|
On July 26 2011 20:32 shell wrote:
What many americans don't get is that without state social politics comes crime, drug abuse, big problems that cost way more to solve after then exist! That's why you have the biggest criminal population, biggest crime % in the western world, worse medical care in the western world, etc..
It's way less expensive to spend millions on food programs against obesity then to fight it later in the hospital where you will lose lives and pay up for the medical care! etc..
So actually your quality of life decreases without social policies.. That's why smaller and weaker countrys are in fact better countrys to live then USA, like sweden, denmark, norway, finland and Canada! But of course almost all EU countrys have a better life standart then in USA even if you guys have all the money!
americans value their freedom to do what the fuck they like even if it isnt good for them and creates more problems.
Thats just how it is ...
|
On July 26 2011 20:10 TheDraken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 19:42 BlackFlag wrote:On July 26 2011 19:16 Casta wrote:I want to comment on a little of your post. On July 26 2011 18:42 TheDraken wrote:
... It's ridiculous that there are high school dropouts living with the delusion that healthcare, comfortable retirement, and education are all birthrights. No human is born with the promise that someone else is obligated to keep them alive. They are luxuries earned through years of labor during a person's middle years. As we say in economics, there's no such thing as a free lunch. ...
I live in a country where healthcare, comfortable retirement and education is something granted by the state to every citizen. I like the perspective that everyone can become anything if they got the brains and not only the ones with the rich parents and a thick wallet. Also if you are poor and suffer a terrible accident you will still get patched up and get ready to contribute to society. Of course some are taking advantage of the system, but the overall gain is greater if such a thing would be measured imo. I understand that not having these safety nets guaranteed sparks a lot of people to work harder, but the ones not capable of the pressure just gets left behind and will eventually become unused potential or even criminals in a modern society. It is a human right. And before Industrialization these "services" were guaranteed by "the family" (which is much bigger than the core family.) With Industrialization these large families dissolved and the state had to implent social programs who overtook the social role "family" had before Industrialization. It's the duty of a country to guarantee welfare for everyone. If it doesn't, you can go right back in the 19th century and look how nice urban life was for the broad masses. But that's propably cool for "economists" because wage-slaves are good for "the economy" (What an abstract term, because "the economy" is everyone. It's you, me, my friends and that drug dealer across the street. "The economy" isn't something that's cut off from the rest of society. Society is build on "the economy" and vice versa.) There's a huge difference between making someone in your family pay for your "rights" and making some successful stranger pay for your "rights". If the family fails to provide the safety net for its members, it's not the job of the state to forcefully establish a surrogate "mommy" for all of those children with fail parents.
You didn't understand my post. You don't seem to care why there's even a need for social nets, but that's pretty normal for all you neo-liberals, right? No care about history (where clearly is shown what happens without business regulations and social safety nets) and no care about your fellow human being, only profitzzzzzzzz.
Also you don't seem to mind, that in our complex society NOBODY achieves something by himselve. He uses the infrastructure, which is built by others, he uses money, which is borrowed by others, he uses the working capabilites from other people, he uses ressources stolen from Africa. You don't achieve something by yourself, hard work per se, gets you nowhere. We live in this world together, and that's why people should care and "pay" for others, because they don't achieve anything alone.
But have fun in corporate America when the violence of the getthos reaches your suburb, because people don't take it anymore and poverty spreads and credits won't uphold the system. Then people will see how the country got raped since reagan.
|
On July 26 2011 20:40 BlackFlag wrote:
You didn't understand my post. You don't seem to care why there's even a need for social nets, but that's pretty normal for all you neo-liberals, right? No care about history (where clearly is shown what happens without business regulations and social safety nets) and no care about your fellow human being, only profitzzzzzzzz.
This part made me curious, what's a good historic example of what happens without business regulations and social safety nets?
|
On July 26 2011 20:47 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 20:40 BlackFlag wrote:
You didn't understand my post. You don't seem to care why there's even a need for social nets, but that's pretty normal for all you neo-liberals, right? No care about history (where clearly is shown what happens without business regulations and social safety nets) and no care about your fellow human being, only profitzzzzzzzz. This part made me curious, what's a good historic example of what happens without business regulations and social safety nets?
There's no good english wikipedia article on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Social_effects
this one's german and better http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soziale_Frage
During this time even conservative politicians realized the need for social security needs (for example bismarck).
Or just look at working conditions in third world countries. There are a million reports on this stuff.
edit: I don't want to really go into detail, but if someone wants to know, he can. In Europe you learn about that stuff in school. Also, there are many reports and novels out there who describe the situation.
|
On July 26 2011 20:36 Gaga wrote:
americans value their freedom to do what the fuck they like even if it isnt good for them and creates more problems.
