These people are our future

[wufwugy]

YouTube - Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" Rally - Interviews With Participants

YouTube - Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" Rally - Interview B-Roll

[JKDS]

I stopped at 9 min and cant bring myself to watch the 2nd vid

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm 2 minutes in and this fills my heart with sadness.

edit HAHAHAAHA how do I link to a specific time in a youtube video? @3:20

[a500lbgorilla]

Well, it's impossible to link to all of the golden quotes in the first video, but these are not our future. They are our dying present.

edit found the best one from 2nd vid: "Explain to me why Cap and Trade is bad" "I just don't believe God would allow us to destroy the Earth with CO2"

[BennyLaRue]

I believe that CHILDREN are our future. Teach them well and let THEM lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess INSIDE.

[Hawk]

lol benny

[dneureiter]

omg... 2 minutes in....

It's amazing... half of the words are just like filler and the others are
pride, america, freedom, yay, communist, socialist, doom.

we're so nationalist it's amazing. like 1.30-2.00 in the video. We are the last bastion of hope... and everyone follows us and needs us.. and we need to

"our doorstep in the county is extremely dirty and it needs straightened out before we straighten out other peoples doorsteps" ... gah... this is "amazing" and if it's the future we're fuxxxed.

[boost]

so many lawls.. but then you stop and realize this is real, then its just sadface.

There was one mini montage of like 3 interviews in I believe the first video. I forget the subject, but I just remember that all three people regurgitated the exact same soundbite.

The one lady that said she wished things would go back to the way things were in the days following 9/11 said so much with that one sentence. These tea baggers were just normal people who were thrown into a state of perpetual fear by 9/11. As time has passed, the source of their fears has eroded, but they have found comfort in this fearful existence. And so the Tea Party is born; enemies are invented giving them something to fear and allowing them to maintain their 'comfort' zone. Because they are invented and easily disproven the people allow themselves to be ignorant of facts and closed off to anything that disagrees with thier irrational fears, else they'd lose the source of their fear once again.

[sweetlemon69]

I'm 2 minutes in and this fills my heart with sadness.

edit HAHAHAAHA how do I link to a specific time in a youtube video? @3:20

add #t=3m20s to the end of the url

[surviva316]

i'm so disappointed that that lady in yellow talking about people infringing on her rights wasn't on the main video. that was so so so so win.

asking why i believe what i believe makes me mad, and disagreeing with me makes me mad grrrrrrrrrrrrr

[wufwugy]

i'm so disappointed that that lady in yellow talking about people infringing on her rights wasn't on the main video. that was so so so so win.

asking why i believe what i believe makes me mad, and disagreeing with me makes me mad grrrrrrrrrrrrr

Those guys have a bunch of teabagger interview videos, and the b-sides are usually better. I think the reason is that their main videos are more thematic while the b-sides are more random, yet the random often turns out more interesting than the theme

[surviva316]

YouTube - THE TEA PARTY & THE CIRCUS - Final Healthcare Reform Protest

YouTube - THE TEA PARTY & THE CIRCUS - Final Healthcare Reform Protest

that is all

[boost]

hahaha

YouTube - THE TEA PARTY & THE CIRCUS - Final Healthcare Reform Protest

[mbiz]

oh god republicans are fucked up. luckily just as i got bored of it i saw this in the list of related videos
YouTube - Cat gets Vacuumed SFW

[a500lbgorilla]

Koreans explain the Tea Party

YouTube - ????????? Tea Party Express derails GOP candidates

[runrrunrstr8]

I might be going against the grain here but why the hell would I or any of us want to pay for other people's healthcare, welfare, public housing, food stamps, farm subsidy, bank bailout, mortgage modification, bridge to nowhere, etc.

If I want to donate to a charity I'll write a check, I don't need the government raking my fking paychecks to help people I don't know/ care about.
Ya dig? It's not nice or compassionate if you're spending other people's money.

As for the Glen Beck rally... yeah, everyone speaking there seems to think very highly of themselves.

[wufwugy]

I might be going against the grain here but why the hell would I or any of us want to pay for other people's healthcare, welfare, public housing, food stamps, farm subsidy, bank bailout, mortgage modification, bridge to nowhere, etc.

If I want to donate to a charity I'll write a check, I don't need the government raking my fking paychecks to help people I don't know/ care about.
Ya dig? It's not nice or compassionate if you're spending other people's money.

Because it makes you wealthier. Your financial return on investment in an economy that serves the people is greater than one that doesn't. Not to mention your social 'return on investment' is astronomically improved in a society that provides for its people. All this garbage about "it's my money blah blah why should I be forced to blah blah" is nothing but propaganda hogwash perpetuated by the effective royal class who are lucky to be carried on the shoulders of the rest of the world. Deservedness is largely a false perception, and when it comes face to face with real world shit like economics, it falls flat

The next time you see a homeless bum on the street who lives on welfare, think to yourself that he has contributed more to society than the average Wall Street banker. And here's the crazy part, it's true. The return on the entire economy by this bum simply using food stamps is SUBSTANTIALLY higher than the mega mega mega mega wealthy guy who manipulates numbers and robs the economy of millions that he sucks out of the economy.

You know the supposed 5-6 trillion $ hole we're in right now? Well, ALL of that is entirely due to the people who 'earned' the most money and felt they didn't have to pay any of it back, and instead sucked it out of the economy. They send trillions overseas, trillions in their bank accounts earning interest, and trillions stolen from a squeezed labor force. The amount of money that the American taxpayers has paid in corporate welfare of the last two years is immensely higher than the amount of poor welfare we've paid over the entire history of our nation. In fact, the difference is so vast that they shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. Yet people are still raving against the Welfare Cadillac Queen fairy tale while unwittingly dropping off their debit cards at the nearest mansion. Don't be fooled when the source of the talking points that rail against social safety nets are the people who benefit the most from those safety nets not existing.

The way human society works is that the vast majority of the time, the people who do the least, make the most, and the people who do the most, make the least. Social safety nets and public programs are the one and only thing that keep you and me and everybody we know out of serfdom. When everybody gets together and pays for the basic needs of everybody else, none of us get left behind and we all move forward as a unit. Look to the most heavily taxed nations in the world and see that the people who live there are much better off. Then look to the lowest taxed nations and find that everybody except the ruling powers are living in shit

If I come off as curt or mean, I don't mean to be

[boost]

Wuf gives you really good reasons to stop being a selfish idiot and instead open your eyes to what is really going on. But it gets even better. Our society wants to be humane, so hospitals are not allowed to turn people away who have immediate needs. This means that the only way to get free treatment is to have let your problem go on for so long that it is an immediate threat to your life. At this point the cost of treatment is far greater than the cost of preventative methods that could have been offered long before the person was on their death bed.

You really only have two options: offer universal healthcare, or allow hospitals to deny treatment as they see fit. I do not believe anyone wants to see the latter, but people opposed to the former want some sort of silly middle ground that simply is not economically viable since it actually costs more than just providing care in the first place. So if you want to be greedy, you actually want universal healthcare, as rates should go down.

[jyms]

One of the best measures for having universal healthcare is to ask people in country's that have it if they would give it up. Don't ask the rich about anything, ask the middle classes. I come form upper middle class and nobody would want the health care stopped. Your system would turn middle class people poor with one sick child or parent. I think of it as insurance. If I never need it then good, but I want to be covered for that untimely accident.

