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.
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.
I don't think that those 2 assumptions need to be true.
If you replace only, and always with sometimes, free market argument still holds.
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.
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.
Sure, Scandinavia has a higher GDP and currently a more stable economy than many of the countries in southern Europe. With the European union I think we are slowly moving to a Europe more like the one you describe. I don't see any reason why the general principle I describe wouldn't work on a larger scale though. I don't think that Scandinavia is as unique as you believe. Maybe the US or the EU both have too large a population for one government. I see no reason why, but maybe that is true. Even if that is the case, why not just move the power to a more local(state) level in the US? I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to make a similar system work over there.
Only having it working on a small scale over here doesn't disprove it's possible effectiveness at a larger scale elsewhere.
On October 24 2011 23:39 aksfjh wrote: [quote] 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.
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.
I don't think that those 2 assumptions need to be true.
If you replace only, and always with sometimes, free market argument still holds.
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
On October 24 2011 23:45 Kiarip wrote: [quote] 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.
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.
I don't think that those 2 assumptions need to be true.
If you replace only, and always with sometimes, free market argument still holds.
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.
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.
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.
I don't think that those 2 assumptions need to be true.
If you replace only, and always with sometimes, free market argument still holds.
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.
and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive.
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
I don't. I'm not saying that markets are only sometimes useful, I'm saying that yes:
1) People are not ONLY creative in pursuit of capital and 2) Innovation isn't ALWAYS rewarded in a capitalist society.
But those two things don't take away anything from capitalism.
People aren't going to all of a sudden be more innovative for the sake of things other capital, if capitalism is removed, but there will be less people that are trying to be innovative for the sake of capital,
and yes not all innovation gets rewarded in a capitalist society, only the useful ones do. In addition, sometimes people can be cheated out of their reward (even without anything illegal happening,) but this is also just as likely in a non-capitalism society.
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive? [/QUOTE] When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.[/QUOTE]
and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive. .[/QUOTE]
Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.
It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.
and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive. .
Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.
It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.
Crowding out the competition costs money, and a lot of times can even lead to the company's failure. Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped-up by the government. I understand that you're not talking about a monopoly, but if there's no monopoly, there's still competition, I find it difficult to believe that a company not supported by the government can engage in aggressively trying to destroy markets over any extended period of time, unless they're already delivering a significantly superior product... Has this ever happened?
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.
and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive. .
Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.
It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.
Crowding out the competition costs money, and a lot of times can even lead to the company's failure. Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped-up by the government. I understand that you're not talking about a monopoly, but if there's no monopoly, there's still competition, I find it difficult to believe that a company not supported by the government can engage in aggressively trying to destroy markets over any extended period of time, unless they're already delivering a significantly superior product... Has this ever happened?
Intel vs. AMD with Intel only giving PC manufacturers a good deal for CPUs, if they agree to not sell any PCs with AMD CPUs? It was about ten years ago, I think.
I couldn't find any green vs gas instances to quote from that didn't include the governments involvement. I guess that puts me back to square one, where I must admit, my statement is incorrect ...... until someone else can find what I was looking for.
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.
and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive. .
Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.
It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.
Crowding out the competition costs money, and a lot of times can even lead to the company's failure. Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped-up by the government. I understand that you're not talking about a monopoly, but if there's no monopoly, there's still competition, I find it difficult to believe that a company not supported by the government can engage in aggressively trying to destroy markets over any extended period of time, unless they're already delivering a significantly superior product... Has this ever happened?
Intel vs. AMD with Intel only giving PC manufacturers a good deal for CPUs, if they agree to not sell any PCs with AMD CPUs? It was about ten years ago, I think.
But the consumers win here, because processors cost less, so PCs cost less, so more PCs can be sold to a higher number of people right?
huh when I had first heard about this movement I dismissed it as something that would just fail but ... but that seems to not be the case?? I'm getting genuinely interested now ..
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.
and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive. .
Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.
It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.
