|
|
On November 08 2012 06:38 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:30 ControlMonkey wrote:On November 08 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:This sounds promising... hopefully not just hot air.
House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.
"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."
Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.
"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term.
link Lets hope the Dems can agree to some serious spending cuts, or the Republicans in the house will go feral. Government spending historically have been the most effective economy stimulant, since it directly inject money into circulation. Problem is with all the debt it's pretty handcuffed...
True, but my point is more political. If the Democrats don't give the Republicans something to work with, they will likely walk away from negotiations and jump right off the fiscal cliff.
|
On November 08 2012 06:55 oneofthem wrote:
because it portrays a poor understanding of what genetic modification does. if it is not safe, then you should be able to show legit badness about the food that can get it removed from market without resorting to misleading labeling
this is like labeling food by the month they are produced because half the population is astrologists fearful of crops harvested in july or something.
edit: yea monsato shits on farmers, but that's no reason to stigmatize a valuable technology.
but then again would that really be a problem? I guess the other way around should work fine.
If you don't believe in food that grew during december to be evil (just an example following your phrase :p ) be my guest to buy whatever kind of food you want.
If you believe it is bad who's to tell me I'm not allowed to specifically pick jan-nov food instead. If there's people who want to buy that kind of stuff it's probably worth printing "not grown during december" on that thing and selling it that way. So just stay away from things that don't have that sticker on it. If it's not worth it, problem solves as well.
|
On November 08 2012 06:58 TwoPac wrote:
I'll give you my analysis of what happened in the 2012 Presidential election. This is a foundational analysis, not getting into the nitty gritty. I'm not going to discuss debate performances, celebrity endorsements, etc. I want to tell you what is the very root problem of why our country is almost evenly divided. I also want to tell you how we fix it.
Our foundational problem is one of philosophy. Our national debate has become one that is between two fundamentally diametrically opposed philosophies. You cannot hold one position while holding the other. This is why we are so divided and why people on both sides see the other in such a negative light.
The battle for our nation's soul is the battle between Capitalism and Collectivism (or Socialism, Communism, or other relative synonyms). One side believes in free markets, the other in controlled markets. One believes in individual rights, the other in group rights. One believes in personal charity, the other in government charity. One believes in smaller government, the other in bigger government. One believes in lower taxes, the other in higher taxes.
This isn't just a practical problem. It is a philosophical problem. Both sides don't just believe they simply have a better way. They think they are RIGHT. And, indeed, one is right and the other wrong (I know some of you fluffy, everybody can be right, there is no absolute truth folks will have a hard time getting your brain around that one).
America was built on Capitalism. We are the greatest example of Capitalism the world has ever seen. And it is our commitment to Capitalism and personal freedom that brought about what people the world over now affectionately call, "The American Dream." If every country in the world opened their borders, the earth would tilt off its axis from people coming to America) It is our commitment to Capitalism that drove almost every major act of progress of the 20th century. It is our dedication to Capitalism, Democracy and Freedom that literally saved hundreds of millions of lives as America stepped up to save the world from tyranny. America was the place people longed to come to be free and to have an unlimited future, as bright as they can dream of and as hard as they will work for. If we continue down the path we are on, they will be able to just go to Europe.
Now we stand at the edge of our destiny. Will we return to our roots of Capitalism, or will we jump headlong into Socialism? This election was as clear a choice as we have ever been given. Obama himself said regularly on the campaign trail that we face a fundamentally different choice. Indeed.
So how did Obama get elected? I believe it lies in three kinds of people who voted for him. Two of them we can't do anything about. One of which we can change if we do it right.
The three kinds of people who voted for Obama.
The first are the Collectivists/Communists/Socialists. These are the people who actually admit it. They are the true believers. I have a few friends like this. One is a successful guy who grew up going to Black Panther meetings. He was a Dennis Kucinich guy who switched to Obama because he wanted to win. If your fundamental philosophy is Collectivism, you vote for Obama. His whole history is wrought with involvement with Marxists and Communists. He admits to believing in redistribution (ie, he wants to take your stuff and give it t someone else). He was endorsed by the Communist Party USA!
