|
On October 25 2011 00:23 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 23:50 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 23:46 aksfjh wrote:On October 24 2011 23:05 TanGeng wrote:
*facepalm*
Hoi,
There is no argument. No one mentioned Social Darwinism until you came along. Kiarip is only backing an old post of mine with the idea that strong concern for the welfare of one's children is human nature and reinforced by evolution. Mass murder, exploitation, ... what the hell?
PS. Kiarip, A hattip to a fellow emigrant out of socialism. Concern for your children can basically be equated to the same concern you would have for close friends. It is reinforced by the social community that we developed through evolution, but has less to do with preserving our own DNA. To use it as an excuse as to pick out who has better genetics is a huge fallacy. No one has better genetics in this respect, only sociopaths/psychopaths who are deep outliars don't care about their children. I'm not talking about one's abiltiy to give their children a better life, I'm simply talking a motivation in life, liek maternal/paternal instinct, that a lot of the time makes people put the wellfare of their kids above their own wellfare. I don't see why you want to go to evolution as an reason to support people to be able to help out their children. Evolution should never be used as a reason to justify anything in society. You can use it to better understand why people are the way they are and you can use it to understand our history. In order to justify people being able to care for their children, a much better argument would be that people are happier in a society where this is possible. Brining evolution into the discussion just makes you sound like a social darwinist even if that wasn't your intent.
That's what I brought it up for. The person I originally quoted was claiming that because TangKeng believed that it's standard for parents to make sacrifices for the sake of future of their children, then he must be religious or something, because he thinks that you have only 1 life, and there's no after-life and etc. bullshit.
My point was that it's irrelevant. Our motivations to empower our children rather than ourself isnt' at all based in religion it's in our genes caused by evolution.
|
On October 25 2011 03:50 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 03:42 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 00:53 H0i wrote:On October 24 2011 23:45 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 23:39 aksfjh wrote:On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 14:34 InRaged wrote:
As a side note, people who are religious and believe in the afterlife, should have no say in the policy decisions that determine how people live their lives here on earth. Are you you serious? He's talking about providing your children with a better life? Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense... It's in our genetics to try to create a better life for our kids, because if we didn't have that trait a long time ago we would have abandoned our kids and humans wouldn't have survived. This trait is one of the driving forces of the working class, or anyone for that matter, it's part of who we are as a society, and it has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. You're just out of arguments so you're spouting garbage. There we have it folks. Social Darwinism in the flesh. Kiarip, you have just been massively discredited. Social Darwinism is a farce created to pretty much crap on anybody who isn't in the "1%." I don't care how lightly you worded it or suggested it, you just basically labeled that those in the lower class are born inferior and must go through some "evolution" through generations of proving themselves. I'm simply stating the obvious that most of those in the "99%" would probably prefer to be in the "1%" and they're not... that's all. I'm not making a conclusion of whether it's because they're not as good, or not as lucky, or whether it's because they don't believe in santa clause... I'm just stating the premises of what is normally considered social darwinism, not its consequences. This might be obvious for you from your selfish greedy point of view, but it's nothing like that. Have you even talked with some of the people in the movement? They don't want to be in the 1%! They want fairness for everyone, they don't want to live in a world where billions suffer because a few people have nearly all the wealth! They're not protesting because they want to be in the 1%, they're protesting because the 1% is ruining it for everyone. They're not protesting mainly because they can't afford student loans or things like that... they're not just protesting because they individually feel they need to, they're doing this for everyone! Ok, the point is they want more stuff than they currently have... How's that? I guess I misphrased it, the entire problem with the 99% vs 1% thing is that if you remove the top 1% there's just going to be another top 1%, maybe they don't necessarily want to be part of the 1% for the sake of having mroe stuff than the other 99% of the people, but they just want more stuff in general. And by redistributing stuff and reducing inequality, more people can have more stuff while a few at the top will have less. The problem isn't that the top 1% have more than the rest. That is true with every distribution by definition unless it is completely even which no one is advocating. The problem is the inequality. There is enough resources to go around for everyone multiple times and still we force the people at the bottom to fight for scraps for no reason.
Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base.
|
On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 03:50 DrainX wrote:On October 25 2011 03:42 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 00:53 H0i wrote:On October 24 2011 23:45 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 23:39 aksfjh wrote:On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 14:34 InRaged wrote:
As a side note, people who are religious and believe in the afterlife, should have no say in the policy decisions that determine how people live their lives here on earth. Are you you serious? He's talking about providing your children with a better life? Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense... It's in our genetics to try to create a better life for our kids, because if we didn't have that trait a long time ago we would have abandoned our kids and humans wouldn't have survived. This trait is one of the driving forces of the working class, or anyone for that matter, it's part of who we are as a society, and it has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. You're just out of arguments so you're spouting garbage. There we have it folks. Social Darwinism in the flesh. Kiarip, you have just been massively discredited. Social Darwinism is a farce created to pretty much crap on anybody who isn't in the "1%." I don't care how lightly you worded it or suggested it, you just basically labeled that those in the lower class are born inferior and must go through some "evolution" through generations of proving themselves. I'm simply stating the obvious that most of those in the "99%" would probably prefer to be in the "1%" and they're not... that's all. I'm not making a conclusion of whether it's because they're not as good, or not as lucky, or whether it's because they don't believe in santa clause... I'm just stating the premises of what is normally considered social darwinism, not its consequences. This might be obvious for you from your selfish greedy point of view, but it's nothing like that. Have you even talked with some of the people in the movement? They don't want to be in the 1%! They want fairness for everyone, they don't want to live in a world where billions suffer because a few people have nearly all the wealth! They're not protesting because they want to be in the 1%, they're protesting because the 1% is ruining it for everyone. They're not protesting mainly because they can't afford student loans or things like that... they're not just protesting because they individually feel they need to, they're doing this for everyone! Ok, the point is they want more stuff than they currently have... How's that? I guess I misphrased it, the entire problem with the 99% vs 1% thing is that if you remove the top 1% there's just going to be another top 1%, maybe they don't necessarily want to be part of the 1% for the sake of having mroe stuff than the other 99% of the people, but they just want more stuff in general. And by redistributing stuff and reducing inequality, more people can have more stuff while a few at the top will have less. The problem isn't that the top 1% have more than the rest. That is true with every distribution by definition unless it is completely even which no one is advocating. The problem is the inequality. There is enough resources to go around for everyone multiple times and still we force the people at the bottom to fight for scraps for no reason. Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base.
Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index
|
On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 03:50 DrainX wrote:On October 25 2011 03:42 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 00:53 H0i wrote:On October 24 2011 23:45 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 23:39 aksfjh wrote:On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 14:34 InRaged wrote:
As a side note, people who are religious and believe in the afterlife, should have no say in the policy decisions that determine how people live their lives here on earth. Are you you serious? He's talking about providing your children with a better life? Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense... It's in our genetics to try to create a better life for our kids, because if we didn't have that trait a long time ago we would have abandoned our kids and humans wouldn't have survived. This trait is one of the driving forces of the working class, or anyone for that matter, it's part of who we are as a society, and it has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. You're just out of arguments so you're spouting garbage. There we have it folks. Social Darwinism in the flesh. Kiarip, you have just been massively discredited. Social Darwinism is a farce created to pretty much crap on anybody who isn't in the "1%." I don't care how lightly you worded it or suggested it, you just basically labeled that those in the lower class are born inferior and must go through some "evolution" through generations of proving themselves. I'm simply stating the obvious that most of those in the "99%" would probably prefer to be in the "1%" and they're not... that's all. I'm not making a conclusion of whether it's because they're not as good, or not as lucky, or whether it's because they don't believe in santa clause... I'm just stating the premises of what is normally considered social darwinism, not its consequences. This might be obvious for you from your selfish greedy point of view, but it's nothing like that. Have you even talked with some of the people in the movement? They don't want to be in the 1%! They want fairness for everyone, they don't want to live in a world where billions suffer because a few people have nearly all the wealth! They're not protesting because they want to be in the 1%, they're protesting because the 1% is ruining it for everyone. They're not protesting mainly because they can't afford student loans or things like that... they're not just protesting because they individually feel they need to, they're doing this for everyone! Ok, the point is they want more stuff than they currently have... How's that? I guess I misphrased it, the entire problem with the 99% vs 1% thing is that if you remove the top 1% there's just going to be another top 1%, maybe they don't necessarily want to be part of the 1% for the sake of having mroe stuff than the other 99% of the people, but they just want more stuff in general. And by redistributing stuff and reducing inequality, more people can have more stuff while a few at the top will have less. The problem isn't that the top 1% have more than the rest. That is true with every distribution by definition unless it is completely even which no one is advocating. The problem is the inequality. There is enough resources to go around for everyone multiple times and still we force the people at the bottom to fight for scraps for no reason. Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base. Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index
You guys have high taxes but very small amount of government interference in the market,which is good, but I'm not sure how that could be achieved in the US.