[a500lbgorilla]

One of the best measures for having universal healthcare is to ask people in country's that have it if they would give it up. Don't ask the rich about anything, ask the middle classes. I come form upper middle class and nobody would want the health care stopped. Your system would turn middle class people poor with one sick child or parent. I think of it as insurance. If I never need it then good, but I want to be covered for that untimely accident.

But America isn't the land of the middle-class. It's the land of entrepreneurs. Everyone here will tell you, if you have an idea for a business, you go for it. The belief is that anyone can be rich; there are only a few things getting in our way and most of those few things are the gov't and taxes.

If you try to start up a business, State and Federal are already combing you down for all the money they can get, everyone who dreams big is put off by those thoughts. "So I'm 1 week into a business that will likely fail 8/10 times and I'm teetering on the edge because I need to feed some poor people? If they can't get jobs, it's because we can't employ them!"

That's why we're so adverse to Socialism, because accepting taxes so high is accepting that a central pillar of the American Dream has crumbled. We aren't being run by a dark cabal of the rich, we all believe we're one idea away from being rich and we want to make sure the road is as clear as possible for when it comes.

Yes, it's awesome that being born Canadian guarantees you a certain standard for living, but we're not Canadian, we're American. And being born American means rolling the dice and shooting from the hip, Cowboy-style.

Not my opinion on the matter, just my understanding of things.

[a500lbgorilla]

Also, we don't have universal health care, the bill Obama passed was the first step in bringing down inflated Healthcare costs nationwide. We spend waaaaay more per year on healthcare and get worse returns than anyone else. (17% of our income goes to healthcare if I remember Bill Clinton's interview on TDS, and I think the next highest was 10%)

We had to do something to bring down costs across the board, and the first step is getting everyone covered.

The bill was a move toward universal health insurance and a gov't intervention on how health insurers can do business.

[wufwugy]

But America isn't the land of the middle-class. It's the land of entrepreneurs. Everyone here will tell you, if you have an idea for a business, you go for it. The belief is that anyone can be rich; there are only a few things getting in our way and most of those few things are the gov't and taxes.

If you try to start up a business, State and Federal are already combing you down for all the money they can get, everyone who dreams big is put off by those thoughts. "So I'm 1 week into a business that will likely fail 8/10 times and I'm teetering on the edge because I need to feed some poor people? If they can't get jobs, it's because we can't employ them!"

That's why we're so adverse to Socialism, because accepting taxes so high is accepting that a central pillar of the American Dream has crumbled. We aren't being run by a dark cabal of the rich, we all believe we're one idea away from being rich and we want to make sure the road is as clear as possible for when it comes.

Yes, it's awesome that being born Canadian guarantees you a certain standard for living, but we're not Canadian, we're American. And being born American means rolling the dice and shooting from the hip, Cowboy-style.

Not my opinion on the matter, just my understanding of things.

The funny thing is that middle class taxes wouldn't need to be that much higher, if at all, in order to provide free health care, free advanced education, etc. There's more than enough revenue from the high end of income, capital gains, and estate for progressive taxes to cover. In fact, we could probably drop income, sales, property taxes focused on the middle class if only we used the correct policy on the high end.

This goes back to one of the reasons I think that the US is not doing any sort of collapse, and will still remain as the leading nation throughout the century. We have sooooo much room for improvement, and when the shit hits the fan, I think we'll find some push for some of those improvements. The US simply adopting economic policy similar to, say, Norway would provide massive improvements which would IMO be on par with some of the best in the past.

Which brings up an important point about this recession. It ended a while back, yet employment is fucked, and consuming on credit is crunched. I think this fact is going to force the US to adopt policy that will bring back increasing wages. The whole reason we're in this spot is lack of increasing wages since Reagan, the way we coped with it was borrowing and debt, but the veil has been pulled down, and politicians will be forced to fix wages or else they'll get voted out. The process will take quite a long time, but I think it's coming, at least to some degree

Aside from the rabbit trail, I wanted to point out the the whole 'entrepreneurship' milieu of the US would be hugely benefited by social safety improvements. If you know that if your small business fails you still have health care, still have shelter, and your kids can still go to college, then you're going to be much more likely to take the risk in the first place. It's good for everybody. US right-wing rhetoric and philosophy are solely a product of the fatclass reverse-Robin Hooding the populace. Super wealth is a product of gaming the system. Even the most 'deserved' of super wealth conglomerates (like, say, Microsoft) have the potential to make more money by gaming the system than they do on legit economic activity. Corporations themselves are a gaming of the system. They're microcosmic monopolies that excel at political influence at the expense of product development

[IowaSkinsFan]

Because it makes you wealthier. Your financial return on investment in an economy that serves the people is greater than one that doesn't. Not to mention your social 'return on investment' is astronomically improved in a society that provides for its people. All this garbage about "it's my money blah blah why should I be forced to blah blah" is nothing but propaganda hogwash perpetuated by the effective royal class who are lucky to be carried on the shoulders of the rest of the world. Deservedness is largely a false perception, and when it comes face to face with real world shit like economics, it falls flat

The next time you see a homeless bum on the street who lives on welfare, think to yourself that he has contributed more to society than the average Wall Street banker. And here's the crazy part, it's true. The return on the entire economy by this bum simply using food stamps is SUBSTANTIALLY higher than the mega mega mega mega wealthy guy who manipulates numbers and robs the economy of millions that he sucks out of the economy.

You know the supposed 5-6 trillion $ hole we're in right now? Well, ALL of that is entirely due to the people who 'earned' the most money and felt they didn't have to pay any of it back, and instead sucked it out of the economy. They send trillions overseas, trillions in their bank accounts earning interest, and trillions stolen from a squeezed labor force. The amount of money that the American taxpayers has paid in corporate welfare of the last two years is immensely higher than the amount of poor welfare we've paid over the entire history of our nation. In fact, the difference is so vast that they shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. Yet people are still raving against the Welfare Cadillac Queen fairy tale while unwittingly dropping off their debit cards at the nearest mansion. Don't be fooled when the source of the talking points that rail against social safety nets are the people who benefit the most from those safety nets not existing.

The way human society works is that the vast majority of the time, the people who do the least, make the most, and the people who do the most, make the least. Social safety nets and public programs are the one and only thing that keep you and me and everybody we know out of serfdom. When everybody gets together and pays for the basic needs of everybody else, none of us get left behind and we all move forward as a unit. Look to the most heavily taxed nations in the world and see that the people who live there are much better off. Then look to the lowest taxed nations and find that everybody except the ruling powers are living in shit

If I come off as curt or mean, I don't mean to be

This could be somewhat true, but it depends on your definition on what "contributed to society means." In your definition, it's clearly true. But in an absolute definition its pretty clearly false. How much money you make is directly correlated to the amount of value you provide to the people around you. The problem is people value pretty worthless and fucked up shit.

Look to the most heavily taxed nations in the world and see that the people who live there are much better off. Then look to the lowest taxed nations and find that everybody except the ruling powers are living in shit

This in no way means that heavy taxes means everyone is better off. There are a very very large amount of factors that would contribute to shitty living conditions for everyone but the ruling powers. Taxes certainly don't have everything, if much, to do with it.