The second group are what I call the Kardashian Nation. These are just the dumb people who wake up one day and vote for the "cool" guy. These are the people Jay Leno has on his "Jay Walking" segment. These are the people Jon Stewart showed on college campuses who can name every Lady GaGa song, but not the Vice-President (the irony of these campus liberals is that they go to school in wings built by donations from Capitalist Alumni). These are the "Obama gave me a phone" people. When I was in Russia in August, 2008, giving a three day seminar on how to lead a successful life, the Russian people kept asking me what I thought of Obama. On the last day I told them: "The Democrats finally found their pretty face." They finally found a guy who could pitch Socialism in a "cool" way. To people who don't know the issues, he was their guy.
But the third group. This is the most confusing group. They are the ones who gave Obama the election. They are the ones I believe can still be reached. They are the "Live One Way, Vote Another," group. They are the folks who are the backbone of society, not living on the dole. They are Capitalists in their own lives but can be swayed to vote Socialist. They are swayed by any number of reasons: Emotion, pity for the poor, guilt, they too like the cool guy, a lack of understanding of the candidate etc. For example, I have a friend who is a Capitalist. She owns a successful business. She told me that she just "felt" like she should vote for Obama. I offered to take her and her husband to 2016 the movie so she could see behind the curtain. I offered to pay for dinner beforehand, the movie tickets, popcorn, and drinks afterward to discuss. I wanted her to get a better understanding of how the person she was voting for would hurt her business with his policies. She wouldn't take me up on it.
I believe this group can be reached however. Our job as Capitalists is to educate. We need to make sure that we show them how the way they live their personal lives can be supported by a candidate rather than destroyed by one. Capitalism and private property are issues even little children understand. We saw videos this past Halloween of people making the point by taking candy from one kid and giving it to the other and the kids screamed bloody murder! "You can't take my candy and give it to him!" Yet, well-meaning adults vote for politicians who want nothing more than to confiscate their wealth, the fruit of their labor, and give it to someone else in order to secure a voting bloc that will keep them in power.
So, what must we do? Educate. Talk to your friends. Talk about Capitalism. Use basic examples. Talk to them about Capitalism and how it affects their lives in how they vote.
Some people have accused me of having a bad attitude or having given up. Neither could be further from the truth. It isn't a bad attitude to recognize reality. I still believe in the American Dream. I know I control my own destiny, and you do too. I have a fantastic attitude. I love life. People who are around me know that I love to laugh and have a good time. But I also know that voting matters and politicians can confiscate our success.
I have not given up. I never will. I have 50% of the electorate that stands with me. Together we must take the next four years to reach those who live and think like us, but who vote against their own self-interest and the interest of our country's future.
My challenge to you (and to myself): Work hard. Build your business to the best of your ability. Keep the faith. Pray for our country. Be a proud Capitalist. Educate others. Get involved to a greater degree. We have another shot with House and Senate seats in two years. And another shot at the Presidency in four years. We can still save our country.
Nice try, Atlas Shrugged.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=41380
Next time, use your own words!
|
On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death.
I disagree. It just rephrases the question as money instead of services. Right now we stress service welfare. A Negative Income Tax is just changing it from services to actual money.
If poor people are smart with money, a NIT would be far better. A services welfare is basically a statement of "you're too stupid to know what to do if we gave you real money."
|
I love how some people actually think that the Democrat position is communist. Are you going to argue in your next post that Keynes wasn't a capitalist?
edit: lol, copypaste
|
On November 08 2012 07:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. No, it doesn't. Show nested quote +[This essay is from Hazlitt's book Man vs. The Welfare State (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969, pp 84–100; available in PDF). It is an early critique of a proposal made by Milton Friedman that later came to be proposed by Richard Nixon and a version enshrined into law as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now the largest cash transfer program for low-income people. It is relatively specific, and particularly old. If you think contemporary economic ideas can be wholly dismissed or supported using decades old source material, well, I guess mises.org is the place for you!
