|
United States7205 Posts
On October 14 2008 08:27 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2008 08:14 Jibba wrote:
This post is ridiculous. The Iran-Contra affair was extremely fucked up, especially since the US was selling weapons to BOTH SIDES of the Iran-Iraq war.
Reagan used fear more than any other US President to expand the size of government and waste money. He fucked up the "war on drugs", allowed AIDS to take off, he turned the education system into crap, and few presidents supported robber barrens as much as he did, creating tremendous hostility against the US in South America and other countries.
While it's great that the Soviet-Afghan war accelerated their downfall (which would have happened anyways), the blowback effect was fucking Al Qaeda and 9/11. Honestly, you can pin the emergence of extremist Islam and extremist Christianity on the man. How did Reagan waste money? On military? There is a reason why we are the only super power in the world, and why Europe is a wasting sack of pansy shit. The education system is already crap, and it's because we keep lowering the requirements for teachers to pass the teaching exam. We've doubled how much money is spent per student across the country, with no gain. Schools don't need money, they need to fire teachers. Schooling is a local problem.
Europe a wasting sack of pansy shit? Jesus, get the fuck out of here.
Teachers dont need to be fired, they need to be paid more. People need to not drop off their bad ass kids at school like its fucking daycare. Its hard to teach people who refuse to learn and their parents are ok with that.
You sound like the typical person who drops their kid off at school and is pissed off if they get a call about their child. Grow the fuck up.
|
On October 14 2008 09:17 Mooga wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2008 08:02 ahrara_ wrote:
as for my intelligence, there are several posters on TL who are better informed than me. i've got my ass slapped around for ignorance or getting my facts wrong many times past but i didn't respond by going apeshit and getting all defensive. you need to shape up.
ROFLCOPTER! Show nested quote +On October 01 2008 13:36 ahrara_ wrote:
Your only fucking response to my post is politics? Centralized power? Seriously man? All you're doing is speculating. You wanna tell me exactly what will happen that is so bad? You have nothing to say about the economics of the bailout? People making rash judgments based on moral and political principles is EXACTLY why I made this post, and yet you seem to ignore the economics entirely. You're completely unresponsive to my argument that the limited credit has pushed the housing market below equilibrium levels, or my assertion that investors, lenders, and buyers have imperfect information. Show nested quote +On October 01 2008 16:19 ahrara_ wrote:On October 01 2008 16:15 fight_or_flight wrote:
You are correct with what you wrote. Lets say I deposit $100 in a bank. The bank loans out $90 lets say, the maximum amount allowed. Then, whoever gets that $90 puts it back in the bank. It can then loan out $81. Then that person puts their money in the bank, and the bank then loans out again $72.9, and so on and so forth.
The way that the fed controls the money supply is by changing the interest rate. The interest rate directly controls how banks make loans, which directly controls the money supply. Thats how it works. "So simple the mind is repelled." I want to hit you. If I get a $90 loan, and put it back into the bank, don't you think that kinda fuckign defeats the purpose I mean are you deliberately stupid were you dropped on the head as a baby??!?!?! Show nested quote +On October 01 2008 16:30 ahrara_ wrote:On October 01 2008 16:20 fight_or_flight wrote:On October 01 2008 16:19 ahrara_ wrote:On October 01 2008 16:15 fight_or_flight wrote:
You are correct with what you wrote. Lets say I deposit $100 in a bank. The bank loans out $90 lets say, the maximum amount allowed. Then, whoever gets that $90 puts it back in the bank. It can then loan out $81. Then that person puts their money in the bank, and the bank then loans out again $72.9, and so on and so forth.