The way human society works is that the vast majority of the time, the people who do the least, make the most, and the people who do the most, make the least.

What's your definition of "do"? This seems completely untrue to me unless "doing" is physical labor. Would you argue that Bill Gates hasn't "done" much?

[IowaSkinsFan]

I don't understand why everyone hates risk in this world. We risk our lives every day by just sitting in bed. The risk of dying or losing your job or your business failing is present everywhere. For me, the goal isn't to eliminate risk. There's a great quote from the Bhagavad Gita that sums up my point. Krishna says to Arjuna "You are responsible for action alone, never of its fruits." Results are often uncontrollable, but we must live to act in an "enlightened" manner. At least, that's what I believe personally.

I assume someone is going to respond to my previous post saying that some people have become rich through exploitation of others. I don't disagree with this at all. I personally believe that it wouldn't be a bad idea for the government to mandate a ton of transparency, as well as creating laws that severely punishes those who decieve people and exploit them for money. This happens. But it also so happens that most businesses and owners have made money because people have voluntarily exchanged their money for the businesses good or service. A good or service that was thought up and put into practice by a entrepreneur. A good or service that is so much better than the substitutes that despite the fact the result of a persons voluntary transaction with the business will be the owner becoming filthy rich, that we still will give our money.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Danny wins this thread.

And although half the tea party seems like total idiots, I still think they are a good move for the republican party away from this ridiculous religious movement that went against all that a conservative stood for.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

The funny thing is that middle class taxes wouldn't need to be that much higher, if at all, in order to provide free health care, free advanced education, etc. There's more than enough revenue from the high end of income, capital gains, and estate for progressive taxes to cover. In fact, we could probably drop income, sales, property taxes focused on the middle class if only we used the correct policy on the high end.

So you're saying the 1% richest people in the world should pay for everything but also have essentially no say in how that money is used? While the others pay for jack shit and get many of the benefits? Sounds good to me, rich people suck.

[wufwugy]

This could be somewhat true, but it depends on your definition on what "contributed to society means." In your definition, it's clearly true. But in an absolute definition its pretty clearly false. How much money you make is directly correlated to the amount of value you provide to the people around you. The problem is people value pretty worthless and fucked up shit.

The correlation is tiny, often non-existent, and people don't value as fucked up of shit as many opinions claim. Attempting to explain status and value by equating them is getting into woo woo territory. It works only when you continually expand the definitions

In the real economy, we know for fact that financial status is determined by much more than how well you're valued, and sometimes has very little to do with value. Also, using a term like 'value' to broadly explain economics can be problematic because sometimes it can only account for a fraction of what actually happens, and sometimes misses the point. Many examples can be found in the myriad of circumstances where different values collide, some values are naturally or artificially propped up while others are depressed, etc

This in no way means that heavy taxes means everyone is better off. There are a very very large amount of factors that would contribute to shitty living conditions for everyone but the ruling powers. Taxes certainly don't have everything, if much, to do with it.

Taxes in modern democracies have a substantially higher return on the social and economic wellbeing of the populace than anything else, and it's not really even close. Corruption is possible, and history is rife with taxation by totalitarian regimes being massively burdensome, but we're not dealing with this sort of circumstance. The amount of oversight that goes into tax spending is much higher than in pretty much any private industry, and the amount of economic return our taxes provides the nation is much higher than the return on purchases from, say, the most prolific retail corporation on the planet.

This isn't that complicated, but it is made so by misunderstanding taxes, and misunderstanding how economics works in the first place. The reason taxes are so beneficial is because of how well they distribute wealth and activity through the classes, and how well they invest in things like infrastructure and education and all sorts of social services we take for granted. Through the history of the US, tax dollars have gone to investment and social wellbeing to a vastly greater degree than any corporation or any business enterprise. Taxes can get too high, but nobody knows where that point is, and we're not even remotely close to that area in the first place. The top tax rate was about 3x higher under Eisenhower than today, and that was when the US middle class was becoming a thing of legend

What's your definition of "do"? This seems completely untrue to me unless "doing" is physical labor. Would you argue that Bill Gates hasn't "done" much?

My point was that status tends to be self-perpetuating and often deflects from progression elsewhere. Bill Gates is arguably the most beneficial mega wealthy person to ever live, but I don't really care about specific examples here because then I'll just bring up how Kim Il-sung decimated more value and wealth and all things good in the history of his nation, yet had more status than anybody because of it. Or how the House of Saud massively oppresses their citizenry, exports much of the nations' wealth, yet they have the most power and "do" the most. Or how Walmart is ransacking a portion of US wealth by monopolizing and crunching wages while overflowing their executive accounts. Or how Wall Street annihilated trillions, yet are among the wealthiest and "do" oh so much.

[wufwugy]

I don't understand why everyone hates risk in this world. We risk our lives every day by just sitting in bed. The risk of dying or losing your job or your business failing is present everywhere. For me, the goal isn't to eliminate risk. There's a great quote from the Bhagavad Gita that sums up my point. Krishna says to Arjuna "You are responsible for action alone, never of its fruits." Results are often uncontrollable, but we must live to act in an "enlightened" manner. At least, that's what I believe personally.

Nobody's arguing against risk, just against undue risk. The way economics work is that when you decrease risk in some areas you can increase it in other areas. Our society has done this by substantially decreasing the risk of certain powerful interests, which has added extra burden to others that happen to be the middle class.

If it was not possible for economic wealth to be hoarded, siphoned off from median flow, or generally have any imbalance of distribution, then we wouldn't really need social safety nets to the degree we do now because risk would be naturally decreased for the middle class due to having increase collective access to flow of wealth and product

But that's a fantasy world. Society is naturally very unequal, has strong self-perpetuating qualities, and real world economic demonstration determines that if you don't want the majority of the public to experience undue problems, policy needs to provide social services.

I assume someone is going to respond to my previous post saying that some people have become rich through exploitation of others. I don't disagree with this at all. I personally believe that it wouldn't be a bad idea for the government to mandate a ton of transparency, as well as creating laws that severely punishes those who decieve people and exploit them for money. This happens. But it also so happens that most businesses and owners have made money because people have voluntarily exchanged their money for the businesses good or service. A good or service that was thought up and put into practice by a entrepreneur. A good or service that is so much better than the substitutes that despite the fact the result of a persons voluntary transaction with the business will be the owner becoming filthy rich, that we still will give our money.

Most of the time, it's both. An important trend is as wealth increases and power consolidates, there is a stronger shift from providing valuable goods or services to exploitation.

[wufwugy]

Danny wins this thread.

And although half the tea party seems like total idiots, I still think they are a good move for the republican party away from this ridiculous religious movement that went against all that a conservative stood for.

The teabaggers are even more religious than the pre-TP GOP

It would be an okay movement if it were something like libertarianism, but it's not, it's Fox consolidating their power that GOP politicians have gradually handed over to them. This is showing us how much Fox calls the shots, and their purpose is ratings and further shifting politics to the right

[wufwugy]

So you're saying the 1% richest people in the world should pay for everything but also have essentially no say in how that money is used? While the others pay for jack shit and get many of the benefits? Sounds good to me, rich people suck.

