GG America: Warning (long right wing rant)

[sarbox68]

Now who's relying on mis information & hyperbole?

The media outlets I referred to are highly regarded and engage with the people when doing their articles. The Saturday essay in the Daily Mail is a good example.

Even the lowest common denominators you talk about display social values. No one in USA is being force fed conservatism. TV panders to their best paying demographic.

You say crappy barometer but if you lived over here you wouldn't say so. This isn't like the US, where we live off bad stereotypes of nations we barely pay attention to 'cause we are so insular.

I did live there Thunder... for over 12 years. How long have you lived in the US? But just because I travel to Europe, Asia, Middle East, w/e, and read extensively, I'm not going to pretend for a second that I have earned the right or have the expertise to say I really understand what it's like to live there or what truly informs, drives and shapes the culture and society.

Your last paragraph sums it up. It's the usual misinformed arrogance that I encounter all the time traveling in Europe, but esp in the UK, France and Italy. Not so much Germany any more for some reason that I haven't quite figured out.

There are a significant portion of us that don't live insular lives tilting at stereotypes, and are very well informed... something you would know if you were.

[Chopper]

i believe environment has SOME affect. but, i dont believe it should be a scapegoat. and, i dont believe you or i should be FORCED to help. if you want to help, fine. if i had more of a reason, like i do with autism, i would help, too.

but, i shouldnt be forced to at the expense of my hard work. and, i understand that to some degree success breeds success. and, the opposite goes, too.

but, i also believe that once a piece of shit fundamentally, you will remain one....most times. (which is why oprah is inspiring) see michael vick, pacman, 2pac, and so i'm not labeled racist......john daly. so, just changing the environment doesnt mean all is fixed, either.

i mean, what the hell? can you throw away more talent?

[Thunder]

Many Americans are not insular. But many more are. I've only been to 5 states but add in my friends' experiences & others and there are common theme.

Eg: when I was there, I was repeatedly asked if I was S African or German and told that they thought all Brits speak cockney or “posh”. And I've heard this from countless others.

[Thunder]

Re insular:

Only 1 in 7 has a passport, I think the stat goes and UK shows are remade for US markets not because of translation issues but mainly because of the audience’s unwillingness to heed non US centric products.

Spielberg wanted to make a movie about the Battle of Britain but had to abandon it because the US wasn’t featured and test surveys were frosty. That’s why U 571 portrayed UK history as US and why Master & Commander bombed when it didn’t shift across the pond.

Again, just a few examples.

[Thunder]

We cannot comment on itty bitty issues that I won't know about. But to say you need to be, and live, in the USA to comment on traditional/popular values and beliefs is ludicrous.

In the UK we can't comment so much on the French or Spanish because we know so little but as said, the US is in our lives every single day. Be it high brow debate shows, brainless action flicks or real people on the net. Maybe it's hard for Americans to comprehend as the US could close its borders and most would not notice any difference.

At the end of the day, all I said was that the US is very conservative – to which you have admitted it is in comparison to the rest of the western world.

[sarbox68]

Many Americans are not insular. But many more are. I've only been to 5 states but add in my friends' experiences & others and there are common theme.

Eg: when I was there, I was repeatedly asked if I was S African or German and told that they thought all Brits speak cockney or “posh”. And I've heard this from countless others.

roflmao...

I love it bro... I get the following: New York, Boston, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand... and German... wtf is up with German??! Too funny....

[Lukie]

Any society that results in the majority of people living below the poverty line and struggling is headed for trouble.

People only take being shat on for so long.

I hope hope hope you aren't talking about the modern-day united states, because if you are, you (or your source) have (has) a very skewed meaning of the word 'poverty'.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Why do you need services for the poor in an urban setting? Look at England or other urban areas at the turn of the century. Most people were stealing and killing to eat while the rich couldn't freely travel for fear of being robbed, killed etc. What freedom are you talking about in this scenario? In many latin american urban areas, the poor live in shanties clinging to the side of a mountain while the rich live behind barbed wire, armed guards, decoy caravans to prevent kidnapping and helicopters to get around. Is that freedom for either side?

Obviously theft, robbery and murder is not freedom. But why did the poor move to an urban setting to begin with if it didn't improve their lives?

The government in my eyes in modern capitalist society should be a regulator, not a creator of the product like in a communit society. I am not asking to buy government branded beef, but I do want the government overseeing the beef company to make sure the beef won't kill me. Trust the market and the company to do what is right or lose customers you say? Read "The Jungle" or look at Wall Street.

A jungle is a horrible comparison to capitalism. The basic cornerstone of capitalism is mutually beneficial transactions. Everyone involved gains or the transaction would not have taken place (unless fraud is involved). So in order to recieve wealth you have to make your wealth availible for others. Those who give most recieve most. How can that be so bad?

I do agree that wall street is bad but their shortsightedness comes from the inflationary monetary system, which surely isn't part of the free market.

As far as keeping what we earn (the tax issue), the system gives individuals the means to accumulate wealth. The more wealth you generate, the more the system is used to generate the wealth. Therefore, individuals of greater wealth should pay more to maintain a healthy system. Without a healthy system, you have the have/have not revolution cycle described by Marx.

The system you speak of is just an abstract entity. Break it down and you realize it is composed of individuals. A system can not act. A system can not generate wealth. It's individuals who act and generate wealth. Individuals should be incentivized to create wealth for themselves and for others. The improductive individuals in the government does not produce wealth though, they steal wealth. In doing so they are reducing the incentives for the productive people to create beneficial products and services for the society.

These people are a myth. You think people like living in housing projects? They wouldn't move out in a second if they could find a better job? What a joke.

But why is it that they can't find a job in the first place? A job is not a scarce resource. There is no such thing as a natural shortage of jobs. The amount of jobs is literaly unlimited. There are a lot of things that needs to be done in the US, right? Then there are a lot of jobs out there as well. The problem is that the government forbids a lot of the jobs. It sets standards on employment that are impossible to accomplish with the resources availible. Since it's the lowest skilled workers who won't get a job they won't be able to improve either. The result is that they end up outside the rest of society, with barely any opportunities to get back in.

The important part is to realize that unvolountary unemployment is 100% government created. The government puts people into misery and then it tries to make itself look as the savior. Now that is a joke.

Life on gov't assistance is not something anyone aspires to. Why not use your energy getting worked up over corporate welfare? Or no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton?

But why is it even possible? It's because the public has granted the government the power to redistribute wealth in the first place. Socialism will always benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. That's simply a natural consequence of the political incentives. There is too much to gain by catering to the rich.

This article explains the root of the problem very well:
http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

My sister teaches math to 6th through 8th graders in an inner-city school. The 8th graders are supposed to be learning alegbra, but that's a joke b/c they can't multiply 8x7. Is that their fault? Hell no. Is it their parents fault? Partly, sure.

It's because of the socialized school system. The schools have had no economic incentive to improve. If the funding would have been in the hands of the parents I bet schools would've been one of their top priorities.

The problems in US are not caused by capitalism. US barely isn't even capitalist anymore. The thing is that US has managed to aquire almost all bad parts of socialism and big government (corruption, burocracy, wars etc.) and barely any of the well-meaning parts.