Crowding out the competition costs money, and a lot of times can even lead to the company's failure. Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped-up by the government. I understand that you're not talking about a monopoly, but if there's no monopoly, there's still competition, I find it difficult to believe that a company not supported by the government can engage in aggressively trying to destroy markets over any extended period of time, unless they're already delivering a significantly superior product... Has this ever happened?
Intel vs. AMD with Intel only giving PC manufacturers a good deal for CPUs, if they agree to not sell any PCs with AMD CPUs? It was about ten years ago, I think.
But the consumers win here, because processors cost less, so PCs cost less, so more PCs can be sold to a higher number of people right?
This is not what happened. Without AMD, Intel would never have built the type of x86 CPUs we have now. The following processor generation after the news broke about Intel's illegal machinations, Intel's offerings were performance and price wise behind AMD's. From an outsider's view, it looked as if Intel had invested in marketing and ruining the competition rather than building the better CPU. That they actually can instead design a better processor than the competition, can be seen from what happened the last few years.
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.
and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive. .
Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.
It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.
Crowding out the competition costs money, and a lot of times can even lead to the company's failure. Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped-up by the government. I understand that you're not talking about a monopoly, but if there's no monopoly, there's still competition, I find it difficult to believe that a company not supported by the government can engage in aggressively trying to destroy markets over any extended period of time, unless they're already delivering a significantly superior product... Has this ever happened?
Intel vs. AMD with Intel only giving PC manufacturers a good deal for CPUs, if they agree to not sell any PCs with AMD CPUs? It was about ten years ago, I think.
But the consumers win here, because processors cost less, so PCs cost less, so more PCs can be sold to a higher number of people right?
This is why you are an idiot. You don't even understand how monopolies work.
On October 25 2011 09:38 TanGeng wrote: 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.
Sure, Scandinavia has a higher GDP and currently a more stable economy than many of the countries in southern Europe. With the European union I think we are slowly moving to a Europe more like the one you describe. I don't see any reason why the general principle I describe wouldn't work on a larger scale though. I don't think that Scandinavia is as unique as you believe. Maybe the US or the EU both have too large a population for one government. I see no reason why, but maybe that is true. Even if that is the case, why not just move the power to a more local(state) level in the US? I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to make a similar system work over there.
Only having it working on a small scale over here doesn't disprove it's possible effectiveness at a larger scale elsewhere.
The way I see it, you haven't put much thought into the scalability of the social welfare system or the political system. You are hoping that they will work on a larger scale without evidence. The welfare system may or may not scale well. The big challenge is scaling up the political systems, and you didn't address three basic ways it doesn't scale well and there are many more.
Even if that is the case, why not just move the power to a more local(state) level in the US? I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to make a similar system work over there.
Easier said than done.
A fair warning from the US, the EU will be a monster.
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.
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.
Amazing times we are in, and think how many people reading this thread are going to sit and think...+ Show Spoiler +
Why oh Why didn't I take the Blue Pill
I'm kind with you Tan, on the scale perspective. Those 300 million voices in America are sounding like one of those nature-loops with every known animal scream sewn together. Quite unsettling.
Occupy Wall Street needs to learn that all the profits of the Fortune Five Hundred is not enough to pay the governments bills. Their profits are 400 billion a year. That will pay for one month of government.
On October 25 2011 23:07 nukeazerg wrote: Occupy Wall Street needs to learn that all the profits of the Fortune Five Hundred is not enough to pay the governments bills. Their profits are 400 billion a year. That will pay for one month of government.
On October 25 2011 23:07 nukeazerg wrote: Occupy Wall Street needs to learn that all the profits of the Fortune Five Hundred is not enough to pay the governments bills. Their profits are 400 billion a year. That will pay for one month of government.
How is that relevant?
The point I think he was trying to make is along the lines of..
1.) Banks are troublemakers, Government Spending is the real problem. 2.) Corporations make up(byfar) the most federal income. 3.) At any tax rate, under any system, we spend too damn much to pay the rent(i know karate)(not)
Edit- To deter any tangents, I'm full aware of embeded cronyism, acutely aware. I know how much influence they have. Evidence of spineless policy decision, crappy regulations, as opposed to good regulations.
EPT