Keynesian and NeoKeynesian economic policies have left us 18 trillion dollars in debt, just like Austrian economics says they will and should. Age of an idea and applicability to society is not an exlusively inverse relationship.
|
On November 08 2012 06:59 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:55 oneofthem wrote:
because it portrays a poor understanding of what genetic modification does. if it is not safe, then you should be able to show legit badness about the food that can get it removed from market without resorting to misleading labeling
this is like labeling food by the month they are produced because half the population is astrologists fearful of crops harvested in july or something.
edit: yea monsato shits on farmers, but that's no reason to stigmatize a valuable technology. It is not a misleading label. If it's a GMO then it's a GMO. Whether it is stigmatized or not is up to the public's perception of the product. If, at the moment, they believe GMOs are unsafe (which I don't) then they have the right to know what they're putting into their bodies and opt for alternative sources of food. But whether it's safe or not is truly not the issue here. Having a 'stigma' is not the fault of a label.
Yes treat it similar to caffeine labeling, the only issue is the cost of campaigning to change the narrative, companies didn't give two shits over public perception of gmo because there was nothing to worry about, takes years of approval to commercially produce a gmo crop esp one designed for human consumption if they can't find problem in the decade or two of research then there is probably nothing to worry about and what do you get out of it? A crop that uses less pesticides, less water etc etc an over all better crop, why give a shit about people saying they are splicing rats into plants which isn't true and if ever was true it purely be for research purposes.
|
On November 08 2012 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote:
Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California.
sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods.
... or are there!? It shouldn't have passed. The entire movement against GMOs has 0 scientific backing. For how much we democrats give crap to Republicans for being anti-science, our obsession with GMOs is really embarrassing.
So its bad to have more information? Its bad to tell someone, "there is GMO in this"? they are not saying anything crazy, just the truth...
|
On November 08 2012 06:58 TwoPac wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'll give you my analysis of what happened in the 2012 Presidential election. This is a foundational analysis, not getting into the nitty gritty. I'm not going to discuss debate performances, celebrity endorsements, etc. I want to tell you what is the very root problem of why our country is almost evenly divided. I also want to tell you how we fix it.
Our foundational problem is one of philosophy. Our national debate has become one that is between two fundamentally diametrically opposed philosophies. You cannot hold one position while holding the other. This is why we are so divided and why people on both sides see the other in such a negative light.
The battle for our nation's soul is the battle between Capitalism and Collectivism (or Socialism, Communism, or other relative synonyms). One side believes in free markets, the other in controlled markets. One believes in individual rights, the other in group rights. One believes in personal charity, the other in government charity. One believes in smaller government, the other in bigger government. One believes in lower taxes, the other in higher taxes.
This isn't just a practical problem. It is a philosophical problem. Both sides don't just believe they simply have a better way. They think they are RIGHT. And, indeed, one is right and the other wrong (I know some of you fluffy, everybody can be right, there is no absolute truth folks will have a hard time getting your brain around that one).
America was built on Capitalism. We are the greatest example of Capitalism the world has ever seen. And it is our commitment to Capitalism and personal freedom that brought about what people the world over now affectionately call, "The American Dream." If every country in the world opened their borders, the earth would tilt off its axis from people coming to America) It is our commitment to Capitalism that drove almost every major act of progress of the 20th century. It is our dedication to Capitalism, Democracy and Freedom that literally saved hundreds of millions of lives as America stepped up to save the world from tyranny. America was the place people longed to come to be free and to have an unlimited future, as bright as they can dream of and as hard as they will work for. If we continue down the path we are on, they will be able to just go to Europe.
Now we stand at the edge of our destiny. Will we return to our roots of Capitalism, or will we jump headlong into Socialism? This election was as clear a choice as we have ever been given. Obama himself said regularly on the campaign trail that we face a fundamentally different choice. Indeed.
So how did Obama get elected? I believe it lies in three kinds of people who voted for him. Two of them we can't do anything about. One of which we can change if we do it right.
The three kinds of people who voted for Obama.
The first are the Collectivists/Communists/Socialists. These are the people who actually admit it. They are the true believers. I have a few friends like this. One is a successful guy who grew up going to Black Panther meetings. He was a Dennis Kucinich guy who switched to Obama because he wanted to win. If your fundamental philosophy is Collectivism, you vote for Obama. His whole history is wrought with involvement with Marxists and Communists. He admits to believing in redistribution (ie, he wants to take your stuff and give it t someone else). He was endorsed by the Communist Party USA!