The way that the fed controls the money supply is by changing the interest rate. The interest rate directly controls how banks make loans, which directly controls the money supply. Thats how it works. "So simple the mind is repelled." I want to hit you. If I get a $90 loan, and put it back into the bank, don't you think that kinda fuckign defeats the purpose I mean are you deliberately stupid were you dropped on the head as a baby??!?!?! http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how banks create money site:edu&btnG=Searchedit: btw, unless you take the 10k or whatever you borrowed in cash under your bed, its probably in the banking system. You may write checks (which just transfer it to another bank), use a debit card, or whatever. Cash is a very scarce commodity, and a very small percentage of money today is in actual cash and not in the bank. INCREASING MONEY SUPPLY IS NOT PRINTING MONEY HOLY SHIT PLEASE STOP POSTING YOU ARE WRONG DEAL WITH IT Show nested quote +On October 01 2008 16:32 ahrara_ wrote:
IN ORDER FOR A BANK TO MAKE A LOAN IT HAS TO DEDUCT FROM ITS TOTAL ASSETS. THUS THERE IS A REALISTIC LIMIT TO HOW MUCH A BANK COULD LOAN. THIS KEEPS THE MONEY SUPPLY IN CHECK. THE ONLY CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER WHICH YOUR LOGIC WOULD WORK IS IF IT COULD MAGICALLY MAKE THE VALUE OF THE LOAN APPEAR AT NO COST TO ITSELF. I READ YOUR GODDAMN GOOGLE SEARCH. NEXT TIME MAKE YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS FUCK.
that was probably well deserved by yours truly. i do get heated in these debates. to my credit, i apologized to fight or flight later and we had a very constructive debate from that point on.
|
On October 14 2008 09:10 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2008 08:40 evandi wrote:On October 14 2008 08:31 aRod wrote:On October 14 2008 07:59 evandi wrote:
In reality people make decisions on what to strive for. People sacrifice time and effort to become a CEO. They sacrifice time they might otherwise spend doing something like playing Starcraft. Its a high paying job because its really hard to be qualified enough to get it.
People who innovate don't just say "whoops, that there is cool!" because
"Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% persperation"
Ambitious people work hard their entire lives forsaking a lot of things that less ambitious people pursue. They are less likely to make sacrifices if the reward is smaller. That would be hard to argue against. Here's a very simple arguement against it. Ever heard of charity? Some people work hours and hours on end for charity, but don't benefit personally at all other than say personal growth. Have you ever met one of these people who work even though they're set financially? There's no meaningful monitary reward for these people, but they continue to work. Some even donate the funds they make directly too charity so they're tax exempt! Simply put, money isn't the only motivation for work and productivity. But also, I could make an even simpler arguement against your point using your same logic. People make decisions on what they strive for (money). Ambitious people work hard their entire lives for things they pursue. Make it harder to get money and people will work harder for it, after all this is their nature to obtain what they persue. They'll have to sacrifice more to reach their goals and they may even have to lower than standards a bit. Nevertheless this will increase productivity and help the economy since they have to work more. "But also, I could make an even simpler arguement against your point using your same logic. People make decisions on what they strive for (money). Ambitious people work hard their entire lives for things they pursue. Make it harder to get money and people will work harder for it, after all this is their nature to obtain what they persue. They'll have to sacrifice more to reach their goals and they may even have to lower than standards a bit. Nevertheless this will increase productivity and help the economy since they have to work more.[" People will not as often make the choice to work harder if the reward is smaller. Do you disagree? It is not true that if you make something more difficult people are more likely to want to do it. I don't agree that people won't work as hard if the reward is smaller. Work ethic like any behavior depends on many factors I mean if I give a mouse a gigantic wad of cheese, the mouse doesn't have to run the maze again for a while. Likewize, if I give the mouse little pieces of cheese, it has to keep working and working to get the cheese. You generate more work this way. It's just as easy to argue that paying people more makes them lazy and unproductive as it is the opposite.
"I mean if I give a mouse a gigantic wad of cheese, the mouse doesn't have to run the maze again for a while. Likewize, if I give the mouse little pieces of cheese, it has to keep working and working to get the cheese. You generate more work this way."
If the mouse has a concept of ownership he won't act that way. In truth the mouse perhaps understands that you could take away the large wad of cheese at any time or that it will go bad eventually.
I think I already explained that humans can spend any amount of money. Do you agree or disagree?
"It's just as easy to argue that paying people more makes them lazy and unproductive as it is the opposite."
If you pay them more the harder they work they will obviously work harder to earn more if they want the money, and like I said, people can spend any amount of money.
"if I give the mouse little pieces of cheese, it has to keep working and working to get the cheese. You generate more work this way."
If you are talking about subsistance, then yes people will work harder and harder just to subsist.
Existence is priceless, but for people to work harder and harder for stuff they like but don't necessarily need is completely not true.