Well, no. That's clearly a straw man, and you know it

My argument is for everybody to pay their share, no matter how much they make. The way this works according to understood economics is in a progressive tax system where the more you make the higher a percentage of your income you spend. It's not about hating the rich, but about good policy. It could also be viewed as not hating the poor or unlucky.

Let me try to break it down: Economies run on capital distribution through the median and poor classes. When the flow is reduced, the economy loses strength, and when the flow is increased the economy gains strength. Progressive, strong taxation on higher earners is not for the purpose of despising the rich or anything, but simply for the purpose of operating the economy. For the most part, a strengthening upper class is detrimental to the economy due to the simple fact that the upper class simply cannot be the meat of an economy no matter how hard they try.

This is one of the most demonstrable truths in economics. We see it through history, and we have even been obviously living it for the last few years, but never let the ability for people to not know what they're doing or understand a situation fool you. Today, there is way, way more than enough wealth to turn the economy into a behemoth virtually overnight, but the one and only reason we've been stagnant for so long is because the wealth that can do that has been siphoned up to the top. There are trillions of dollars just sitting around doing nothing. In fact, the surplus of cash at the top end is so enormous that its being used as a tool to siphon even more from the real economy by being used to speculate on the markets or scams like purchasing T$ from at near zero interest then loaning it back to the Fed at higher interest.

There has only been one other time in the last hundred years of US history that the wealth gap has been as big as it is today, and that time was most prominent up to the 1929 Wall Street collapse. Then for the next several decades, the gap tightened, the flow of capital was more efficient, the US became known as the greatest middle class in the world's history, then by around the 80s the gap began to widen again, has been ever since, and is currently widening even further even though we're experiencing as strong of telltale signs of what we're doing wrong as we did in the Great Depression.

We made an enormous longterm mistake by not letting Wall Street collapse. We did this because we were told it would be okay because enough regulations would be made to bring the capital back into median circulation, which would have worked wonders, but it hasn't happened, and really the only reason it happened during the Great Depression was because the super rich lost everything along with the median. They had to wait until the working class was able to build an economy again so they could then again steal it and point the fingers back at the workers.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I understand positive outcomes that can come from the changes you are talking about. To me, the most important thing in the world has nothing to do with positive outcomes, although positive outcomes can be the result of right action.

The most important thing to me is evolution, evolution of myself and the human race. I understand this is vague, but I mean a lot of things. Improve our technology, our strength, our minds, and our decision making are some of the main things that fall under this category.

I'm wondering if you'd like to argue that socialism/high taxes/strong government control of economic and social health will cause more evolution in the world than free market, laissez faire, little government intervention type of world?

[IowaSkinsFan]

In the real economy, we know for fact that financial status is determined by much more than how well you're valued, and sometimes has very little to do with value. Also, using a term like 'value' to broadly explain economics can be problematic because sometimes it can only account for a fraction of what actually happens, and sometimes misses the point. Many examples can be found in the myriad of circumstances where different values collide, some values are naturally or artificially propped up while others are depressed, etc

Give me an example in a free market where someone has earned a lot of money, but has done so without the voluntary exchange of money for a good or service. If your arguing that people are manipulated to give their money to something they don't value, what do you believe is the solution to this problem?

[IowaSkinsFan]

people don't value as fucked up of shit as many opinions claim

Maybe f'ed up was too strong. I will say this, I have yet to meet a person whose values and actions are congruent with the world they desire. Gandhi is an historical figure who I feel had values and actions congruent with the world he desired. Hippies who live in trees and consume nothing from the outside world are another example.

[wufwugy]

I understand positive outcomes that can come from the changes you are talking about. To me, the most important thing in the world has nothing to do with positive outcomes, although positive outcomes can be the result of right action.

The most important thing to me is evolution, evolution of myself and the human race. I understand this is vague, but I mean a lot of things. Improve our technology, our strength, our minds, and our decision making are some of the main things that fall under this category.

I completely agree about evolution of self, but WRT evolution of society, I'm not all too for it. Not sure I want to get into that though because it involves a bunch of gloomy speculation. My observation is that the evolution of technology has so far made life worse on average for humans, but this isn't even close to what it will be like in the future. But like I said, different topic, we can discuss it in a different thread if you'd like

In a way, however, evolution of society can be viewed as a benefit. I think this benefit is ultimately microcosmic, but we have seen some arguable benefits from things like strong social governance or medical improvements.

I'm wondering if you'd like to argue that socialism/high taxes/strong government control of economic and social health will cause more evolution in the world than free market, laissez faire, little government intervention type of world?

Evolution is amoral, and mostly emanates from bad/change/disaster. I don't really agree with your premise, and don't really want to debate about how society can best evolve. I'm not concerned with evolution, but with collective health and happiness

On that note, I absolutely believe that a strong public sector and social programs is better for society than the false libertarian utopia. I think we should start at pointing out that a basic mistake people make is not correctly designating government. They say 'big vs little', but reality is actually 'good for the public vs bad for the public'. There is always government. Always. Even anarchy is a form of governance, and it's such a weak form of governance that it's always transitory i.e. it collapses as soon as powerful people see resources they want.

The correct way to view democratic governance is through the lens of public sector and private sector. This is different than dictatorial governance which is viewed through the lens of the special ruling powers and those who threaten that power. Real world societies operates either at one of those extremes or at some wavelength between the extremes

What the US is currently dealing with is private interests trying to squash public interests, and thus become the governing force. Our society is already a hybrid of this.

Also, this 'lack of government intervention' free market stuff is misunderstood. You can't have a free market without strong government intervention. We don't really even have a free market anymore. We have a sorta free but top heavy corporate favored market. This is because government regulations have been stymied.

For anybody who thinks in terms of 'government intervention', I'll ask that you take a while and think on what our government actually does. Think about all those highways, parks, security forces, health, education, etc, think on the direct effects as well as residual and cascading effects this has, then think on private interest role here

The answer can be found in the vast majority of benefit to society being social programs and socialism, while the vast majority of benefit to private industry being usurping social engines and turning them into a pure profit engines. We've been lied to so deeply. Nearly every big industry rides on the back of R&D performed by the public, then the private takes it for themselves then eventually claims they came up with it in the first place

It's like how conservatives think they favor human rights. Historically, conservatives railed against womens rights, minority rights, labor rights, but after some of those rights become standard they claim they were always on board yet belie their own position by railing against a new set of rights. It's similar with corporations. They take something that the public either did very well or necessitate, then privatize it and say it was theirs all along.

[wufwugy]

Give me an example in a free market where someone has earned a lot of money, but has done so without the voluntary exchange of money for a good or service.

Votes or donations to Republicans, purchasing anything from Walmart, buying a gun, driving a car that runs on oil, Bernie Madoff....

Really, it's everything. I think you misunderstand my point. Yes you're right that when somebody purchases something they are expressing some level of value to it (otherwise they wouldn't buy it, right?), but my point has to do with the real value of that purchase, which is something that people don't fully know.

If every time you bought something at Walmart, you were shown a video of a 6 year old in a Chinese sweatshop, I'm pretty sure you'd rethink your purchase, as would everybody. This is one of the 'values' of the purchase, but it is proxy enough that most of us are not cognizant of it.

Also, in a real free market, it's arguable that it would be impossible to ever get mega wealthy. A free market is much different than corporatism. In a free market that cares about keeping itself fully free for all enterprise, we would see a ton of regulation that effectively redistributes power and wealth from the more successful in order to provide the same opportunity for the fresh and young.

