Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
A lot of people are uncomfortable with selling.
|
That would include me.
I cannot sell a product that I do not 100% believe in, nor can I take advantage or people's weaknesses, exploit those weaknesses and then get them to buy something the don't really need.
To me, that is sick and disgusting; as equally disgusting as a person in authority abusing their power.
Sympathizing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
HowTF do the poor "use" the court system?
|
You benefit from rulings issued by the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
And how do poor people without cars use the roads?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
How does a three mile long $2 billion truck route from an airport freight terminal to the nearest interstate get used by the public?
|
You buy goods and use services don't you? Then you benefit from the roads whether you drive or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
The interstate system was built for the same reason, to move products between those population center, TRADE.
|
That is a blatantly false statement. The interstate highway system was created to move US military units and supplies quickly across the country. It is patterned after the German
autobahn, which was built for the exact same reason, and which also doubled as an obstacle to tracked vehicles.
From the about the 1970s onward, advances in technology and changes in the structure of the military negated the need for such an interstate system. While it is now used for primarily transportation of consumer items and pleasure driving, that was not its original intended use.
Pointing out the obvious...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
The Price of Inequality by Joseph Stigliz discusses America's future in the next 10-20 years due to income inequality resultingin a two class society. The haves and the have nots. The text below the video gives more detail. (Suggest reading reader comments on Amazon) Agree or disagree??
|
...........Stiglitz believes this "nightmare we're slowly marching toward" can be avoided, citing Brazil's experience....
Total fail. The US is not Brasil. If the US would be Brasil in every way, shape and form imaginable, then quite possibly it would be relevant,
assuming the demographics, geography and geology of Brasil and the United States were identical.
I hope you don't have an high school diploma, because if you do, I'd seriously consider giving it back if I would be you. You should have learned in the 7th Grade that you can only draw comparisons between two (or more) things that are similar.
When two (or more) things, like the United States and Brasil are so dissimilar as to have nothing in common, you can only contrast them.
The only thing the US and Brasil have in common is that they are States, and they are located in the Western Hemisphere. If Stiglitz has any college degrees or an high school diploma, he should consider giving those back as well.
I'm sure if the US had a measly population of 317,000 people (like Iceland) the US could chuck its debt too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
For example, he cites the provision in Medicare Part D which forbids the federal government from negotiating prices with the drug companies. Over 10 years, that rule will generate approximately $500 billion for the industry, he estimates, but no tangible benefit for taxpayers or the economy as a whole.
|
Gosh nothing like spreading propaganda and false information by omitting relevant facts. Your government cannot negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies....
because European and other States already do.
Can you all say, "
Robbing Peter to pay Paul?" Sure, I knew you could.
And by the way, how exactly do pharmaceutical companies develop drugs? Do they stand outside looking skyward waiting for complex chemical formulas to fall out of the sky? No they do not.
They spend enormous sums of money engaging in research and development. Oh, I guess you and your buddy Stiglitz thought that was free. Well, hey, don't you know? All persons with a BS/BA in Organic Chemistry work for free -- it's the law you know.
And seeing how the US is a litigious society, how exactly do these companies defend lawsuits or pay compensation/damages that are justly owed?
Did you think that money falls out of the sky?
You all live in a really bizarre fantasy world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
Then how did this country grow to where it is today?
|
Luck.
And the evil you perpetrated on so many others. Given the number of people you oppressed, tortured, murdered or dispossessed, I have to wonder what it is you really have against Hitler. The Nazis were saints compared to the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
The growth of this country has hit a wall and it seems that there is no growth left.
|
That is a distinct possibility.
This might come as a shock to you, but we have never seen fully industrialized States operate for any real length of time. The United States did not become fully industrialized until the mid-1960s. That was just about 50 years ago.
What happens next? Hell, I don't know.
You have a ZERO Level Economy, what happens next? Everyone knows that story. We have thousands of years of data on it. 1st Level Economy, what happens next? Everyone knows that story, too. We have centuries and centuries and centuries of data on that.
But you're an advanced consumer tech economy built almost entirely consumption, and even that wouldn't be so bad, except that the bulk of your consumption is service-based. You might have plateaued economically, barring the introduction of any technology that is truly innovative (and not merely a spin-off or repackaging of existing technology).