I agree that capitalism creates inequality, but I also think that on a whole real capitalism uplifts the standard of living. In true free market innovators can be reworded immensely, but they are only rewarded by the customers' money, which means that the customers were willing to buy their product, so when someone creates a product that everyone wants, yes he can be come absurdly rich from it, but overall the society has become wealthier, because now the people can get this new thing that they couldn't get before, and if that thing makes some items obsolete, then the prices on them drops and more people can afford those if the new one is too expensive, so on a whole more people get access to more stuff.
|
On October 25 2011 00:58 Fleebenworth wrote:
It's amazing how many people seem incapable of understanding that the the political and economic system has been corrupted by plutocrats and oligarchs to serve their own desires, no matter how greedy, destructive, or short-sighted they are, and that is what these protests are about in some form or other.
Im surprised that the AE911Truth (google it) movement that is embedded in each and every one of these packs has gotten zero mention on every single major news network. well actually im not surprised because if you find out about that organization (architects and engineers for 911 truth) they are demanding a new investigation of the 3 towers. basically 1600 + architects, engineers, physicists, scientists, explosives experts, etc have reviewed the evidence, tested the dust samples, etc and come to the conclusion that the 3 towers were taken down with explosives.
obviously if AE911truth conclusions hold true (evidence is overwhelming in their favor) your statement above holds very true. And this is exactly what these occupy movements mean to me; "the 99% are watching".
|
On October 25 2011 00:12 BioNova wrote:David Frum speaking about Paul Krugman and what we need to fix the problem. I'm not in agreement. Show nested quote +Few economists have been more correct about the economic crisis of the last several years than the proudly liberal Paul Krugman.
Krugman spotted the "liquidity trap" early on (since the problem with the economy was too much debt, cutting rates and creating easier money would not get us out of it).
Krugman shot down the hyperventilation about a coming hyper-inflation, arguing that the global labor glut would prevent easy credit from inflating wages.
Krugman quickly pronounced the Obama Administration's stimulus as far too small and said it would not get the job done.
Krugman scoffed at the idea that interest rates were about to skyrocket as our creditors decided en masse that we were so fiscally irresponsible that they couldn't possibly lend us any more money.
Krugman has been wrong about some things, but he has been right on all those counts.
Recently, Krugman has denounced the "austerity" push of the GOP, arguing that tackling our debt and deficit problem right now with spending cuts is the worst move we can make. Such cuts, Krugman argues, will put more people out of work and shrink the economy. And this, in turn, will increase, not decrease, the deficit.
Krugman thinks we should tackle the debt and deficit problem later, when the economy is on more solid footing. He points to record-low interest rates as a sign that the world is still willing to lend us as much money as we want, practically for nothing. And he argues that, instead of cutting back, we should be using that money to build infrastructure, strengthen the economy, and put more Americans back to work
Source
I fully expected the link to be from The Onion, not Business Insider. On further searching, Frum's actual article reads like something from ThinkProgress.
