: Pump Prime
No counter-argument? The downvote fairy has struck again! {laughter ensues} Perhaps you want to explain to me how it follows that because someone tries something one way (which in your opinion doesn't work), this automagically means another, logically unrelated, method is inherently superior? This is like saying "I'm going with a Nuclear Holocaust to bring peace to the middle-east because negotiation is the way the Obama Administration works it out" Side: Pump Prime
0
points
|
1
point
It really depends on the economy. For trickle down economics to be remotely effective there needs to be enough demand, or else investments will be not be profitable and carry more risk because businesses, markets, etc will be doing poorly. More money would go into T-Bills, CDS, saving accounts etc rather then stocks, venture funding, services etc. You can boost demand by a "prime and pump" method if you target areas of the economy which would raise demand if money was given to them. If demand is low because of a "credit crunch" or liquidity trap then giving some to banks might help. Although the most helpful thing might be tax cuts to the middle and lower classes since they are the majority and allowing them to spend might allow for the demand which allows for a trickle down economics policy to work. Preferably a progressive tax system is in place which keeps taxes relatively low (when compared to inflation and other indicators of what taxes should be) for the great majority so that demand is encouraged well the upper middle class and the lower upper class are the most encouraged to invest to encourage a diversity of investments to be made. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
When there is more money in the hands of the private sector, it will inevitably flow. That is human nature. Already the top 5% of income earners, according to recent figures, pay 58% of federal income taxes. Is that their fair share? Didn't think so. Also, in a nation such as the U.S., in which the national debt is still mounting, it is a terrible idea to spend the amounts that have been on previous stimulus packages. Side: Trickle Down
1
point
Its more like a prisoner delima, where the rational thing to do is to help yourself the most and harm your competition the most; this results in less net gains in the long run though. In a similar fashion, you'll want to hold on to your money during a recession and call due any debts you have owed to you. This results in less cash flow, a stimulus package puts more money into the hands of the private sector lessening the desire to hold on to it. Is it fairer to take from a poor man his bread or is it fairer to take from the rich man his extra yacht? National debt is different from private debt, the previous stimulus packages could of been better done but they are little different than a debt consolidation plan for the nation. If you look at the difference between the MO and M1 money supply, its becomes apparent that the usa has its economy founded on debt, debt is what allows the economy to function. This can be overdone though and when it is we run into problems like the recession. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
Your first assertion is that a recession creates a an environment in which fewer people spend as much money as they would with more money at their disposal.. That is true, particularly for the lower- and middle-income brackets. As such, stimulating spending and investment is important, and the most effective way to go about doing so is to reduce the tax burden. Your second assertion suggests that not taxing the rich means that the poor will be harmed, but that is not true. The rich are widely known as conspicuous spenders. They have financial resources, and they utilize them, in many cases for personal benefit. However, this is not harmful. Rather, it means that the people who construct and service the products that the rich utilize have a consistent flow of income. Indeed, it is possible that someone could build a business in this manner and himself become rich. However, despite the fact that the affluent will spend in all instances, a less restrictive tax system is even more conducive to spending and, by extension, job creation. The third assertion is that debt is important to an economy. Debt in and of itself is not problematic, however, when it increases to dangerous levels (such as the national debt currently and in the foreseeable future) it rapidly becomes harmful, especially as spending exceeds national tax income and the burden falls on taxpayers to begin the process of repaying the debt. That will negate the positive benefits of a supply side policy. Side: Trickle Down
1
point
1] Stimulating spending is important and reducing the tax burden helps, especially for classes which make up the majority of the demand in society, which is why the tax burden on the lower and middle classes should be low. 2] A higher tax for the upper class is less of a burden then a lower tax on the lower and middle classes. In order for jobs to be created, there must be demand for services and products. Which The rich's demand stays about constant for most services and goods, as they gain more money they contribute more to the demand for investment services but in order for those to be appealing they must have a healthy economy to invest in. In recessions, the rich pull out of most of the investments which help the economy because of increased risk. So giving them more money is just more money going into a bank account or low risk investment with little influence on job creation. Lowering taxes for the middle and lower classes will stimulate demand more, because it will encourage them to go back to their previous spending habits, well doing it for the rich will not. 3] I fail to see how high levels of national debt is extraordinarily harmful. It is better for tax payers to pay for what can be equated to as a large low interest loan, then for consumers and business though out the nation being unable to pay for what may be equated to as multiple high interest credit cards. Also, debt being important for an economy leads to recessions, the reliance on debt is one way liquidity traps are possible because what basically happens is the amount of money in a country decreases rapidly when a large amount of that debt is called due at once. So when a large industry which is connected to several other industries accumulates a lot of debt it is unable to pay for, you can expect a recession. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
Only approximately the top 52% of all income earners are already required to pay federal income taxes. That negates the need to lower taxes for several brackets because they do have no legal requirement to pay said taxes. In fact, there are numerous opportunities that present themselves during recessions. As demand for products and services decreases, prices also begin to decrease. What this means is that various investments are far less expensive than they are in more positive market conditions. Real estate is an example. Prices for residential and commercial properties were reduced substantially, and as such those with financial resources have the ability to make a much larger profit (given a smaller initial investment when prices are low) when the recession ends. That does not mean that recessions are beneficial to the economy, but it does mean that targeting the other classes for tax reductions will not in and of itself solve the economic situation. Also, consider the introduction of the iPad in early 2010. Millions of the product have sold since reaching shelves, proving that demand during a recession is still quite high. I do, however, agree that tax cuts for those who are currently required to pay income taxes will be beneficial. A repressive tax system is extremely damaging to individuals, companies, and the economy. An issue that is associated with higher taxes for the rich is that it creates uncertainty regarding future taxes, so even when the economy improves, the affluent are less likely to invest as they face the possibility of paying a higher tax on income. Massive stimulus payments made by the government must be funded somehow. Given the spending even before the 2009 stimulus, the cost further added to the rapidly increasing national debt. U.S. GDP is approximately $14.65 trillion. Overall debt is approximately $14.27 trillion, with total interest on that debt estimated at $3.5 trillion. This situation means that government spending in efforts to improve the economy will actually increase the peril associated with the debt. Tax revenues exceed $2.1 trillion, meaning that this crisis has no short term solution in sight. If the nation continues to borrow money, it is very possible that it could default on (at least) portions of the aforementioned debt. That means that it would be unable to pay holders of government bonds, interest rates would increase, and, inexorably, the economy would be plunged into another recession. Side: Trickle Down
What basically you have the Conservatives trying to do is apply the Laffer Curve, God's most awful mistake XD, the idea of the Laffer Curve is that there is an ideal tax range to increase the disposable income of all citizens while increasing the real income of the government. If it sounds like bull, don't worry it is. We all know that the stimulus was too small, it didn't cover the loss in potential GDP and the loss in demand. When we look at China, their stimulus was about as big as ours and bigger in relation to GDP, and guess what, they're doing far better than the rest of the austerity cult of the west. The Economy is not some beast that you can't predict, it is, more or less, rational, unless you refer to Stiglitz work on Market irrationality, but that is only a small component. The Economy works by the laws that govern it and the models which define it. We can recognize this downturn as a demand side issue because of the deflationary spiral of the dollar and the liquidity trap we're in. If it were a supply side problem, the wage cuts would work, and the anti inflationary policy of the fed would help, but that is not the issue, the dollar can hardly inflate any more because of the lack of demand, all the fed can do is buy government bonds, I.E quantitative easing, right now to keep inflation rising to combat deflation, a greater evil. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
For people need to get more business and marketing startegy as well as economical concern, they must see the site below. Side: Pump Prime
0
points
Trickle down system doesn't work, it is what caused this mess we are in. The rich do not invest in anything except what makes them rich. Giving tax breaks to those that live off the interest of their inheritance, doesn't do anything but give these people more of what they have, money. Rich people do not spend money in the main stream, they spend it among themselves. Million dollar houses, 2000 dollar dinners, collectible items (JFK's rocking chair purchased for $40,000), etc. Money need spent where it is consumed, thus creating jobs. Side: Pump Prime
People who live off inheritance don't benefit the economy, and tend to be recklass with money. However, people who get rich do so by investing, where the money goes out. People don't get rich by sitting on a pile of money like a dragon. And rich people tend to own much of the non-government jobs in America. If you make them poor, most of those jobs will go away. Side: Trickle Down
People don't get rich by sitting on a pile of money like a dragon. And rich people tend to own much of the non-government jobs in America. If you make them poor, most of those jobs will go away. If you make the rich poor, then that money will be divided amongst more people, thus consolidating power in more hands rather than the few. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
If you make the rich poor, then that money will be divided amongst more people, thus consolidating power in more hands rather than the few. That would be a temporary situation at best. Certain enterprising individuals will always accumulate wealth at the expense of others. Besides which, I'd rather not be forced to be part of the lowest common denominator, thank you. And while I am loath to resort to quotation: "It is to be regretted that a portion of our community should be practically in slavery, but to propose to solve the problem by enslaving the entire community is childish.". Side: Trickle Down
That would be a temporary situation at best. Certain enterprising individuals will always accumulate wealth at the expense of others. That is why it would require diligence and constant enforcement. Besides which, I'd rather not be forced to be part of the lowest common denominator, thank you. Unless you are part of that upper 1%, you already are and don't realise it. There's plenty of wealth to go around, but greed isn't sated easily and that is why people presently starve and live wretched lives of toil. And while I am loath to resort to quotation: "It is to be regretted that a portion of our community should be practically in slavery, but to propose to solve the problem by enslaving the entire community is childish.". This would not put people into slavery or similar conditions. It would simply correct an excess known as greed. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
That is why it would require diligence and constant enforcement. A concentrated effort to render poverty unto the rich would destroy the economy. Utterly destroy it. Who would run a business if he knew that the very moment he became successful the mighty Raveskde Hood, beloved of the poor and detested by the rich, would, in a display awesome in its charity, take from him his gains and spread them among the poor? That way, said businessman might at least partake of the very great pleasure bestowed by receiving from Raveskde Hood, some meagre percentage of his former wealth, with which to run his once again small to medium business, which is now protected most stalwartly by Raveskde Hood against any person indecent enough to own a large one. Shield me with your left hand, stab me with your right. Unless you are part of that upper 1%, you already are and don't realise it. That is irrelevant to whether I should be forced to remain so, or become so. There's plenty of wealth to go around, but greed isn't sated easily and that is why people presently starve and live wretched lives of toil. I can't speak for America, but in England we run a social welfare system, so very few people actually starve (aside from the homeless, but that is a complication of the system, easily repaired if one took the time). Unless you speak of the developing world, but I have nothing kind to say of them. As to the toil, that is the effect of the quotation. This would not put people into slavery or similar conditions. It would simply correct an excess known as greed. That we may be clear, what exactly does your wisdom commend? Side: Trickle Down
A concentrated effort to render poverty unto the rich would destroy the economy. Utterly destroy it. I maintain that preventing the rich from amassing wealth would diffuse that power into the hands of many, thus resulting in more entrepreneurship and business. I also maintain that yours a just a defense of the status quo. Who would run a business if he knew that the very moment he became successful the mighty Raveskde Hood, beloved of the poor and detested by the rich, would, in a display awesome in its charity, take from him his gains and spread them among the poor? Someone who wants to be his own boss, someone who has an idea for a business that doesn't yet exist, someone who wants to make a better wage than he presently does. All these can be accomplished without a person becoming needlessly wealthy. That way, said businessman might at least partake of the very great pleasure bestowed by receiving from Raveskde Hood, some meagre percentage of his former wealth, with which to run his once again small to medium business, which is now protected most stalwartly by Raveskde Hood against any person indecent enough to own a large one. For the same reason that a church does not need to become big, or a family become a dynasty, a business does not need to become large enough that it is politically influential. If we had the wisdom centuries ago that we have now, there could have been erected a wall of separation between business and state. Much like the law of secularism. That is irrelevant to whether I should be forced to remain so, or become so. If you just wish to become wealthy at a point in your life, you should state it plainly and not hide behind the defense of slavery and mass poverty. I can't speak for America, but in England we run a social welfare system, so very few people actually starve (aside from the homeless, but that is a complication of the system, easily repaired if one took the time). Unless you speak of the developing world, but I have nothing kind to say of them. It all results from the inherent difficulty in parting a greedy person of his object of desire. That we may be clear, what exactly does your wisdom commend? I propose a limit to personal wealth, and a means to enforce it so that one cannot run their business out of state by proxy to evade the law, or use family to extend the boundary. I believe that if, for example, personal wealth was limited to 250 thousand dollars per year, the excess income generated by the business could go towards the poor, in social programs like government or private grants for college, housing projects which build homes for the homeless, and medicine for the elderly and feeble. At the same time this would severely limit the capacity of business to affect government. It would also be necessary to foster disapproving cultural attitudes towards wealth and excess. We would need to advertise them and solidify them in our culture so that people would feel less compelled to cheat the system. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
Do you ever notice how often our debates undergo a sort of Hegelian dialectics? I maintain that preventing the rich from amassing wealth would diffuse that power into the hands of many, thus resulting in more entrepreneurship and business. The purpose of private enterprise is the acquisition of wealth. I also maintain that yours a just a defense of the status quo. I had considered this, asking whether I was defending the rich because I wish to become one of them. But that much is obvious and not the greatest objection. Wealth is merely a means to an end and that end is power, which will always rest with a few; what changes is the duration. What I am more concerned with is the limitation. To be dragged back by the general mass of men is an utterly abhorrent notion. I was born with some degree of intelligence and the only tangible gain which can be had of it is power, in its myriad forms. Remove the possibility of achieving that power, however, and the greatest virtue will be beauty. If no man can become rich, the greatest natural advantage rests with the beautiful; and it is already great enough. I am entirely sensible of the selfishness of my argument, but my greatest desire is to bring my children into a better situation than I was born into. I will pursue any means within my code of honour to achieve this. While it is not my desire to impoverish anybody, I must provide my offspring with the resources necessary to live their lives without ever knowing restriction, to turn their dreams into something other than dreams. It might come as a surprise to you, but I am no stranger to want and paucity; the first step to betterment is attitude. Of course, the rub is that I despise the inheritance of wealth, for while it is obvious that I believe enterprise should be rewarded, there is no merit in taking the wealth of one's father. I am left therefore with two possible conclusions. The first, that I should leave my children extreme wealth in a broken world, or the second, that I should leave them moderate wealth in a beautiful one. The only matter which prevents me from adopting the latter is practicality. Someone who wants to be his own boss, someone who has an idea for a business that doesn't yet exist, someone who wants to make a better wage than he presently does. In light of your proposed system, this point would be best addressed below. I propose a limit to personal wealth, and a means to enforce it so that one cannot run their business out of state by proxy to evade the law, or use family to extend the boundary. I would favour an enforced patronage system. The wealthier one is, the more people one should have to put through college &c;. I do not agree with simple bilateral aid. I believe that if, for example, personal wealth was limited to 250 thousand dollars per year, the excess income generated by the business could go towards the poor I would again like to see a business pay for the education of students in related subjects. A powerful IT firm sponsoring It students, for example. I would also implement laws enforcing a ratio of company wealth to wages (I am and will remain a Fordist) and a cap on the percentage of profits the owner could take. I could not abide a wealth cap, however, as such would stifle enterprise unnecessarily. , in social programs like government or private grants for college, housing projects which build homes for the homeless, and medicine for the elderly and feeble That is my objection to bilateral aid; it is not constructive, as the programs you list are. Again, however, a business cannot function if all excess income is taken away. A percentage is far more economically viable, and above a certain level of revenue. I would, while we're at it, destroy private law firms, utterly and completely. At the same time this would severely limit the capacity of business to affect government. That's a problem which would best be addressed by removing the associated defects of the political system. Corruption is, however, a very difficult thing to remove, as it constantly contrives to proliferate itself. To cap wealth would not solve the problem of corruption. It would serve merely to lower the price. So long as the potential exists, it will return, so we must eliminate the source somehow. It would also be necessary to foster disapproving cultural attitudes towards wealth and excess. We would need to advertise them and solidify them in our culture so that people would feel less compelled to cheat the system. Propaganda is always conducive to the fulfilment of an agenda. Side: Neither