It is more than obvious that there is a shifting of Capital to developing States. As a country you do not benefit from that. If you want to see something similar on a smaller scale, then look at the recession in the 1970s/1980s where you had a regional shift in Capital inside of the US.
How exactly did Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota benefit from the shifting of Capital to Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Arizona and California?
Uh, well, they did not benefit at all. Some of those States, like Michigan, for the most part have still never recovered from that. Neither has Ohio.
How did the New England States benefit from the shifting of Capital (the entire textile industry) to Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina?
Um, they didn't.
Now you can try to block the shift of Capital from the US (or Western Europe) to developing States, but to even attempt to do so would result in a violation of the Laws of Economics, and for that your suffering would be legendary, even in Hell.
Economically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
I don't think the American dream was always a myth...
|
It was always a myth; a dream. Repeat after me --
We are the wealthiest nation because we cheated, lied, stole natural resources, stole the wealth of nations, kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured, murdered, oppressed people, denied people civil rights, denied people life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, assassinated heads-of-State, illegally over-threw governments, threatened, intimidated and coerced the rest of the world.
Got it?
If you were living the true reality and not some military-industrial fantasy, the highest paid American workers would be earning about $12-$15/hour. Maybe a little less.
Historically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Do these people not live in a free country that protects commerce with laws, police and a judicial system that adjudicates disputes? Are there not public roads, canals and an air system that allows them to safely send and receive materials? Is there not a public education system that educated them and their employees? Is there not a public/private power and energy system that is highly reliable? Is there not a communication network in this country that helps these people make money? Is there not a regulation system that set standards that protect them and their workers, etc., etc?
|
Those things are absolutely critical to a sound economy, especially the rule of law. Why would I buy property and build an home on it only to have someone come along a few years later, claiming the property was theirs?
The rule of law isn't enough. You also need a body of case law, so that people can trace the evolution and development of jurisprudence and be able to reasonably predict the outcome of any legal conflict.
A well-developed communications infrastructure, and that includes wireless, telephone, telegraph, fiber-optics, radio, television, roads, bridges, rail, air and inter-coastal water-ways (like canals) expedites commerce and trade, and improves the quality of life for people.
The US could have developed such a communications infrastructure in other countries, but it was too busy stealing the wealth and resources of those countries.
But then, on a positive note, you all got lots of material things and could live the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Please forgive me if I don't cry over the taxes these top 400 paid, who paid a smaller tax-rate than I did that year.
|
You can manipulate the numbers anyway you want, but you aren't paying 35%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
These top 400 took a record share of capital gains in 2009 -- 16% of all the net gains reported on 140.5 million individual income tax returns. Their their average effective tax rate was 19.9%. 0.00029% of tax-payers earned 16% of capital gains.
|
Well, they can always pull their Capital and put it somewhere else, perhaps outside of the US.
How do you think that will work out for everyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
No, he wants to get rid of deducting mortgage interest -- the thing the middle-class use.
|
Mutt is right. If you want your housing back on-line, then you need to end all interference, and that means getting rid of the FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and also getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction.
A person "benefits" (snicker) by putting 0% and deducting the interest off the mortgage, right?
No. A person benefits by saving up 35%-50% as a down payment, and then not taking the mortgage deduction.
No one has a right to, or is entitled to housing. Even if that were true, then there's plenty of Quonset huts out in the Mojave Desert. They'll house 10-12 families of 3-5 people. That's housing.
Commercially...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
People CHOOSE the jobs they work in, or they can live off the government here. If they are truly being exploited, they can QUIT just like any other person does. Or, they can use that job as a means to an end by working their way through school, starting a business on the side, etc.
|
Well done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
Who said the roads have to be of equal benefit?
|
They don't, and they never could be. You have to understand that nonsense like that spewed by Liberals is just Penis Envy/Breast-implant Envy cloaked in the mantra of Compassionâ„¢ and Equalityâ„¢ to hide the stench.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
I grew up in poverty and am no longer in it. There are people who grew up around me with the same opportunities and they didn't take advantage and are now suffering for it.
|
It's amazing, isn't it? I never ate meat 3x a day, 7 days a week until I was in the army. These people have no understanding of how good they really have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
Your example of a $600K/$300K house is an example of a consumerist society and is Exhibit A of why many people are living check to check.
|
Yes, it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
See above, people are in this predicament because they financed their lifestyles using DEBT in the last decade.