Don't be fooled by what they tell you, US doesn't really have a free market, and in order to actually have a free market you need tons of regulations to keep it free.

If your arguing that people are manipulated to give their money to something they don't value, what do you believe is the solution to this problem?

I think it's more complicated than that

As to solving the problem despite its cause, the initial steps are already well known, well documented factors like strong education system, strong social rights, etc, and I would argue, these rights are a more accurate expression of value in the system

You might like that actually. Think about this: what is the value to our society from waste collection and disposal? Does the guy who comes to your house and dumps your trash in a truck and drives it off provide less value to you than Microsoft?

My answer is not necessarily "no", but "not really", and I believe that social and economic status should reflect that to some degree. I don't propose to go to the extreme and claim that waste disposal service should have the exact same worth as any other service or good, but that at the very least we should recognize that the value of waste disposal is enough that they deserve strong social and labor rights, and if we have to get those rights from acquiring a fraction of the surplus in other more lucrative industry, then that's how we do it. Go to the other extreme where the entire waste disposal labor force goes on strike. Imagine how much we'd all be clamoring to make it worth their while to keep working. Likewise, if Goldman Sachs went on strike I'd rejoice and tell them to go fuck themselves off a cliff

[boost]

Go to the other extreme where the entire waste disposal labor force goes on strike. Imagine how much we'd all be clamoring to make it worth their while to keep working. Likewise, if Goldman Sachs went on strike I'd rejoice and tell them to go fuck themselves off a cliff

this little bit made me chuckle.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Votes or donations to Republicans, purchasing anything from Walmart, buying a gun, driving a car that runs on oil, Bernie Madoff....

Really, it's everything. I think you misunderstand my point. Yes you're right that when somebody purchases something they are expressing some level of value to it (otherwise they wouldn't buy it, right?), but my point has to do with the real value of that purchase, which is something that people don't fully know.

If every time you bought something at Walmart, you were shown a video of a 6 year old in a Chinese sweatshop, I'm pretty sure you'd rethink your purchase, as would everybody. This is one of the 'values' of the purchase, but it is proxy enough that most of us are not cognizant of it.

Also, in a real free market, it's arguable that it would be impossible to ever get mega wealthy. A free market is much different than corporatism. In a free market that cares about keeping itself fully free for all enterprise, we would see a ton of regulation that effectively redistributes power and wealth from the more successful in order to provide the same opportunity for the fresh and young.

Don't be fooled by what they tell you, US doesn't really have a free market, and in order to actually have a free market you need tons of regulations to keep it free.

First off, explain how any of the things you mentioned are examples of people getting rich without the voluntary exchange of a good or service.

Second, I agree I think a lot of people wouldn't shop at Wal-mart if they saw videos of their exploitation of child labor. This doesn't mean Wal-mart needs to be controlled or taxed by the government. What it means is that this information needs to be made availible, which it is. If you argue that its not availible enough, I don't mind the idea that government funds should be spent on mandating much more transparency from business, possibly even creating an information wing of the government to help create this service. Although I think this could be done simply as a business and not through the government.

I agree the US doesn't have a free market, everything is very regulated, taxed, and controlled by the government. I'd like to hear a further explanation of how a free market would make it impossible for someone to get mega wealthy. Why would wealth have to be redistributed?

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
Give me an example in a free market where someone has earned a lot of money, but has done so without the voluntary exchange of money for a good or service.

Votes or donations to Republicans, purchasing anything from Walmart, buying a gun, driving a car that runs on oil, Bernie Madoff....

None of these are examples. In all cases people voluntarily exchange money for a good or service. Bernie Madoff included...

[IowaSkinsFan]

You might like that actually. Think about this: what is the value to our society from waste collection and disposal? Does the guy who comes to your house and dumps your trash in a truck and drives it off provide less value to you than Microsoft?

My answer is not necessarily "no", but "not really", and I believe that social and economic status should reflect that to some degree.

Yes, the trash truck driver provides less value than Microsoft. I'm assuming your saying the trash truck driver may be more of a necessity than Microsoft, but that doesn't mean he's more valuable. The reason trash truck drivers aren't paid as much is because there is labor competition. If people absolutely despised being a trash truck driver you would see their weekly pay go up a lot because its necessary to take out the trash and there would be less people wanting to do it.

It's necessary that I eat. Does that mean the price of food should be 100 times as much as it is? It would be if no one wanted to grow, distribute, and sell it, I'm sure that would be the case.

[wufwugy]

First off, explain how any of the things you mentioned are examples of people getting rich without the voluntary exchange of a good or service.

I sorta side stepped that in order to address the bigger picture and because it's a straw man. The only time you can't find some level of voluntary exchange for something else is when it's completely forced, but this doesn't mean that we live in a force vs choice dichotomy or anything. There's much more going on

Second, I agree I think a lot of people wouldn't shop at Wal-mart if they saw videos of their exploitation of child labor. This doesn't mean Wal-mart needs to be controlled or taxed by the government.

Actually, public sector regulation against monopolized private abuse is pretty much the final respite.

What it means is that this information needs to be made availible, which it is. If you argue that its not availible enough, I don't mind the idea that government funds should be spent on mandating much more transparency from business, possibly even creating an information wing of the government to help create this service. Although I think this could be done simply as a business and not through the government.

Yes, public sector attention to transparency is very important, but sadly, it's way too important for private industry as well as governmental corruption to keep this away, and that's why it hasn't happened nor will it any time soon.

I agree the US doesn't have a free market, everything is very regulated, taxed, and controlled by the government.

I'm not sure where you're getting this information. US regulation and taxes and 'intervention' into business are substantially lower than they have ever been, and we know for demonstrable fact that things are much better with increased regulation etc

I'd like to hear a further explanation of how a free market would make it impossible for someone to get mega wealthy. Why would wealth have to be redistributed?

I've been trying to explain this. Economics is not an open system, there is only a finite amount of wealth at any given time, and the entire systems runs based on how wealth flows. Because wealth naturally flows up, artificial redistribution is necessary for the health of the non-upper class and overall economy. This is very well documented in economic history. It's just that we don't believe it because the propaganda machines incessantly spew lies about how we need supply side trickle down, they're the job creators, and other false garbage. The evidence could not be more clear that our problems are due to too much money and power at the top, yet apparently that doesn't stop the general public from imagining that's not the problem but the solution

[wufwugy]

None of these are examples. In all cases people voluntarily exchange money for a good or service. Bernie Madoff included...

I should have worded it differently. Hope I cleared it up

[wufwugy]

Yes, the trash truck driver provides less value than Microsoft. I'm assuming your saying the trash truck driver may be more of a necessity than Microsoft, but that doesn't mean he's more valuable. The reason trash truck drivers aren't paid as much is because there is labor competition.