+ Show Spoiler +On October 25 2011 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +PORTLAND — Occupy Maine protesters say Sunday morning's attack with a chemical explosive has left them with a mixture of anxiety and resolve.
"We are more motivated to keep doing what we're doing," said Stephanie Wilburn, of Portland, who was sitting near where the chemical mixture in a Gatorade bottle was tossed at 4 a.m. Sunday. "They have heard us and we're making a difference."
Wilburn said she was startled and briefly lost hearing in her left ear when the device exploded beneath a table about 10 feet away. Wilburn's hearing returned and police said no injuries were reported.
Portland police Sgt. Glen McGary said the bomb was thrown into the camp’s kitchen, a tarped area where food is cooked and served. Protest organizers said the explosion lifted a large table about a foot off the ground.
"There was no fire . . . We had a good 20 feet of thick smoke rolling out from under the table," Wilburn said. They could see the "G" on the 24-ounce bottle and its orange cap, as well as bits of silver metal, she said. Source
What a stupid thing to do. If scary. At least it wasn't gunshots.
|
For what it's worth, Occupy Denver had about 30-40 people this morning camped across the street from the park where they previously were. The first serious snow and cold weather is expected to hit Wednesday, so we'll see how long their presence lasts.
|
i've been to occupy LA and SD. The hospitality and food were great...
|
Calgary25963 Posts
Occupy Calgary was a hillarious joke 
|
Speaking of hilarious jokes and the Onion. I wish this was from the Onion, but it's not sadly
The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.
Source
Well, I'm sure they are just playing around, ya know!
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:
Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base. Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index
Scandinavia countries have populations the size of New Jersey.
|
^ and no real government oversight of the economy.
|
On October 25 2011 06:00 BioNova wrote:Speaking of hilarious jokes and the Onion. I wish this was from the Onion, but it's not sadly Show nested quote +The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn. SourceWell, I'm sure they are just playing around, ya know!
this is the biggest joke i have ever heard. A "global public authority" and "central world bank" is exactly what the elite 1% are striving for, this is their mission, to say this is what the Occupy Wall street movement wants is a farce. Who is going to be this global public authority? guess who.. the United States... and the central world bank? it would be controlled by a select few to manipulate the markets and governments to its benefit worsening the divide between rich and poor.
|
On October 25 2011 04:30 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 03:50 DrainX wrote:On October 25 2011 03:42 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 00:53 H0i wrote:On October 24 2011 23:45 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 23:39 aksfjh wrote:On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 14:34 InRaged wrote:
As a side note, people who are religious and believe in the afterlife, should have no say in the policy decisions that determine how people live their lives here on earth. Are you you serious? He's talking about providing your children with a better life? Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense... It's in our genetics to try to create a better life for our kids, because if we didn't have that trait a long time ago we would have abandoned our kids and humans wouldn't have survived. This trait is one of the driving forces of the working class, or anyone for that matter, it's part of who we are as a society, and it has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. You're just out of arguments so you're spouting garbage. There we have it folks. Social Darwinism in the flesh. Kiarip, you have just been massively discredited. Social Darwinism is a farce created to pretty much crap on anybody who isn't in the "1%." I don't care how lightly you worded it or suggested it, you just basically labeled that those in the lower class are born inferior and must go through some "evolution" through generations of proving themselves. I'm simply stating the obvious that most of those in the "99%" would probably prefer to be in the "1%" and they're not... that's all. I'm not making a conclusion of whether it's because they're not as good, or not as lucky, or whether it's because they don't believe in santa clause... I'm just stating the premises of what is normally considered social darwinism, not its consequences. This might be obvious for you from your selfish greedy point of view, but it's nothing like that. Have you even talked with some of the people in the movement? They don't want to be in the 1%! They want fairness for everyone, they don't want to live in a world where billions suffer because a few people have nearly all the wealth! They're not protesting because they want to be in the 1%, they're protesting because the 1% is ruining it for everyone. They're not protesting mainly because