[boost]

I think youre missing the point. We need to start before people become uneducated and "lazy." So its not so much to change the current generation but to prevent the next generation of impoverished people from becoming welfare dependent and "lazy."

[will641]

my history teacher was saying how every generation kind of has a label they are known for, and ours is apathy/narcissism. i kind of agree with him. nobody really gives a fuck.

[Chopper]

I think youre missing the point. We need to start before people become uneducated and "lazy." So its not so much to change the current generation but to prevent the next generation of impoverished people from becoming welfare dependent and "lazy."

see, now i think i get the point quite well. education and work ethic start at HOME. it isnt up to the schools to instill values in us. it is up to the schools to provide the education. they cant do it w/o the motivation already in place....or reinforced.

we need to stop thinking the individuals of society are victims. we all control our destinies. we all control the example we set for others. we all control whether we choose to carry responsibility or drop it and pass the blame.

your point is one gov't can never subsidize. its a bottomless pit from which money will only land in administration's pockets because of the blatant lack of accountability they face. why? because the administrators are GOVT EMPLOYEES. and, that one trickles down to public teachers to a certain degree.

tenure is one of the biggest piece of crap concepts i have ever heard of. how come you can suck at your job and we cant fire you because you have served for 30 years?? seniority has it's place, but as a tiebreaker not a primary judge of quality.

[Ltrain]

So many thoughts, so let me try to sum up some of them:

Chopper, I wish I were still a young pup, but actually I am 36 yr. old partner at my law firm and do quite well. However, I still believe in paying more to do my part because of the reasons I stated. I believe like you do that hard work and perserverance are the keys to success, but I think it is naive and short sighted not to see all of the factors that go into a person's success or failures (i.e. no one does it alone)

We have a fundamental difference of why someone is "poor" in the United States. I don't believe someone is evil simply because they are rich or someone is righteous because they are poor. However, we all start at different points in our lives and there is only so much you can do in a lifetime. For example, how much better, smarter, articulate did Obama have to be to get to where he is versus Bush? If you want to improve your station in life, you do need to work at it and you do need help, not necessarily hand out or welfare help, but government programs you can take advantage of if you work at it. That is the American Dream; equal opportunity; that no matter who your parents are or where you came from, if you work hard you can improve your station in life.

Using myself as an example, I grew up in Wisconsin. My parents did not necessarily have the right last name or family connections in the area so if I wanted to have a better life it would not be where I grew up. Also, they could not afford to send me to school so I borrowed money to go. What if there were no government subsidized loans? What if in state tuition was not subsidized? I then moved to Miami for law school, again on full loan; same issue. I leased a car, what if there was no lease options, or worse yet, what if I didn't get a lease because I was a minority and the dealership decided not to extend lease me the car? I bought a home due to the Freddie Mac subsidized program (that's right, it not just the poor that were taking out loans up to 400K). Take away any of these programs, which are in part funded by federal or state governmental programs, and I am working somewhere in Wisconsin doing who knows what or working wherever I can get a job.

In the US today, one illness or major trauma wipes you out (I am sorry about your son). The fact is the leading groups declaring bankruptcy (up until the latest crisis anyway) are people that are old and/or have health issues.

As an aside, a question for those who oppose universal health care. The argument always is that a government bureaucracy is to impersonal and would be a disaster versus privatized medicine. However, what is the difference between a government processing health care and a company like Humana, that has an army of actuaries, adjustors, processors and insurance vetting departments? Is a big health care corporation any less impersonal? Am I any more likely to have a doctor decide my care than a claims processor? To me, the difference is the government reports to the people as a not for profit entity, while Humana reports to its shareholders as a for profit entity, and CEO's making large salaries at the top. Why can't all people get basic, Chevy preventive care, and if you want Cadillac service or need a new engine (heart bypass), you pay extra for it?

2 Thumbs Up:
- What if you are born poor in an urban area? You are assuming there was a choice.
-I meant the book, "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. It is a book about the meat packing plants and life in Chicago at the turn of the century. Read it or read a summary of it online and you will understand my point.
- My point about the system is absolutely true and real. If you want to start a business, you need equity and you need credit. Without a judicial system to enforce a judgment for a shareholder or lender to foreclose on your assets, how far are you going to get in raising money? How do you know you even have any money? Because of an online record or bank statement? What if that goes to zero, what are you going to do? Sue? Go to the Police? Each of these remedies is given to you by the system because the system will preserve your wealth. How do you know you own your house? Because you have a deed recorded in the public records that sets a priority interest to your ownership. What if there was no public records system? All of these ideas are system related, and the more wealth you have, the more you rely on the system to protect or grow the wealth you have accumulated. In its basics, the system perserves Life, Liberty and Property (the Pursuit of Happiness).

[sarbox68]

We cannot comment on itty bitty issues that I won't know about. But to say you need to be, and live, in the USA to comment on traditional/popular values and beliefs is ludicrous.

In the UK we can't comment so much on the French or Spanish because we know so little but as said, the US is in our lives every single day. Be it high brow debate shows, brainless action flicks or real people on the net. Maybe it's hard for Americans to comprehend as the US could close its borders and most would not notice any difference.

At the end of the day, all I said was that the US is very conservative – to which you have admitted it is in comparison to the rest of the western world.

Okay... I'll leave this be after this and we can just agree to disagree. But dude... come on!!!

In the previous little post you used television and movie references as the basis for your argument. Dude -- if that's shaping the view of most English citizens of the US or ANY part of the world around them, then I completely rescind the respect I used to have for the quality of the UK education system and the intellectual curiousity of my compatriots.

And of course you have a freakin passport. For English and Europeans, traveling to a different European country is like us going to a different state. Heck - in the case of Belgium, it's like driving through LA county! All you've done is prove you have no working concept of the geopolitical realities on the ground here.

A;s far as not knowing anything about Spain or France... that's just sad. I mean, I can understand phasing out all the Commonwealth sh!t, but that's like us not knowing anything about Mexico or Canada. Hell - I got 3 neighbors (Mexico City, Tijauna, Guadalajara) and 2 Canadians (Vancouver, Montreal) and that's just my cul de sac. We don't just have it as part of the curriculum -- we sit in classrooms next to these cultures, have multi-lingual education, multi-lingual ballots and (at least as far as Asian, Mexican and Latin American cultures go...) have a completely integrated, fully multi-cultural community -- with all the good and bad that comes along with it (yes... the Lexus & the Olive Tree is alive and well....).

So for all your TV, movies, interwebs and game shows, I guess none of that stuff every made its way through. More of an indictment of how crappy they are as sources (my original point) than a complaint regarding their intended entertainment value....