There's a lot of labor competition because there's a lot of poor people, there's a lot of poor people because there's too many rich people or the rich are too rich. There are many explanations, this is only one, but an important one

Do this: create a society that cares about its citizens, one where every single natural born citizen has entirely equal rights to every other. Then find how much the market for low-skill labor decreases. In fact, the market would be so small that people would end up taking the jobs mostly due to the vast increase in pay. The market would eventually reach equilibrium, and we know for a fact that this equilibrium level is substantially lower than in current US labor markets

This is assuming a truly equal society, which is nothing close to what we have now, and never will be. We think of equality as encompassing pretty much only the stigma issues we've had in the past, yet don't realize that real equality would mean things like 100% estate tax, 100% equal distribution of national wealth. I'm not claiming to be in favor of those things, but the point is that arguments for deservedness tend to ride on the back of inequality

If people absolutely despised being a trash truck driver you would see their weekly pay go up a lot because its necessary to take out the trash and there would be less people wanting to do it.

Fortunately for the lucky and the smart, people care enough about food and shelter and basic camaraderie for them to take the shit jobs when that's all there is at one point in time. In the US, this exploitation is far more apparent than in Europe. Take Europeans and drop their level of rights down to US levels, and watch as the entire labor force goes on strike. Same can be said of taking Americans and giving them those Chinese sweatshop jobs that all those Chinese people obviously value enough to take

It's necessary that I eat. Does that mean the price of food should be 100 times as much as it is? It would be if no one wanted to grow, distribute, and sell it, I'm sure that would be the case.

You're taking elaborate issues and trying to explain them in simplistic, cut and dry terms. In some areas of the world, agriculture has been subsidized to the point that it's super cheap, in other parts of the world, agriculture is so expensive that people go without dinner. There's much more going on here than just how people value things

[IowaSkinsFan]

I sorta side stepped that in order to address the bigger picture and because it's a straw man. The only time you can't find some level of voluntary exchange for something else is when it's completely forced, but this doesn't mean that we live in a force vs choice dichotomy or anything. There's much more going on

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So your saying there isn't an example but its irrelevant because there's much more going on? Like what?


Actually, public sector regulation against monopolized private abuse is pretty much the final respite.

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said.

Yes, public sector attention to transparency is very important, but sadly, it's way too important for private industry as well as governmental corruption to keep this away, and that's why it hasn't happened nor will it any time soon.

I disagree, there is tons of transparency. Is there something about Wal-mart for example that damns them that the public couldn't find out about? Information transparency doesn't have to be done publicly either, I would gladly pay, and it would likely be cheap, to get information on business I buy goods from.


I'm not sure where you're getting this information. US regulation and taxes and 'intervention' into business are substantially lower than they have ever been, and we know for demonstrable fact that things are much better with increased regulation etc

I don't really care if its lower or higher than the past. There is still tons of taxes, control, and regulation. And show me the demonstrable facts.


I've been trying to explain this. Economics is not an open system, there is only a finite amount of wealth at any given time, and the entire systems runs based on how wealth flows. Because wealth naturally flows up, artificial redistribution is necessary for the health of the non-upper class and overall economy. This is very well documented in economic history. It's just that we don't believe it because the propaganda machines incessantly spew lies about how we need supply side trickle down, they're the job creators, and other false garbage. The evidence could not be more clear that our problems are due to too much money and power at the top, yet apparently that doesn't stop the general public from imagining that's not the problem but the solution

This is absolutely not true. Economics is not a zero sum game. I don't understand this wealth flowing up thing either. Yes, people who own businesses tend to make the most money, they also take on the most risk. Most businesses fail. It's not like if you decide to "sell out" and start a business that your just going to make money because you own the means of production.

There's already a system of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It's called spending money. Most rich people, as far as I know, don't tend to hoard money. They like to spend a lot, because what in the hell else are you going to do with it.

Also, there is absolutely no way there is definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much money at the top. Nor is there definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much government intervention. There are insane amounts of variables that determine the state of the world today. To say that we know factually the strength of each variable is insane.

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So your saying there isn't an example but its irrelevant because there's much more going on? Like what?

Well, I didn't say that. I said you asked me to explain a straw man, then I alluded to the inadvertent false dichotomy of either voluntary or involuntary that you're beginning to get into. Do I really need to explain how economic activity is determined and affected by more than voluntary input?

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said.

I was pointing out the only way we know how to fight child labor abuse

I disagree, there is tons of transparency. Is there something about Wal-mart for example that damns them that the public couldn't find out about? Information transparency doesn't have to be done publicly either, I would gladly pay, and it would likely be cheap, to get information on business I buy goods from.

Transparent yet still behind the bushes. Great. The reality is that there is strong push against policy that brings abuse out to light, and they're winning

I don't really care if its lower or higher than the past. There is still tons of taxes, control, and regulation. And show me the demonstrable facts.

This paragraph is self-contradictory. You can't deny frame of reference then claim quantification on that frame of reference. And you can't ignore evidence then claim to want evidence

As far as providing the facts, you need to follow the work of people who know what they're doing. People like Stiglitz or Krugman. Here's one illustration demonstrating the role of top rate taxation and median purchasing power



This isn't my style because it's a gimmick to think you can browse an issue and easily understand it. If you want the real stuff, go watch ten hours of lectures by Warren, Krugman, Stiglitz, Wolff, and Reich. Finding the information is very easy. Understanding it or not buying the lies, is the hard part

This is absolutely not true. Economics is not a zero sum game.

I didn't use correct phrasing, I wasn't meaning to imply exact balance in economics, but that at each point in time there is a particular finite amount of wealth located in specific regions of the economy. Which is true.

I don't understand this wealth flowing up thing either. Yes, people who own businesses tend to make the most money, they also take on the most risk. Most businesses fail. It's not like if you decide to "sell out" and start a business that your just going to make money because you own the means of production.

You're misunderstanding me. Wealth flows up because of demand. The less wealth in the lower brackets, the less demand. Period. Upper wealth brackets are systemically incapable of providing the amount of demand as lower brackets

There's already a system of redistribution from the rich to the poor. It's called spending money. Most rich people, as far as I know, don't tend to hoard money. They like to spend a lot, because what in the hell else are you going to do with it.

See dude, this is just simply not true. If it was true then the wealth gap would not have been increasing for the last three decades.

Also, the rich you're talking about isn't the rich I'm talking about. It's well documented that the mega wealthy are hoarding trillions. Not to mention, the more wealth increases, the more relative spending decreases. It's individually prudent, but harmful economically when taken too far.

It's not coincidence that of the most populous nations, the strongest median classes have the most top-rate taxation, regulation, and social programs

Also, there is absolutely no way there is definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much money at the top. Nor is there definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much government intervention. There are insane amounts of variables that determine the state of the world today. To say that we know factually the strength of each variable is insane.

I'm not referring to any of that, I'm referring to the stuff for which we have the most evidence. Our best idea of our problems causes are not different than my statements. I don't make this stuff up, I mainly just reiterate the information that comes from the most qualified sources

[a500lbgorilla]

Danny wins this thread.

And although half the tea party seems like total idiots, I still think they are a good move for the republican party away from this ridiculous religious movement that went against all that a conservative stood for.

Also, there is absolutely no way there is definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much money at the top. Nor is there definitive proof that "our problems" are due to too much government intervention. There are insane amounts of variables that determine the state of the world today. To say that we know factually the strength of each variable is insane.

I like when I skim through a huge dense set of words that I know I wouldn't understand upon thorough reading and find bits I like.