Thats just how it is ...
LoL, yeah, that's why online poker is illegal in USA, cuz the people are free to do what they want.
|
On July 26 2011 20:10 TheDraken wrote:
There's a huge difference between making someone in your family pay for your "rights" and making some successful stranger pay for your "rights". If the family fails to provide the safety net for its members, it's not the job of the state to forcefully establish a surrogate "mommy" for all of those children with fail parents.
Jesus, do you have no feeling of unity with your fellow man at all? We're all the same species, the same family, the same team.
|
The main problem is the currency debasement and the fact the fiat currencies do not work. The roman empire is a great example of this the silver coins used in the roman empire went from being roughly 95% silver in 1 bc to 0.2% silver in around 300 bc. The roman government just melted down the coins and made more when ever they couldn't pay for the giant bureaucracy that the empire had become.
That is very similar to the widespread printing of cash after the GFC.
It is also that the cash only has a value according to the government a government that maybe unable to pay its debts. i read this quote the other day that summed it up nicely.
"A tree worth $100 is cut down, turned into pulp, made into paper, has ink stamped on it. It is now worth 1 million dollars." (thats probably no were near the quote but its the generall gist)
That is obviously not sustainable and with US (as well as quite a few other countries) interest rates are basically 1% or lower. That is insane.
Drastic measures need to be taken to change the system (the Romans made some drastic measures, e.g. they kinda implemented a gold standard). The debt of the US is just another part of the problem and maybe the gold standard is the answer though i am no expert. Greece will essentially default again and things in my view will go further down hill. Countries that actually produce things(minerals, manufacturing and agricultural) rather than push pieces of paper around (financial centers) will fair far better.
Or so i think =P
|
There's only one way to deal with the debt : repudiate it. There is no way to justify theft from the taxpayer to pay back for politicians being unable to control their spending.
|
On July 26 2011 21:47 BestZergOnEast wrote:
There's only one way to deal with the debt : repudiate it. There is no way to justify theft from the taxpayer to pay back for politicians being unable to control their spending.
People will almost always vote those that promise the most though. What are their politicians going to do for them? How are they going to lower their cost of living?
Its not as though politicians are terrible people, we demand constant increases in spending on infrastructure, complain about public transport, health care and all those other services then get angry when there is a huge amount of debt.
|
On July 26 2011 21:51 CmdrDashy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 21:47 BestZergOnEast wrote:
There's only one way to deal with the debt : repudiate it. There is no way to justify theft from the taxpayer to pay back for politicians being unable to control their spending. People will almost always vote those that promise the most though. What are their politicians going to do for them? How are they going to lower their cost of living? Its not as though politicians are terrible people, we demand constant increases in spending on infrastructure, complain about public transport, health care and all those other services then get angry when there is a huge amount of debt.
It would be ok if this would have happened. What really happened were deindustrialization, unnecessary wars (on drugs, on afghanistan, on iraq, on terror), and tax cuts for the super-rich.
|
On July 26 2011 21:57 BlackFlag wrote:
It would be ok if this would have happened. What really happened were deindustrialization, unnecessary wars (on drugs, on afghanistan, on iraq, on terror), and tax cuts for the super-rich.
Those factors did effect the amount of debt though it could be argued that the wars helped manufacturing PMC's. Some would also argue that the wars were necessary as well though in my mind the worst way to win some disaffected people over to your side is to invade their homelands.
The tax cuts for the rich though, trickle down economics? What a joke.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
On July 26 2011 21:57 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 21:51 CmdrDashy wrote:On July 26 2011 21:47 BestZergOnEast wrote:
There's only one way to deal with the debt : repudiate it. There is no way to justify theft from the taxpayer to pay back for politicians being unable to control their spending. People will almost always vote those that promise the most though. What are their politicians going to do for them? How are they going to lower their cost of living? Its not as though politicians are terrible people, we demand constant increases in spending on infrastructure, complain about public transport, health care and all those other services then get angry when there is a huge amount of debt. It would be ok if this would have happened. What really happened were deindustrialization, unnecessary wars (on drugs, on afghanistan, on iraq, on terror), and tax cuts for the super-rich.
Its the last bit that seems to me a good start to the solution. While there are issues with the progressive system (there was a case with my parents where my dad entered the higher bracket, and it ended up with us getting less money than before :S) it seems to work quite well. I don't know, maybe use a proportional system for income tax?
It may sound a bit harsh, but it seems stupid for people to demand extra social spendings, but start complaining when they have to be the ones who pay for it. Money doesn't grow on trees, and the government gets its money from the people, so I think its unreasonable for people to demand both.
|
Anyone who rails against tax cuts has no justification in even using the word economics.
|
On July 26 2011 22:19 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Anyone who rails against tax cuts has no justification in even using the word economics.