EDIT: and what I mean by this: "will obviously work harder to earn more if they want the money" is that they will work harder to earn the money if the money is worth the extra work to them. Less money for the same amount of work makes it less likely.
|
People dissing on Reagan have obviously forgotten the inflation that preceded him.
If you guys want to talk about something that makes people unhappy, look at unexpected, large, inflation.
|
On October 14 2008 08:07 FzeroXx wrote:Not really up to date, but it gets the point across. 5% of households made more than 160k in 2003. Let's just assume that number is 250k in 2008. (It isn't).. Those 5% could well pay 75% of the taxes in total because the top 1% of that 5% has more than 50% of the wealth in the US. You know what they care about? Their fifty million investment in google dropping 40% in the last year. You really think they care if they pay another $2 million in taxes so long as they have a job market that pays them 8-10 mil a year? They're in the US because of the ease of making money. The only other places you can make money like this country are in REALLY fucked up illegal activities or oil (Russia/Mid east). Edit: Found this-- Show nested quote +"While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top .01% of houseolds. One can therefore conclude that any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are relatively poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are relatively poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households."
The Y axis would have to be measured on a log scale for this graph to be interpreted correctly.
|
I'll give you the point people can spend any amount of money. You haven't addressed my point that behavior, expecially human behavior, is more complex and can't be determined by a strict reward system.
I've given arguements that sheer level or quantity of a reward (financial in this arguement) doesn't always produce more work. here's another example. If you pay someone 5 million for working their ass off for 10 years (who won't do that same level of work for anything less), but you could have paid that same guy 5 million for 20 years of work, that's less intense, but he'll still end up working more over 20 years. Why pay him that 5 million over 10 years? There are levels of tollerance people will put up with. People reach a point in their lives where money and material gains are no longer primary interests. Retirement is a perfect example. You couldn't pay some retiree's to come back to work.
I'll give myself as a complete counterexample to your arguement. I plan on donating the vast majority of the money I make to charity. I am not strictly motivated by the greed principle you base your entire arguement on. The world isn't as simplistic as more money = more work. Just admit this and get over it please god.
|
United States22883 Posts
That was largely due to more shitty foreign and economic policy in the 60s and the man who tackled inflation, Volcker, is one of Obama's advisors. It also hurt our growth and revenue at the same time.
|
On October 14 2008 08:17 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2008 08:10 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On October 14 2008 08:02 ahrara_ wrote:
I think you've simplified the idea too much. First, American is kind of an exception in regards to its economy. The comparative stability of its economy, its regulatory transparency, and the large disposable income of its people are all incentives that outweigh the cost of the tax burdens. Second, where else do you take your money? Investment in America may not be as profitable as emerging markets, but it is significantly less risky. Taxes are even higher in Europe. Third, there are costs associated with "moving" your business elsewhere that make the shift unprofitable. When you've already built a factory here to get around tariff barriers, invested millions in marketing, it's not worthwhile to move out of the country. Finally, 62.5% of the world's reserves are valued in American dollars. People view the dollar as a very safe bet, so the high demand for the dollar will fuel American investment.
P.S. Where did you get your statistic about the taxes? To be fair and reciprocal, my numbers came from the CIA world factbook. If that were true we wouldn't be outsourcing right now. And the rate of outsourcing is increasing. I don't have to move to Europe, I can move to the ghetto lands of fucking Africa if I want. Outsourcing employment has little to do with taxes. It has a lot to do with how comparatively cheap labor is in developing countries. I haven't heard of a serious trend of companies outsourcing their production for tax reasons. When an American company makes money from shoes it produced in China, it is still being taxed as much as if it had made those shoes here. But it did save a lot of money by having to pay only dirt cheap wages. The single most significant cost to any business is labor, not taxes. I'm very skeptical of your 75% number. I tried googling it but couldn't find anything.
The only thing I would add to this Ahrara, is that outsourcing has everything to do with comparative wages and relative productivity. Labor is cheaper in China but it is more productive here.