[Chopper]

Ltrain, i think we are in some degree of alignment. i am not going to get argumentative with you, as you should be a professional...lol.

i think the assumption is that i am against ANY gov't funding. that is not true, and i have stated it a couple of times. w/o some assistance you are right...we would have no way to keep food, shelter, or warmth. police, fire, teachers, processors, public defenders for that matter, are all public servants paid for by gov't dollars. and, true, if i dont like the level of service, i can hire my own posse, tutor, nurse, etc, even though these things are provided at a basic level.

but, i dont believe that we need to continue shipping money into these places as a whole. i dont agree that more money will make them better.

have you ever played an old computer game called Civilization? the farther your cities from your capital, the more corruption consumes your resources. to me, that exemplifies an inflection point in gov't finance. there comes a point where it takes too much money to move the program at all. therefore, it becomes wasteful, or at least less beneficial, to continue tossing money in that direction. as i said, the gov't is inefficient. i believe we should fix that instead of continually asking for more money.

off topic, but psuedo related: tax rebates are not spurring the economy. neither are interest rate cuts. nor would be an influx of newly printed money. sometimes you cannot force a wound to heal by applying a bigger bandage. you actually have to dig in and fix the fundamental problem, provided you can even find it. i believe it is worth searching for before asking for new money.

and, dont sell yourself short. it isnt because you moved, got loans, and educated yourself that you have become rather successful. if you had stayed in wisconsin, you would have risen to the top there, too. maybe in some other field, but to the top nonetheless.

the cream always does. i just wish more people had the desire to be cream...and gov't funding doesnt fix that.

[Thunder]

Yeah we're gonna have to agree to disagree. You misunderstand pretty much all of what I have said and your last post was wildly off tangent. Not sure whether that is by accident or self imposed filters.

However, irrespective of all this and who is right/wrong, the US is very conservative. That was my point. You took exception to it but it still stands.

[bikes]

my history teacher was saying how every generation kind of has a label they are known for, and ours is apathy/narcissism. i kind of agree with him. nobody really gives a fuck.

sad but true, everyone wants better but they dont give two fucks worth of effort.

[Thunder]

sad but true, everyone wants better but they dont give two fucks worth of effort.

Correction, those who do, struggle in the system and usually die 3 days before retirement or get a cheap watch. Those who don't reap benefits (no typo).

[bigred]

Bigred for President! Tom Brady as Sexcretary of State! (no typo)

[a500lbgorilla]

would be a step down for Tom Brady.

[Chopper]

Brady would be gray and shriveled in 3 years. it seems to happen to all presidents. bad for his mojo.

[bigred]

Brady would be gray and shriveled in 3 years. it seems to happen to all presidents. bad for his mojo.

except he's sexcretary of state, u r dumb

[Chopper]

well, then YOU would be gray and shriveled.

well, gray anyway. hows the shrivel doin'?

[Pelion]

A jungle is a horrible comparison to capitalism. The basic cornerstone of capitalism is mutually beneficial transactions.

This is true to some extent, but when one party can essiantially offer the ultimatum "work for low pay or starve to death" or "buy cheap crappy low quality food or starve to death" then its not always going to be a transaction that both parties are happy with.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

2 Thumbs Up:
- What if you are born poor in an urban area? You are assuming there was a choice.

Someone did make a choice to move there. Noone would move from the rural areas to the urban areas if it didn't improve the lives of themselves and their family. It's not like people came from rich rural areas and moved to poor urban areas. Moving to an urban area was the first step to get out of poverty. The problem is that government and socialist ideas have prevented the following steps for a lot of people.

-I meant the book, "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. It is a book about the meat packing plants and life in Chicago at the turn of the century. Read it or read a summary of it online and you will understand my point.

He uses the law of the jungle as a metaphore for capitalism. But capitalism isn't anarchy. Capitalism has rules. You are not allowed to infringe on someone elses freedom. It's not about taking what you can get. Theft is illegal. In order to recieve something you have to give something as well. Capitalism is all about giving, not taking.

- My point about the system is absolutely true and real. If you want to start a business, you need equity and you need credit. Without a judicial system to enforce a judgment for a shareholder or lender to foreclose on your assets, how far are you going to get in raising money? How do you know you even have any money? Because of an online record or bank statement? What if that goes to zero, what are you going to do? Sue? Go to the Police? Each of these remedies is given to you by the system because the system will preserve your wealth. How do you know you own your house? Because you have a deed recorded in the public records that sets a priority interest to your ownership. What if there was no public records system? All of these ideas are system related, and the more wealth you have, the more you rely on the system to protect or grow the wealth you have accumulated. In its basics, the system perserves Life, Liberty and Property (the Pursuit of Happiness).

Your system is still composed of individuals. All the things you credited to "the system" is done by individuals. The question should be what means the individuals should be allowed to use. There are only two means in which humans can interact, through persuasion or through force. Capitalism promotes the use of persuasion, while socialism promotes the use of force.

Governments of today do not preserve Life, Liberty and Property. An entity that violates your rights can't be said to preserve them. Government is necessary as a neutral part in conflicts. But if you don't want the government's help in legal cases you should not be forced to fund it either. Right now, there is no difference between the government and a mob that demands protection money.

[givememyleg]

well, then YOU would be gray and shriveled.

well, gray anyway. hows the shrivel doin'?

bigred is a blonde who sometimes looks ginger, so it's not like getting grey hair would be a bad thing

[2_Thumbs_Up]

A jungle is a horrible comparison to capitalism. The basic cornerstone of capitalism is mutually beneficial transactions.

This is true to some extent, but when one party can essiantially offer the ultimatum "work for low pay or starve to death" or "buy cheap crappy low quality food or starve to death" then its not always going to be a transaction that both parties are happy with.

The transaction still benefited the worker. Obviously he wanted more. Everyone always wants more. But what was the alternative? Force the employer to pay more? All that accomplishes is that he hires less people. All labour regulations benefit those just above the requirements at the expense of those below it.

The only viable solution is to actually have companies competing for the scarce resource labour. Since there is an unlimited amount of jobs no one would be unemployed. In such an environment, salaries would move towards the productivity of the worker. It's only in today's environment with forced unemployment that salaries can move in the other direction.

[Thunder]

Squeaky has been conspicuous by his absence.

[a500lbgorilla]

maybe he's ascended to heaven with all the other faithful and we're just mulling around here trying to convince each other Armageddon isn't a few days away.

[sarbox68]

maybe he's ascended to heaven with all the other faithful and we're just mulling around here trying to convince each other Armageddon isn't a few days away.

goddamn rapture... I sent Copeland $10 and was 'spose to be on that ride!

[swiggidy]

and this thread has way too many words in it

So true. That's a common problem with a lot of commune threads.

[Chopper]

and this thread has way too many words in it

So true. That's a common problem with a lot of commune threads.

could this be the aforementioned "laziness" of our generation speaking?

i like the words. sure, they take some time. but, this is one of the better discussions i have seen here in a long time. no one is getting defensive, and no one called "YO MAMA!!!"

well, i guess someone will now....lol.

[bigred]

Chopper, yo mama so fat she has more chins than China.

[a500lbgorilla]

Plz watch: http://buzzfeed.com/yacomink/obama-changes-the-flag-v

I promise very few words!

[Chopper]

Chopper, yo mama so fat she has more chins than China.

i dont want to hijack this way off topic, but yo mama so fat, she cant wear Malcolm X jackets because helicopters keep landing on her back.

ok, you can have the last word on this one, and give me one more. lol.