|
That is absolutely right. The vast majority are financial morons. There was a time in the past when the majority of Americans could parlay $1 into $10. Now the only thing the majority of Americans know how to do is take $1 and turn it into -($10) and then throw a temper tantrum demanding that everyone else give them $10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
When I use the workfare term, it's just a shorthand to use as a contrast to welfare. Here's how it would be implemented:
1. Use existing welfare and unemployment insurance funds to give people jobs, anyone who walks into their State's Dept of Labor or unemployment office, walks out with a temporary job. We could give all of the 12.7 million unemployed as of June 2012 a temporary job at $30,000 a year using less than we already pay in welfare and unemployment. |
That will never work for any number of reasons, but one reason is a mismatch of skill-sets. The other is the fact that the recession was not caused by a drop in consumption, rather it was caused by a shift of Capital. The
result of that shift in Capital was a drop in consumption. Nearly everyone has it ass-backwards -- they thing a drop in consumption resulted in a shift in Capital. Huge difference there.
Capitalistically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
So is always the end game of capitalism.
|
That is not true at all. All property theories require Capital. Whatever fate befalls Capitalism will also befall all other property theories, including Socialism and Communism?
Why? It is the inherent nature of Capital, which must constantly expand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
The global economy didnt really catch up. Europe (particuliarly Germany and Scandinavian countries), Russia, Japan....they rebuilt, but if only given them, the USA would be fine globally.
|
No, the US would not be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Quality can be debated, but but all of those countries but maybe Russia have wages and a cost of business comparitable to the US. Ironically, none of those other countries have the problems with income inequality that we do.
|
Are you sure? For what propaganda purposes would you compare a country of 4 Million people to the US with 312 Million people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
What happened was that the US actively shipped our economy out to the lowest bidder.
|
That is not what happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
There hasnt been any "implemented communism", just a bunch of nations calling something that clearly is not communism, "communism".
|
At least you got that right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
You need to pick up a book and see who actually composed the Bolsheviks (and their leadership) and who actually composed Castros army. Ill get you started with a clue, it wasnt the average common laborer.
|
Uh, not a book, rather US Congressional Hearings.
The US State Department pressured Batista to grant clemency to those who participated in the fire-bombing of an army barracks -- that included Castro. Castro was then invited by the US State Department to a meeting at US Embassy Mission Mexico City, where he was recruited to overthrow Castro.
CIA Agent Frank Sturgis was assigned as Castro's body-guard, intelligence advisor and logistics officer. Sturgis coordinated all of the supplies for Castro's army, bought and paid for by US tax payers and delivered by CIA aircraft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
No true communist would ever advocate top down implimentation. If the population were not collectivized, than they clearly should not be in a communist state. Period.
|
No true communist? Is that like no true Scotsman?
Before the British invaded the Congo and Niger River Basins and started murdering everyone in the late 1890s, the tribal groups there were both communist and anarchist and democratic. No government at all. For fun they would have wresting matches on the weekends. They even had a system of Social Security. And no government.
Advocating...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
But the inanimate corporations? No. They can't vote so there should be no taxation without representation, right?
|
But corporations
are represented.
It is absurd to suggest that the CEO, the other officers, the chairman of the board, the board-members, the shareholders and the employees do not vote in the interest of the corporation.
Do you seriously believe a CEO or shareholder would vote for a politician would tax or regulate them out of existence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
I guess I know about communism more you do.
|
Not as much as I do. I used to work at US Embassy Mission Bucharesti, and I was in Hungaria and Czechoslovakia for Druzba '86, and I used to patrol the 1 Kilometer Zone on the East/West border, and I occasionally was at the US Consulate in Berlin. I used to eat lunch in Karl Marx Platz and wander over to the Berlin Museum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Of course communism has been implemented in Russia: private property and land was nationalized, proletariat took over the country and the original rulers were disposed off.
|
That is not communism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Even the original rullers of the Red Empire lived pretty much according to their own teachings. They were idealists and Utopians.
|
Uh, huh, Tsar Nicolas abolished slavery...for White people...in 1905. Of course slavery was still practiced outside of the Moscow District until the October Revolution.