You are right that taxes play a small factor. Its all about wage and productivity.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
On October 14 2008 00:44 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2008 17:01 The Storyteller wrote:
although I do think he's (Obama) more intelligent than McCain and is better at wheeling and dealing and pushing through tough bills That almost made me lol, because Obama has never actually pushed a tough bill through congress. McCain has done a large percentage of the pushing of tough bills for the last 20 years. Maybe this goes back to the point you made about Obama being good at creating an image for himself. He can make himself look lik someone who can push through bills without ever pushing one through. He can also make himself look moderate despite being consistently more liberal compared to his fellow democrats for 3 years in a row. He's a politician's politician. We'll see what kind of an executive he is though.
I agree, he's never pushed a tough bill through. But I believe that as president he will be able to because what else are politicians' politicians good at? And as I mentioned, all he has to do is be popular, or look popular (something he's really good at doing), and the politicians will line up to be seen to be in his camp.
Plus, he's really good at spinning stuff. Like how Bill Clinton got to keep the surplus. "Pay social security first"... I'm sure Obama could come up with that kind of spin to do... well, pretty much anything he wants or needs...
|
Impossible to believe? Maybe... but true nevertheless.
West Virginia appears to be going blue
ARG reports
WV McCain 42% Obama 50% Other 3% Undecided 5%
Conclusion,
It's officially over for the McCain campaign.
|
Wow, I get out of class and I see mice and cheese and heated arguments already.
Someone posted about the War on Drugs, you can't completely fault Reagan though he had a huge influence on what's going on now and the current racial disparities in prisons. He probably did what he thought was best at the time, the adminstration's since could have seen the light but the fact is politicians and prison contractors stand to make a lot of money the cycle just keeps going round and round. Also, the three strikes laws(i.e. California) and other's that have been passed since without Regan are further adding to the catastrophic problems of the near future of dealing with the fact that we can't keep throwing people in prison for drugs. Be Tough on Crime and get elected.
|
On October 14 2008 09:55 aRod wrote:
I'll give you the point people can spend any amount of money. You haven't addressed my point that behavior, expecially human behavior, is more complex and can't be determined by a strict reward system.
I've given arguements that sheer level or quantity of a reward (financial in this arguement) doesn't always produce more work. here's another example. If you pay someone 5 million for working their ass off for 10 years (who won't do that same level of work for anything less), but you could have paid that same guy 5 million for 20 years of work, that's less intense, but he'll still end up working more over 20 years. Why pay him that 5 million over 10 years? There are levels of tollerance people will put up with. People reach a point in their lives where money and material gains are no longer primary interests. Retirement is a perfect example. You couldn't pay some retiree's to come back to work.
I'll give myself as a complete counterexample to your arguement. I plan on donating the vast majority of the money I make to charity. I am not strictly motivated by the greed principle you base your entire arguement on. The world isn't as simplistic as more money = more work. Just admit this and get over it please god.
"I'll give you the point people can spend any amount of money. You haven't addressed my point that behavior, expecially human behavior, is more complex and can't be determined by a strict reward system."
"I've given arguements that sheer level or quantity of a reward (financial in this arguement) doesn't always produce more work. here's another example. If you pay someone 5 million for working their ass off for 10 years (who won't do that same level of work for anything less), but you could have paid that same guy 5 million for 20 years of work, that's less intense, but he'll still end up working more over 20 years. Why pay him that 5 million over 10 years? There are levels of tollerance people will put up with. People reach a point in their lives where money and material gains are no longer primary interests. Retirement is a perfect example. You couldn't pay some retiree's to come back to work."
Ok, tell companies about your brilliant strategy to have CEO'S to spend half as much effort managing their company.
Tell the repair man that he can take whatever amount of time necessary to fix your plumbing.
"People reach a point in their lives where money and material gains are no longer primary interests. Retirement is a perfect example. You couldn't pay some retiree's to come back to work."
When people get old, it becomes harder for them to work. They haven't lost their desire to earn money, the work has just become more expensive for the amount they get from it and they also lose their ability to work well which means that their employers can not afford to give them as much money .
"I'll give you the point people can spend any amount of money. You haven't addressed my point that behavior, expecially human behavior, is more complex and can't be determined by a strict reward system."
You haven't shown that human behavior is more complex than risk/reward, you've only shown that it is about more than money as a reward.
"I'll give myself as a complete counterexample to your arguement. I plan on donating the vast majority of the money I make to charity. I am not strictly motivated by the greed principle you base your entire arguement on. The world isn't as simplistic as more money = more work. Just admit this and get over it please god."