Do you ever notice how often our debates undergo a sort of Hegelian dialectics? It would be dull if we agreed every time. The purpose of private enterprise is the acquisition of wealth. That is correct. I had considered this, asking whether I was defending the rich because I wish to become one of them. But that much is obvious and not the greatest objection. Wealth is merely a means to an end and that end is power, which will always rest with a few; what changes is the duration. Therefore it is reasonable to foster a society that inhibits this kind of greed. Power disrupts the ability of people to live peaceful lives when it rests in the hands of a minority. What I am more concerned with is the limitation. To be dragged back by the general mass of men is an utterly abhorrent notion. I was born with some degree of intelligence and the only tangible gain which can be had of it is power, in its myriad forms. Remove the possibility of achieving that power, however, and the greatest virtue will be beauty. If no man can become rich, the greatest natural advantage rests with the beautiful; and it is already great enough. This kind of selfishness comes with a man's age and eases with personal growth. There are many ways to put one's gifts to use which do not require the exploitation of others. I do not think our society can ever be healthy until it accepts this. I am entirely sensible of the selfishness of my argument, but my greatest desire is to bring my children into a better situation than I was born into. I will pursue any means within my code of honour to achieve this. While it is not my desire to impoverish anybody, I must provide my offspring with the resources necessary to live their lives without ever knowing restriction, to turn their dreams into something other than dreams. It might come as a surprise to you, but I am no stranger to want and paucity; the first step to betterment is attitude. I think there is a saying out there about not thinking with your gonads which roughly applies here. Put another way, children are important but the excuse of maternal and paternal feelings are not justifiable any longer. We are growing too powerful, too intelligent as a species for this to be a safe backdrop to our choices. Of course, the rub is that I despise the inheritance of wealth, for while it is obvious that I believe enterprise should be rewarded, there is no merit in taking the wealth of one's father. I am left therefore with two possible conclusions. The first, that I should leave my children extreme wealth in a broken world, or the second, that I should leave them moderate wealth in a beautiful one. The only matter which prevents me from adopting the latter is practicality. The impression I get from your argument in these three paragraphs is that you (indeed all of us) are a part of a system larger than us all, which shapes our collective behaviours due to individual impulses which are common among us, but too strong for most to resist. I would favour an enforced patronage system. The wealthier one is, the more people one should have to put through college &c;. I do not agree with simple bilateral aid. So then we would be supporting a similar thing, with the differences being the quantity cut from the wealthy for charity and the exact nature of the charity. I would again like to see a business pay for the education of students in related subjects. A powerful IT firm sponsoring It students, for example. I would also implement laws enforcing a ratio of company wealth to wages (I am and will remain a Fordist) and a cap on the percentage of profits the owner could take. I could not abide a wealth cap, however, as such would stifle enterprise unnecessarily. How can we stop corruption then if people are allowed to amass the funds to cause it? That is my objection to bilateral aid; it is not constructive, as the programs you list are. Again, however, a business cannot function if all excess income is taken away. A percentage is far more economically viable, and above a certain level of revenue. My reckoning was that a flat cap would simply cause businesses to be no larger than a certain size. To cap wealth would not solve the problem of corruption. It would serve merely to lower the price. So long as the potential exists, it will return, so we must eliminate the source somehow. My thought was that if government did not enjoy the same cap, then their prices would be out of reach for businessmen. Propaganda is always conducive to the fulfilment of an agenda. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
It would be dull if we agreed every time. I disagree. Therefore it is reasonable to foster a society that inhibits this kind of greed. Power disrupts the ability of people to live peaceful lives when it rests in the hands of a minority. Unless you wish to propose some other system of government to a representative democracy, that is precisely what we shall have. I suspect that authority would be impossible to achieve if power were equally divided amongst everybody. I do not think our society can ever be healthy until it accepts this. I don't think society will ever be healthy until we can atomically engineer materials. The impression I get from your argument in these three paragraphs is that you (indeed all of us) are a part of a system larger than us all, which shapes our collective behaviours due to individual impulses which are common among us, but too strong for most to resist. That is an inescapable conclusion. So then we would be supporting a similar thing, with the differences being the quantity cut from the wealthy for charity and the exact nature of the charity. Yes, that is the sum of it. How can we stop corruption then if people are allowed to amass the funds to cause it? How can one stop corruption by making it more attractive? Capping wealth only creates a greater incentive, and where there's a will... My reckoning was that a flat cap would simply cause businesses to be no larger than a certain size. That's inefficient. It would make many things impossible, such as industrial mineral extraction, financial institutions, constructing and owning a premises &c;. The price of petroleum would explode, if it could be extracted at all. I shall have to give this some more thought, as it shall be interesting to know the full extent of the economic devastation that would result. My thought was that if government did not enjoy the same cap, then their prices would be out of reach for businessmen. Eliminate political greed by making politics the only profession which is not affected by the wealth cap? Very true. Good lord, is that real? I had underestimated American corporations. Side: Neither
Unless you wish to propose some other system of government to a representative democracy, that is precisely what we shall have. I suspect that authority would be impossible to achieve if power were equally divided amongst everybody. This is a problem I worked with years ago, I liked to envision a distributed society with no single super-authority, working very much like a data network when it comes to handing out edicts. A society that uses impartial technology to enforce a lack of authority could achieve this under certain scenarios. However in present circumstances it would be impossible. I don't think society will ever be healthy until we can atomically engineer materials. We already do, using organisms as the tool. How can one stop corruption by making it more attractive? Capping wealth only creates a greater incentive, and where there's a will... The only countermeasure then would be to make politicians individually less powerful, so that corrupt individuals wouldn't have the ability to strongly undermine the system. Society would halt because government would be layered in bureaucracy and tiers. That's inefficient. It would make many things impossible, such as industrial mineral extraction, financial institutions, constructing and owning a premises &c;. The price of petroleum would explode, if it could be extracted at all. I shall have to give this some more thought, as it shall be interesting to know the full extent of the economic devastation that would result. I argue that it would stimulate larger teams to form and work together on these problems, and a greater bulk of wealthy people would mean more of these alliances competing with each other. Eliminate political greed by making politics the only profession which is not affected by the wealth cap? I can think of two options. The first I already elaborated upon, the second is that politicians become a temporary elected class that is provided for, in ways that make them comfortable and not eager to find personal wealth. Good lord, is that real? I had underestimated American corporations. No, but it's not far off. Sad isn't it? Side: Pump Prime
1
point
We already do, using organisms as the tool. But that is limited to the particular substrates and products associated with the organisms in question. I meant a process by which the atomic number of an atom can be raised or lowered at will; atomic engineering (a subset of nuclear engineering). As you are aware, it's observed in all radioactive isotopes, but I should like to know if the process can be controlled and implemented upon non-radioactive elements and compounds. Imagine, if you will, a world in which water can be converted into petroleum, and carbon into gold. Every conceivable problem in human society would theoretically be gone (granted, individuals would contrive to own the machines, retaining our capitalist system &c;). On a related matter, do you agree with the inference that humans contribute significantly to global warming (which as I understand it is based upon questionable historical comparisons)? The only countermeasure then would be to make politicians individually less powerful, so that corrupt individuals wouldn't have the ability to strongly undermine the system. Society would halt because government would be layered in bureaucracy and tiers. Consuls could be elected and paid more than any other politician. As in the Roman system, they would be able to employ a consular veto, instantly defeating any motion. I argue that it would stimulate larger teams to form and work together on these problems, and a greater bulk of wealthy people would mean more of these alliances competing with each other. That would result in industrial systems with confused, unmeritocratic chains of command. the second is that politicians become a temporary elected class that is provided for, in ways that make them comfortable and not eager to find personal wealth. That entered my mind also. Of course, I'd be much more comfortable if I was in charge. I cannot abide corruption in any form, least of all on the level of national governance; it is akin to stealing from you mother. There is so much that could be done to make things easier and fairer, but for the sheer incompetence of modern leaders. It infuriates me. No, but it's not far off. DVD Movie Propaganda Boy Scout Badges New York Propaganda"..." MediaDefender Sad isn't it? What amuses me is that these large corporations act as though they are the good guys, and not motivated at all by the vast sums of money they make off of entertainment sales. My favourite example is Digital Rights Management, or DRM. They placed internet activation requirements upon store-bought PC games, which vexed me greatly before I was connected. My question is, what is the point of putting verification security upon legally sold copies? As though pirates don't remove the DRM when they crack the games! Meanwhile, people who actually paid for the game are treated like criminals, using verification software (SecuROM) which doesn't function properly and, it has been suggested, installs rootkits alongside itself. Side: Trickle Down
But that is limited to the particular substrates and products associated with the organisms in question. I meant a process by which the atomic number of an atom can be raised or lowered at will; atomic engineering (a subset of nuclear engineering). I understand. I was being partially facetious because I understand that you wanted greater control, however I was serious in the suggestion that bioengineering still yields many worthwhile results (in fact our society relies on it immensely, microorganisms produce an unfathomable amount of compounds which we harvest daily). As you are aware, it's observed in all radioactive isotopes, but I should like to know if the process can be controlled and implemented upon non-radioactive elements and compounds. Imagine, if you will, a world in which water can be converted into petroleum, and carbon into gold. Every conceivable problem in human society would theoretically be gone (granted, individuals would contrive to own the machines, retaining our capitalist system &c;). We already do this using fusion and fission. The problem isn't whether it can be done, but how to obtain the energies necessary to break the atomic energy levels to fuse particles together in heavier elements. We would need to be a level two civilisation I believe before we would have the raw energy at our disposal to use it like this, to provide an endless supply of maufactured resources. For now our best solution is bioengineering, because microrganisms can be designed to metabolise celluose (a very common compound) and fashion it into petroleum or ethanol directly. We can also enhance microorganisms so that they can accumulate gold from the environment which slips through our mining processes. On a related matter, do you agree with the inference that humans contribute significantly to global warming (which as I understand it is based upon questionable historical comparisons)? Yes, I believe we do. Consuls could be elected and paid more than any other politician. As in the Roman system, they would be able to employ a consular veto, instantly defeating any motion. Which means that they could be bribed to veto regulations or social laws. It's a very hard problem to solve. That would result in industrial systems with confused, unmeritocratic chains of command. Just like now, basically. There is so much that could be done to make things easier and fairer, but for the sheer incompetence of modern leaders. It infuriates me. We always seem to get the governments that we deserve. They are a reflection of their citizens' credibility and hubris. What amuses me is that these large corporations act as though they are the good guys, and not motivated at all by the vast sums of money they make off of entertainment sales. Oh, why would they be motivated by vast sums of money? Don't you know, they are barely able to make a profit year to year and have to constantly lay off their workers. My favourite example is Digital Rights Management, or DRM. They placed internet activation requirements upon store-bought PC games, which vexed me greatly before I was connected. Back in my day they simply required a disk in the CD drive. Bypassing it was as easy as replacing a JNZ/JZ with a NOP or two. Now they use loaders and encrypted program bodies, hardware IDs, and random bytecode generation. It's become very complicated and exhausting. Thank god for the millions of Chinese who make it their life to navigate the labyrinth of spaghetti code and stacks. My question is, what is the point of putting verification security upon legally sold copies? As though pirates don't remove the DRM when they crack the games! It's because the power behind the power behind the laws which fight copyright infringement are the Digital Rights Management software companies, and they make lots of money selling their "protection" to desperate corporations and convincing them that unprotected binaries lose lots of money. So let's see, that puts it at: The Power Behind Copyright - Government The Power Behind Government - Music, Movie, and Software companies looking for corporate welfare The Power Behind the Corporations - DRM Software companies and standards corporations I wonder if there is a power behind the power behind the power behind the government? It reminds me a little of Metal Gear. Meanwhile, people who actually paid for the game are treated like criminals, using verification software (SecuROM) which doesn't function properly and, it has been suggested, installs rootkits alongside itself. You mean SONY? Yes, they had a real disaster over that one. DRM has become a lot like spyware, capturing your window contents for key words and tracing memory for crack and cheat signatures. I just use cracked binaries to bypass most of this. I decided long ago that paying for games was tantamount to aiding those who produce I don't like. I rarely buy games, with the exceptions being Independent Developers, and VERY rarely (as in just more than once every five years) I may buy an exceptional game from a company I like. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
I understand. I was being partially facetious because I understand that you wanted greater control, however I was serious in the suggestion that bioengineering still yields many worthwhile results Well of course it does; Alcohol. We already do this using fusion and fission. To a very limited extent, yes. We would need to be a level two civilisation I believe before we would have the raw energy at our disposal to use it like this That is a lot of energy. I guess the U.S had better start building more hydrogen bombs. I understand we'd need the equivalent of 4x10^9 at any given instant. Yes, I believe we do. I see. Which means that they could be bribed to veto regulations or social laws. Indeed. It seems that any political system is open to corruption. Just like now, basically. By meritocratic I meant those qualities found in persons best suited to running a business. Qualities in men like Henry Ford, for example, without whom a great deal of progress would have been impossible. There comes a point where the notion that all men are equal begins to act against civilization's interests. We always seem to get the governments that we deserve. They are a reflection of their citizens' credibility and hubris. Perhaps the citizens of the United States of America are not so culpable. They essentially only have two options. Oh, why would they be motivated by vast sums of money? Don't you know, they are barely able to make a profit year to year and have to constantly lay off their workers. Yes, because of evil pirates, these CEO's and celebrities will have to live in only semi-luxury. Back in my day they simply required a disk in the CD drive. That is why I love Steam, despite its faults. One install and the updates are automatic and the DVD is never needed again. Thank god for the millions of Chinese who make it their life to navigate the labyrinth of spaghetti code and stacks. They are an admirably industrious bunch. It is both a shame and a blessing that they are so wholly inept at governing themselves. It's because the power behind the power behind the laws which fight copyright infringement are the Digital Rights Management software companies, and they make lots of money selling their "protection" to desperate corporations and convincing them that unprotected binaries lose lots of money. That's exactly what I suspected. VALVE have the right idea. They maintain that the way to fight piracy is to provide a better service to legitimate customers, à la Steam. I rarely buy games, with the exceptions being Independent Developers, and VERY rarely (as in just more than once every five years) I may buy an exceptional game from a company I like. My purchases generally fall into the categories of either Firaxis (Civilization), Bungie (Halo), Bethesda (Fallout and The Elder Scrolls), Bioware (Mass Effect and Dragon Age) and occasionally the Creative Assembly for Total War. I don't know what I would do on Sundays if they closed down. That said, I did find the first Supreme Commander (Gas powered Games) diverting. The maps went up to 6400km^2, and there's nothing like a land, sea and air war fought entirely by mass-produced robotic death machines. With nukes. I entertained the notion of entering development when I was younger. I wanted to create a game where the faction's technology and design was created by the player. Spore attempted this and failed miserably. The only enterprise more inauspicious than that mess was Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Side: Trickle Down