they can't afford student loans or things like that... they're not just protesting because they individually feel they need to, they're doing this for everyone! Ok, the point is they want more stuff than they currently have... How's that? I guess I misphrased it, the entire problem with the 99% vs 1% thing is that if you remove the top 1% there's just going to be another top 1%, maybe they don't necessarily want to be part of the 1% for the sake of having mroe stuff than the other 99% of the people, but they just want more stuff in general. And by redistributing stuff and reducing inequality, more people can have more stuff while a few at the top will have less. The problem isn't that the top 1% have more than the rest. That is true with every distribution by definition unless it is completely even which no one is advocating. The problem is the inequality. There is enough resources to go around for everyone multiple times and still we force the people at the bottom to fight for scraps for no reason. Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base. Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index You guys have high taxes but very small amount of government interference in the market,which is good, but I'm not sure how that could be achieved in the US. I agree that capitalism creates inequality, but I also think that on a whole real capitalism uplifts the standard of living. In true free market innovators can be reworded immensely, but they are only rewarded by the customers' money, which means that the customers were willing to buy their product, so when someone creates a product that everyone wants, yes he can be come absurdly rich from it, but overall the society has become wealthier, because now the people can get this new thing that they couldn't get before, and if that thing makes some items obsolete, then the prices on them drops and more people can afford those if the new one is too expensive, so on a whole more people get access to more stuff.
I never accused him of wanting to provide for his children because he was religious. I just said that ALL of his views are tainted by his religiosity and crazy beliefs about god and the afterlife. Also I was right. He is religious.
Capitalism only raises the mean standard of living when it can leech cheap labor from the rest of the world. While it appears that capitalism made the United States a great superpower, that is only possible when the United States can pay people in other countries poverty wages to make products that the United States could then sell to its own population and back to the rest of the world. It also helps that the United States had accumulated much of the world's capital, and as we all know, capital begets more capital, at the expense of everyone else.
Growing inequality also means that the median standard of living hasn't budged in a generation. Capitalism is fundamentally broken because only the rich have the capital to really finance these new ideas and get them to market. We are basically consuming electronics and toys that the rich are providing for us as a way to suck up more of our capital, ensure we are enslaved to them by debt, and to keep us placated.
Since the vast vast majority of the planet doesn't have access to the necessary educational resources, let alone, enough capital to make their ideas into reality, the vast majority of brains on this planet, and consequently, those brains' innovative solution to vexing problems never see the light of day. So millions or billions of ideas are never coming to fruition, and you claim that Capitalism is the best way to improve humanity's lot. It's the best system there is. Can't get any better. Survival of the fittest.
|
On October 25 2011 05:49 Chill wrote:Occupy Calgary was a hillarious joke
I would think that's because even a dropout there could work in the oil sands, right?
|
Speaking of hilarious jokes and the Onion. I wish this was from the Onion, but it's not sadly
The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.
Source
Well, I'm sure they are just playing around, ya know!
The Bishops of Rome have always been a power-hungry lot.
|
On October 25 2011 08:11 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:
Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base. Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index Scandinavia countries have populations the size of New Jersey.
So?
|
On October 25 2011 08:12 Kiarip wrote:
^ and no real government oversight of the economy.
In some areas that is true, in others not so much.
A-kasser (a subpart of unions and then again not really), responsible for paying members without a job have been slightly annoyed by the bureaucracy. The total laws in place for them are about 23,675 pages in total. They are working on having it published to get attention to the bureaucracy and hoping to make it into Guiness Book of Records.
So claiming no real government oversight as a blanket statement is not entirely true for all aspects. 
However it is true that the regulations in most fields of the economy are relatively smooth and primarily based on having hands-on cooperations with authorities as opposed to decretes and other specific top-down regulations.