[CoccoBill]

There are some issues raised to the limelight during this election that really rub me the wrong way. "He wants to share the wealth". Yes. Horrible. Why should the people who make more than 250k per year help out their countrymen who are struggling to survive. Unethical. Unamerican. A true patriot only cares about his own paycheck. Nationalized healthcare is bad for the same exact reason. Oh, and that fukin socialist. Socialism has no place in the american society. None whatsoever. I'm not quite sure what it means but it smells like communism, and that won't do. Well maybe for the roads. And the water. Traffic control. Consumer protection. Criminal justice, diplomacy, elections, employment relations, energy generation and transmission, epidemiology, fair labor standards, farm price supports, fire fighting, fish hatcheries, food and drug safety standards, game management, garbage pickup, handicapped transportation, historic preservation, housing standards, immigration controls, insurance regulation, lake districts, levees, libraries, mail delivery, medical research, Medicare, mental-health services, mentally disabled care, money, national defense, occupational safety and health inspections, outdoor recreation (playgrounds, tennis courts, golf courses, etc.), parking ramps, parks, police protection, pollution controls, prisons, public broadcasting, public housing, roadways (streets and highways), rural electrification, scholarships, schools, scientific research, sewerage, snow removal, Social Security, space and oceanic exploration, swimming pools, traffic engineering, unemployment compensation, urban planning, utility regulation, veterans' health care, water, weather prediction, weight and measure certification, wetland protection, workers' compensation. But that's fukin it!

After 8 years of tax cuts to the top5% earners of the country it's unreasonable to suggest tax cuts for the bottom 95%, think of the children and Joe The Plumber! After all we don't even know what he's planning to do!

[Jack Sawyer]

intermission:

http://change.gov/ .

carry on.

[flomo]

you have all been leveled by a midget

[sarbox68]

Cocco -

I'll preface this by saying I'm in the +250K household category, expect to see my taxes increase significantly under Obama and still voted for him 'cause I believe he is the right person at the right time. That being said, there are a couple of details to add to the "only tax cuts for the top 5%... how about some FINALLY for the other 95%".

1. Barely half of the US population pay a penny in Federal taxes. That means the full burden is already being carried by 1/2 and 1/2 are getting a completely free ride.
2. Over 70% of gross federal tax dollars are paid by the top 10% of income earners. I believe it's actually worse than that... but I'll be conservative as I'm too damn lazy and tired on a friday night to actually look it up.
3. Everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut under Bush II. That's 'cause every bracket was reduced. Sure... if you make more, you save more in gross $. And if you already don't pay any tax, well... it's hard to go less than zero. But the Bush II cuts actually pushed another chunk of people out of paying any federal tax at all... and it wasn't folks on the top end of the earning scale.

I already hand over 50% of my gross pay to the tax man, between Federal and State (in Cali, so have one of the highest state tax brackets... plus local, property tax, sales tax, social security and medicare tax, etc. etc.) Which means I work until July every year for the government.

We spend a ton on corporate welfare and yes, there are def loopholes for the ultra rich. But let's keep it real on where the bulk of tax $ still come from and who benefited from the last tax cuts.

[CoccoBill]

1. Barely half of the US population pay a penny in Federal taxes. That means the full burden is already being carried by 1/2 and 1/2 are getting a completely free ride.

So who is benefiting from these tax cuts?

2. Over 70% of gross federal tax dollars are paid by the top 10% of income earners. I believe it's actually worse than that... but I'll be conservative as I'm too damn lazy and tired on a friday night to actually look it up.

That's because the top 20% households also make 80% of the total income of all households.

3. Everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut under Bush II. That's 'cause every bracket was reduced. Sure... if you make more, you save more in gross $. And if you already don't pay any tax, well... it's hard to go less than zero. But the Bush II cuts actually pushed another chunk of people out of paying any federal tax at all... and it wasn't folks on the top end of the earning scale.

You just said the whole bracket only applies to top 50% households so no, the changes did not help the bottom 50%. If all income levels in the top 50% receive the same percentual cut, of course the ones at the top benefit the most.

We spend a ton on corporate welfare and yes, there are def loopholes for the ultra rich. But let's keep it real on where the bulk of tax $ still come from and who benefited from the last tax cuts.

It's quite clear who benefited the most, yes, and also who didn't benefit at all.

[a500lbgorilla]

Plz watch: http://buzzfeed.com/yacomink/obama-changes-the-flag-v

I promise very few words!

[zook]

1. Barely half of the US population pay a penny in Federal taxes. That means the full burden is already being carried by 1/2 and 1/2 are getting a completely free ride.

This is inaccurate b/c payroll taxes (social security and medicare) are no different than income taxes. And because the payroll tax rates aren't progressive (in fact they're regressive since there's an income cap) they place a disproportionate burden on low income workers. State sales taxes are also effectively regressive as low income workers spend a greater percentage of their income on goods hit with sales tax.

Here's a table that shows all the federal taxes: http://www.kipesquire.net/wp-content...essiverate.jpg

[a500lbgorilla]

Plz watch: http://buzzfeed.com/yacomink/obama-changes-the-flag-v

I promise very few words!

Someone acknowledge me!

[zook]

Plz watch: http://buzzfeed.com/yacomink/obama-changes-the-flag-v

I promise very few words!

Someone acknowledge me!

omg so funny

[a500lbgorilla]

whew... thanks man

[sarbox68]

1. Barely half of the US population pay a penny in Federal taxes. That means the full burden is already being carried by 1/2 and 1/2 are getting a completely free ride.

This is inaccurate b/c payroll taxes (social security and medicare) are no different than income taxes. And because the payroll tax rates aren't progressive (in fact they're regressive since there's an income cap) they place a disproportionate burden on low income workers. State sales taxes are also effectively regressive as low income workers spend a greater percentage of their income on goods hit with sales tax.

Here's a table that shows all the federal taxes: http://www.kipesquire.net/wp-content...essiverate.jpg

Zook - Thought I was clear I was talking about Fed and State income taxes only, which are heavily progressive. Sorry if not. Yes, we all pay payroll taxes, but in theory those are to fund future entitlement already accounted for. (In practice, is of course, a different story... and I don't expect to see a penny from the social security taxes I pay.)

Coco - All the brackets were reduced. So all tax payers benefited, some to the point of not having to pay federal at all. I think we're basically saying the same thing but just drawing different conclusions.

I guess my original point was that I pay a f-k load of taxes already, stand to pay a f-ck load more, and didn't get into this position by magical luck but rather busting my ass thru uni & grad school, carrying over $150K in student loans (for which the interest is not even deductible 'cause, well, apparently I'm rich....maybe if I had an Ohio cost of living, def not LA metro, but federal tax law doesn't take that into account) and pulling 90-120 hour weeks for over a decade.

All that being said, I was very happy to vote for Obama. I just don't buy all of the rhetoric...

[swiggidy]

and this thread has way too many words in it

So true. That's a common problem with a lot of commune threads.

could this be the aforementioned "laziness" of our generation speaking?

It's because it's the internet and 95% of big paragraphs are poorly organized spewing of thoughts that doesn't necessarily have an informed background in the first place.

Part of that 95% is opinion stated as fact.

[zook]

Zook - Thought I was clear I was talking about Fed and State income taxes only, which are heavily progressive. Sorry if not. Yes, we all pay payroll taxes, but in theory those are to fund future entitlement already accounted for. (In practice, is of course, a different story... and I don't expect to see a penny from the social security taxes I pay.)