The second group are what I call the Kardashian Nation. These are just the dumb people who wake up one day and vote for the "cool" guy. These are the people Jay Leno has on his "Jay Walking" segment. These are the people Jon Stewart showed on college campuses who can name every Lady GaGa song, but not the Vice-President (the irony of these campus liberals is that they go to school in wings built by donations from Capitalist Alumni). These are the "Obama gave me a phone" people. When I was in Russia in August, 2008, giving a three day seminar on how to lead a successful life, the Russian people kept asking me what I thought of Obama. On the last day I told them: "The Democrats finally found their pretty face." They finally found a guy who could pitch Socialism in a "cool" way. To people who don't know the issues, he was their guy.
But the third group. This is the most confusing group. They are the ones who gave Obama the election. They are the ones I believe can still be reached. They are the "Live One Way, Vote Another," group. They are the folks who are the backbone of society, not living on the dole. They are Capitalists in their own lives but can be swayed to vote Socialist. They are swayed by any number of reasons: Emotion, pity for the poor, guilt, they too like the cool guy, a lack of understanding of the candidate etc. For example, I have a friend who is a Capitalist. She owns a successful business. She told me that she just "felt" like she should vote for Obama. I offered to take her and her husband to 2016 the movie so she could see behind the curtain. I offered to pay for dinner beforehand, the movie tickets, popcorn, and drinks afterward to discuss. I wanted her to get a better understanding of how the person she was voting for would hurt her business with his policies. She wouldn't take me up on it.
I believe this group can be reached however. Our job as Capitalists is to educate. We need to make sure that we show them how the way they live their personal lives can be supported by a candidate rather than destroyed by one. Capitalism and private property are issues even little children understand. We saw videos this past Halloween of people making the point by taking candy from one kid and giving it to the other and the kids screamed bloody murder! "You can't take my candy and give it to him!" Yet, well-meaning adults vote for politicians who want nothing more than to confiscate their wealth, the fruit of their labor, and give it to someone else in order to secure a voting bloc that will keep them in power.
So, what must we do? Educate. Talk to your friends. Talk about Capitalism. Use basic examples. Talk to them about Capitalism and how it affects their lives in how they vote.
Some people have accused me of having a bad attitude or having given up. Neither could be further from the truth. It isn't a bad attitude to recognize reality. I still believe in the American Dream. I know I control my own destiny, and you do too. I have a fantastic attitude. I love life. People who are around me know that I love to laugh and have a good time. But I also know that voting matters and politicians can confiscate our success.
I have not given up. I never will. I have 50% of the electorate that stands with me. Together we must take the next four years to reach those who live and think like us, but who vote against their own self-interest and the interest of our country's future.
My challenge to you (and to myself): Work hard. Build your business to the best of your ability. Keep the faith. Pray for our country. Be a proud Capitalist. Educate others. Get involved to a greater degree. We have another shot with House and Senate seats in two years. And another shot at the Presidency in four years. We can still save our country.
And those who care more about social issues than the economy? You kind of skipped them.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:04 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. I disagree. It just rephrases the question as money instead of services. Right now we stress service welfare. A Negative Income Tax is just changing it from services to actual money. If poor people are smart with money, a NIT would be far better. A services welfare is basically a statement of "you're too stupid to know what to do if we gave you real money."
If an NIT were implemented there would definitely need to be some services to help particular families to manage their finances well. I'm sorry to be mean, but there really are people who wouldn't be able to manage themselves, more specifically those from ghetto Detroit, Compton etc. and it really is not their fault they were born and raised in such volatile environments.
|
On November 08 2012 07:03 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:58 TwoPac wrote:
I'll give you my analysis of what happened in the 2012 Presidential election. This is a foundational analysis, not getting into the nitty gritty. I'm not going to discuss debate performances, celebrity endorsements, etc. I want to tell you what is the very root problem of why our country is almost evenly divided. I also want to tell you how we fix it.
Our foundational problem is one of philosophy. Our national debate has become one that is between two fundamentally diametrically opposed philosophies. You cannot hold one position while holding the other. This is why we are so divided and why people on both sides see the other in such a negative light.