Well of course it does; Alcohol. Just about everything we use. Fibers and textiles, medications and antibiotics, fuels and similar, flavours used in foods, artificial sweeteners even, are all based on biotechnology in some form. That is a lot of energy. I guess the U.S had better start building more hydrogen bombs. I understand we'd need the equivalent of 4x10^9 at any given instant. I was thinking of Dyson spheres. By meritocratic I meant those qualities found in persons best suited to running a business. Qualities in men like Henry Ford, for example, without whom a great deal of progress would have been impossible. There comes a point where the notion that all men are equal begins to act against civilization's interests. Again, the heads of business are already not very qualified much of the time. It seems to be more about political and social connections than that. This is part of the explanation for how incompetent businesses are when you read the news. Perhaps the citizens of the United States of America are not so culpable. They essentially only have two options. Which they helped put in place, and fight every day to make even worse. That is why I love Steam, despite its faults. One install and the updates are automatic and the DVD is never needed again. Ever used synaptic? They are an admirably industrious bunch. It is both a shame and a blessing that they are so wholly inept at governing themselves. We will bear witness to their great rise, however. This century is going to be very interesting. My purchases generally fall into the categories of either Firaxis (Civilization), Bungie (Halo), Bethesda (Fallout and The Elder Scrolls), Bioware (Mass Effect and Dragon Age) and occasionally the Creative Assembly for Total War. I don't know what I would do on Sundays if they closed down. Neverwinter Nights is conspicuously absent from that list. That said, I did find the first Supreme Commander (Gas powered Games) diverting. The maps went up to 6400km^2, and there's nothing like a land, sea and air war fought entirely by mass-produced robotic death machines. With nukes. I played Total Annihilation back in the old days, but never tried Supreme Commander, as I did not like the extreme style of the gameplay as much as the command and conquer series. I do play Warzone 2100 once in a while when I want to waste several hours, however. I entertained the notion of entering development when I was younger. I wanted to create a game where the faction's technology and design was created by the player. Spore attempted this and failed miserably. The only enterprise more inauspicious than that mess was Napoleon's invasion of Russia. I had ideas like this too. Programming games, however, isn't as glamorous as we are led to believe. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
Just about everything we use. You're not the only one who can be facetious. I was thinking of Dyson spheres. Yes, but the Americans only fund projects properly when the product explodes, or is also being funded by the Russians. Surely the manufacture of such a large array would require a quantity of resources available only through the operation of the technology the sphere is designed to power? Again, the heads of business are already not very qualified much of the time. And you seek to correct this by reducing the competition between these individuals? I do not anticipate that the system you have proposed would promote competition, as it would be in the interests of the individuals to form one aggregate, rather than several smaller ones. That way they wouldn't have to waste resources combating the others. We'd lose the only refining process we have; competition. Which they helped put in place, and fight every day to make even worse. Well, more the fool me for attempting to defend the US electorate. Ever used synaptic? I have not. What is it? We will bear witness to their great rise, however. I hear that often, but I do not anticipate its occurrence. I consider a European superpower far more likely (indeed, for all intents and purposes it already exists). Neverwinter Nights is conspicuously absent from that list. I possess Neverwinter Nights 2, but have never played the first. It's a tolerable game, but I find the design too cartoonish and many of the mechanics are just awful. Lockpicking, for example, is a pointless exercise, as one is afforded an infinite number of attempts. One finds oneself clicking on a chest for an age, hoping that one's 16% chance will pull through this time. The constant interference of die and the vagaries of their rolling renders immersion impossible and even when the numbers are hidden one is inescapably aware of the malicious calculations behind every sword stroke. The dialogue is quite horrendous, the graphics are offensive to the eye, the characters forgettable and the quests wearisome. One treks across generic landscapes, battling skeletons, their necromantic masters, crocodilian beastmen and whatnot but never enjoys the experience. I have not yet summoned the willpower to finish it. What was so enthralling about the first as distinguished it so manifestly from the second? Titan Quest is in my mind far superior. I have never finished it, in over three years, because it is incredibly long (and I have not even finished the original, let alone the expansion, of which no content is seen until the storyline of the first is completed) and I cannot resist making new characters, due to the sheer number of classes, skills and random loot that abound. as I did not like the extreme style of the gameplay as much as the command and conquer series. I do enjoy Command and Conquer titles, namely Generals: Zero Hour, C&C3;and Tiberium Sun (my introduction to the series; excellent game for its time, though I could never deduce what that strange blubbery stuff that lurked near Tiberium fields, killed my infantry and generally made a nuisance of itself was), but I find the scale rather disappointing. I prefer to fight over large tracts of land (and occasionally, as in Sins of a Solar Empire, space; vast amounts of space) whereupon to visit destruction by various means. Most of all however, I love managing my faction's economy. My favourite hobby in Age of Empires was to create a huge industrial base and completely strip the land of all natural resources, with which I fuelled my overawing war machine. That is one of my favourite aspects of C&C; the regenerating Tiberium. It's a nice balance between the immediate availability of credits and the long-term viability of Tiberium Fields whereby to generate them. Unfortunately, the AI is inept at all difficulties; it thinks that sending hundreds of machines will defeat me, but they are easily dispatched with explosive solutions. Then I just fire my Ion cannon at their economic base and bankrupt them. I do play Warzone 2100 once in a while when I want to waste several hours, however. I would recommend Civilization IV. I had ideas like this too. Programming games, however, isn't as glamorous as we are led to believe. No indeed. And badly paid. However I would have loved to do some of the concept art for the Halo series. The Halo universe is quite fascinating. I've read all but one of the books, which are entertaining, but I think more mature writers like Peter F. Hamilton (whose books incite a sort of delirium in me even now; they are so brutally honest imaginative) or Ian M. Banks could do wonders with the story. Dost know of it? Addendum If you haven't read Hamilton's books, I strongly recommend it. Fallen Dragon is one of my favourites. It deals with a dystopian future in which all exploratory and interplanetary spacecraft are owned by corporations. The human race has not discovered progressive wormhole generators as they have in his other books, so interstellar travel and colonisation is uneconomical; exploration programs are virtually non-existent. The corporations instead finance themselves by pirating former colonies they founded. The piracy is the only option, as Earth is far more advance than the colonies and produces things cheaper, faster and in greater quantities. I think it would appeal to you. On another note, you previously professed ignorance of modern popular music. I would recommend you check out Florence + the Machine. If you enjoyed that, try Blinding. Side: Trickle Down
Surely the manufacture of such a large array would require a quantity of resources available only through the operation of the technology the sphere is designed to power? Probably not, if you design it in stages, with the first being large solar panel array stations set to orbit the sun, eventually merging them together in order to form a sphere. The power provided would fuel the addition of more solar panels and structures. And you seek to correct this by reducing the competition between these individuals? I do not anticipate that the system you have proposed would promote competition, as it would be in the interests of the individuals to form one aggregate, rather than several smaller ones. That way they wouldn't have to waste resources combating the others. We'd lose the only refining process we have; competition. As it stands now, that is precisely what happens through natural capitalism. The first generation of entrepreneurs (founders) are usually quite exceptional, yet at the same time their workers are disproportionately paid. After successive generations of leadership the competence ebbs and flows, with the workers still being paid disproportionately for their work. So what we see is that competition gives an initial momentum, which is later maintained by barriers to competition caused in part by the great divide between the wealthy and the working class. My reasoning is that narrowing that divide will provide more competitors and keep larger and older businesses more actively competitive. Well, more the fool me for attempting to defend the US electorate. Why do you think it is that our President's approval rating is dropping, and support for nutball movements like the TEA Party is growing? Stupid, stupid people. I have not. What is it? It is a program for installing debian packages on linux. It's kind of like steam except free, and without adware. The console version is aptitude or apt. For example sudo apt-get install nano will install nano, a text editor, and its dependencies. I hear that often, but I do not anticipate its occurrence. I consider a European superpower far more likely (indeed, for all intents and purposes it already exists). Maybe, but remember that you guys are already being conquered by Islam, one acquiescence at a time to their cultural standards. I possess Neverwinter Nights 2, but have never played the first. The first has a number of differences, but if you haven't played both very much then you'd probably miss them as they are fairly subtle. It's a tolerable game, but I find the design too cartoonish and many of the mechanics are just awful. Lockpicking, for example, is a pointless exercise, as one is afforded an infinite number of attempts. One finds oneself clicking on a chest for an age, hoping that one's 16% chance will pull through this time. That's because your character has too few points allotted to the lock-picking skill. If you make a jack of all trades character, it will be inadequate at actions requiring mastery. The constant interference of die and the vagaries of their rolling renders immersion impossible and even when the numbers are hidden one is inescapably aware of the malicious calculations behind every sword stroke. This is Dungeons and Dragons, after all. Your criticism is alike complaining that Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte isn't photo-realistic. I actually like reading the calculations. It reminds me of terminal output. The dialogue is quite horrendous, the graphics are offensive to the eye, the characters forgettable and the quests wearisome. One treks across generic landscapes, battling skeletons, their necromantic masters, crocodilian beastmen and whatnot but never enjoys the experience. I have not yet summoned the willpower to finish it. What was so enthralling about the first as distinguished it so manifestly from the second? This point, actually. The second game slumped on the story and voices, probably because its developers were Obsidian Entertainment as opposed to BioWare. It's a shame, as the first game was magnificent when it was released, though today suffers from dated graphics. Ironically you need an old computer to play the first game, as new graphics cards are dropping support for legacy OpenGL. Titan Quest is in my mind far superior. I have never finished it, in over three years, because it is incredibly long (and I have not even finished the original, let alone the expansion, of which no content is seen until the storyline of the first is completed) and I cannot resist making new characters, due to the sheer number of classes, skills and random loot that abound. I haven't played that one, but I read that it is similar to Diablo 2. I played that game many years ago, but found that it was too easy to make a perfect character. I suppose what drew me to Neverwinter Nights was the difficulty in breaking the game with an overpowered character. I played for years and could never make a character which was good at everything, able to work by itself, unless I cheated of course. I read that Titan Quest does this in a different way, with effective custom class creation. Am I right in thinking that this makes it difficult to break the game with an overpowered character? I do enjoy Command and Conquer titles, namely Generals: Zero Hour, C&C3;and Tiberium Sun (my introduction to the series; excellent game for its time, though I could never deduce what that strange blubbery stuff that lurked near Tiberium fields, killed my infantry and generally made a nuisance of itself was), but I find the scale rather disappointing. I started the series with Red Alert, then tried Command and Conquer 95, all the way up to Command and Conquer 4. Tiberian Sun was probably my favourite game in the series, partly because I discovered it during my early teenage years and that was when I really started to take an interest in computer systems and modifying things. I had long nights of modding the game. C&C3;was a great game too, but something about it seemed missing, almost like it takes place before Tiberian Sun, due to the style differences. The Command and Conquer games were always about quick battles, it sounds like you enjoy long games. I prefer to fight over large tracts of land (and occasionally, as in Sins of a Solar Empire, space; vast amounts of space) whereupon to visit destruction by various means. Most of all however, I love managing my faction's economy. You might really enjoy Warzone 2100 then, just replace the economy with science and you have a game that takes place on giant maps, with tons of base building, unit design, and resource gathering. My favourite hobby in Age of Empires was to create a huge industrial base and completely strip the land of all natural resources, with which I fuelled my overawing war machine. That is one of my favourite aspects of C&C; the regenerating Tiberium. It's a nice balance between the immediate availability of credits and the long-term viability of Tiberium Fields whereby to generate them. Unfortunately, the AI is inept at all difficulties; it thinks that sending hundreds of machines will defeat me, but they are easily dispatched with explosive solutions. Then I just fire my Ion cannon at their economic base and bankrupt them. Did you ever try playing it online? I would recommend Civilization IV. Oh, that day I spent maybe twelve hours finishing a single game. Unfortunately I forgot how to play it. No indeed. And badly paid. However I would have loved to do some of the concept art for the Halo series. The Halo universe is quite fascinating. I've read all but one of the books, which are entertaining, but I think more mature writers like Peter F. Hamilton (whose books incite a sort of delirium in me even now; they are so brutally honest imaginative) or Ian M. Banks could do wonders with the story. Dost know of it? Yes, more or less. I learned of the story from a friend of mine who had the console. I thought the second game's story was interesting, but never finished it. I never saw the third game, however. If you haven't read Hamilton's books, I strongly recommend it. Fallen Dragon is one of my favourites. It deals with a dystopian future in which all exploratory and interplanetary spacecraft are owned by corporations. The human race has not discovered progressive wormhole generators as they have in his other books, so interstellar travel and colonisation is uneconomical; exploration programs are virtually non-existent. The corporations instead finance themselves by pirating former colonies they founded. The piracy is the only option, as Earth is far more advance than the colonies and produces things cheaper, faster and in greater quantities. I think it would appeal to you. I was reading about that just now actually. It's one of my great fears that this is where our society is headed, a corporatocracy. The other is the possible subversion of western society into a theocracy (because as previously mentioned, a large population of people are so stupid that they actively fight for personal subjugation). Do you think such a thing will happen? On another note, you previously professed ignorance of modern popular music. I would recommend you check out Florence + the Machine. If you enjoyed that, try Blinding. Is she a popular singer? I listened to her first one on your list twice, it's alright, considering that I haven't had the opportunity to tie it to an experience or memory (and that is a large part of what makes songs great, I think). Side: Pump Prime
1
point
Probably not, if you design it in stages, with the first being large solar panel array stations set to orbit the sun, eventually merging them together in order to form a sphere. And what is the means of energy transfer? Or do you envisage the production facilities being based in space? As it stands now, that is precisely what happens through natural capitalism. You're right; it's not an ideal system, or even a very good one. The first generation of entrepreneurs (founders) are usually quite exceptional, yet at the same time their workers are disproportionately paid. Hence my admiration of Henry Ford. My reasoning is that narrowing that divide will provide more competitors and keep larger and older businesses more actively competitive. I'm all for raising worker wages, but I'd simply create legislation creating variable minimum wages for companies of different sizes. Why do you think it is that our President's approval rating is dropping, and support for nutball movements like the TEA Party is growing? Stupid, stupid people. I don't particularly like Obama; he's wont to make promises, but displays no remarkable proclivity to fulfilling them. His Medicare system is admirable (and the resistance! Damn Republicans see a great system like universal healthcare and shout "Socialism"!) but he's a proven liar (remember that sunbed tax following the declaration that nobody under $100,000 per annum would see a tax rise?). He is, however, better than the alternative. And if Sarah Palin is elected (and remember that Bush Jr got in), it's the end. Of everything. It is a program for installing debian packages on linux. It's kind of like steam except free, and without adware. The console version is aptitude or apt. For example sudo apt-get install nano will install nano, a text editor, and its dependencies. That sounds interesting. I use windows Vista, however. Maybe, but remember that you guys are already being conquered by Islam, one acquiescence at a time to their cultural standards. Indeed. While I usually advocate free travel, non-violence, tolerance &c;, I cannot abide Islam. They may practice whatever barbarous customs they wish in their lands, but Europe is the cradle of enlightenment and liberalism. To allow the Muslims into it is part of that liberalism, but to allow them to demand changes in policy is ludicrous. Better to reply: There will be no minarets. There will be no burkhas. There will be no separate schools. There will be no separate laws. But it seems that our politicians have no backbone. Caesar would weep! That's because your character has too few points allotted to the lock-picking skill. If you make a jack of all trades character, it will be inadequate at actions requiring mastery. Yes, I understand why, but that is not the material point. I was remarking that as the lock never broke, allocating points was (sigh) pointless, as success was only a matter of time. This is Dungeons and Dragons, after all. Your criticism is alike complaining that Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte isn't photo-realistic. It's more like saying that pointilisim is an irritating technique. Perhaps I'm simply a philistine? The second game slumped on the story and voices, probably because its developers were Obsidian Entertainment as opposed to BioWare. And the magic system! I read that Titan Quest does this in a different way, with effective custom class creation. Am I right in thinking that this makes it difficult to break the game with an overpowered character? To a certain extent, yes. However there is a period in the first chapter (Greece) where the Dream specialisation yields a wave attack which annihilates everything it comes into contact with. This is virtually unstoppable until Asia (chapter 3). The Tigermen are formidable; most agile and powerful. Tiberian Sun was probably my favourite game in the series, partly because I discovered it during my early teenage years and that was when I really started to take an interest in computer systems and modifying things. I had long nights of modding the game. The problem with modding is that it arrests one's attention to the story and gameplay and becomes the real object of entertainment. When I began to mod Oblivion, for example, I soon found myself playing for about 10 minutes before downloading another mod, over and over again. By the end I had 113 mods, totalling 2.95 GB in compressed form, ranging from Landscape changes to new houses to blood potions (very useful for vampire characters). The Command and Conquer games were always about quick battles, it sounds like you enjoy long games. I enjoy total war for this reason. The campaign is a turn-based strategic view of Europe and various other continents, but the battles between armies and navies are fought in real time. You might really enjoy Warzone 2100 then, just replace the economy with science and you have a game that takes place on giant maps, with tons of base building, unit design, and resource gathering. If I happen across a copy, I'll be sure to pick it up. Did you ever try playing it online? That is simply a learning process. They are generally won by the people who can do the most in the right order and with the fewest mouse-clicks. I don't enjoy multiplayer RTS because it's not particularly tactical or strategic. It's essentially about being the first to build the strongest unit. In C&C3;it's actually the Aliens' disk throwing aircraft (the devastator if I recall correctly). It's range is greater than that of any anti-aircraft emplacement. Oh, that day I spent maybe twelve hours finishing a single game. Unfortunately I forgot how to play it. Place cities near good land, improve the land with workers, use the increased yield to produce armies and throw them at enemy cities until they change to your colour, essentially. I prefer Civ V, as one can no longer stack units, thus necessitating a greater deal of strategy. There are also ranged attacks, which makes things interesting. I never saw the third game, however. We follow the entire Covenant and the flood to a forerunner station, then fire a Halo array, wiping them out. With a great deal of shooting in between. It was the first game I ever played on Xbox 360, so a great deal of nostalgia is attached. Do you think such a thing will happen? The corporatocracy is a possibility, but only in America. Corporations actually have very little input in European governance, which surprises me. It must be because the Germans are in charge. I consider a Roman empire of sorts to be the likely outcome for Europe, except it will come in the form of a federal EU. I don't see this as undesirable; it's the best option for survival in a world which is increasingly dominated by continent-spanning superpowers. I hope that we can ally with the Russian Federation; they're a fiercely loyal, incredibly resource-rich neighbour. It's the American's greatest diplomatic failing that they simply can't get along with them, and vice-versa. The theocracy is, to my mind, extremely unlikely. Young people in Europe, I can attest are almost universally disinterested in religion. I understand that it's not quite so fortunate in the U.S, but I doubt it'll come to a theocracy there either. all we have to do is keep glamorising sex and science. It's amusing to think that the business of five minutes is the constant distraction of about four years. Is she a popular singer? Among the middle classes, yes. I listened to her first one on your list twice, it's alright, considering that I haven't had the opportunity to tie it to an experience or memory (and that is a large part of what makes songs great, I think). I have a bizarre mental habit of imagining propaganda videos to match songs. Side: Neither