You can plan whatever you want. You can say you are planning whatever you want. The risk/reward system consists of many things. One of those things is money.
If you are not a total anti-science guy you should believe in evolution which implies that what survives is behavior that helps one's self. More money=more power only because money is a representation of power. That of course doesn't mean that there aren't other forms of power.
" Just admit this and get over it please god."
You've made no point that contradicts my original point.
|
On October 14 2008 09:10 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2008 08:40 evandi wrote:On October 14 2008 08:31 aRod wrote:On October 14 2008 07:59 evandi wrote:
In reality people make decisions on what to strive for. People sacrifice time and effort to become a CEO. They sacrifice time they might otherwise spend doing something like playing Starcraft. Its a high paying job because its really hard to be qualified enough to get it.
People who innovate don't just say "whoops, that there is cool!" because
"Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% persperation"
Ambitious people work hard their entire lives forsaking a lot of things that less ambitious people pursue. They are less likely to make sacrifices if the reward is smaller. That would be hard to argue against. Here's a very simple arguement against it. Ever heard of charity? Some people work hours and hours on end for charity, but don't benefit personally at all other than say personal growth. Have you ever met one of these people who work even though they're set financially? There's no meaningful monitary reward for these people, but they continue to work. Some even donate the funds they make directly too charity so they're tax exempt! Simply put, money isn't the only motivation for work and productivity. But also, I could make an even simpler arguement against your point using your same logic. People make decisions on what they strive for (money). Ambitious people work hard their entire lives for things they pursue. Make it harder to get money and people will work harder for it, after all this is their nature to obtain what they persue. They'll have to sacrifice more to reach their goals and they may even have to lower than standards a bit. Nevertheless this will increase productivity and help the economy since they have to work more. "But also, I could make an even simpler arguement against your point using your same logic. People make decisions on what they strive for (money). Ambitious people work hard their entire lives for things they pursue. Make it harder to get money and people will work harder for it, after all this is their nature to obtain what they persue. They'll have to sacrifice more to reach their goals and they may even have to lower than standards a bit. Nevertheless this will increase productivity and help the economy since they have to work more.[" People will not as often make the choice to work harder if the reward is smaller. Do you disagree? It is not true that if you make something more difficult people are more likely to want to do it. I don't agree that people won't work as hard if the reward is smaller. Work ethic like any behavior depends on many factors I mean if I give a mouse a gigantic wad of cheese, the mouse doesn't have to run the maze again for a while. Likewize, if I give the mouse little pieces of cheese, it has to keep working and working to get the cheese. You generate more work this way. It's just as easy to argue that paying people more makes them lazy and unproductive as it is the opposite.
You can't equate money to food because food exhibits negative utility once you hit a certain point. Money never does.
|
So, as someone who thinks charity is a big bull, i must ask you, what do you think of Sarah Palin, a woman who thinks the biggest charity promoter ever to live on this earth, is a god/son of god (idk what her church teaches, really) ?
If she wasant such a hypocrite, she would agree that paying higher taxes = patriotic, and be a socialist, and etc... because its all about spreading the love/wealth
|
On October 14 2008 11:10 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2008 09:10 aRod wrote:On October 14 2008 08:40 evandi wrote:On October 14 2008 08:31 aRod wrote:On October 14 2008 07:59 evandi wrote:
In reality people make decisions on what to strive for. People sacrifice time and effort to become a CEO. They sacrifice time they might otherwise spend doing something like playing Starcraft. Its a high paying job because its really hard to be qualified enough to get it.