The battle for our nation's soul is the battle between Capitalism and Collectivism (or Socialism, Communism, or other relative synonyms). One side believes in free markets, the other in controlled markets. One believes in individual rights, the other in group rights. One believes in personal charity, the other in government charity. One believes in smaller government, the other in bigger government. One believes in lower taxes, the other in higher taxes.
This isn't just a practical problem. It is a philosophical problem. Both sides don't just believe they simply have a better way. They think they are RIGHT. And, indeed, one is right and the other wrong (I know some of you fluffy, everybody can be right, there is no absolute truth folks will have a hard time getting your brain around that one).
America was built on Capitalism. We are the greatest example of Capitalism the world has ever seen. And it is our commitment to Capitalism and personal freedom that brought about what people the world over now affectionately call, "The American Dream." If every country in the world opened their borders, the earth would tilt off its axis from people coming to America) It is our commitment to Capitalism that drove almost every major act of progress of the 20th century. It is our dedication to Capitalism, Democracy and Freedom that literally saved hundreds of millions of lives as America stepped up to save the world from tyranny. America was the place people longed to come to be free and to have an unlimited future, as bright as they can dream of and as hard as they will work for. If we continue down the path we are on, they will be able to just go to Europe.
Now we stand at the edge of our destiny. Will we return to our roots of Capitalism, or will we jump headlong into Socialism? This election was as clear a choice as we have ever been given. Obama himself said regularly on the campaign trail that we face a fundamentally different choice. Indeed.
So how did Obama get elected? I believe it lies in three kinds of people who voted for him. Two of them we can't do anything about. One of which we can change if we do it right.
The three kinds of people who voted for Obama.
The first are the Collectivists/Communists/Socialists. These are the people who actually admit it. They are the true believers. I have a few friends like this. One is a successful guy who grew up going to Black Panther meetings. He was a Dennis Kucinich guy who switched to Obama because he wanted to win. If your fundamental philosophy is Collectivism, you vote for Obama. His whole history is wrought with involvement with Marxists and Communists. He admits to believing in redistribution (ie, he wants to take your stuff and give it t someone else). He was endorsed by the Communist Party USA!
The second group are what I call the Kardashian Nation. These are just the dumb people who wake up one day and vote for the "cool" guy. These are the people Jay Leno has on his "Jay Walking" segment. These are the people Jon Stewart showed on college campuses who can name every Lady GaGa song, but not the Vice-President (the irony of these campus liberals is that they go to school in wings built by donations from Capitalist Alumni). These are the "Obama gave me a phone" people. When I was in Russia in August, 2008, giving a three day seminar on how to lead a successful life, the Russian people kept asking me what I thought of Obama. On the last day I told them: "The Democrats finally found their pretty face." They finally found a guy who could pitch Socialism in a "cool" way. To people who don't know the issues, he was their guy.
But the third group. This is the most confusing group. They are the ones who gave Obama the election. They are the ones I believe can still be reached. They are the "Live One Way, Vote Another," group. They are the folks who are the backbone of society, not living on the dole. They are Capitalists in their own lives but can be swayed to vote Socialist. They are swayed by any number of reasons: Emotion, pity for the poor, guilt, they too like the cool guy, a lack of understanding of the candidate etc. For example, I have a friend who is a Capitalist. She owns a successful business. She told me that she just "felt" like she should vote for Obama. I offered to take her and her husband to 2016 the movie so she could see behind the curtain. I offered to pay for dinner beforehand, the movie tickets, popcorn, and drinks afterward to discuss. I wanted her to get a better understanding of how the person she was voting for would hurt her business with his policies. She wouldn't take me up on it.
I believe this group can be reached however. Our job as Capitalists is to educate. We need to make sure that we show them how the way they live their personal lives can be supported by a candidate rather than destroyed by one. Capitalism and private property are issues even little children understand. We saw videos this past Halloween of people making the point by taking candy from one kid and giving it to the other and the kids screamed bloody murder! "You can't take my candy and give it to him!" Yet, well-meaning adults vote for politicians who want nothing more than to confiscate their wealth, the fruit of their labor, and give it to someone else in order to secure a voting bloc that will keep them in power.
So, what must we do? Educate. Talk to your friends. Talk about Capitalism. Use basic examples. Talk to them about Capitalism and how it affects their lives in how they vote.