And what is the means of energy transfer? Or do you envisage the production facilities being based in space? Yes, and I was thinking of something like microwaves, perhaps. Transfer is the hard part, I think. I'm all for raising worker wages, but I'd simply create legislation creating variable minimum wages for companies of different sizes. Unless we raise tariffs and the cost of imports though, most companies will move their jobs overseas. Companies are very greedy that way. I don't particularly like Obama; he's wont to make promises, but displays no remarkable proclivity to fulfilling them. His Medicare system is admirable (and the resistance! Damn Republicans see a great system like universal healthcare and shout "Socialism"!) but he's a proven liar (remember that sunbed tax following the declaration that nobody under $100,000 per annum would see a tax rise?). He is, however, better than the alternative. And if Sarah Palin is elected (and remember that Bush Jr got in), it's the end. Of everything. So far a number of his pledges have been fulfilled or are on the way to being fulfilled, for example that healthcare bill, ending deployment in Iraq and officially starting withdrawal, his repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and his approval of the new hate crimes legislation. Of course, for the healthcare republicans made every effort to lie about it and spread fear, for the hate crime legislation they lied that it would make it illegal to form a politically incorrect opinion, and for the DADT repeal they lied that it would compromise national security. We live in a stupid nation... what can I say? That sounds interesting. I use windows Vista, however. The horror... Indeed. While I usually advocate free travel, non-violence, tolerance &c;, I cannot abide Islam. They may practice whatever barbarous customs they wish in their lands, but Europe is the cradle of enlightenment and liberalism. To allow the Muslims into it is part of that liberalism, but to allow them to demand changes in policy is ludicrous. Better to reply: You may have to move to the land of Yankees in the next few decades. On a side note, if you followed the Arab World Protests, do you agree with me that due to the severe information and culture control there that if the revolution achieves its maximum aim of overturning those governments, the people will lack the imagination to install anything other than a theocracy to replace the former? Yes, I understand why, but that is not the material point. I was remarking that as the lock never broke, allocating points was (sigh) pointless, as success was only a matter of time. It's only a matter of time if your skill is very close to the DC of the lock. It's a certainty when you specialise the skill. It's more like saying that pointilisim is an irritating technique. Perhaps I'm simply a philistine? Probably. Maybe Neverwinter Nights just requires a fine RPG palate. And the magic system! The magic system didn't actually change very much. It's different, but I like it because of how complex it is. To a certain extent, yes. However there is a period in the first chapter (Greece) where the Dream specialisation yields a wave attack which annihilates everything it comes into contact with. This is virtually unstoppable until Asia (chapter 3). The Tigermen are formidable; most agile and powerful. That sounds like a problem. I downloaded the game, by the way. The problem with modding is that it arrests one's attention to the story and gameplay and becomes the real object of entertainment. When I began to mod Oblivion, for example, I soon found myself playing for about 10 minutes before downloading another mod, over and over again. By the end I had 113 mods, totalling 2.95 GB in compressed form, ranging from Landscape changes to new houses to blood potions (very useful for vampire characters). It wasn't that way for Tiberian Sun, however, because the mods were for gameplay, not the story. You could continue to play the story unimpeded. I made all kinds of changes to it, even recently I tried modding it again, but this time I added graphics from more modern games. My favourite mod is Dawn of the Tiberium Age though, because I loved C&C95;but lamented its lack of a skirmish mode. I enjoy total war for this reason. The campaign is a turn-based strategic view of Europe and various other continents, but the battles between armies and navies are fought in real time. I barely played it, but I remember that it seemed very complicated (the interface of it). If I happen across a copy, I'll be sure to pick it up. It's freeware on http://wz2100.net/ That is simply a learning process. They are generally won by the people who can do the most in the right order and with the fewest mouse-clicks. I don't enjoy multiplayer RTS because it's not particularly tactical or strategic. It's essentially about being the first to build the strongest unit. In C&C3;it's actually the Aliens' disk throwing aircraft (the devastator if I recall correctly). It's range is greater than that of any anti-aircraft emplacement. I've come to that feeling recently too. However years ago I enjoyed certain multiplayer games, like Warcraft 3, precisely because it was so broken. There was nothing more fun than Mass Sorceresses, for example (back before the company made them balanced). Those were the days. Place cities near good land, improve the land with workers, use the increased yield to produce armies and throw them at enemy cities until they change to your colour, essentially. I prefer Civ V, as one can no longer stack units, thus necessitating a greater deal of strategy. There are also ranged attacks, which makes things interesting. I forgot to mention it was a purely diplomacy-based game. I never played it using military conquest, I probably should. We follow the entire Covenant and the flood to a forerunner station, then fire a Halo array, wiping them out. With a great deal of shooting in between. It was the first game I ever played on Xbox 360, so a great deal of nostalgia is attached. I thought firing a Halo Array would start a chain reaction that would obliterate all life. The corporatocracy is a possibility, but only in America. Corporations actually have very little input in European governance, which surprises me. It must be because the Germans are in charge. I consider a Roman empire of sorts to be the likely outcome for Europe, except it will come in the form of a federal EU. I don't see this as undesirable; it's the best option for survival in a world which is increasingly dominated by continent-spanning superpowers. I hope that we can ally with the Russian Federation; they're a fiercely loyal, incredibly resource-rich neighbour. It's the American's greatest diplomatic failing that they simply can't get along with them, and vice-versa. I sense a corrupting influence from America however, over other nations. For example the United States pushes hard for draconian copyright laws across the world. I'm going to leave this country in five years anyway so it doesn't really matter, I suppose, when it goes down the tubes for constantly pandering to businesses and religious interests. To answer your question though, the United States hates Russia on some level because they are/were commie bastards and because they don't respect copyright, the socialists! I can't wait to see the EU take over as a superpower, that is if it can avoid being silently conquered by Wahhabism. The theocracy is, to my mind, extremely unlikely. Young people in Europe, I can attest are almost universally disinterested in religion. I understand that it's not quite so fortunate in the U.S, but I doubt it'll come to a theocracy there either. all we have to do is keep glamorising sex and science. It's amusing to think that the business of five minutes is the constant distraction of about four years. I was thinking more about the United States and the Middle East for that one. Christian fundamentalists are relentless here in trying to claim the state as their own, and Islam shows no sign of fading away in the coming decades. It's possible that Islamic culture could spread sufficiently that even your liberal, modern Europe could find itself reduced to what America is now (constant religious pandering). I have a bizarre mental habit of imagining propaganda videos to match songs. That sounds like a fun activity. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
Unless we raise tariffs and the cost of imports though, most companies will move their jobs overseas. Companies are very greedy that way. Proportional corporate tax reductions based upon the percentage of workers residing in our own nations? ending deployment in Iraq and officially starting withdrawal I was particularly amused to see Mr. Obama receive the Nobel Peace Prize shortly before committing many tens of thousands of warriors to Afghanistan. for the hate crime legislation they lied that it would make it illegal to form a politically incorrect opinion As ever, defending your democratic right to seek the abolition of the democratic rights of others. for the DADT repeal they lied that it would compromise national security It's sad how often they tramp out that tired old slogan. The horror... I admit... the media player is dreadful. You may have to move to the land of Yankees in the next few decades. Yes, I can exchange being beheaded for infidelity in England with being bored to death in Holland. The future is certainly bright. the people will lack the imagination to install anything other than a theocracy to replace the former? In effect, yes. The new candidates will be unprepared and will likely draw from religious ideals to flesh out their manifestos with something palatable to the Egyptian public. I mean they're a dreadfully masochistic bunch; why else would they have elected Hosni Mubarak again and again and again? There's no other conceivable explanation; this may be a threat to our national security. It's only a matter of time if your skill is very close to the DC of the lock. It's a certainty when you specialise the skill. The problem is that I prefer to allocate points to skills which compel enemies to die. If I have the option between setting a lizard man alight and finding a pretty sword in the depths of some dank dungeon, I'll choose the former. And I am loath to bring roguish characters with me; they display an unnerving tendency to die during combat with the aforementioned lizard men. Probably. Maybe Neverwinter Nights just requires a fine RPG palate. Indeed. To me, caviar will always be fish eggs, a subset of seafood and therefore inedible. The magic system didn't actually change very much. It's different, but I like it because of how complex it is. I don't mind complexity, but the spellbook is tedious. I can obliterate vast swathes of landscape with my mind, but can't memorize more than eight spells (as I recall). That sounds like a problem. I downloaded the game, by the way Avoid the warrior path (swords and the like). It makes a hack & slash of what would otherwise be a fine Dungeon Crawler. Playing as a rogue is interesting. If you downloaded the expansion, the Dream path is a nice second specialisation for a rogue. It wasn't that way for Tiberian Sun, however, because the mods were for gameplay, not the story. I particularly enjoyed the part where the news reporter calmly shoots her colleague. Somewhat like this. I barely played it, but I remember that it seemed very complicated (the interface of it). I enjoy the battles because they require the application of legitimate tactics. It's freeware on http://wz2100.net/ And I had planned to go to bed earlier tonight in preparation for school on Monday. However years ago I enjoyed certain multiplayer games, like Warcraft 3, precisely because it was so broken. There was nothing more fun than Mass Sorceresses, for example (back before the company made them balanced). Those were the days. I loved supreme commander 2's multiplayer for a time. I would play defensively, acting as though I lacked a strategy and such, but about an hour into the game I would launch the nuclear weapons I had been stockpiling. It turns out an anti-missile silo can only stop four warheads in the 5 seconds or so between a group of warheads entering its firing radius and said warheads detonating. Not much of a problem when one fires seventy. I must also apologise for the incorrect deployment of a semi-colon and the most heinous mistake of all in English grammar -I wrote "it's" for "its". Dark days are upon us. I forgot to mention it was a purely diplomacy-based game. I never played it using military conquest, I probably should. I was never very good at diplomacy in Civ. They just can't stand to see you successful. I thought firing a Halo Array would start a chain reaction that would obliterate all life. This was in orbit of the ark, where the Halo arrays are manufactured. The array that was fired was a replacement for Installation 04, destroyed when the Pillar of Autumn's (the ship names are fantastic) fusion reactors were overloaded. It was not yet completed or networked with the other installations. I'm going to leave this country in five years anyway so it doesn't really matter, I suppose, when it goes down the tubes for constantly pandering to businesses and religious interests. Where do you intend to go, if I may ask? I can't wait to see the EU take over as a superpower, that is if it can avoid being silently conquered by Wahhabism. We've been fighting those perfidious Muslims for thousands of years. I don't doubt they'll fail as they have countless times before. That sounds like a fun activity. Not half as fun as this. The entry on "Cannon" is particularly amusing. Side: Trickle Down
Proportional corporate tax reductions based upon the percentage of workers residing in our own nations? You would have to calculate it such that it is more profitable to set shop here, after the minimum wage and tax reduction laws imposed, as opposed to overseas. I was particularly amused to see Mr. Obama receive the Nobel Peace Prize shortly before committing many tens of thousands of warriors to Afghanistan. I didn't understand it either. As ever, defending your democratic right to seek the abolition of the democratic rights of others. Either you are misinformed or are commenting upon a different topic. I admit... the media player is dreadful. I was referring to this. Yes, I can exchange being beheaded for infidelity in England with being bored to death in Holland. The future is certainly bright. You could always engage your entrepreneurial spirit in India or Brazil. In effect, yes. The new candidates will be unprepared and will likely draw from religious ideals to flesh out their manifestos with something palatable to the Egyptian public. I mean they're a dreadfully masochistic bunch; why else would they have elected Hosni Mubarak again and again and again? There's no other conceivable explanation; this may be a threat to our national security. I think that these leaders rig their elections or intimidate voters once they are in. The problem is that I prefer to allocate points to skills which compel enemies to die. If I have the option between setting a lizard man alight and finding a pretty sword in the depths of some dank dungeon, I'll choose the former. And I am loath to bring roguish characters with me; they display an unnerving tendency to die during combat with the aforementioned lizard men. The skills do not work that way however, they are all support skills, not damage skills. Indeed. To me, caviar will always be fish eggs, a subset of seafood and therefore inedible. I discovered I like tunafish recently, which surprised me, as I dislike seafood too. I don't mind complexity, but the spellbook is tedious. I can obliterate vast swathes of landscape with my mind, but can't memorize more than eight spells (as I recall). I like it, as it limits your character from becoming overpowered, like in Diablo where you could kill everything with continuous mana regeneration. This also prevents classes with a large spellbook from being overly prepared, they must select spells a day in advance, while sorcerers can cast any spell from their book at any time, but have a smaller book. You can use certain items to extend the number of spells per level, or raise your charisma, intelligence, or wisdom (depending on class). Avoid the warrior path (swords and the like). It makes a hack & slash of what would otherwise be a fine Dungeon Crawler. Playing as a rogue is interesting. If you downloaded the expansion, the Dream path is a nice second specialisation for a rogue. I just downloaded the original, and updated it. I'm testing out the classes, it's definitely improved upon Diablo's system. I particularly enjoyed the part where the news reporter calmly shoots her colleague. Somewhat like this. They did something similar in Command and Conquer. I enjoy the battles because they require the application of legitimate tactics. I remember that too. Much more complicated that way, I like complexity, just not in the interface. And I had planned to go to bed earlier tonight in preparation for school on Monday. It's a really long game, indeed. I loved supreme commander 2's multiplayer for a time. I would play defensively, acting as though I lacked a strategy and such, but about an hour into the game I would launch the nuclear weapons I had been stockpiling. It turns out an anti-missile silo can only stop four warheads in the 5 seconds or so between a group of warheads entering its firing radius and said warheads detonating. Not much of a problem when one fires seventy. That reminds me of Earth 2150 surprisingly. It's dated by our modern standards, though. As is Warzone 2100, they both came from almost ten years ago. I was never very good at diplomacy in Civ. They just can't stand to see you successful. Yeah, I remember that, and always having to appease them. This was in orbit of the ark, where the Halo arrays are manufactured. The array that was fired was a replacement for Installation 04, destroyed when the Pillar of Autumn's (the ship names are fantastic) fusion reactors were overloaded. It was not yet completed or networked with the other installations. I see, so it was there just for the dramatic effect of activating a Halo Array. Where do you intend to go, if I may ask? I have a few ideas. I wanted to contribute to Brazilian society, as I believe they have real potential in this century. The Asian continent also really interests me, but Japan is too nosey for my paranoid ways, and China too authoritarian (even though I foresee it being a superpower before the first half of this century). I was also tempted to visit various countries in Africa, for reasons I cannot explain here. We've been fighting those perfidious Muslims for thousands of years. I don't doubt they'll fail as they have countless times before. The key word is fight. This time you're all but giving them the deeds to the land. Not half as fun as this. The entry on "Cannon" is particularly amusing. Next on my list for Powell's Books. Side: Pump Prime
1
point