That's my point. You can't ignore payroll taxes because the gov't treats them no differently than regular taxes. There is no "social security trust fund". That being the case, you have to include them in your analysis of low income tax burden (as Obama does).

[sarbox68]

Zook - Thought I was clear I was talking about Fed and State income taxes only, which are heavily progressive. Sorry if not. Yes, we all pay payroll taxes, but in theory those are to fund future entitlement already accounted for. (In practice, is of course, a different story... and I don't expect to see a penny from the social security taxes I pay.)

That's my point. You can't ignore payroll taxes because the gov't treats them no differently than regular taxes. There is no "social security trust fund". That being the case, you have to include them in your analysis of low income tax burden (as Obama does).

Agreed. And wasn't ignoring it as much as making the point re: Fed & State. Which will become increasingly unsustainable, as you cannot affect a sustainable economy just by forcing greater and greater income redistribution.

We're not gonna tax or redistribute ourselves into competitiveness. At some point we have to address the problem of why there are such a sizable number of people who are either unwilling or unable to build the skills that will drive earning power at market. With China and India rising, the US has got to get past the idea that we're going to keep this life style without a dramatic shift in what our population brings to market. If we don't, it's a long downhill slide to global economic equilibrium.

I think it's kind of appropriate that this discussion is happening on a poker forum, and one that frequently admonishes beginners and consistently losing players to "Stop f-king around... put in the work, put in the time... study, learn, get better... stop whining and either dedicate to improving or go do something else." We don't charge Gabe a higher rake so we can give more of his winnings to Slevin. We could, but that won't make Slevin a better player, or even really require him to try.

By all means leverage taxes to the common good, while still protecting the incentive to take risks, work hard, make sacrifices and achieve. But then use that money to fix the long-term issues, by both offering the opportunity to acquire higher marketable skills while at the same time forcing the accountability with those that just aren't willing to put in the work.

I hope Obama understands the need for this balance.

[Chopper]

I think it's kind of appropriate that this discussion is happening on a poker forum, and one that frequently admonishes beginners and consistently losing players to "Stop f-king around... put in the work, put in the time... study, learn, get better... stop whining and either dedicate to improving or go do something else." We don't charge Gabe a higher rake so we can give more of his winnings to Slevin. We could, but that won't make Slevin a better player, or even really require him to try.

this is by FAR the best analogy in the thread. well played.

i would like to see ONE, just ONE, poker player admit the he would not go apeshit if the sites decided to take more from him to give to the fish for any reason. in fact, poker sites work in the opposite manner. they tax the fish/micros at a higher rate providing incentive to move the hell up.

every one of the sharks would complain about "i earned it. i worked for it. this is thievery. such bullshit. i am going to another site immediately."

of course, the fish would vote for this....therein lies the problem. the fish want the handout, or feel they deserve it. and, by us feeling sorry for them, or guilty for our success, we tolerate giving them assistance that does NOT make them better. it only creates incentive for the fish to ask for more handouts...increasing our rake again and again. this can demoralize the sharks to the point they ask themselves, "why try anymore? what's the point?"

[a500lbgorilla]

Socialism v Capitalism. Socialism loses win capitalism exists. In a perfect world of abundant resources and robots to do all of our crappy work, socialism would be closer to the ideal system. Capitalism says that everyone needs to work to gain for themselves. But it has a ceiling. Eventually you motivate people to gather wealth which is dictated by the market. In socialism, you'd motivate a few people to better the lives of everyone.

I'm saying that Capitalism is the starting point, but it should eventually evolve into socialism. Is now the time? I dunno.

[sarbox68]

Socialism v Capitalism. Socialism loses win capitalism exists. In a perfect world of abundant resources and robots to do all of our crappy work, socialism would be closer to the ideal system. Capitalism says that everyone needs to work to gain for themselves. But it has a ceiling. Eventually you motivate people to gather wealth which is dictated by the market. In socialism, you'd motivate a few people to better the lives of everyone.

I'm saying that Capitalism is the starting point, but it should eventually evolve into socialism. Is now the time? I dunno.

+1

...although I think the evolution is more a successful blending of the two. We have yet to see a country that has been able to root itself in socialism and provide global leadership in innovation and growth. There are a lot of happy Frenchmen out there, who will fight like hell to protect their 35 hour workweeks, healthcare, pension benefits and subsidies... all while they effectively devolve into an economic backwater from an innovation and job creation standpoint.

Call it enlightened capitalism? But it rests as much on the individual responsibility to push themselves continually and beyond their comfort point as it does access to capital, education and resources (which obv have to be ensured). I see no shortage of evidence of people willing to do exactly that in our immigrant community out here... and with the results capitalism would predict. I just wonder how you make that an obligation as part of the national community. I hope this part of the collective "sacrifice" that Obama referred to...

[Chopper]

not the first time i've heard the socialism is the "ideal" system by which to keep everyone happiest. but, like sar said, i have yet to see one really thrive, either. dont they usually become overrun by corruption/gov't waste? (not that we arent already there)

can anyone provide examples/sources/theory towards how it is supposed to work? or a culture that is close?

and, i would like to see/discuss where the capitalistic system "caps out."

[a500lbgorilla]

not the first time i've heard the socialism is the "ideal" system by which to keep everyone happiest. but, like sar said, i have yet to see one really thrive, either. dont they usually become overrun by corruption/gov't waste? (not that we arent already there)

can anyone provide examples/sources/theory towards how it is supposed to work? or a culture that is close?

and, i would like to see/discuss where the capitalistic system "caps out."

Unfortunately, this is the same logic my father uses. It usually boils down to "Einstein says the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a diff result." and "History repeats itself."

It's closer to an ideal system if we have a abundant resources and some other things. Just because it has failed in the past does not mean it will fail in the future.

[a500lbgorilla]

"or a culture that is close"

Just to be clear, no culture has had the required infrastructure and technology to do it right.

[Ltrain]

Socialism v Capitalism. Socialism loses win capitalism exists. In a perfect world of abundant resources and robots to do all of our crappy work, socialism would be closer to the ideal system. Capitalism says that everyone needs to work to gain for themselves. But it has a ceiling. Eventually you motivate people to gather wealth which is dictated by the market. In socialism, you'd motivate a few people to better the lives of everyone.

I'm saying that Capitalism is the starting point, but it should eventually evolve into socialism. Is now the time? I dunno.

+1

...although I think the evolution is more a successful blending of the two. We have yet to see a country that has been able to root itself in socialism and provide global leadership in innovation and growth. There are a lot of happy Frenchmen out there, who will fight like hell to protect their 35 hour workweeks, healthcare, pension benefits and subsidies... all while they effectively devolve into an economic backwater from an innovation and job creation standpoint.

Call it enlightened capitalism? But it rests as much on the individual responsibility to push themselves continually and beyond their comfort point as it does access to capital, education and resources (which obv have to be ensured). I see no shortage of evidence of people willing to do exactly that in our immigrant community out here... and with the results capitalism would predict. I just wonder how you make that an obligation as part of the national community. I hope this part of the collective "sacrifice" that Obama referred to...