N2: If the tea party could somehow create an actual fiscally conservative gov't, that'd be sweet. The more I think about it, the more I like that America should be the most fertile grounds for starting a business, because that would tend towards having the best businesses be American, and the best jobs be in America. The problem is always in execution. It's far too easy to say they'll be fiscally conservative, decide that means "I'm all about free enterprise" which justifies deficit spending and gov't subsidies of American Pharma and a staunch opposition to necessary steps towards spending less money on health care as a nation.

Whatever, I'm just rambling. I'd like to read this all later but I wanted to comment.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Wufwugy,

I will watch lectures by Warren, Krugman, Stiglitz, Wolff, and Reich. Any links you recommend?

[IowaSkinsFan]

I would also suggest that you read Atlas Shrugged if you haven't already and watch video of Milton Friedman on the economy.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Also, why do you value the middle class over everyone else?

[a500lbgorilla]

Also, why do you value the middle class over everyone else?

This question confuses me. The few and the wealthy, the many and the poor, or the sufficient and middlingly populated, pick one?

[a500lbgorilla]

Yes, the trash truck driver provides less value than Microsoft. I'm assuming your saying the trash truck driver may be more of a necessity than Microsoft, but that doesn't mean he's more valuable.

BBC News - Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study

Not making a point, merely illuminating my basis for understanding. The people who do shit work for shittier pay lift the whole world upon their shoulders.

edit I guess I am making a point but would enjoy being shown wrong.

[IowaSkinsFan]

This question confuses me. The few and the wealthy, the many and the poor, or the sufficient and middlingly populated, pick one?

Well hmmmm the point I should have made is that I don't favor one class over the other.

[IowaSkinsFan]

BBC News - Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study

Not making a point, merely illuminating my basis for understanding. The people who do shit work for shittier pay lift the whole world upon their shoulders.

edit I guess I am making a point but would enjoy being shown wrong.

I'm wondering what exactly is meant by creating wealth and destroying it?

[wufwugy]

Wufwugy,

I will watch lectures by Warren, Krugman, Stiglitz, Wolff, and Reich. Any links you recommend?

Hmm, my two favorites

FORA.tv - Richard Wolff: Capitalism Hits the Fan

YouTube - The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

I also recommend to read Paul Krugman's blog. He updates several times a day, has good prose, and periodic browsing can really benefit

Economics and Politics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

I personally enjoy Robert Reich's blog more though

Robert Reich

I would also suggest that you read Atlas Shrugged if you haven't already and watch video of Milton Friedman on the economy.

I read some material from both, but will do moreso at a later date

Also, why do you value the middle class over everyone else?

Middle class is pretty much economic vernacular for "the people" or "the working class". Middle class is supposed to be pretty much everybody with a job, and demonstrate the power of the economy based on median purchasing power. I focus on the middle class because it's the most populous class, and the health of any economy is determined primarily by the health of the middle class. In this particular economic turmoil, focusing on the middle class is even more important because that's exactly where the problems lay. We're dealing with demand crunch based on poor purchasing power, not a supply crunch like many special interests are trying to tell us

So the reasons I care about the middle class are 1) it's the people, the public, I care about people, and 2) I enjoy economics, and understanding econ requires understanding the middle class. But really, I care more about the poor than I do the middle class. By that, I mean the global poor. Not only are the super poor the most populous class in the world, they're also the ones suffering the most.

[wufwugy]

Well hmmmm the point I should have made is that I don't favor one class over the other.

I wouldn't call improving equality favoritism. Actually, I would call decreasing equality favoritism. Life is rather unfair, so we have to go out of our way if we want to decrease suffering of the unlucky

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm wondering what exactly is meant by creating wealth and destroying it?

This has been a sticking point for me as well. Talk radio keeps telling me that the rich create wealth and that gov't destroys it. I am decidedly confused on wealth entropy.

[a500lbgorilla]

FORA.tv - Richard Wolff: Capitalism Hits the Fan

Wolff's speech has a terrible intro. I was excited to stay up and watch it until his speech started.

"It's not a financial crisis."

-Alright, so what is it or why isn't it a financial crisis?

"To say it's a financial crisis is to limit it."

-Ugh...

It's everything and terrible and forever.

-Thanks, Rush.

[wufwugy]

I'm wondering what exactly is meant by creating wealth and destroying it?

Not sure exactly how they're getting their figures, but overall, wealth is characterized by a myriad of factors like market indexes, wages, economic activity. What the article is basically getting at is that the return on investment garnered from things like product-less service-less speculative banking is negative whereas real product real service activity is positive.

A whole lot of "investment" banking (speculative ponzi banking is a better phrase) doesn't really do anything real, yet its size, due to deregulating mergers and caps etc, still has a stranglehold on the entire economy. Their destruction of wealth can be viewed as creating faux wealth, siphoning real wealth into their secret vaults, then releasing the faux wealth onto the economy. Which is pretty much what happened. Creating and destroying wealth happens all the time. If i find an oil field I've created wealth, if I burn down your house I've destroyed it

[wufwugy]

Wolff's speech has a terrible intro. I was excited to stay up and watch it until his speech started.

"It's not a financial crisis."

-Alright, so what is it or why isn't it a financial crisis?

"To say it's a financial crisis is to limit it."

-Ugh...

Not sure what's terrible about that. He's right

[a500lbgorilla]

I tried to skip around to find some meat, but I just don't like him as a speaker. Anyway, I'm going to sleep.

[a500lbgorilla]

Not sure what's terrible about that. He's right

He doesn't say anything but hopes you presume he's telling you everything. It's a style to which I am adverse.

Mainly, he says "to say its a financial crisis is to limit it" but does not expand upon that. Just leaves it and moves on to painting his picture.

[wufwugy]

He doesn't say anything but hopes you presume he's telling you everything. It's a style to which I am adverse.

Mainly, he says "to say its a financial crisis is to limit it" but does not expand upon that. Just leaves it and moves on to painting his picture.

I don't really get it. The entire lecture is expanding on why it's not fundamentally financial. Maybe it was different for me since I've been over a bunch of similar material

Just watch Capitalism: A Love Story. I was surprised at how much was in that that was strikingly similar to Wolff's lecture, as well as many others I've seen.

[ensign_lee]

March to Restore Sanity anyone?

[boost]

Danny, Max- I do not agree with pretty much anything you two have said in this thread, however I really do appreciate your posts. You have forced wuf to actually flesh out the ideas he has presented and I've learned a lot from the back and forth.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Danny, Max- I do not agree with pretty much anything you two have said in this thread, however I really do appreciate your posts. You have forced wuf to actually flesh out the ideas he has presented and I've learned a lot from the back and forth.

boost,
<3 you, you want to expand on why? It would be nice to argue with someone who is not wuf for a change. Don't get me totally wrong though I'm not totally against socialist type ideas. I just believe that a lasseiz faire government would be better. And it isn't like I believe that charity is unneccessary. If the type of political system I desire was set in place it would require a very large step up in the amount of money donated to charitable organizations to take the place of governmental programs. There are tons of people who are poor, unwealthy, sick, hungry, etc. and deserving of help.

[IowaSkinsFan]

One random point: This not so hypothetical is one of the main reasons I can't support high taxes on the rich. Let's say someone creates a cure for cancer. He no doubt has spent most of his time, energy, and money researching and developing this cure. He sells it to people with cancer for a very large amount of money and becomes a billionaire. Tell me why this person does not deserve every cent of his billion dollars.