Some people have accused me of having a bad attitude or having given up. Neither could be further from the truth. It isn't a bad attitude to recognize reality. I still believe in the American Dream. I know I control my own destiny, and you do too. I have a fantastic attitude. I love life. People who are around me know that I love to laugh and have a good time. But I also know that voting matters and politicians can confiscate our success.
I have not given up. I never will. I have 50% of the electorate that stands with me. Together we must take the next four years to reach those who live and think like us, but who vote against their own self-interest and the interest of our country's future.
My challenge to you (and to myself): Work hard. Build your business to the best of your ability. Keep the faith. Pray for our country. Be a proud Capitalist. Educate others. Get involved to a greater degree. We have another shot with House and Senate seats in two years. And another shot at the Presidency in four years. We can still save our country.
Nice try, Atlas Shrugged. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=41380Next time, use your own words!
Or at least cite your sources.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death.
some issues.
1. slippery slope political pressure argument. that a little welfare will give rise to greater political thirst for welfare and by the next village we are in the USSR. no.
2. disincentive to take jobs is a legitimate issue, but the effect is quite small by most studies at least short term.
3. the main problem with incentive arguments is that it specifies a scenario that looks solid, but has no time horizon or specifics. kind of like a morality play with puppets in vacuum. policymakers have greater levity in adjusting the policy if it no longer is required, or designing it to incorporate some form of wage assistance to encourage work.
but yea, incentives are okay but anytime you can understand a complex organism within a complicated environment by one sentence, you have to be suspicious. it's an easy route to take in builidng a theory, but that's because the language of incentives is already built into you and overreliance on it leads to your study being less science and more lego park.
|
On November 08 2012 07:06 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:00 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. No, it doesn't. [This essay is from Hazlitt's book Man vs. The Welfare State (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969, pp 84–100; available in PDF). It is an early critique of a proposal made by Milton Friedman that later came to be proposed by Richard Nixon and a version enshrined into law as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now the largest cash transfer program for low-income people. It is relatively specific, and particularly old. If you think contemporary economic ideas can be wholly dismissed or supported using decades old source material, well, I guess mises.org is the place for you! Keynesian and NeoKeynesian economic policies have left us 18 trillion dollars in debt, just like Austrian economics says they will and should. Age of an idea and applicability to society is not an exlusively inverse relationship.
The meaning and impact of "debt" is incredibly temporal and it is on this crux that the argument ought to be made; saying that the sky will be blue in 30 years does not make one an astronomer.
|
The greatest irony of the link to the original is the fact that it sports a Chesterton quote in the signature. Chesterton was a great Christian for sure, an incredible man that truly gave great power and beauty to orthodoxy. And as a man that truly was an orthodox Christian, through and through, he was a champion of distributism. To even mention anything relating to Ayn Rand in relation to Chesterton at the same time is pure schizophrenic nonsense.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:02 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:55 oneofthem wrote:
because it portrays a poor understanding of what genetic modification does. if it is not safe, then you should be able to show legit badness about the food that can get it removed from market without resorting to misleading labeling
this is like labeling food by the month they are produced because half the population is astrologists fearful of crops harvested in july or something.
edit: yea monsato shits on farmers, but that's no reason to stigmatize a valuable technology. but then again would that really be a problem? I guess the other way around should work fine. If you don't believe in food that grew during december to be evil (just an example following your phrase :p ) be my guest to buy whatever kind of food you want. If you believe it is bad who's to tell me I'm not allowed to specifically pick jan-nov food instead. If there's people who want to buy that kind of stuff it's probably worth printing "not grown during december" on that thing and selling it that way. So just stay away from things that don't have that sticker on it. If it's not worth it, problem solves as well.
i think it's better to have labels like "HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP" etc.
|
United States41958 Posts
On November 08 2012 06:58 TwoPac wrote:I'll give you my analysis of what happened in the 2012 Presidential election. + Show Spoiler +This is a foundational analysis, not getting into the nitty gritty. I'm not going to discuss debate performances, celebrity endorsements, etc. I want to tell you what is the very root problem of why our country is almost evenly divided. I also want to tell you how we fix it.
Our foundational problem is one of philosophy. Our national debate has become one that is between two fundamentally diametrically opposed philosophies. You cannot hold one position while holding the other. This is why we are so divided and why people on both sides see the other in such a negative light.