If you are arguing free market as no interference between government and companies you would be thoroughly mistaken.
Edit: Clarification
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 25 2011 08:52 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 08:11 TanGeng wrote:On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index Scandinavia countries have populations the size of New Jersey. So?
Depends on whether you think it'd a good idea to pool your government resources with countries such as Greece and Italy. Or if you think it'll be a good idea to allow Germany's 80 million to constantly out vote yours. Or if you think politicians would be as responsive to the people's voice when it's diluted by 300 million instead of 8 million.
|
On October 25 2011 04:30 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 03:50 DrainX wrote:On October 25 2011 03:42 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 00:53 H0i wrote:On October 24 2011 23:45 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 23:39 aksfjh wrote:On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote:On October 24 2011 14:34 InRaged wrote:
As a side note, people who are religious and believe in the afterlife, should have no say in the policy decisions that determine how people live their lives here on earth. Are you you serious? He's talking about providing your children with a better life? Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense... It's in our genetics to try to create a better life for our kids, because if we didn't have that trait a long time ago we would have abandoned our kids and humans wouldn't have survived. This trait is one of the driving forces of the working class, or anyone for that matter, it's part of who we are as a society, and it has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. You're just out of arguments so you're spouting garbage. There we have it folks. Social Darwinism in the flesh. Kiarip, you have just been massively discredited. Social Darwinism is a farce created to pretty much crap on anybody who isn't in the "1%." I don't care how lightly you worded it or suggested it, you just basically labeled that those in the lower class are born inferior and must go through some "evolution" through generations of proving themselves. I'm simply stating the obvious that most of those in the "99%" would probably prefer to be in the "1%" and they're not... that's all. I'm not making a conclusion of whether it's because they're not as good, or not as lucky, or whether it's because they don't believe in santa clause... I'm just stating the premises of what is normally considered social darwinism, not its consequences. This might be obvious for you from your selfish greedy point of view, but it's nothing like that. Have you even talked with some of the people in the movement? They don't want to be in the 1%! They want fairness for everyone, they don't want to live in a world where billions suffer because a few people have nearly all the wealth! They're not protesting because they want to be in the 1%, they're protesting because the 1% is ruining it for everyone. They're not protesting mainly because they can't afford student loans or things like that... they're not just protesting because they individually feel they need to, they're doing this for everyone! Ok, the point is they want more stuff than they currently have... How's that? I guess I misphrased it, the entire problem with the 99% vs 1% thing is that if you remove the top 1% there's just going to be another top 1%, maybe they don't necessarily want to be part of the 1% for the sake of having mroe stuff than the other 99% of the people, but they just want more stuff in general. And by redistributing stuff and reducing inequality, more people can have more stuff while a few at the top will have less. The problem isn't that the top 1% have more than the rest. That is true with every distribution by definition unless it is completely even which no one is advocating. The problem is the inequality. There is enough resources to go around for everyone multiple times and still we force the people at the bottom to fight for scraps for no reason. Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base. Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index You guys have high taxes but very small amount of government interference in the market,which is good, but I'm not sure how that could be achieved in the US. I agree that capitalism creates inequality, but I also think that on a whole real capitalism uplifts the standard of living. In true free market innovators can be reworded immensely, but they are only rewarded by the customers' money, which means that the customers were willing to buy their product, so when someone creates a product that everyone wants, yes he can be come absurdly rich from it, but overall the society has become wealthier, because now the people can get this new thing that they couldn't get before, and if that thing makes some items obsolete, then the prices on them drops and more people can afford those if the new one is too expensive, so on a whole more people get access to more stuff.
You're making two large assumptions which are often made by people who argue for free markets.
1. That people are only creative in order to aquire more capital.
2. That innovation is always rewarded in a capitalist system.
Both of these assumptions might be correct, but they are assumptions and it would behove any armchair philosopher to recognise that.
My own view is that they are over simplifications which are partially correct. Replace "only" and "always" with "sometimes" and the questions that arise are interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