- I think your answer right now is Europe. Due to Bush's lack of funding for technology advances and backward thinking on stem cell research and similar research ideas, the cutting edge is isn't in the US anymore. For example, the particle collider in Europe will have the US in the back of the room fighting for time.

- On the point about poker, that is the beauty of poker, it is an equal playing field and the rules apply the same to everyone. The business world is not an even playing field.

-Chopper, examples of perfect capitalism? I can't think of nations, but poker is a great example. Another example in the business world is real estate brokerage. It is easy entry/exit, and your work to build relationships and complete deals in large part dictates your success.

[CoccoBill]

Coco - All the brackets were reduced. So all tax payers benefited, some to the point of not having to pay federal at all. I think we're basically saying the same thing but just drawing different conclusions.

No. The 50% (by your word) who aren't paying federal tax are not benefiting from changes to the tax brackets. The ones benefiting the most are the ones at the top of the brackets.

not the first time i've heard the socialism is the "ideal" system by which to keep everyone happiest. but, like sar said, i have yet to see one really thrive, either. dont they usually become overrun by corruption/gov't waste? (not that we arent already there)

can anyone provide examples/sources/theory towards how it is supposed to work? or a culture that is close?

and, i would like to see/discuss where the capitalistic system "caps out."

Well define socialism for me please. I live in a democratic (truly) multi party parliamentary republic, where social welfare, health care, schooling etc are "socialized". I work in the IT sector as a senior consultant and make quite a bit more than the national average, and my total tax load is around 30%. Health care here is available to everyone living here, not just citizens. Education is completely free, my wife who's american did her masters here for absolutely no fees at all. This country has been ranked in the very top of the planet on educational system, lack of corruption, competitiveness and generally voted as a top 10 place to live in the world for several years running. We have no natural disasters to speak of, no terrorism, very low crime rate if you discount domestic violence and at the moment our economy is ranked relatively the 2nd strongest in europe after Norway. Please excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical about the chants of "the best country in the world" by americans.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Well define socialism for me please. I live in a democratic (truly) multi party parliamentary republic, where social welfare, health care, schooling etc are "socialized". I work in the IT sector as a senior consultant and make quite a bit more than the national average, and my total tax load is around 30%. Health care here is available to everyone living here, not just citizens. Education is completely free, my wife who's american did her masters here for absolutely no fees at all. This country has been ranked in the very top of the planet on educational system, lack of corruption, competitiveness and generally voted as a top 10 place to live in the world for several years running. We have no natural disasters to speak of, no terrorism, very low crime rate if you discount domestic violence and at the moment our economy is ranked relatively the 2nd strongest in europe after Norway. Please excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical about the chants of "the best country in the world" by americans.

You live in Sweden and so do I. The foundation for our wealth was not built under the economic conditions we have now. It was built during the late 19th century and most of the 20th century. During that time we was a low-regulated low-taxed nation. Hell, by todays standards we were even free market extremists during that period. In 1930 our tax pressure was still only at 10% of GDP. That's about the time that it started to rise but it didn't reach its peak of 50% until right before the 1980s where it has stayed for the last 30 years. We also didn't participate in any of the world wars which gave us a huge head start compared to the rest of the world. We could export our natural resources to help rebuild the rest of Europe. We still live of the wealth that our grandparents generated for us but we are destroying it at a rapid pace.

Take a look beneath the surface and you'll see a lot of problems building up right now. The only reason we have been able to fund our ever-increasing costs of government is because we've had corresponding increases in taxes. But we now have the second highest taxes in the world. How are we going to cover the increasing costs now? The only solution is to reduce the quality or quantity of government services. You can already see this happening, even in the most important sectors. We have waiting lines for up to 6 months for health care. Our schools are deteriorating and we have a shortage of teachers. You can see this becuase even though the percentage of "under-qualified" teachers is increasing the class-rooms are getting crowdier. Since the wages of teachers are far below the market value of their service this trend is guaranteed to continue. Crime may not be very high yet but it is rising, as is poverty. There is nothing that the swedish government will be able to do about this unless we have some really drastic free market reforms. Considering the swedish mentality that seems very unlikely. Give it 10-20 more years and I guarantee you that you will have a very different view of socialism and "the swedish model." The future of our country is not bright and I for one will not be staying here to raise any future kids in this environment.

[sarbox68]

Just because it has failed in the past does not mean it will fail in the future.

Yes. And it's essential that the best and brightest innovation be encouraged to evolve an economic model that is capable of sustaining growth in a geopolitical environment that this planet has never seen before. China and India alone are going to change all of the rules the 1st world has relied on to shape, sustain and protect their far superior standard of living. I don't believe any of these models are going to continue to do this over the next 2-3 decades -- and I am certain that the solution is not to be found in simple income redistribution.

Europe... poker and business... real estate.

You're dead on dude on our stance and investement towards funding of pure maths and sciences. We've dropped the freaking ball big time, and not just over the past 8 years. This is a problem that's been decades in the making, and has been exacerbated by now multiple generations that have eschewed hard sciences, mostly for business or liberal arts.

I do disagree that this is headed to Europe. If you look at the World Intellectual Property Organization's data on patent filings (www.wipo.int), you'll see some interesting trends. '06 US patent grants have effectively stood still since 1999 at around 150,000 per year. That indicates an actual per capita down trend that's pretty scary - esp given the lag effect that is inherent in this kind of measure. France, on the other hand, has held steady at around 12,000 per year, Germany at around 18,000 and the UK has had real decline to 8,000 in '06 from 10,000 in 2003-2005. China, on the other hand has more than doubled since 2002 to 58,000 per year. India tripled from 1,500 to 4,500. This tells a story of trajectory more than real numbers, and Europe is clearly not the innovation powerhouse here.

IMHO, I'm thrilled that AsiaPac is evolving into an innovation powerhouse. Lord knows we need all the brainpower we can get our hands on to solve the sh!t we're collectively in. If the Eurozone ever gets their sh!t together and can truly cooperate on anything over the long term, they have the real potential to turn around their current decline. But it hasn't happened yet. The collider's great... of course so far it couldn't make it through a 12 minute warm-up without having to be shut down for another year of repairs... (okay... that was a smartass low blow...) Bottom line, we gotta find away to inspire people in the US to pursue the hard maths and sciences again in order to continue to be a leading part of the solution.

As for poker v. business... gotta disagree with you bro. Yes the rules of poker are simple. But it's grasp and manipulation of the never ending complexity that makes a winning player from a losing one. Business is the same, esp in the US where barrier to entry is easier. There is no place on the planet with easier capital, infrastucture and regulatory environment for new business (some would say, to a fault and that tighter controls need to be put in place...) There are hundreds of david and goliath business stories, and it continues to be the key attractor for both investment and immigration. Anyone can start a business or pursue additional education or skills.... just like poker. How good they are in the end is as much a factor of ability, work ethic, talent, application, etc. in both of them.

Bottom line, the US still has one of (if not the best) environment for entreprenerial opportunity and personal development. We're not held down by centuries of social, cultural or religous baggage (in business and earning capability at least... a benefit of being a young country still...) and don't see profit or wealth accumulation as a bad thing (yet...) If you can think of it, and it stands a chance of making money... odds are really good you can find what you need to take your shot...

Please excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical about the chants of "the best country in the world" by americans.