Very Utopian indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Wrong. "Revolution" means violent event as opposed to evolution.
|
Revolution simply means change, like the Industrial Revolution, or the Agricultural Revolution, or the Technology Revolution, and also with Political Revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Have you ever seen non-violent revolution? LOL
|
Your knowledge of history is severely lacking. A Political Revolution is not inherently violent. There have been many blood-less
coups throughout history. The fact that you are not aware of them does not mean they do not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Both in Russia and Cuba revolutions were of course bloody and undertaken predominantly by poor masses: laborers and farm workers.
|
But, of course! For any revolution to be successful, you must eliminate or at the very least, suppress the
Status Quo.
Failure to do so only results in counter-revolutions. Witness Afghanistan. Daud takes over the Constitutional Monarchy in a bloodless coup, but fails to suppress the
Status Quo who then overthrow Daud in a violent bloody coup years later by the anti-Soviet pro-Socialist military in which Daud lost his life. The military failed to suppress or eliminate the
Status Quo, and accordingly, the military was over-thrown in a violent coup, by pro-Soviet, pro-Socialist group.
That group at least had the common sense and brains to suppress the
Status Quo, and as a result, they were able to beat back a counter-coup by the military, and a coup attempt by another group.
Nonetheless, the were weakened badly, losing supporters, troops and military equipment.
An army made up of a loose coalition of tribes from the Northwest began marching on Kabul, followed an army made up of a coalition of tribes from the North, and then a coalition of tribes from the South (what you know as the Taliban) headed for Kabul as well.
The outcome? Oh, so very predictable -- whoever got to Kabul first was going to overthrow the government.
The government asked the Soviets to protect them, and the Soviets obliged, with text-book operations crushing all three armies from the North, Northwest and South. It went down-hill from there for the same reason the US is losing its ass in Afghanistan (and I correctly predicted the US would lose).
The idiot Carter thought the Soviets "invaded." They did not. They came to the aid of an ally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
In every society there are leaders and followers.
|
Why?
Is it genetic? Hereditary? Factored by Environment? Education?
You can take 3 cows and through selective breeding create 12+ different breeds of cows, and you can take 4 horses and through selective breeding create 100+ breeds of horses and you can take 6 dogs and through selective breeding create who-the-hell-knows-how-many-freaking breeds, but you can't selectively breed leaders?
Okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
There is so many definitions of socialism and communism that I give up here. Anyways, both socialism and communism do not like private property, this is a common theme for both systems.
|
That's because so many spread propaganda, disinformation and misinformation.
The three modern Property Theories are Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. All of them provide theories concerning the ownership of Capital, because every economic system requires Capital.
Capitalism posits that Capital is best left in the hands of private individuals, because they are the most responsive to changes in the Market and the demands of consumers, and when I say consumers, I mean all consumers (that includes government and business as well as households), not just Jane & John Dolt.
There are degrees of Socialism. Both Britain and the Soviet Union were Socialist States. The only difference was the degree of State control. For the British, they did own many industries outright, just like in the Soviet Union, but the British also exercised a lesser degree of control by merely owning controlling interest in a corporation.
For example, British automakers. The British government typically owned 51% to 70% of the stock, making the British government the majority shareholder.
The problem with Socialism is government involvement. Governments are bureaucracies, and bureaucracies and bureaucrats are notoriously slow in decision-making, and rarely knowledgeable in the subject matter at hand. The government is not responsive to the needs and demands of the Market.
Communism is known to have worked on very small scales with homogenous populations. That would be a population that is all the same race, same ethnicity, same religion, speaking the same language, using the same alphabet, with the same history, ancestry, heroes, holidays, music, art and literature -- generally about 400 to 2,000 people.
Where you have had heterogeneous populations, or large populations, it has ultimately failed.
Another factor is education level. Where it has succeeded, the education level was uniform within the population as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
State run capitalism? Soviet economy was not based on "supply and demand", there was no concept of "profit". You may call it stare run capitalism yet it is a misnomer. State run capitalism, as you described Soviet economy, never employed the mechanisms and did not enjoy the efficiency of capitalism. That's why it failed.
|
That is not why it failed.
Like most people, you are ignorant of the fact that there are two distinct periods in Soviet economic history: The pre-WW II Period and the post-WW II Era.
And like most people, you ignore the pre-WW II Period and focus exclusively on the post-WW II Era.
The pre-WW II Period was hugely a success. The Soviets did not suffer a Great Depression like the US and other countries did.
Let's contrast the Soviet post-WW II Era with the US
1] The Soviet Union suffered massive damage to its infrastructure, its manufacturing and its agricultural production; millions of Soviets were killed, millions more injured. The US suffered no such losses.