Poor people don't get poor from being poor, most of the time. Most poor people get poor from making poor choices. So if you make the rich people poor and give their money to the poor people (which, even if you evenly distributed the money out, there'd be little going to each person), the ex-poor people would once again become poor fairly quickly, while the ex-rich people will probably get rich again through wise choices. In the mean time, their businesses would shut down, and people would loose their jobs, making more people poor. Side: Trickle Down
Poor people don't get poor from being poor, most of the time. Most poor people get poor from making poor choices. If you observe the distribution of wealth in the United States you will find that a minority (one percent) holds almost half of all private wealth, while less than twenty percent of private wealth is divided amongst the remaining eighty percent, the working class. If you expand this to the world, then you see than there are literally billions of people living on dollars a day as very small fraction living in the west is well-fed. In other words, poverty and wealth are feedback mechanisms. If you have wealth it is easier to accumulate more of it because you can invest in more businesses and ideas. If you are poor then it is easier to become poorer because you often find yourself accumulating debt in the form of loans, in order to survive. So if you make the rich people poor and give their money to the poor people (which, even if you evenly distributed the money out, there'd be little going to each person), There is more than enough wealth in the world to be divided amongst everyone, but as stated earlier wealth is a positive feedback mechanism, meaning the wealthy innately concentrate vast amounts of resources in their hands, thus leaving little for the rest of us. This is supported by the distribution of private wealth in America, for example. We have hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth in America, but almost half of it rests in the hands of a single percent of the population, and poorest 80% aren't getting any wealthier for it. the ex-poor people would once again become poor fairly quickly, while the ex-rich people will probably get rich again through wise choices. The biggest myth is that rich people innately earn their wealth through good choices. Most wealthy people are this way through inheritance, generations of high-class status due to good choices made by great grandparents and the like. Rich families raise their children in conditions which elevate them above everyone else, thus giving them an unnatural advantage in their ability to accumulate wealth when they become businessmen. What would actually happen is that wealth would accumulate in the hands of the innovative, clever, ruthless, dishonest, and creative irrespective of whether they were poor or rich before wealth was divided equally. Then once again we would have a class divide. That is why the division of wealth requires a constant process to prevent a fraction of the population from accumulating it all. In the mean time, their businesses would shut down, and people would loose their jobs, making more people poor. Actually not. Jobs always exist, because there is always a demand for services and labour. The problem with your suggestion is that you are giving the power to produce jobs to a wealthy minority, meaning that the whims of the few heavily affect the job market for everyone. That is why we have major political issues concerning copyright, patents, genetic engineering, healthcare and insurance. These all affect the interests of the wealthy, and they are sacrificing jobs and creativity for their own sakes. Side: Pump Prime
If you expand this to the world, then you see than there are literally billions of people living on dollars a day as very small fraction living in the west is well-fed. Actually, even the 'working middle class' of the US are in the upper 90% of the world. I'm not advocating that--it's really sad. In other words, poverty and wealth are feedback mechanisms. If you have wealth it is easier to accumulate more of it because you can invest in more businesses and ideas. If you are poor then it is easier to become poorer because you often find yourself accumulating debt in the form of loans, in order to survive. Yes, it's easier to get more money with money, if you use it right. But if you're poor but still have some kind of income, you could still work it out. Cut back on luxuries (smoking, drinking, and other drugs are luxuries! As are most cars and most houses, most electronic devices [MP3, computers, cell phones, internet, etc.]), and invest your money. That type of thing. If you don't work, then you should probably work on finding a job. It is possible to become not-poor, with the proper motivation. I understand that not everyone can do this, but I'd bet most could. Rich families raise their children in conditions which elevate them above everyone else, thus giving them an unnatural advantage No matter how much inheritance you have, if you don't spend money wisely, you will become poor. People can burn through millions very, very quickly. What would actually happen is that wealth would accumulate in the hands of the innovative, clever, ruthless, dishonest, and creative The money already landed in their hands. It's their children or grandchildren (or further on) that you're angry about. So are you saying that we should redistribute the wealth every two or three generations? That your hard work can't make a better life for your family? obs always exist, because there is always a demand for services and labour. The problem with your suggestion is that you are giving the power to produce jobs to a wealthy minority, meaning that the whims of the few heavily affect the job market for everyone. But if you took the money of people whose money is in stocks of companies (e.g. Bill Gates), than those company stocks would drop as the person is forced to sell them all to give money to the poor. And if Microsoft tanked, that would be a lot of jobs lost! Almost a hundred thousand people would be out of a job. So, yes, the wealthy few do have the power to create jobs. I'm not saying that's where all the jobs are, but there are quite a few! Side: Trickle Down
Actually, even the 'working middle class' of the US are in the upper 90% of the world. I'm not advocating that--it's really sad. I am aware of this. Yet we, the working class, own so very little of our nation's wealth, which sits it the hands of a very small minority as many people across the world starve. Yes, it's easier to get more money with money, if you use it right. But if you're poor but still have some kind of income, you could still work it out. Cut back on luxuries (smoking, drinking, and other drugs are luxuries! As are most cars and most houses, most electronic devices [MP3, computers, cell phones, internet, etc.]), and invest your money. That type of thing. I'm guessing that you've never been poor. Being poor means that you don't live a life of luxury, but one of necessity. You are constantly in debt, living paycheck to paycheck, always on the brink of foreclosure, and predatory companies everywhere seek you out to put you further in debt for their gains through high-interest loans, accounting errors in their favour, and unfair rates. Meanwhile the wealthy are always working to take an even bigger portion of our nation's private wealth for themselves, at the cost of the poor never receiving more than minimum wage, no healthcare plans or benefits, etc. If you don't work, then you should probably work on finding a job. It is possible to become not-poor, with the proper motivation. I understand that not everyone can do this, but I'd bet most could. You really don't understand anything here because you live a life of privilege. It's easy to accuse the poor of being lazy when you never had to work three jobs at once to pay a mortgage or college tuition. It's even easier when you are never in contact with people like this, and just see your taxes as being high, so you look for something to blame even though with those high taxes you are still miles ahead of most people. Perhaps the worst though are self-made men who through fortune believe that anyone could do what they did if they just worked hard enough. You can never convince them of this however, so they will always work against people who were once like themselves because they perceive it as laziness rather than bad luck. No matter how much inheritance you have, if you don't spend money wisely, you will become poor. People can burn through millions very, very quickly. This doesn't tend to happen. Remember the positive feedback mechanism I mentioned? The money already landed in their hands. It's their children or grandchildren (or further on) that you're angry about. So are you saying that we should redistribute the wealth every two or three generations? That your hard work can't make a better life for your family? Except it didn't. In the vast majority of cases it landed in the hands of sons and daughters and grandchildren of the clever, who secured a future for their lineage at the cost of our welfare. But if you took the money of people whose money is in stocks of companies (e.g. Bill Gates), than those company stocks would drop as the person is forced to sell them all to give money to the poor. And if Microsoft tanked, that would be a lot of jobs lost! Almost a hundred thousand people would be out of a job. So, yes, the wealthy few do have the power to create jobs. I'm not saying that's where all the jobs are, but there are quite a few! You need to abandon your preconceptions here. If personal and corporate wealth were not permitted to rise above a humble level, then that excess would fuel the poor, and they would be freed up to start businesses and fund inventions of their own. We would see more smaller businesses which would be competing against each other, and so we would have more [local] jobs as opposed to corporate jobs which often move overseas to cut costs. As it stands now, men like Bill Gates campaign and fight against innovative technology and business opportunities like Bittorrent, and Linux. They fight all kinds of digital innovations which could lead into a whole manner of new cultural landscapes (bittorrent for example makes small businesses capable of distributing large files more cheaply, and P2P allows people to share songs and movies more freely, and Linux makes business operating costs lower than those using windows). Side: Pump Prime
Many of your arguments seem to be based on the idea that there is a finite amount of private wealth. There isn't. It would be possible for everyone in the country to be very well-off, just as it would be possible for everyone in the country to be dirt-poor. So no matter how rich the rich get, they're not taking money from the rest of us, they just have more money. If personal and corporate wealth were not permitted to rise above a humble level, then that excess would fuel the poor Or, the excess would fuel the government's rampant spending. With all the taxes they get, we're still digging ourselves deeper into debt. I believe we're now somewhere around $10 trillion. So before you start advocating putting heavier taxes on anyone, you should probably advocate cutting off government spending. I can almost guarantee that raising taxes on the rich wouldn't go to the poor. Charities, however, would give money to the poor. Side: Trickle Down
Many of your arguments seem to be based on the idea that there is a finite amount of private wealth. There isn't. In terms of material resources, Earth is a closed system. In other words, wealth is finite. When the rich increase their wealth, it comes from others and the reverse is true. It would be possible for everyone in the country to be very well-off, just as it would be possible for everyone in the country to be dirt-poor. So no matter how rich the rich get, they're not taking money from the rest of us, they just have more money. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/ If you observe these figures, you will find that: In terms of Net Worth and Financial Wealth, the middle class (the richest 19%) increased their wealth while the poorest 80% lost wealth. In terms of general wealth ownership between the top 1% and the bottom 99%, there are rises and falls but the last twenty-five years has seen a general decline of the ownership of wealth in the hands of the bottom 99%. Finally the top 1% of Americans have increased their income by shaving it off of the bottom 80%. So yes, wealth is a limited commodity and being rich means that it has to come from someone else, usually the poor. If it was the case that wealth was infinite, then scarcity wouldn't exist and wealth would have an every decreasing value. Instead we see wealth increasing in the west as people are made destitute in South America, Africa and Asia. Or, the excess would fuel the government's rampant spending. With all the taxes they get, we're still digging ourselves deeper into debt. What do you think war is? It isn't free, and a huge percentage of our GDP goes to the war budget. We wouldn't be in debt if we weren't such a warlike nation. We are an empire, really. The conservatives and libertarians are united in funding a giant military machine while ending investment in social services which would cost less than that military machine. It seems contradictory to me, and quite irrational. I believe we're now somewhere around $10 trillion. So before you start advocating putting heavier taxes on anyone, you should probably advocate cutting off government spending. The two are separate things. Government spending is for programs that are bigger than any business or personal interest. Business and the rich are a separate group which diverts wealth from the working class into their pockets. The rich can afford to be severely taxed. If this were a truly equal democracy it would have been accomplished ages ago, but the wealthy own our news outlets, our radio, our television, and our government. They don't want to give up a sizable part of their wealth, they don't want to live like you and I but instead in a class above us, like an aristocracy. So every time you buy into talk about how the rich can't afford to shoulder burdens and how they deserve all their wealth, and how socialism is evil, you can bet that a wealthy business interest is behind it all. It's divide and conquer really. Divide and disorient the public so that they cannot work in union to take something for themselves. That's why pseudo-issues like abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, healthcare, Obama-Muslim conspiracies, the TEA Party, creationism, death penalty, etc. exist. They divide everyone needlessly over petty issues so that there is no strong support for working class interests. I can almost guarantee that raising taxes on the rich wouldn't go to the poor. What do you think pays for our roads, water, schools, welfare, unemployment, government grants, etc.? Taxes. You're right, in that taxing the rich wouldn't mean that we'd get a giant paycheck in the mail, but what we would see is better healthcare, better energy projects, better scientific research and more. If the poor no longer need to add huge insurance premiums to their list of worries then that's a bit less monetary stress and more personal wealth that can be invested in something better, like school. Side: Pump Prime
First, I think it's kind of funny how both of us think the other is buying into their ideology's lies and propaganda, and, in turn, thinking the other is stupid for doing so. Anyway..... What do you think war is? It isn't free, and a huge percentage of our GDP goes to the war budget. We wouldn't be in debt if we weren't such a warlike nation. We are an empire, really. Yes, war is a massive bill. But that makes our military one of the best and most advanced there is. Which protects us against possible terrorist threats. So, war can be a good thing (not that killing people is good). But another program exists in that top 20% that contains the military: TSA. The TSA gets loads of funding every year, and so far there have been two major terrorist attacks and various attempted attacks, none of which were thwarted by the TSA. Those attempted attacks were, in fact, thwarted by the passengers of airplanes. And, when all is said and done, they have caught NOBODY. That's right, the terrorists just walk right onto our airplanes, and the passengers have to deal with them anyway. We could cut them out of the system, and be none the worse. Government spending is for programs that are bigger than any business or personal interest. Government spending doesn't go to happy rainbows-and-unicorns fairyland where everything is happy and right. They go to bloated bureaucratic programs where, and I quote you, "[they divert] wealth from the working class into their pockets." and how socialism is evil You seriously believe socialism would work? Look at the other countries that have tried it. It didn't work out too well for them. It's divide and conquer really. Divide and disorient the public so that they cannot work in union to take something for themselves. That's why pseudo-issues like abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, healthcare, Obama-Muslim conspiracies, the TEA Party, creationism, death penalty, etc. exist. They divide everyone needlessly over petty issues so that there is no strong support for working class interests. And you you seriously believe all these hot topic were invented by the rich to distract us? That seems more far-fetched than the 9/11 and Apollo conspiracies. Your conspiracy theory can be debunked with this simple fact: everyone's different, and everyone has different views on everything. And then everyone believes their view is right (or they wouldn't hold it), and that the world would be better off with their view, and thus try and convince everyone else that their view is right. If that made any sense, because I admit it was kind of confusing. What do you think pays for our roads, water, schools, welfare, unemployment, government grants, etc.? Yes, taxes do wonderful things like infrastructure (that's why a bridge collapsed somewhat recently... good job, government!) and fixing roads (there are quite a few potholes, and it doesn't seem like construction crews are ever doing anything), and schools (the US is somewhere in the 30s on the list of most educated countries), welfare (another bloated program that either needs a serious overhaul or total shutdown), etc. But it also goes to trillion-dollar bail-outs (which didn't work, just as the bailout in the Great Depression didn't work). As for energy projects and scientific research, the EU is currently working on a nuclear FUSION reactor (pretty much a miracle machine--lots of energy and no bad by-products) which would cost a few billion dollars per reactor and should be ready around 2050. On the other hand (the capitalist hand), a private company is working on a nuclear fusion reactor which should be ready around 2013 and cost only a few million dollars per reactor. Most all worth-while research is done in the private sector, funded by the 'rich pigs' you want to make poor. (Although, most medical research was actually conducted by Nazi scientists in prison camps....) And better healthcare? Government healthcare systems don't work. At least, not the ones the US tries. It would be better to try and fix the private insurance systems, and maybe even our medical systems to drop costs down so you don't have to pay $100 to get a check-up. Side: Trickle Down