Wow... okay. Well, I never said that or implied it, but it's good to be aware of what filters you're viewing the world from.

2_Thumbs obv knew you were from Sweden and did a fantastic job IMHO of giving a thoughtful, unbiased assessment from somebody on the ground. I'm not even going to try and add my opinion to that, 'cause I'm a firm believe that unless you've lived there you really have both a limited and warped perspective.

I will say that "it works great here so it must work there" comparisons are always fatally flawed. I don't care whether it's the US trying to bring "democracy" to the middle east, or a country with barely 9 million people comparing what it's accomplished and how in a tax burden and social services discussion with one that has 302 million, 50 distinct legal and legislative regions and tremendous ethnic and cultural diversity. (New York City alone has almost as many people as Sweden, and we have 1.5 times as many Asians at 14.75M - a distinct cultural minority - than you do total population... to put it in perspective)

Apples and oranges - and a massive amount of other intricacies that you wouldn't even be aware of unless you lived here, much as I couldn't provide the same perspective on Sweden as 2_Thumbs, even with regular reading of The Local and Stockholm News.

That's a very, very, very long post. Sorry 'rilla.... too many damn words!

[Trikflow77]

Every other thread I've read here has been "Oh Obama can I suck your balls, I love you!", this is not one.
I completely agree that anyone is better that our current commander in chief. But after watching interviews and listening to phone calls on different networks I realized that 70% of voters who voted for Obama had no idea why they voted for him. It was amazing to see our country unite and come out for an extraordinary amount of voters in this election but there was also a mass of uneducated voters who really swung this election with reasoning like "I want to see the black guy win" or "because I want change". Ask those same people what changes they are looking forward to and they immediately turn into mumbling bafoons. Why? Because in the 2 years Obama has been campaigning he hasnt revealed much about his changes. HOPE!! CHANGE!! YADA YADA!! He is the absolute best at saying nothing that I've ever heard.
As for the race thing, I couldnt care less. It's amazing our kids and grandkids won't have to grow up in a society where having a black man in power is so taboo.
What worries me most is his affiliations. A phone call on C-SPAN last night had a young African-American man stating " whoever keeps talking about Obama being a terrorist is ignant" (<--see the irony)
Everyone in America should be aware of who William Aires is by now, and if you don't he was a member of the weather underground who bombed the Pentagon and openly stated he wished more people had of been killed in the twin towers. If things couldn't get worse he is a longtime associate and dear friend of our president elect. Barrack states he was only 7 when they were associated and this happened and didnt know he was a terrorist but I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. Obama's political coming out party was held in the living room of who? Ding Ding Ding, William Aires. His excuse, "I didn't know!"
What else don't you know?
His pastor for 20+ years Reverend Wright you know the guy who has been recorded saying "NOT GOD BLESS AMERICA, GODDAMN AMERICA!!" and the rest of his anti america slander. What's Obama's excuse of his association with him? "bibbity bee I didnt know it was going on"
SON OF A BITCH!!
What else dont you know?
Affiliations with ACORN and voter fraud. That's right, the entire Dallas Cowboys squad was registerd to vote in Colorado. By the end of this his ACORN group will be indicted in about 26 states due to voter fraud. Why? Because Mickey Mouse is not a fucking U.S. citizen and should not be a registered Democrat voting for Obama! What did Obama say? "I didn't know"
MOTHERFUCKER GODDAMMIT!
What else don't you know?

We are dealing with Jimmy Carter Jr. here and he will recieve 1 term and he's done. In my opinion he will fuck so much shit up that in 4 years America will be begging for someone else.

So thanks to all the uneducated voters of America who couldnt take 2 hours to really read up on issues and how this election will affect our lives, jobs, and country. Because when your Almighty Obama starts taxing the shit out of businesses making 250k+ and they outsource more jobs (because face it, they are GOING to make money) leaving you broke, hungry, sitting at home in a mustard stained wife beater watching Price is Right you are going to realize this was not the "change" you wanted. You have fucked Lady America in the ass and didnt have the common courtesy to use any KY!

I hope he proves me wrong during his term but until then i am going to be living in a hole!

WELCOME TO SOCIALISM AMERICA!!!

I don't know whether to yawn or boo.......

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Unfortunately, this is the same logic my father uses. It usually boils down to "Einstein says the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a diff result." and "History repeats itself."

It's closer to an ideal system if we have a abundant resources and some other things. Just because it has failed in the past does not mean it will fail in the future.

Look into the calculation problem proposed by Ludwig von Mises. Economic planning under socialism is impossible, because you lack the information of prices. Resources will never be abundant. You can't have a society without an effective allocation of resources.

[CoccoBill]

Please excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical about the chants of "the best country in the world" by americans.

Wow... okay. Well, I never said that or implied it, but it's good to be aware of what filters you're viewing the world from.

2_Thumbs obv knew you were from Sweden and did a fantastic job IMHO of giving a thoughtful, unbiased assessment from somebody on the ground. I'm not even going to try and add my opinion to that, 'cause I'm a firm believe that unless you've lived there you really have both a limited and warped perspective.

Well I never meant to imply that you had claimed anything of the sort, but I'm sure you realize it isn't exactly something that rarely occurs.

I will say that "it works great here so it must work there" comparisons are always fatally flawed. I don't care whether it's the US trying to bring "democracy" to the middle east, or a country with barely 9 million people comparing what it's accomplished and how in a tax burden and social services discussion with one that has 302 million, 50 distinct legal and legislative regions and tremendous ethnic and cultural diversity. (New York City alone has almost as many people as Sweden, and we have 1.5 times as many Asians at 14.75M - a distinct cultural minority - than you do total population... to put it in perspective)

Apples and oranges - and a massive amount of other intricacies that you wouldn't even be aware of unless you lived here, much as I couldn't provide the same perspective on Sweden as 2_Thumbs, even with regular reading of The Local and Stockholm News.

I never claimed that our local system is some perfect utopia where people eat rainbows and poop butterflies, obviously every system is to an extent ineffective, corrupt and flawed as long as its run by people. I was responding to Chopper's inquiry about examples of where socialism does work, my personal opinion is it works here relatively well. Oh and I'm from Finland, not Sweden.

However, I'd be interested to hear why socialism can't work in big countries and what cultural and ethnic diversity has to do with it? My whole point is that what you regard as "free market capitalism" vs "government controlled socialism" are not, or do not have to be that different. Your nation would collapse in a second without the socialized services I paraphrased a couple posts ago, no one seems to be complaining about having those services. Add free education, public healthcare and a couple other minor tweaks to your list and you've essentially become full blown freedom hating commie socialists.

[a500lbgorilla]

Unfortunately, this is the same logic my father uses. It usually boils down to "Einstein says the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a diff result." and "History repeats itself."

It's closer to an ideal system if we have a abundant resources and some other things. Just because it has failed in the past does not mean it will fail in the future.

Look into the calculation problem proposed by Ludwig von Mises. Economic planning under socialism is impossible, because you lack the information of prices. (1) Resources will never be abundant. (2) You can't have a society without an effective allocation of resources. (3)

(1) Just shooting from the hip, but ideally it would evolve into a system with no money. I've never watched much Star Trek, but that's how they run things. And even if you lack the information of prices, there must be other information which you don't lack which can make up for. Was Ludwig von Mises around for the internets?