The battle for our nation's soul is the battle between Capitalism and Collectivism (or Socialism, Communism, or other relative synonyms). One side believes in free markets, the other in controlled markets. One believes in individual rights, the other in group rights. One believes in personal charity, the other in government charity. One believes in smaller government, the other in bigger government. One believes in lower taxes, the other in higher taxes.
This isn't just a practical problem. It is a philosophical problem. Both sides don't just believe they simply have a better way. They think they are RIGHT. And, indeed, one is right and the other wrong (I know some of you fluffy, everybody can be right, there is no absolute truth folks will have a hard time getting your brain around that one).
America was built on Capitalism. We are the greatest example of Capitalism the world has ever seen. And it is our commitment to Capitalism and personal freedom that brought about what people the world over now affectionately call, "The American Dream." If every country in the world opened their borders, the earth would tilt off its axis from people coming to America) It is our commitment to Capitalism that drove almost every major act of progress of the 20th century. It is our dedication to Capitalism, Democracy and Freedom that literally saved hundreds of millions of lives as America stepped up to save the world from tyranny. America was the place people longed to come to be free and to have an unlimited future, as bright as they can dream of and as hard as they will work for. If we continue down the path we are on, they will be able to just go to Europe.
Now we stand at the edge of our destiny. Will we return to our roots of Capitalism, or will we jump headlong into Socialism? This election was as clear a choice as we have ever been given. Obama himself said regularly on the campaign trail that we face a fundamentally different choice. Indeed.
So how did Obama get elected? I believe it lies in three kinds of people who voted for him. Two of them we can't do anything about. One of which we can change if we do it right.
The three kinds of people who voted for Obama.
The first are the Collectivists/Communists/Socialists. These are the people who actually admit it. They are the true believers. I have a few friends like this. One is a successful guy who grew up going to Black Panther meetings. He was a Dennis Kucinich guy who switched to Obama because he wanted to win. If your fundamental philosophy is Collectivism, you vote for Obama. His whole history is wrought with involvement with Marxists and Communists. He admits to believing in redistribution (ie, he wants to take your stuff and give it t someone else). He was endorsed by the Communist Party USA!
The second group are what I call the Kardashian Nation. These are just the dumb people who wake up one day and vote for the "cool" guy. These are the people Jay Leno has on his "Jay Walking" segment. These are the people Jon Stewart showed on college campuses who can name every Lady GaGa song, but not the Vice-President (the irony of these campus liberals is that they go to school in wings built by donations from Capitalist Alumni). These are the "Obama gave me a phone" people. When I was in Russia in August, 2008, giving a three day seminar on how to lead a successful life, the Russian people kept asking me what I thought of Obama. On the last day I told them: "The Democrats finally found their pretty face." They finally found a guy who could pitch Socialism in a "cool" way. To people who don't know the issues, he was their guy.
But the third group. This is the most confusing group. They are the ones who gave Obama the election. They are the ones I believe can still be reached. They are the "Live One Way, Vote Another," group. They are the folks who are the backbone of society, not living on the dole. They are Capitalists in their own lives but can be swayed to vote Socialist. They are swayed by any number of reasons: Emotion, pity for the poor, guilt, they too like the cool guy, a lack of understanding of the candidate etc. For example, I have a friend who is a Capitalist. She owns a successful business. She told me that she just "felt" like she should vote for Obama. I offered to take her and her husband to 2016 the movie so she could see behind the curtain. I offered to pay for dinner beforehand, the movie tickets, popcorn, and drinks afterward to discuss. I wanted her to get a better understanding of how the person she was voting for would hurt her business with his policies. She wouldn't take me up on it.
I believe this group can be reached however. Our job as Capitalists is to educate. We need to make sure that we show them how the way they live their personal lives can be supported by a candidate rather than destroyed by one. Capitalism and private property are issues even little children understand. We saw videos this past Halloween of people making the point by taking candy from one kid and giving it to the other and the kids screamed bloody murder! "You can't take my candy and give it to him!" Yet, well-meaning adults vote for politicians who want nothing more than to confiscate their wealth, the fruit of their labor, and give it to someone else in order to secure a voting bloc that will keep them in power.