Now here's something different. Let's say there is a new movie with Miley Cyrus in it that millions of people voluntarily go and see. Because of the earnings potential of the movie, Cyrus is paid 10 million dollars for her 50 or so hours of work. Tell me why she does not deserve every cent. And also I'd like to know if it is "wrong" that she made 10 million dollars, why there is little blame in this situation on the parents, kids, and people who made her worth 10 million by buying a ticket/merchandise/whatever.

[WillburForce]

One random point: This not so hypothetical is one of the main reasons I can't support high taxes on the rich. Let's say someone creates a cure for cancer. He no doubt has spent most of his time, energy, and money researching and developing this cure. He sells it to people with cancer for a very large amount of money and becomes a billionaire. Tell me why this person does not deserve every cent of his billion dollars.

what about the people who can't afford to buy his cure?

[IowaSkinsFan]

what about the people who can't afford to buy his cure?

I would not mind if the government gave money to people who couldn't afford the cure, but I think the charitable route should be explored first.

I do have a more extreme POV on this but I'm not going to say it because I don't want to argue about it.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Wilbur, do you feel like the person who made the cure should pay taxes on his income from it?

[Renton]

One might suggest that one of the things that makes America great is that anyone can use their ingenuity and build a fortune from nothing, and that one of the reasons for that is that there is policy that alleviates financial burden from the poor and onto the rich.

[Duffryn]

I just believe that a lasseiz faire government would be better. And it isn't like I believe that charity is unneccessary. If the type of political system I desire was set in place it would require a very large step up in the amount of money donated to charitable organizations to take the place of governmental programs. There are tons of people who are poor, unwealthy, sick, hungry, etc. and deserving of help.

What you are describing is 19th century Britain complete with notions of the deserving poor. It did not work then and it would not work now.

Firstly people would not donate enough to meet the need. How do you increase the money donated to charities? Some people will never give, or give only a little, so what do you do then? Introduce compulsion, so they have to give money to these causes ....errr.... like taxes?

Provision of help would be patchy and inconsistent. All over Britain there are elementary schools marked 1848 or 1859, where the wealthy of a parish banded together in the best Victorian tradition to build a school for the local children. Marvellous, if you lived in a parish with generous wealthy people, but not so good if your local tycoons were Scrooges. So in 1870, the British Government had to act to introduce universal education because charitable provision of education was not working and the country needed a literate workforce.

The third problem is that charities have their own agendas. To use the victorian education example again, a lot of charities set up religious schoools. Too bad if you were a catholic in a Church of England parish. The Catholic Church today does a lot of charitable work, but you don't see them handing our free contraception to mothers in the Philippines with 12 children.

It is interesting that you used the words deserving of help. The Victorians definitely classed people as "undeserving poor". It may be unfair to imply that you meant that, but when private money is involved, you would certainly find that people would have strong views on who is "deserving". Sometimes those with ginger hair would find themselves denied help they needed, sometimes those who had ever played poker, and on and on.....

[Duffryn]

Wilbur, do you feel like the person who made the cure should pay taxes on his income from it?

Do you think the offspring of the person who cures cancer should inherit billions and not pay taxes on it? If you are arguing that people should keep money they have earned for themselves, then do you agree with 100% inheritance taxes?

Of course people should benefit from their hard work and talent, but its I think its right that money is taken from those who have everything a person could want and given to those in need. How does Mr "Richman" having 10 yachts help the evolution of humankind? Educating a bright kid born in a slum may in fact reap the benefit of that kid using that education to cure cancer.

It's also right that the government takes some of this money, since then the whole populace (theoretically) has a say in how it is spent. I would like to see Tom Cruise and John Travolta taxed a lot more heavily as I bet a lot of their money goes to the Church of Scientology and I would much prefer the American Government, whatever its flaws, to be spending it.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Firstly people would not donate enough to meet the need. How do you increase the money donated to charities? Some people will never give, or give only a little, so what do you do then?

When you voluntarily exchange your money for a good or service, you are sanctioning that the person you exchanged that money with has the right to do whatever the hell he wants with it. If you exchange money for a good or service with people who do not donate to charity or do not act in good will than you have helped create that, is despicable to strong of a word, state of the world.

I think the trouble I have with your argument so far is that you are assuming that the rich have gained money through illegitimate means. I think there should be laws protecting the stealing of money in many different forms so this isn't possible, which there are (and maybe need to be more of). People have a choice of where they spend their money. I don't have to shop at Wal-Mart (as an example of a general point), there are other places that I can get general supplies. I would likely have to pay more, but that is because supplies from another store would be worth more to me if I did not want the benefactors from a purchase at Wal-Mart to be rich. People claim that Wal-Mart forces local stores out of business. They don't. People who do not care about the actions of the benefactors of their voluntary exchange put local stores out of business. This is because these people, when faced with a choice to buy one of two identical goods or services, will buy the cheapest one.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Do you think the offspring of the person who cures cancer should inherit billions and not pay taxes on it? If you are arguing that people should keep money they have earned for themselves, then do you agree with 100% inheritance taxes?

Of course people should benefit from their hard work and talent, but its I think its right that money is taken from those who have everything a person could want and given to those in need. How does Mr "Richman" having 10 yachts help the evolution of humankind? Educating a bright kid born in a slum may in fact reap the benefit of that kid using that education to cure cancer.

It's also right that the government takes some of this money, since then the whole populace (theoretically) has a say in how it is spent. I would like to see Tom Cruise and John Travolta taxed a lot more heavily as I bet a lot of their money goes to the Church of Scientology and I would much prefer the American Government, whatever its flaws, to be spending it.

So the whole populace should have a say on how I spend my money in your theory correct? So basically, I should cede control of my own decisions on how to spend my money to the governments approximation of what is right and good? The problem I have with this is that the government fails to spend money in this fashion, at least in terms of my values. This approximation need not take place anyways.

I'm sure you would like to see John Travolta and Tom Cruise be less rich. Unfortunately for you, you represent the tiniest percent of the human race. On the other hand, anyone who sees a John Travolta or Tom Cruise movie, whether they actually want them to be rich or not, are sanctioning TC and JT to be rich. They are buying that $9 movie ticket in exchange for their entertainment and consequently in exchange for JT and TC's decision on how to use that money. Now if you then tax JT and TC a shitload, you are taking away the responsibility of the people for their own actions. And when people are not responsible for their own actions, there is no incentive to evolve.

[WillburForce]

This is because these people, when faced with a choice to buy one of two identical goods or services, will buy the cheapest one.

I don't think this is fair or true - some people can't afford to make a choice.

I can - I buy from local butchers, local greengrocers etc, only free range or organic meat, try and stick to veg grown in Enlgand and in season etc. But I have a disposable income. I choose not to shop at Asda/Walmart because I can afford not to. The poor don't really have a chioce but to buy the cheapest.

As for should the guy who found a cure for cancer be taxed? Of course, if he turns it into a business or whatever. But then I'd hope that whoever did would make it free and available to everyone.

[IowaSkinsFan]

One might suggest that one of the things that makes America great is that anyone can use their ingenuity and build a fortune from nothing, and that one of the reasons for that is that there is policy that alleviates financial burden from the poor and onto the rich.

Can you explain this further? Why does building a fortune require the alleviation of financial burden from the poor?