(2) I disagree. This simply can not be true. It might seem incredibly likely, but I think it's a crime to make this statement and never explore other options.

(3) Explain.

And one final thing, if all of economic law and societial law (these things that *must* be true to run a country or laws which can not be broken to have an economy) they're all written by man and therefore can be ignored just as easily as the days before they were ever uttered.

There is no physical law which states that resources must be limited and in some level of demand (again, not really quoting anything specific just being oddly general) so why do people need to treat them like they're the law of gravity?

[martindcx1e]

not exactly sure why op posted this but you came to the wrong place if you were looking for a warm reception to a right wing rant.

also, try to say "right wing rant" 10 times fast

[Ltrain]

also, try to say "right wing rant" 10 times fast

lol

[Chopper]

i think that is why OP warned us in the title. he knew his opinion would be shat upon. i just wish he had come back to defend himself instead of the ole hit'n'run tactic.

i have learned quite a bit, personally, from this. i come off brash and opinionated, but, hell, thats part of my personality. i dont mind being put in my place over things i dont know much about....thats how i learn best. but, whatevs.

my synopsis, so far, is that the US is a blend of capatilism and socialism. my opinion is that we are migrating more towards socialism all the time. i, personally, dont like it, but it has its benefits....if properly managed politically. i dont know if that's possible given all the political bickering we put up with. all the sabotage and general stalemates in gov't. to me, that leads to corruption, which is what we have seen for years (not a news flash there).

but, the one thing i think the US holds onto as its trump card is....the ability to VOTE FOR CHANGE. i dont know much about other countries around the world, but i dont think voting, by comparison, is as significant as it is here.

surely, all countries ebb and flow. leaning left/leaning right as time changes. some do it correctly. some dont. but, so far from my studies the US has handled it fairly well and remained a leader the past several decades. obv, all good things come to an end, but i dont think this is the end. i think its more a merge of countries, political philosophies, and cultures with very different opinions as the internet bring us closer together as a planet.

but, i like holding the trump card of "rule by the people." its far from perfect anymore, but i still think we sit better to adapt and change quickly to light speed at which this new age is moving. i just hope we make the right decisions going forward. and, at the root, that is the debate that got this whole thing started in the first place.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Oh and I'm from Finland, not Sweden.

My mistake. I don't know why but I've been thinking you were from Sweden for a very long time.

Unfortunately, this is the same logic my father uses. It usually boils down to "Einstein says the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a diff result." and "History repeats itself."

It's closer to an ideal system if we have a abundant resources and some other things. Just because it has failed in the past does not mean it will fail in the future.

Look into the calculation problem proposed by Ludwig von Mises. Economic planning under socialism is impossible, because you lack the information of prices. (1) Resources will never be abundant. (2) You can't have a society without an effective allocation of resources. (3)

(1) Just shooting from the hip, but ideally it would evolve into a system with no money. I've never watched much Star Trek, but that's how they run things. And even if you lack the information of prices, there must be other information which you don't lack which can make up for. Was Ludwig von Mises around for the internets?

(2) I disagree. This simply can not be true. It might seem incredibly likely, but I think it's a crime to make this statement and never explore other options.

(3) Explain.

And one final thing, if all of economic law and societial law (these things that *must* be true to run a country or laws which can not be broken to have an economy) they're all written by man and therefore can be ignored just as easily as the days before they were ever uttered.

There is no physical law which states that resources must be limited and in some level of demand (again, not really quoting anything specific just being oddly general) so why do people need to treat them like they're the law of gravity?

(1) I can't see a society without money. The purpose of money (to store value through time) is too important to ever dissappear. The form of money may change though.

(2) Even if we manage to find a way to extract infinite energy and matter (which seems quite unlikely), resources such as labour, land, and time will always be scarce. When something isn't scarce, such as air, it's not an economic good. Air has no price in normal circumstances, because it's abundant. When you go scoobadiving it does have a price because air is not abundant underwater.

(3) Prices are an absolute necessity to allocate resources. I'll give an example regarding the allocation of labour. When people choose what to do for a living they look at the wages of the jobs that are availible for them. If something is very important to society, such as education, then the wages of those jobs will be higher in order to attract labour from other sectors of the economy. When government socializes something, like schools, this mechanism dissappears. Prices aren't decided by supply and demand anymore and it becomes impossible for politicians to determine the actual demand for teachers. It's all guesswork. The government will always set prices/wages too high or too low. In our example, this means that we will have an allocation of labour that does not correspond to consumer preferences. We'll end up with either too many or too few teachers, and as the supply/price of labour changes for the rest of the economy there will be a cascading effect of unintended consequences.

This short clip with Milton Friedman explains the importance of price signals extremely well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU

Your point about economic laws are one of the biggest misconceptions regarding economics. Economics is a science and as all other sciences it can tell us certain facts about reality. Economics has its roots in praxeology i.e. the science of human action and it tells us certain facts about human action. It can teach us how humans act in certain situations and why they act as they do. It can tell us why the war on drugs is a failure, and why most people value diamonds higher than water even though the latter is essential for life. Economic laws are not invented by man as you seem to suggest, they are discovered and they have been the same throughout history. It's only our knowledge of them that has changed (as with other sciences).

The problem is that economics is very tainted by politics. All politicians want economic theories that justify their policies. This means that there are a lot of theories out there that contradict eachother and a lot that are simply just false. The hard part about economics is to sort out all the bullshit from the truth.

One last important point, economics can't tell you what the ultimate society looks like. That is completely subjective and depends on what your actual goals are. Economics can however tell you wether a certain policy will be able to attain its intended goal, and it's pure ignorance to just disregard it.

[a500lbgorilla]

I fundamentally disagree with several points but it would take way too much work for me to fully understand your point of view so you can consider yourself as having won this debate.

Some points I would bring up: If you don't get 1, then we can never resolve our points.

2 is wrong on labor and land assuming enough technology (and maybe even time?????!!!! The internet makes some things happen faster than it used to! A relative increase in the total amount of time?)

3 this is where too much thinking would happen. You clearly study economics and I clearly do not. Tomorrow, your points would be more correct than mine. But in 1000 years, I may be more right!

[2_Thumbs_Up]

But in 1000 years, I may be more right!

Only if human nature changes.

[a500lbgorilla]

But in 1000 years, I may be more right!

Only if human nature changes.

which is does based on human knowledge, again debate over!

[Warpe]

[Deuce Blue]

I'm glad wef inally broke the color barrier with our president. I wish it wouldn't have been him but its still a good thing. But I am a bit freaked out by how much he looks like Curious George. That isn't a color thing, just calling it like I see it.

[sarbox68]

I'm glad wef inally broke the color barrier with our president. I wish it wouldn't have been him but its still a good thing. But I am a bit freaked out by how much he looks like Curiuos George. That isn't a color thing, just calling it like I see it.

yeah... but considering we're coming from a guy that perpetually looked like he was thinking about taking a poop (and sometimes not too happy about it...), we really didn't have anywhere to go but up......

[jdubs]

Fox News < people pissed off enough to make a change.