Infrastructure is one of the most important factors in economic growth and doesn't exist meaningfully with out governments and their taxes. To the logical conclusion of more tax cuts and no arguing against more tax cuts is that there becomes no tax at all. We could argue about pure economics or the functional economics.
Who's to say that the beneficiaries of the tax cuts would even spend the money with in a certain economy in order to boost economic growth let alone invest it at all.
How do you justify that?
|
On July 26 2011 22:04 CmdrDashy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 21:57 BlackFlag wrote:
It would be ok if this would have happened. What really happened were deindustrialization, unnecessary wars (on drugs, on afghanistan, on iraq, on terror), and tax cuts for the super-rich. Those factors did effect the amount of debt though it could be argued that the wars helped manufacturing PMC's. Some would also argue that the wars were necessary as well though in my mind the worst way to win some disaffected people over to your side is to invade their homelands. The tax cuts for the rich though, trickle down economics? What a joke.
It's actually a big problem that the military-industrial complex relies on government spending, and government relies on the jobs created by it. It's a vicious cycle.
|
On July 26 2011 22:19 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Anyone who rails against tax cuts has no justification in even using the word economics.
Anyone who is so closed minded and/or chooses to remain so against any benefit outside their immediate benefit, could never become an economist on any level other than a personal accountant.
|
The fact of the matter is economics is a science. It has been in development for well over 3000 years. Slowly but surely individuals have contributed to this science. Aristotled noted that private property was superior to public property. Aquinas worked to abolish this notion of a 'just price'. Turgot got pretty much everything right. The spanish scholastics systemized and expanded on his work. Then you have the insights of the Austrians.
You cannot just remain blindly ignorant of 3000 + years of economic theory and just think you can come up with your own ideas without first understanding and refuting these ideas.
And it's FINE to be ignorant of economics. I am ignorant on many subjects. But on these subjects I stay silent. Because it is not only foolish, it is morally reprehensible to hold and express opinions on this subject if you are ignorant because ideas have consequences and the ideas of marxism have made slaves of hundreds of millions and I will not suffer it gladly.
|
Is it actually possible to put posters on ignore? This is a serious question.
|
WHat's the matter, are your ideas not strong enough; scared of the fight?
|
On July 26 2011 20:10 TheDraken wrote:
While I see no problem with countries adopting that model if they value that, part of America's allure is its traditionally cutthroat environment. People used to come here knowing that they would be rewarded in greater degree for their hard work, accepting the fact that with increased rewards comes increased risk. Recently we've seen a push for Europeanization, but frankly if people want better safety nets, move to Europe. Let the people who don't need them continue to live in an environment where people accept the risks and benefits of greater self-reliance.
The problem is the lack of safety nets and entitlement programs reduces the reward people receive for working hard - e.g. the Industrial Revolution, where workers worked long hours in grueling jobs and got nothing for it while the means of production was centralized in the hands of owners who felt no pressure to let the wealth "trickle down," and so it didn't. And just because you're not conscious of how much you need safety nets doesn't mean you don't need them; people happily screeching "cuts only" forget that this is only possible by gutting social security, medicaid, etc.
America's current (or recent past) prosperity comes from a host of factors, among them business acumen is but one, and that business acumen was fostered by hordes of immigrants. America now remains an attractive location for big business because the levels of taxation are so low and the dominating political ideology favours big business - and fringe believers like the Tea Party are even more rabid, essentially the people who stand to lose the most from the ideology they fervently espouse - but it's delusional to believe that this ideology comes to benefit anyone who isn't obscenely, unnecessarily rich, and that a tax hike on upper brackets will cause a mass exodus of these businesspeople. It won't.
On July 26 2011 20:10 TheDraken wrote:
50 years ago a man could venture into American business and land himself into bankruptcy 2 or 3 times (and suffer for it) and yet persevere out to make himself a fortune the fourth time around. In fact, the trend of dipping in and out of poverty before making it big is a rather common theme among successful businessmen. That environment is now threatened by a push for greater and greater safety nets (where bankruptcy is an inconvenient packet of paperwork and a check in the mail), which stifles the climb up for entrepreneurs looking to make a fortune. The American Dream is dying a slow death, and we're doing it to ourselves.
How can you be nostalgic for and have such a romantic conception of a time you never experienced? Post-WW2 economic expansion was aided by social programs and safety nets, not hampered, and previous to that, for every Henry Ford you had, there were countless workers sucking dicks on trains when they complained to Henry about their missing fingers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