So, what must we do? Educate. Talk to your friends. Talk about Capitalism. Use basic examples. Talk to them about Capitalism and how it affects their lives in how they vote.
Some people have accused me of having a bad attitude or having given up. Neither could be further from the truth. It isn't a bad attitude to recognize reality. I still believe in the American Dream. I know I control my own destiny, and you do too. I have a fantastic attitude. I love life. People who are around me know that I love to laugh and have a good time. But I also know that voting matters and politicians can confiscate our success.
I have not given up. I never will. I have 50% of the electorate that stands with me. Together we must take the next four years to reach those who live and think like us, but who vote against their own self-interest and the interest of our country's future.
My challenge to you (and to myself): Work hard. Build your business to the best of your ability. Keep the faith. Pray for our country. Be a proud Capitalist. Educate others. Get involved to a greater degree. We have another shot with House and Senate seats in two years. And another shot at the Presidency in four years. We can still save our country.
There are an awful, awful lot of things wrong with your understanding of socialism. Your post was just a textbook copy and paste from a circle jerk which everyone on the other side will dismiss as such. It makes sense to you only because you do not understand the other side of the debate, nor make any effort to. But it will never convince anyone on the other side because your starting assumptions are so wildly inaccurate that the entire thing can be dismissed out of hand.
|
I'd also like thank whichever mod is updating the note at the top. Nice and informative!
|
On November 08 2012 07:04 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. I disagree. It just rephrases the question as money instead of services. Right now we stress service welfare. A Negative Income Tax is just changing it from services to actual money. If poor people are smart with money, a NIT would be far better. A services welfare is basically a statement of "you're too stupid to know what to do if we gave you real money."
It's kinda true though. For a lot of low wage earners they wouldn't know how to use that money to improve their lives (see poor vs upper class lottery winners). If the idea is to eliminate welfare and just replace it with straight cash payments I think it would be fine for those who are down on their feet and in a bad position but wouldn't be effective in breaking families which just cycle in poverty.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:02 Toadesstern wrote:On November 08 2012 06:55 oneofthem wrote:
because it portrays a poor understanding of what genetic modification does. if it is not safe, then you should be able to show legit badness about the food that can get it removed from market without resorting to misleading labeling
this is like labeling food by the month they are produced because half the population is astrologists fearful of crops harvested in july or something.
edit: yea monsato shits on farmers, but that's no reason to stigmatize a valuable technology. but then again would that really be a problem? I guess the other way around should work fine. If you don't believe in food that grew during december to be evil (just an example following your phrase :p ) be my guest to buy whatever kind of food you want. If you believe it is bad who's to tell me I'm not allowed to specifically pick jan-nov food instead. If there's people who want to buy that kind of stuff it's probably worth printing "not grown during december" on that thing and selling it that way. So just stay away from things that don't have that sticker on it. If it's not worth it, problem solves as well. i think it's better to have labels like "HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP" etc.
Don't we have labels for high fructose corn syrup?
|
On November 08 2012 07:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 07:06 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 07:00 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2012 06:56 StarStrider wrote:On November 08 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:The second thing is just an argument we've heard a million times: pure capitalism vs. the welfare state. It specifically addresses the inherent problems of this particular welfare state ideal, and soundly puts it to death. No, it doesn't. [This essay is from Hazlitt's book Man vs. The Welfare State (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969, pp 84–100; available in PDF). It is an early critique of a proposal made by Milton Friedman that later came to be proposed by Richard Nixon and a version enshrined into law as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now the largest cash transfer program for low-income people. It is relatively specific, and particularly old. If you think contemporary economic ideas can be wholly dismissed or supported using decades old source material, well, I guess mises.org is the place for you! Keynesian and NeoKeynesian economic policies have left us 18 trillion dollars in debt, just like Austrian economics says they will and should. Age of an idea and applicability to society is not an exlusively inverse relationship. The meaning and impact of "debt" is incredibly temporal and it is on this crux that the argument ought to be made; saying that the sky will be blue in 30 years does not make one an astronomer.
But saying it will be red and then watching it slowly turn red does. You're arguing that its more of a maroon or a mauve or a fuschia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