First, I think it's kind of funny how both of us think the other is buying into their ideology's lies and propaganda, and, in turn, thinking the other is stupid for doing so. Anyway..... I don't really watch the news or listen to talking heads if that's what you're implying. Yes, war is a massive bill. But that makes our military one of the best and most advanced there is. Which protects us against possible terrorist threats. So, war can be a good thing (not that killing people is good). So spending more money on war than entire continents of nations is a good thing but providing healthcare, good education, fair pay, and low taxes for the working class is a bad thing. http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/ We really do not need such a large military budget. The rest of the world gets by quite well with a much smaller budget, and in Europe this means the citizens have a much healthier society, with better schools and healthcare. Our warlike culture has simply squandered money on something needless instead of providing for itself. Government spending doesn't go to happy rainbows-and-unicorns fairyland where everything is happy and right. They go to bloated bureaucratic programs where, and I quote you, "[they divert] wealth from the working class into their pockets." It is diverted mainly into social programs and infrastructure. You seriously believe socialism would work? Look at the other countries that have tried it. It didn't work out too well for them. It seems to be working very well in Europe. Of course, the easily-led pride of our population has made them fight healthcare reforms and laws in their favour for decades. And you you seriously believe all these hot topic were invented by the rich to distract us? That seems more far-fetched than the 9/11 and Apollo conspiracies. Not invented, but promoted and magnified by private news corporations (owned by wealthy business interests). For example, Climate Change is a settled matter in the scientific community. It happens, and human climate change is all but certain. What do our wealthy elite do? They spend billions of dollars through advertisements, fake grass-roots movements, shills in the media, interviews with "concerned" scientists, etc. in order to make us think that climate change is uncertain and still being researched, or worse, a hoax. That is because it is against their financial interests for us to demand alternative energy sources and stringent regulations against wastes being pumped into the air and oceans. The same is true about creationism. It has no scientific merit but is mentioned in the news as if it has equal standing with evolution. This is because it is a wedge issue with the religious right, used to divide them from everyone else so that they may exist as a voter base for whatever the religious leaders want them to vote on. Abortion is similar. It's a strictly private affair but has been intensified by wealthy religious leaders as a means of dividing the public into voter camps. There is no religious sanction against abortion, but it appeals to the emotions of people and makes them easy to manipulate. Again with homosexuality and "marriage." Marriage isn't under attack but dividing the population so that it thinks it is, keeps it preoccupied and noncritical of other, important political issues. Then we have socialism. Anything which could revise our capitalist system in favour of workers and the poor is branded as socialism by the media. That is because many proposed restraints (for example, healthcare) violate insurance business interests, or corporate business interests. It's almost funny because of how many billions of dollars are spent by the wealthy powers in order to change public opinion so that they might not need to spend billions of dollars helping these people. Your conspiracy theory can be debunked with this simple fact: everyone's different, and everyone has different views on everything. And then everyone believes their view is right (or they wouldn't hold it), and that the world would be better off with their view, and thus try and convince everyone else that their view is right. I'm not talking about peoples' innate differences of opinion. I'm talking about the propaganda regularly spouted forth from television networks in order to mislead people. Yes, taxes do wonderful things like infrastructure (that's why a bridge collapsed somewhat recently... good job, government!) and fixing roads (there are quite a few potholes, and it doesn't seem like construction crews are ever doing anything), and schools (the US is somewhere in the 30s on the list of most educated countries), welfare (another bloated program that either needs a serious overhaul or total shutdown), etc. But it also goes to trillion-dollar bail-outs (which didn't work, just as the bailout in the Great Depression didn't work). Try living in Mexico or South America if you want to see bad government roads, schools, and infrastructure. What we have is much better than there (except perhaps healthcare systems) but we also pay more. As for energy projects and scientific research, the EU is currently working on a nuclear FUSION reactor (pretty much a miracle machine--lots of energy and no bad by-products) which would cost a few billion dollars per reactor and should be ready around 2050. On the other hand (the capitalist hand), a private company is working on a nuclear fusion reactor which should be ready around 2013 and cost only a few million dollars per reactor. You cannot compare apples and oranges. ITER, which I assume you are talking about, is a full Fusion Power facility designed to attempt sustainable and commercial delivery of fusion power and the research necessary to verify those methods. American forays into Fusion are largely experimental with no recent attempts to build fusion power plants. Most all worth-while research is done in the private sector, funded by the 'rich pigs' you want to make poor. (Although, most medical research was actually conducted by Nazi scientists in prison camps....) Notice your qualifier "worth-while." You know as well as I do that government-funded research is greater than the private sector, but it is for things which the private sector would find unprofitable and therefore never pursue. Take nuclear fusion. If it wasn't for government research it would still be a mere idea written about but nothing further. That is because it took decades of research to find any use for it, and this does not fit into the business mindset. Look at medical research, where most of it is spent verifying that drugs are safe and effective. In the private sector this would never happen and we would have all kinds of deadly products sold as cures (ever heard of Radithor?). And better healthcare? Government healthcare systems don't work. At least, not the ones the US tries. It would be better to try and fix the private insurance systems, and maybe even our medical systems to drop costs down so you don't have to pay $100 to get a check-up. They work in Europe and people are satisfied with it. Same with Canada. Even a number of South American countries have it working. Only in America, with billions of dollars spent by business interests to misinform public opinion, is this even an issue. Side: Pump Prime
I don't really watch the news or listen to talking heads if that's what you're implying. And neither do I. The key word in my statement was think. It is diverted mainly into social programs and infrastructure. But you've argued that most of the money goes to war. That's neither social programs nor infrastructure. Climate Change But 'Climate Change' was 'Global Warming' a few years ago, and 'Global Cooling' a few decades before that (preceeded by a couple warming and cooling trends again). So, after a century of being wrong, it's been changed to simply 'Climate Change', so no matter what happens, you're right! Very convenient, if I say so myself. The same is true about creationism. It has no scientific merit but is mentioned in the news as if it has equal standing with evolution So tell me, how did the universe begin? Anything which could revise our capitalist system in favour of workers and the poor is branded as socialism by the media. No, anything that tries to 'revise' our capitalist system into a socialistic 'spreading the wealth' is branded as socialism. I don't mind 'revising' it, but when you take other people's money and tell them how to spend it, that's socialism, and that's wrong. I'm not talking about peoples' innate differences of opinion. I'm talking about the propaganda regularly spouted forth from television networks in order to mislead people. I was under the impression that most of the news networks were actually liberal. Except for radio, which is because people don't want to listen to liberal radio. Try living in Mexico or South America if you want to see bad government roads, schools, and infrastructure. What we have is much better than there (except perhaps healthcare systems) but we also pay more. I won't argue that we have better roads than in more southerly continental countries. But we are less than 30th in educational standards (I wonder how many people can name 30 countries other than Canada and Mexico). As for healthcare, in the developed countries, the US pays the most and gets the least for healthcare. It needs a revamp much more than the idea of capitalism. ITER, which I assume you are talking about, is a full Fusion Power facility designed to attempt sustainable and commercial delivery of fusion power and the research necessary to verify those methods. American forays into Fusion are largely experimental with no recent attempts to build fusion power plants. The 'methods' they are using are pretty much bound to fail. You cannot use magnetism to control fusion, as it takes WAY more energy to produce the fields than you actually get from the reaction. That's why they say 2050, because it's a very, very long journey. On the other hand, General Fusion [1] have already produced a proof-of-concept for a pneumatic reactor and are currently constructing a full-scale model which, if the math is correct, will produce power-plant quality returns (between 1:10 to 1:15) of fusion power in the year 2013. That's not just a date, that's when it will be finished. Notice your qualifier "worth-while." You know as well as I do that government-funded research is greater than the private sector, but it is for things which the private sector would find unprofitable and therefore never pursue. In the late 19th Century, the biggest environmental problem faced by the modern world was what to do with all the horse manure from the carriages. In the early 20th Century, this problem went away by itself via the capitalist system--cars had become economically wise. When alternative energies become economically wise, the general public will automatically shift to them without any need for government help. As it is with most of the problems we face today. The government tosses money, hoping that will fix the problem. The private sector works on it, and the problem gets fixed. Often for much cheaper than the government can do it. Take nuclear fusion. If it wasn't for government research it would still be a mere idea written about but nothing further. And yet, without government help, General Fusion has come up with a far better solution to the problem than the governments did. The governments followed the leading scientific opinion (magnets are the only way to control fusion), while two guys managed to work out an alternative (which is explained on their site--check it out). Only after the research was done did the Canadian Government decide it was probably a good investment. The work had already been done, the idea patented. No government help. Look at medical research, where most of it is spent verifying that drugs are safe and effective. Due to illegal false advertising, companies couldn't legally sell bad drugs as cures unless they really didn't know themselves. And once it started killing people, the public would not only cease to buy that drug, but cease to buy all drugs from that company. It would be more profitable for a company to make sure their drug was safe than to just ship it out there. In the capitalist system, quality always wins (unless a company has developed false trust with its buyers, e.g. Apple). They work in Europe and people are satisfied with it. Same with Canada. Even a number of South American countries have it working. Since the government is filled with liberals at the current moment, does it really matter what the public thinks? We've long since passed the stage of actual democracy. Our country is far too big for a democratic (not the party, the ideal of people voting) federal government to work. So, since there is a liberal majority, why don't we just pass what Europe does? Or is it that the liberals are just as paid-off as the conservatives? Paid off by people who can make money trading carbon bonds or from a faulty healthcare system. ----- The link is General Fusion, if the title doesn't show up (as it's not in the preview) Side: Trickle Down
But you've argued that most of the money goes to war. That's neither social programs nor infrastructure. I believe I argued that too much of our money goes to military related programs. If I wasn't more clear I apologise. Anyway, I double-checked the figures and they still do come out as very high: http://upload.wikimedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ But 'Climate Change' was 'Global Warming' a few years ago, and 'Global Cooling' a few decades before that (preceeded by a couple warming and cooling trends again). Actually it was only ever climate change to the scientific community. The Media is the institution which labeled it as global warming and global cooling. You should do more research. So, after a century of being wrong, it's been changed to simply 'Climate Change', so no matter what happens, you're right! Very convenient, if I say so myself. What usually happens is that the media distorts or takes the science out of context, so that you end up with scientists having to debunk myths which were never their own making. Then you have weaseling from oil and energy companies who pay scientists to misrepresent the data so that there appears to be a lack of consensus. So tell me, how did the universe begin? We may never know because the early conditions of the universe, the first moment, is so exotic and hard to reproduce. However there are some theories (as in actual scientific theory, not guesses) which allow for certain conditions to produce a universe due to quantum fluctuation, inevitability, and the right geometry of space. That's not evolution by the way, but cosmology. No, anything that tries to 'revise' our capitalist system into a socialistic 'spreading the wealth' is branded as socialism. I don't mind 'revising' it, but when you take other people's money and tell them how to spend it, that's socialism, and that's wrong. Again, that isn't socialism. That is a modern caricature of socialism. I was under the impression that most of the news networks were actually liberal. Except for radio, which is because people don't want to listen to liberal radio. Most of our news networks are owned by business interests, which means that there is a conflict of interest in delivering accurate information (because it might make the owners and stockholders look bad), and there is a conflict of interest in reporting the latest political manipulation by those businesses. I won't argue that we have better roads than in more southerly continental countries. But we are less than 30th in educational standards (I wonder how many people can name 30 countries other than Canada and Mexico). As for healthcare, in the developed countries, the US pays the most and gets the least for healthcare. It needs a revamp much more than the idea of capitalism. According to a friend of mine, who works as a teacher in high schools, a lot of the problem stems from the administrations treating failing children as the teacher's fault, when it is due to laziness and an unwillingness to study no matter how much the teacher works with those students or pleads with them to study. The students are seen as blameless, unless they do nothing and will be passed anyway, even if they earned an F grade. This is because of the "No Child Left Behind" bill, which encouraged high schools to cheat their graduation scores by falsely passing students. It's actually quite disheartening and as you can imagine, which is why I am hesitant to ask for the latest news from him. Who wants to hear that the next generation is going to herald the end of civilisation with its underqualification and laziness? We pay the most and get the least from our healthcare because we have two systems working at the same time. A government program and a private one. We need one or the other. I personally am for a government program only, because decades of private insurance hasn't made a good name for itself. The 'methods' they are using are pretty much bound to fail. You cannot use magnetism to control fusion, as it takes WAY more energy to produce the fields than you actually get from the reaction. That's why they say 2050, because it's a very, very long journey. Right, that's why it is the plan to create high-energy plasma which will sustain a fusion reaction for less input energy. This has been the dream, to create a sustained plasma which can give a return greater than the investment energy. We are so close, yet so far at the same time. On the other hand, General Fusion [1] have already produced a proof-of-concept for a pneumatic reactor and are currently constructing a full-scale model which, if the math is correct, will produce power-plant quality returns (between 1:10 to 1:15) of fusion power in the year 2013. That's not just a date, that's when it will be finished. If they get it working, more power to them, though I am skeptical of such a nearby date. In the late 19th Century, the biggest environmental problem faced by the modern world was what to do with all the horse manure from the carriages. In the early 20th Century, this problem went away by itself via the capitalist system--cars had become economically wise. When alternative energies become economically wise, the general public will automatically shift to them without any need for government help. As it is with most of the problems we face today. We don't have that luxury of time. The reason that fossil fuels are so useful is that they were slowly-formed reserves of organic energy. We merely need to refine it. Alternative fuels will always be less economical because we have to manufacture the substances which are refined into fuels. In the mean time, we emit wastes into the air which threaten our long-term survival. This isn't a problem that can fix itself, we need to subsidise the development of these fuels so that they are perceived as economical to businesses. And yet, without government help, General Fusion has come up with a far better solution to the problem than the governments did. The governments followed the leading scientific opinion (magnets are the only way to control fusion), while two guys managed to work out an alternative (which is explained on their site--check it out). Only after the research was done did the Canadian Government decide it was probably a good investment. The work had already been done, the idea patented. No government help. They stand on the shoulders of decades of government research. Seventy years ago no private company would dream of undertaking this. It gives no returns for the investment until completed and that is a very long-term goal. Due to illegal false advertising, companies couldn't legally sell bad drugs as cures unless they really didn't know themselves. And once it started killing people, the public would not only cease to buy that drug, but cease to buy all drugs from that company. It would be more profitable for a company to make sure their drug was safe than to just ship it out there. In the capitalist system, quality always wins (unless a company has developed false trust with its buyers, e.g. Apple). Really now? Since the government is filled with liberals at the current moment, does it really matter what the public thinks? We've long since passed the stage of actual democracy. Our country is far too big for a democratic (not the party, the ideal of people voting) federal government to work. So, since there is a liberal majority, why don't we just pass what Europe does? It's not much of an argument to insist upon a liberal conspiracy supporting social medicine. My argument is that it works in the countries that have it. The people in Europe seem quite content with it. Just calling them liberals isn't a rebuttal. Or is it that the liberals are just as paid-off as the conservatives? Paid off by people who can make money trading carbon bonds or from a faulty healthcare system. This isn't a rebuttal either. Side: Pump Prime
I believe I argued that too much of our money goes to military related programs. If I wasn't more clear I apologise. Anyway, I double-checked the figures and they still do come out as very high Those are very interesting numbers. So more money goes into the doomed Social Security than into the entire DoD, which does more than just find a war. If we just stopped SS, than it would cut our gov't spending by about 20%. Cutting the TSA might be another 1%, making it an even 20. And why not cut social security. It's going to fail long before Gen Y can use it, possibly even before Gen X. so that you end up with scientists having to debunk myths which were never their own making. But so many environmental scientists made plenty of wrong predictions. All the life in the oceans would be dead by 1980, the rain forests would be destroyed by 2000, Greenland would melt very soon, the oceans are rising, or that the temperature would raise around 3 degrees (instead of the 0.7 it's actually raised). However there are some theories (as in actual scientific theory, not guesses) which allow for certain conditions to produce a universe due to quantum fluctuation, inevitability, and the right geometry of space. I would have noted the LHC, which as produced matter from energy, but that's just me. But what you're generally saying is you don't know. You have no idea what made the universe, but you've already closed off one explanation: God made it. This does not disprove science. God and science can live in the same universe. And I know the theories about the origin aren't evolution. They're science. I like how you yourself made that distinction. Again, that isn't socialism. That is a modern caricature of socialism. Actually, that is socialism. "so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] –noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." That sounds like 'distributing' the wealth to me. Your three paragraphs on education I won't argue that it's lazy children and the "no child left behind" that make our education system so horrible. But it's funny how you blame our failing children on children being lazy, and not our failing citizens for citizens being lazy. We pay the most and get the least from our healthcare because we have two systems working at the same time. A government program and a private one. How about a private industry with limits by the government. Like salary caps for the insurance companies? Just like there are caps on power companies. Right, that's why it is the plan to create high-energy plasma which will sustain a fusion reaction for less input energy. This has been the dream, to create a sustained plasma which can give a return greater than the investment energy. The only way to sustain a fusion reaction is with massive pressure and heat. The Sun only works because it's gravity produces those situations. To do so on Earth would require massive forces, which generally suck up much more energy than the reaction produces. Thus, doomed to fail. General Fusion isn't trying a sustained reaction. They're trying momentary fusion via steam-powered pistons. You should read their website. It's good stuff! If they get it working, more power to them, though I am skeptical of such a nearby date. That date is a day of construction, not development. The development is over. They're just building, now. Alternative fuels will always be less economical because we have to manufacture the substances which are refined into fuels. What about when it costs so much to drill/mine fossil fuels that it is cheaper to buy an electric car? Once car dealerships see this, they'll put more money and more effort into developing that technology to sell, and people will buy them without any need for the government to help. Really now? Radithor Coca-Cola Radioactive Toothpaste Radioactive Water Patent Medicine Radithor was produced in the 20s, when it wasn't illegal to false-advertise. Coca-Cola stopped putting cocain in their drinks in the early 20th century, before it wasn't illegal to false-advertise. Radioactive toothpase was produced in Germany before it wasn't illegal to false-advertise in the US, and the radiation levels were later found to be low. Radioactive Water was sold in the 20s and 30s before it wasn't illegal to false-advertise. Main-stream patent medicine stopped in the early 20th century, when it wasn't illegal to false-advertise. It's not much of an argument to insist upon a liberal conspiracy supporting social medicine. My argument is that it works in the countries that have it. The people in Europe seem quite content with it. I'm saying that it will never work here as long as companies are paying off the government. Europe may be content with it, but it cannot work here unless there are changes to our government system. Side: Trickle Down