People who innovate don't just say "whoops, that there is cool!" because
"Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% persperation"
Ambitious people work hard their entire lives forsaking a lot of things that less ambitious people pursue. They are less likely to make sacrifices if the reward is smaller. That would be hard to argue against. Here's a very simple arguement against it. Ever heard of charity? Some people work hours and hours on end for charity, but don't benefit personally at all other than say personal growth. Have you ever met one of these people who work even though they're set financially? There's no meaningful monitary reward for these people, but they continue to work. Some even donate the funds they make directly too charity so they're tax exempt! Simply put, money isn't the only motivation for work and productivity. But also, I could make an even simpler arguement against your point using your same logic. People make decisions on what they strive for (money). Ambitious people work hard their entire lives for things they pursue. Make it harder to get money and people will work harder for it, after all this is their nature to obtain what they persue. They'll have to sacrifice more to reach their goals and they may even have to lower than standards a bit. Nevertheless this will increase productivity and help the economy since they have to work more. "But also, I could make an even simpler arguement against your point using your same logic. People make decisions on what they strive for (money). Ambitious people work hard their entire lives for things they pursue. Make it harder to get money and people will work harder for it, after all this is their nature to obtain what they persue. They'll have to sacrifice more to reach their goals and they may even have to lower than standards a bit. Nevertheless this will increase productivity and help the economy since they have to work more.[" People will not as often make the choice to work harder if the reward is smaller. Do you disagree? It is not true that if you make something more difficult people are more likely to want to do it. I don't agree that people won't work as hard if the reward is smaller. Work ethic like any behavior depends on many factors I mean if I give a mouse a gigantic wad of cheese, the mouse doesn't have to run the maze again for a while. Likewize, if I give the mouse little pieces of cheese, it has to keep working and working to get the cheese. You generate more work this way. It's just as easy to argue that paying people more makes them lazy and unproductive as it is the opposite. You can't equate money to food because food exhibits negative utility once you hit a certain point. Money never does.
If you are talking about for personal consumption then yes. But you can always give it to someone else in return for something. Its value does wear off pretty quickly though.
EDIT: For most food.
EDIT: Oh, you are using an economic definition, maybe you are right then.
|
On October 14 2008 11:12 D10 wrote:
So, as someone who thinks charity is a big bull, i must ask you, what do you think of Sarah Palin, a woman who thinks the biggest charity promoter ever to live on this earth, is a god/son of god (idk what her church teaches, really) ?
If she wasant such a hypocrite, she would agree that paying higher taxes = patriotic, and be a socialist, and etc... because its all about spreading the love/wealth
There are lots of "Christians" in this world and even perhaps in this thread.
Doctrinally I think they all agree with Palin on " the biggest charity promoter ever to live on this earth, is a god/son of god".
"If she wasant such a hypocrite, she would agree that paying higher taxes = patriotic, and be a socialist, and etc... because its all about spreading the love/wealth"
Socialism is all about spreading other people's wealth.
|
Ok, here is a big one, Evandi, tell us, what do you know about socialism, and i dont want any sources, just type w/e comes to your mind.
|
On October 14 2008 11:17 D10 wrote:
Ok, here is a big one, Evandi, tell us, what do you know about socialism, and i dont want any sources, just type w/e comes to your mind.
Oh, I promise you. I will not look at any website or anything. I e-pinky swear. Scouts honor.
Socialism is where everybody is everybody else's business.
Its where wealth is redistributed to make everything fair and everything is shared.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 14 2008 11:15 evandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2008 11:12 D10 wrote:
So, as someone who thinks charity is a big bull, i must ask you, what do you think of Sarah Palin, a woman who thinks the biggest charity promoter ever to live on this earth, is a god/son of god (idk what her church teaches, really) ?
If she wasant such a hypocrite, she would agree that paying higher taxes = patriotic, and be a socialist, and etc... because its all about spreading the love/wealth There are lots of "Christians" in this world and even perhaps in this thread. Doctrinally I think they all agree with Palin on that. "If she wasant such a hypocrite, she would agree that paying higher taxes = patriotic, and be a socialist, and etc... because its all about spreading the love/wealth" Socialism is all about spreading other people's wealth.
No one is talking about pure socialism, and I think most people here agree that capitalism is more efficient and drives development faster than any other system (besides authoritarianism for periods of time.) The question is whether efficiency should be the ultimate ideal we strive for in America or whether we should strive for fairness. You might counter that any bit of socialism isn't fair, which in many cases it is not, but there is empirical and rational evidence that pure capitalism causes exploitation as well, given that the entire concept is BUILT around self interested gains aka greed.
I don't think greed is evil, it's quite natural and capitalism uses it for the benefit of society. Still, I believe a certain level of intervention and control is needed to attain an environment most conducive to overall happiness, which should be the ultimate goal for society. At some level, you have to agree with this as well so stop speaking about extremes and make the case for what type of capitalist/socialist distribution you think is best for society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.azillionthings.com/lookytouchy/orly_owl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg/800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg.png)