2] Under international law then and now, the Soviet Union was entitled to war reparations from Germany. At the demand of the US and Britain, Germany stopped paying the justly owed war reparations. The Soviets had several choices here. The Soviets could 1) do nothing; 2) start WW III; or 3) Blockade Berlin. The Soviets chose the latter method -- a non-violent means of protesting the actions of Germany instigated by the US and Britain.
3] The US and Britain then conspired to block the ascension of all East Bloc currencies to the world market. At the same time, the US Dollar had become both the
de facto world reserve currency, and the
de facto currency of international trade.
How are the Soviets supposed to conduct foreign trade when the Ruble is banned from being traded? The Bank of International Settlements will not accept Soviet Rubles, Romanian Lei, Hungarian Forints or Yugoslav Dinars as payment for goods purchased on the world market in trade.
Romania had a 1st Level Economy. It had just moved from a 0 Level Agrarian Economy to the development of natural resources, mostly oil at the Ploieti fields -- which I might add were destroyed by US bombing raids. How is Romania supposed to buy milling machines and lathes and other industrial equipment, when BIS will not accept Romanian Lei?
Well, Romania can sell oil on the world market in US Dollars and use those US Dollars to buy the equipment it needs --- except the oil fields are damaged and Romania needs that equipment to repair the oil fields so that it can sell oil on the world market in US Dollars.
It's funny that people keep insisting that the Soviet Union was an "empire." What kind of empire has its currency rejected by the world? Anyway, fortunately for Romania, it could trade with the Eastern Territory who made awesome milling machines (East Marks were rejected too).
Anyway, the Soviet economy was severely hampered by the actions of the US and Britain,
and that is why they failed.
Let's make the US Dollar totally worthless so that it is not accepted for trade and see how long your economy lasts.
Distinguishing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Nobody paid 90%. The top rate is meaningless.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Speaking of posting lies...
There was a time when the top rates were 90%, but NOBODY PAID THAT RATE. There were loopholes everywhere, and everybody used them. Those loopholes have since been taken away, and correspondingly, tax rates have come down.
Stop playing games and telling lies yourself. Or did you actually think that people paid 90% of their income to the feds?
|
Right, that's just more propaganda and disinformation from Liberals.
Once again, we have the same problem, namely that Liberals fail to understand that you cannot compare two things that are dissimilar, instead you can only contrast them.
For those who might be interested, take someone who earns $250,000 and look at the tax rates and deductions which they may take, and calculate their taxes, then do the same using the IRS tax codes in effect through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
Auditing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
India, just within the past few months, eradicated polio. I think I'll stay here.
|
Well, I'll bet you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you and Britain hadn't continually coerced and threatened India, they might have eradicated polio 20 years ago, or even earlier.
I have an idea. In a duplicitous game, why don't you play China against India? Oh, wait a minute, your good buddy Henry Kissinger already did that.....
....and you came this >||< close to WW III.
Diplomatically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
There are many variables and if someone is wanting to work they will but why should they when unemployment can be milked to the very end as so many are doing.
|
Yep, current reality certainly bears this out.  
25% unemployment in Spain and Greece. With massive amounts of sucides in Greece.
24-25 million out of work in the U.S.
The entire system perhaps months away from collapse...
|
Sigh, panic much?
Those people are all sitting on their asses waiting for someone to hand something to them. That's how they've been trained. You can sit around waiting for someone to give you a job, or you can make your own job.
I'll tell you what I tell "homeless" (snicker) people:
Homeless Puke: You got any change to give me?
Me: I'm going to do for you right now what took someone 40 years to do for me.
Homeless Puke: What's that?
Me: Nothing.....and you don't even have to thank me for it.
Amused....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Error in Bill Gates logic-
Type 1 logic error. The "possibility" of being born in Ethiopia is not a reality nor one that could be controlled. Therefore the presumption of "buying" one's location of birth as a rationalization for paying more taxes and being skinned by the lethargic is ridiculous.
It is analagous to saying, "What if we were born on Jupiter, which has no oxygen and is very cold. Wouldn't you get down on your knees, pay extra taxes, and thank the EPA for saving our planet from being very cold and not having air?
A fanciful impossibility does not justify or rationalize acts of tyranny or redistribution of wealth by the government. Try again
|
Most excellent.
Logically...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