Those are very interesting numbers. So more money goes into the doomed Social Security than into the entire DoD, which does more than just find a war. If we just stopped SS, than it would cut our gov't spending by about 20%. Cutting the TSA might be another 1%, making it an even 20. And why not cut social security. It's going to fail long before Gen Y can use it, possibly even before Gen X. So you'd rather cut spending in programs designed to aid the elderly, the poor, the disabled, instead of cutting spending on programs designed to destabilise governments which are not in our political interests, support coups, assassinations, and wars. Wow. I really have nothing to say to that one. But so many environmental scientists made plenty of wrong predictions. All the life in the oceans would be dead by 1980, the rain forests would be destroyed by 2000, Greenland would melt very soon, the oceans are rising, or that the temperature would raise around 3 degrees (instead of the 0.7 it's actually raised). Just like global cooling, huh? Where'd you get those "predictions?" From the newspaper? Did you try reading the primary literature over the decades? It is not typical of scientists, particularly researchers, to make bold claims. They only report what the data permits, and suggest possible avenues for future research, and reasonable conclusions. You know you're reading journalism when the information is designed to sell. I would have noted the LHC, which as produced matter from energy, but that's just me. The Large Hadron Collider doesn't produce universes. But what you're generally saying is you don't know. You have no idea what made the universe, More precisely, we do not know, but we have ideas of what could have formed the universe. More research will indicate further. but you've already closed off one explanation: God made it. This does not disprove science. God and science can live in the same universe. That's not an explanation. If a person asks you, "Oh my god, how was this Core i7-970 made?" and you answer "Jim made it." you are not answering the question. The person is asking how it was manufactured, not who operated the manufacturing process. The correct answer would be along the lines of: In semiconductor device fabrication, the various processing steps fall into four general categories: deposition, removal, patterning, and modification of electrical properties. + Deposition is any process that grows, coats, or otherwise transfers a material onto the wafer. Available technologies consist of physical vapor deposition (PVD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), electrochemical deposition (ECD), molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) and more recently, atomic layer deposition (ALD) among others. + Removal processes are any that remove material from the wafer either in bulk or selectively and consist primarily of etch processes, either wet etching or dry etching. Chemical-mechanical planarization (CMP) is also a removal process used between levels. + Patterning covers the series of processes that shape or alter the existing shape of the deposited materials and is generally referred to as lithography. For example, in conventional lithography, the wafer is coated with a chemical called a photoresist. The photoresist is exposed by a stepper, a machine that focuses, aligns, and moves the mask, exposing select portions of the wafer to short wavelength light. The unexposed regions are washed away by a developer solution. After etching or other processing, the remaining photoresist is removed by plasma ashing. + Modification of electrical properties has historically consisted of doping transistor sources and drains originally by diffusion furnaces and later by ion implantation. These doping processes are followed by furnace anneal or in advanced devices, by rapid thermal anneal (RTA) which serve to activate the implanted dopants. Modification of electrical properties now also extends to reduction of dielectric constant in low-k insulating materials via exposure to ultraviolet light in UV processing (UVP). Many modern chips have up to eleven metal levels produced in over 300 sequenced processing steps. Further, god is not an answer in science. Science does not invoke magic in its theories. And I know the theories about the origin aren't evolution. They're science. I like how you yourself made that distinction. If you know this, then why did you ask about the big bang when I mentioned evolution? That sounds like 'distributing' the wealth to me. I imagine you were trying to be funny, but you contradicted yourself by quoting a dictionary definition which specifies otherwise. If you were not being funny, would you like a concise explanation? I won't argue that it's lazy children and the "no child left behind" that make our education system so horrible. But it's funny how you blame our failing children on children being lazy, and not our failing citizens for citizens being lazy. What's funny about it? They are two separate systems. How about a private industry with limits by the government. Like salary caps for the insurance companies? Just like there are caps on power companies. I've thought about that too. The problem is that I've run out of trust for insurance companies even with government oversight and fixes. The only way to sustain a fusion reaction is with massive pressure and heat. The Sun only works because it's gravity produces those situations. To do so on Earth would require massive forces, which generally suck up much more energy than the reaction produces. Thus, doomed to fail. I tend to think of it more in terms of overcoming the potential energy in atoms with application of the right amount of energy. Because fusion releases so much energy once it occurs, it therefore has the potential of becoming self-sustaining, even if the initial investment costs are as you rightly describe very high. General Fusion isn't trying a sustained reaction. They're trying momentary fusion via steam-powered pistons. You should read their website. It's good stuff! I looked into, like I said, I still retain scepticism. It seems too promising. What about when it costs so much to drill/mine fossil fuels that it is cheaper to buy an electric car? Once car dealerships see this, they'll put more money and more effort into developing that technology to sell, and people will buy them without any need for the government to help. A large part of business is bluffing, in other words putting out misinformation to keep investors interested. Oil companies have so much wealth that they will their way through, until they can own a substantial amount of the market for alternative energies. Radithor was produced in the 20s, when it wasn't illegal to false-advertise. Coca-Cola stopped putting cocain in their drinks in the early 20th century, before it wasn't illegal to false-advertise. Radioactive toothpase was produced in Germany before it wasn't illegal to false-advertise in the US, and the radiation levels were later found to be low. Radioactive Water was sold in the 20s and 30s before it wasn't illegal to false-advertise. Main-stream patent medicine stopped in the early 20th century, when it wasn't illegal to false-advertise. You're missing the larger picture, that your ideal of companies checking for safety due to profit concerns doesn't work. I'm saying that it will never work here as long as companies are paying off the government. Europe may be content with it, but it cannot work here unless there are changes to our government system. You're right. Look at how much money has been spent trying to kill our very small healthcare reform bill. It isn't socialised medicine but simply ends a lot of unsavoury practices, but they are more determined than ever to end it. Side: Pump Prime
So you'd rather cut spending in programs designed to aid the elderly, the poor, the disabled, instead of cutting spending on programs designed to destabilise governments which are not in our political interests, support coups, assassinations, and wars. No, I'd cut programs that are designed to aid the elderly, etc. but will fail to do so anyway in twenty years. The Large Hadron Collider doesn't produce universes But it does produce matter, which shows that matter can be produced. That's good evidence for a non-God origin, but it's never used! That's not an explanation. If a person asks you, "Oh my god, how was this Core i7-970 made?" and you answer "Jim made it." you are not answering the question. So religion explains the who, and science explains the how. Put them together, and you have the answer. "How was this Core i7-970 made?" "Jim made it by ...." Further, god is not an answer in science. That may be true. The comic is pretty funny. But when something extraordinarily rare happens in science to prove something, they don't say 'such-and-such happened', but 'they set up the situation, in which such-and-such happened.' I'm implying that in certain cases, the 'they' is God. I imagine you were trying to be funny, but you contradicted yourself by quoting a dictionary definition which specifies otherwise Except the definition doesn't state otherwise. That was my point. They are two separate systems. Two separate systems, both solved by the same thing: hurt those succeeded to help those failing. I've thought about that too. The problem is that I've run out of trust for insurance companies even with government oversight and fixes. Trust is a fickle thing. This causes a problem, because I trust neither the insurance companies nor the government. So where do I go? There has to be a lesser of two evils, here. My lesser is the insurance companies. Yours is probably the government. it therefore has the potential of becoming self-sustaining, even if the initial investment costs are as you rightly describe very high. But fusion produces a fantastic amount of force outward, like an explosion. It just so happens to also be magnetic, so one way to control that force to keep the needed conditions is magnets. Conventional ways (building a strong box around it) won't work because the box would melt. You're missing the larger picture, that your ideal of companies checking for safety due to profit concerns doesn't work. No, I hit it. In order to sell products, producers have to advertise. But they must advertise the truth, because it's now illegal to do otherwise. That means they really have to make better products than their competitors. All your examples don't count because they used false advertising to sell dangerous things. You're right. Look at how much money has been spent trying to kill our very small healthcare reform bill. It isn't socialised medicine but simply ends a lot of unsavoury practices, but they are more determined than ever to end it. And both ways, the government gets money. The liberals pay them to pass a bill, the conservatives pay them to take it away. Around and around it goes! Where it stops, nobody knows! Side: Trickle Down
No, I'd cut programs that are designed to aid the elderly, etc. but will fail to do so anyway in twenty years. They will fail because they are underfunded due to budgeting. But it does produce matter, which shows that matter can be produced. That's good evidence for a non-God origin, but it's never used! That really wasn't a problem though for decades. We have produced matter in various particle accelerators for many years. So religion explains the who, and science explains the how. Put them together, and you have the answer. "How was this Core i7-970 made?" "Jim made it by ...." Which could be verified by asking the people in charge of the factories, or noting the etched signature "Jim" on the silicon. There is no such thing for god, and never will be. God is defined to be unknowable. That may be true. The comic is pretty funny. But when something extraordinarily rare happens in science to prove something, they don't say 'such-and-such happened', but 'they set up the situation, in which such-and-such happened.' I'm implying that in certain cases, the 'they' is God. You're making an argument from lack of knowledge. It isn't a suggestion for god. Except the definition doesn't state otherwise. That was my point. Socialism requires as per that definition that the means of production is publicly owned. It isn't enough to plan economics or regulate business. Two separate systems, both solved by the same thing: hurt those succeeded to help those failing. Not really. The first is about forcing the greedy to share, they are not being hurt because they would still be making over 250000 dollars annually. This is a lot of money, enough to sate most of our needs, but insufficient to bias politics. The second is about punishing schools with low graduation rates and scores, which backfired by those same schools inflating grades rather that investing in new ideas to make their kids educated and successful. Trust is a fickle thing. This causes a problem, because I trust neither the insurance companies nor the government. So where do I go? There has to be a lesser of two evils, here. My lesser is the insurance companies. Yours is probably the government. That would probably sum up our stance. I trust neither either, but in this case see the government as a lesser of two evils. But fusion produces a fantastic amount of force outward, like an explosion. It just so happens to also be magnetic, so one way to control that force to keep the needed conditions is magnets. Conventional ways (building a strong box around it) won't work because the box would melt. That is correct, but like fission, I assume the power needed to generate storage would be minimal to the power generated through steam. No, I hit it. In order to sell products, producers have to advertise. But they must advertise the truth, because it's now illegal to do otherwise. That means they really have to make better products than their competitors. All your examples don't count because they used false advertising to sell dangerous things. The first mistaken preconception you have is that advertisers must tell the truth. All modern laws in respect to this is make advertisers more easily sued for wrong claims, but if you look at advertisements they are carefully worded to insert lies in non-culpable way. That is why we have government research programs for medicine. It's not very profitable to research your claims, versus just writing them and hoping to not be sued. And both ways, the government gets money. The liberals pay them to pass a bill, the conservatives pay them to take it away. Around and around it goes! Where it stops, nobody knows! It would be a lot simpler if there was strong consensus. Side: Pump Prime
or noting the etched signature "Jim" on the silicon. There is no such thing for god, and never will be. Have you gone infinitely into the future to check this? I doubt it. Maybe God has signed his work, we just can't yet read his signature. If something lived on that silicone chip, they wouldn't know how to read the "Jim" on it. You should read Carl Sagan's Contact. It's a good book, and has this idea in it. That is correct, but like fission, I assume the power needed to generate storage would be minimal to the power generated through steam. But fission doesn't naturally produce explosion-like forces. It needs critical mass to explode, and if that happened in a reactor, the containment vessel wouldn't be able to contain it. Fusion is much more explosive, which forces us to try and contain it. That's why fission plants are working now, as we've taken the explosion out of the reaction. Modern reactors can't explode. Fusion reactors will always explode. That's why it's taking a long time, because we have to find a way to contain it. Unless you want really brief explosions, like General Fusion is doing. That way, you don't have to contain it as there's nothing to contain. The reaction goes away the moment it's formed, generating enough heat in that moment to make steam. It would be a lot simpler if there was strong consensus. Yes, it would. But then we'd all be robots, and that wouldn't be very fun at all. Side: Trickle Down
Have you gone infinitely into the future to check this? I doubt it. I don't believe I need to. Everything before us shows no signature, and conforms to theory which needs no god to function. Maybe God has signed his work, we just can't yet read his signature. Which would tend to give credence to the "god hasn't signed anything" theory until you can prove that such a signature exists. If something lived on that silicone chip, they wouldn't know how to read the "Jim" on it. You should read Carl Sagan's Contact. It's a good book, and has this idea in it. Until you can find such a signature it's just conjecture opposed to theory which finds no need for it. But fission doesn't naturally produce explosion-like forces. It needs critical mass to explode, and if that happened in a reactor, the containment vessel wouldn't be able to contain it. Fusion is much more explosive, which forces us to try and contain it. That's why fission plants are working now, as we've taken the explosion out of the reaction. Modern reactors can't explode. Fusion reactors will always explode. That's why it's taking a long time, because we have to find a way to contain it. I didn't think of it this way before. Thanks for that. Unless you want really brief explosions, like General Fusion is doing. That way, you don't have to contain it as there's nothing to contain. The reaction goes away the moment it's formed, generating enough heat in that moment to make steam. But in that case it would seem to me to be a problem of insufficient energy, because too little fusion is taking place, if it isn't forming an explosion. Yes, it would. But then we'd all be robots, and that wouldn't be very fun at all. I thought we already were. Side: Pump Prime
I don't believe I need to. Everything before us shows no signature, and conforms to theory which needs no god to function. Let's rewind back to when the Earth was the center of the universe. "Everything before us shows the Earth is the center, and conforms to this theory. Why do we need to look farther?" Fast-forward to when Greeks were forgotten and the general consensus in Western Culture (not muslims, by the way) was that the Earth was flat. "Everything before us shows the Earth is flat. Why do we need to look farther?" Newtonian Physics: "Everything before us ..." Einsteinian Physics: "...." When heavier-than-air flight was 'impossible': "...." When you couldn't go faster than 60 MPH: "...." Just like the microbes on the silicon chip, they might (assuming they've attained sentience and a form of communication) have a totally different way of signatures than etching it into silicon. They might not understand that not all signatures are in chemicals, that some are visual. Maybe God has a mathematical signature (as proposed in Contact), or maybe the smell of Dark Matter, or the way the possible strings of String Theory vibrate, or in the unseen 5th dimension. It's quite conceivable that a being that created the universe (assuming now that He exists) would think on a totally different level. We haven't even figured it out, yet! I would expect we can't read his signature. But in that case it would seem to me to be a problem of insufficient energy, because too little fusion is taking place, if it isn't forming an explosion. That might be a problem, which is why their reactor core is 30 feet in diameter. Maybe there will be enough fusion to make enough steam to at least power the pistons one more time. Once that happens, the next batch (this happens every second) will give a little to the turbines, etc. But, we'll have to wait another two years to see if it works..... I thought we already were. XD! Pretty much! Side: Trickle Down
Let's rewind back to when the Earth was the center of the universe. "Everything before us shows the Earth is the center, and conforms to this theory. Why do we need to look farther?" Fast-forward to when Greeks were forgotten and the general consensus in Western Culture (not muslims, by the way) was that the Earth was flat. "Everything before us shows the Earth is flat. Why do we need to look farther?" Newtonian Physics: "Everything before us ..." Einsteinian Physics: "...." When heavier-than-air flight was 'impossible': "...." When you couldn't go faster than 60 MPH: "...." That's fine and well, if you happen to have Earth-shattering evidence which changes everything like Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Orville and Wilbur Wright, et al. did. Maybe God has a mathematical signature (as proposed in Contact), or maybe the smell of Dark Matter, or the way the possible strings of String Theory vibrate, or in the unseen 5th dimension. It's quite conceivable that a being that created the universe (assuming now that He exists) would think on a totally different level. We haven't even figured it out, yet! I would expect we can't read his signature. Again: if you can provide such evidence then by all means do so. However it isn't enough to propose what could be. It could be that Satan has a great signature for us all to uncover, or Odin, or Zoroaster. It could be that Alien Overlords really do send us signals encoded so that only schizophrenics can read them. Until you provide evidence, it isn't enough to assert. That might be a problem, which is why their reactor core is 30 feet in diameter. Maybe there will be enough fusion to make enough steam to at least power the pistons one more time. Once that happens, the next batch (this happens every second) will give a little to the turbines, etc. But, we'll have to wait another two years to see if it works..... That was my plan, to wait and see. Meanwhile I'll be working on my research. Side: Pump Prime
Such as the 40% of homeless people who chose to have disabilities? Or the 40% to 50% of homeless people who chose to be mentally ill? Aren't there programs in place to make sure they do get jobs? I thought that was the point of those programs--to help those who are at a disadvantage. If they choose not to partake in those programs, it's their fault. Not to say that everyone does that, but I'd say most (most being over 50%). Side: Trickle Down
What programs would you be referring to? Unless there is some law which requires employers to hire the mentally ill, which I highly doubt, it's impossible to deny that these people are at a serious disadvantage to the rest of the population. To say that all or most people are poor because of bad choices, is something not supported by any evidence that I am aware of. Especially considering that the number one cause of bankruptcy is unpaid medical bills. In an ideal world, only the lazy would be poor, but we do not live in an ideal world. The system is broken. Side: Pump Prime
What programs would you be referring to? That employers cannot not hire somebody due to a disability (unless it's a parapalegic trying to be a lifeguard, or something like that). Goodwill was started not just to sell cheap used things, but to provide jobs for disabled people. To say that all or most people are poor because of bad choices, is something not supported by any evidence that I am aware of. I'm not saying all. I'm saying over 50% of poor people are poor due to bad choices. This may be due to the fact that most, if not all, poor people I've seen are either panhandling (getting around $20,000 a year) or on drugs (which cost lots of money). I know that's not all poor people, but it seems to be a large percentage. In an ideal world, only the lazy would be poor, but we do not live in an ideal world. The system is broken. Yes, the system is broken. But the government cannot fix it. I'm fairly sure the government is the break. Side: Trickle Down
That employers cannot not hire somebody due to a disability Well.... they do. Like I said, 40% of homeless people have disabilities. Do you think disabled people are lazier than normally-able people? Goodwill was started not just to sell cheap used things, but to provide jobs for disabled people. An exception, does not demonstrate the rule. I'm not saying all. I'm saying over 50% of poor people are poor due to bad choices. This may be due to the fact that most, if not all, poor people I've seen are either panhandling (getting around $20,000 a year) or on drugs (which cost lots of money). I know that's not all poor people, but it seems to be a large percentage. Am I supposed to just accept your experiences? Do you have any statistics to support your position? Yes, the system is broken. But the government cannot fix it. I'm fairly sure the government is the break. The broken system results in the poverty stricken of who by all rights, should not be in poverty. If the government is capable of causing the problem, the government is capable of fixing it. Side: Pump Prime
If a rock is capable of smashing a vase, the rock should be capable of fixing it. But it's not. If a child is capable of crushing a sand castle he is capable of building it. --Analogies are useful in explaining ideas, but they are not so useful in demonstrating truths. Side: Pump Prime
My analogy was to refute your claim that if the government broke the system, it can fix it. I was saying that that's not always true. In this case, we'd have to seriously refine our government for it to fix the system. Then you'd be contradicting yourself. You said the government cannot fix it, and now you're saying the government can fix it, if we refine the government. Side: Pump Prime
If a rock is capable of smashing a vase, the rock should be capable of fixing it. But it's not. Hehe! http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/1/fb/ Side: Pump Prime
1
point
0
points
People become poor because they have no other choice. The rich control everything and one must break threw them in order to succeed. “A poor man wise is like a sacred book that’s never read. To himself he lives, to all others seems died. This age thinks more of a gilded fool, than a thread bare saint in wisdom’s school.” Thomas Dekker He wrote this 400 years ago and it still hold true, today even more so than then. Side: Pump Prime
People become poor because they have no other choice. If you make a measly $5,000 a year (just over $400 a month), and you spend it on alcohol instead of food and housing (and looking for another job), than that's your fault. Most poor people are poor through poor choices. Side: Trickle Down
On what information or evidence are you basing this claim ? Which claim. I made a few in the statement, and you didn't quote. There are already programs in place to help poor people become not poor. With $400 a month it would be possible to live and eat, which is really all you need to do to survive. And while they sit there, if they want to actually improve their lot, they could look for more work. If they don't look for more work, it's laziness, not the rich people, that's keeping them there. So, if all poor people have this opportunity, then I'd say most (most being over 50%) poor people are there due to personal choices. Also, if they're not buying housing and food with their money, what are they spending it on? Side: Trickle Down
2
points
What you seem to fail to grasp is the concept of HOW people become poor. It's not like everyone is born on a magical even playing field, some make good choices and are made rich, and some make bad choices and are made poor. Opportunities, while improved on the whole, are not equal. The reason the rich should carry the majority of the tax burden (and fairly so) is that they have benefitted most from the opportunities presented them in this country. Also, if they're not buying housing and food with their money, what are they spending it on? Also, this is laughable. You think $400 is enough to pay for housing and food?! You clearly must not spend much time in the real world. Side: Pump Prime
Opportunities, while improved on the whole, are not equal. I understand that. You think $400 is enough to pay for housing and food?! You clearly must not spend much time in the real world. With low-income housing and welfare, it would be possible. Also, they could look for another job, thus raising their monthly income. Side: Trickle Down
1
point
Your assumption that if someone hasn't got enough money, they can just "get another job" is also laughable. At some point you've got to face facts that the expectations you place on someone in order to live a life out of poverty are ridiculous "get two jobs, apply for and be accepted for low income housing, apply for and be accepted for welfare and MAYBE you can survive and feed your kids!!!" You think that's more fair than people who are at the top paying a little more (again, since they have benefitted the MOST)? Side: Pump Prime
Your claim that poor people are poor through bad choices. With $400 a month it would be possible to live and eat, which is really all you need to do to survive. In what city is this even remotely possible, even for a single person, let alone someone with a family to support as well? And while they sit there, if they want to actually improve their lot, they could look for more work. If they don't look for more work, it's laziness, not the rich people, that's keeping them there. People can look for a job and not find one. Or, people can have a job and still not be able to afford a house, food, clothing, utilities, transportation, and health care, for themselves and possibly a family. If you're dropping statistics like 50% or more of impoverished people are poor through their own faults, I hope you have something substantial with which to back that up. Poverty is a cycle; poor children have fewer opportunities and less adequate education. It is not impossible to break the cycle, as it does happen, but you are underestimating the difficulty impoverished people face from day one. Side: Pump Prime
In what city is this even remotely possible, even for a single person, let alone someone with a family to support as well? With low-income housing and not eating out, I could see how it would be possible. Rice is cheap and easy. The food may not be top-quality or taste good, but it's food. I'm not saying it would be an easy life, but it would be possible. Families are different, but that is why we have welfare, which should be only for people who are trying to improve their lot. Welfare is not free handouts to the poor hoping they'll do something good. Poverty is a cycle; poor children have fewer opportunities and less adequate education. With a free education system, I don't see why they should have less-adequate educations. If poor children (actually, this goes for all children) decided to do something about their poor living conditions instead of blame them and feel victimized, they could change their future. Study hard and get good grades through elementary and high-school, and scholarships will allow them to go to university. Once again, it would be difficult, but possible. Yes, they'd have to work for it, but success can't be just handed out. Side: Trickle Down
With low-income housing and not eating out, I could see how it would be possible. Rice is cheap and easy. The food may not be top-quality or taste good, but it's food. I'm not saying it would be an easy life, but it would be possible. Families are different, but that is why we have welfare, which should be only for people who are trying to improve their lot. Welfare is not free handouts to the poor hoping they'll do something good. Sorry, still no. Even if you expect a poor person to subsist on tapwater on gruel for three meals a day, I seriously doubt you're going to be able to keep the cost of living this low. Section 8 does not offer vouches to single people under the age of 62 unless they are disabled, disqualifying a lot of minimum-wage or part time workers who do not have children. Even the crappiest studio apartment is not going to leave money left over for for food or things like, you know, utilities, clothes, and transportation. Even if someone making 400/month did have a family, thus qualifying them for Section 8 and lowering their rent to 120/month (ignoring the several year waiting list for Section 8), that leaves them 280/month before utilities and insurance to take care of themselves and at least one child. http://www.rhol.com/rental/section8.htm With a free education system, I don't see why they should have less-adequate educations. If poor children (actually, this goes for all children) decided to do something about their poor living conditions instead of blame them and feel victimized, they could change their future. Study hard and get good grades through elementary and high-school, and scholarships will allow them to go to university. Once again, it would be difficult, but possible. Yes, they'd have to work for it, but success can't be just handed out. Poverty effects every aspect of a person's life. http://www.helium.com/items/ Expecting children to pull themselves out of poverty is asking them to shrug off a burden much greater than that of children in other income brackets, just to get to the same place. It is unrealistic, unfair, and on it's own it's not going to be effective at all. Success is far easier to achieve for children of rich families. This is not to say they are automatically useless or idiotic, but they have countless opportunities not realistic for poor children. If they want to attend a private elementary school or a 30k/semester college, so be it. If they do not want to have a job, in order to focus on developing other talents, they don't have to. If they are struggling in school, a private tutor can be arranged for them. If they would like to study abroad or take an unpaid internship, they can. Side: Pump Prime
Good call. I should have said this: "You make very good arguments. I cannot come up with a way to counter those arguments. Good job on research." I'm sorry for writing the previous post as it does seem to try and divert the argument, while that wasn't my whole intent. I guess my point is that no matter what we do, it will be unfair to somebody. Once again, I apologize. Side: Trickle Down
This is where it comes down to personal preference and values over facts, I suppose. If it has to be unfair to one or the other, I would prefer it be the incredibly wealthy having their taxes raised to a point, than people living in poverty. There is a class of people in this country that could have their income reduced drastically before it would make any difference in their quality of life, and that money would make an enormous difference in poorer communities around the country. Side: Pump Prime
Who built their million dollar houses? who prepared their $2000 dollar meals? who build the furniture that fills those houses? Who built the cars and jets they buy? how can you say they dont invest in our economy and then cite those things they spend money on that absolutely DO invest in our economy? What would you prefer they spent their money on? Giving it to government and hoping THEY will invest it? In what? If you think that government can run businesses better than the private sector, then maybe you should check out how they are doing with the post office and amtrak.... Side: Trickle Down
Who built their million dollar houses? who prepared their $2000 dollar meals? who build the furniture that fills those houses? Who built the cars and jets they buy? how can you say they dont invest in our economy and then cite those things they spend money on that absolutely DO invest in our economy? Isn't this essentially the same thing as "pork barrel spending" (aka Public works projects) that republicans are always railing against? Instead of giving businesses money, you're giving the Rich money (in the form of tax cuts), so they will spend it on goods and services. It's the same basic principal. Side: Pump Prime
I do not feel it is the same, when a person spends or donates to a charity it doesnt pass thru thousands of sticky fingers before it gets to the intended receipient. Just look at all of the waste of that money used just to get it from point a to point b in our federal government. Also Government is not aware of those "really" in need and those who claim to be in need as would locals. So if you must do as proposed in the prime pump method then it MUST be on a local not federal level. You give your money locally and they are more accoutable as to where that money is actually going, otherwise you leave the money in the hands of the earner to allow him to spend it and donate it in his local community. If you need an example look at the stimulous bill, no one is even sure where that money went, and if it is the rich you are worried about getting richer, the contracts that were issued with that money were given to the "already rich" and "in bed with government" companies that always seem to get that work because they donate to campaigns. Side: Trickle Down
Except it isn't a donation, companies are actually doing work to get these grants and contracts. So why is it you feel trickle down works but not public works projects? The problem with giving money on a local level is that poor communities, the ones that need it most are not going to have the resources in the first place to be giving out these checks. Although you do make some valid points. Charities generally only give a fraction of the money they receive, this is true of both private charities and government charities. the contracts that were issued with that money were given to the "already rich" and "in bed with government" companies that always seem to get that work because they donate to campaigns. I seem to remember not too long ago a supreme court decision made it legal for corporations to lobby politicians to their hearts desire, declaring it as "free speech" on behalf of corporations, and that they are essentially "citizens" themselves. I think this was a disastrous decision as these activities are the greatest contributor to corruption in politics, when any politician can be bribed to support or oppose a bill. Side: Pump Prime
I agree with the charities, and their "cut" that is why i pick mine carefully, but government does the exact same thing with their administration and other waste. they are worried about supplying our tax dollars for the poor but at the same time living lavisly themselves on our dime. Hence my point of "local" i mean local in the sense of community, collect taxes on a community, not state level, again they would be more accountable. The supreme court decision had nothing to do with lobbying, companies have been forever and still are lobbying, it had to do with a public voice for corporations. Read the decision, if unions can do it, and they DO do it, with billions, why shouldnt the corporate entity be able to have the same voice? For example, when Obama was campaigning on shutting down and not allowing new coal plants, shouldnt the companies who ran those plants be allowed a voice to dispute his claims of how bad they were? Dont you want both sides of the story? Shouldnt they have been able to support his opponent, knowing that he was not standing up for them? I agree with you in the sense that I think huge campaign donations, from anyone is a bad idea, but you cannot include some groups (unions and other agenda based groups) and exclude others, equality remember? Side: Trickle Down
1
point
When people have earned money, you are not providing it to them by allowing them to keep it. That is a fundamental fallacy in the logic of many arguments in this debate. The private sector is far more efficient at ensuring the flow of money, as people will spend it when they have more of it more often than not. Side: Trickle Down
0
points
Most of time these houses purchased were built a long time ago and thus doesn't help the economy. The furniture they purchase is often antiques and specialty items of the sort, that were not made recently. That $2000 meal most of it went to the restaurant, pennies went for the food and employees. As stated the rich only invest in the rich. It never trickles down, these words are used to deceive the public. One down. It is like saying something needs to be privatized, this means corporate owned. Side: Pump Prime
Really? because my husband builds houses, daily, and some antique shop owner profited from the furniture sales assuming they ONLY buy antiques! And I own a restaurant, my profit from a meal after taxes and overhead is about 15% my employees make an average of 25% off that same meal with their pay and tip....and my suppliers also make money off of that inventory purchase, as did THEIR suppliers...small business accounts for 52% of all business in america... It never trickles down is an absurd statement! You live in a bubble, stop being brainwashed. Side: Trickle Down
-11
points
-1
points
1
point
HA, HA, HA, GET A CLUE MAN. First, Egypt is still for the most part an centralized economy. Second, since 1981, emergency law took over, which gave broad policy authority that grants police the power to seize and detain anyone without charge indefinitely and limit freedom of expression assembly; basically, what this is oppression where government openly steals from the public, which is a byproduct of the unemployment and inflation. Egypt Government officials loot for themselves instead in the U.S. government loots for other people. Non difference I guess. Government loots. Side: Trickle Down
0
points
My point you proved with your own post and yet still tag it as trickle down. Governments are bought and paid for, this is a constant. Whether it is a democracy, dictatorship, etc. letting the rich get richer is the same. Rich people getting richer is also the same. One can conclude the economic impact would also be the same. Side: Pump Prime
Wait...what??? Egypt used the trickle down method?? do you just fast forward thru the news to get to the commercials?? The only trickle down method they used was, billions of our tax dollars went to them, their government took it and trickled down enough to keep them from starving..... Side: Trickle Down
0
points
But you said Egypt was trickle down economy??? obviously you are conceeding my point...he WAS the government...and NO it didnt trickle down....he wasnt the private sector who worked for his own money. Only those who dont pay taxes think that taxes only affect the rich, I am middle class and am not getting any breaks, I am sick of people screaming rob the rich to give to the poor, I am not rich and still working four + months per yearjust to pay my tax obligations! Side: Trickle Down
|
