The Ultimate Site of Worms Armageddon
Other Things => Clans & Communities => FoS => Topic started by: TheWalrus on December 07, 2012, 04:38 AM
-
As the official United States ambassador to TUS, im here to explain, educate, and otherwise answer any questions regarding international and national relations. Over the course of this thread, much will be discussed about domestic policy, both social and economic. As a proponent of economic policy trumping all else, most of my arguments will be centered around this. Politics has a very special place in my heart, and has been a passion of mine since a young age. Since these discussions have been permeating random threads on TUS, instead of continuing to hijack these threads I have decided to open the topic here, where your freedom of speech exists in the formerly known #1 community on TUS.
Please refrain from posting useless drivel in this thread, be prepared to back up your opinions with fact or substance instead of one-liner sniping, or I will have peja mop the floor with your useless remarks.
Recommended reading for fellow enthusiasts:
Capital, Vol. 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, by Karl Marx
The Rise of The Counter-Establishment, by Sidney Blumenthal
Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman
Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes
The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx
Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
The Federalist, by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, by Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
(http://joe-perez.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/World-Flag.jpg)
-
This is a backlog of PM's between Mablak and myself on the topic of politics and economics, if anyone wants to comment:
I am kind of off-topic here, but I feel the need to put everything said about the middle east under a microscope, especially when it comes from Fox (which by the way, is a major source of propaganda). Business does have a huge hand in war, there's about 1 private contractor for every 10 military soldiers. This is vastly more than it used to be, it's really incorrect to say the military-industrial complex isn't going strong. The defense industry has spent around 100 million or more per year on lobbying for the past 7 years, they have significant influence on our military policy. If a defense company can spend tens or hundreds of thousands on things like campaign donations, and through their influence on policy prevent say, hundreds of millions in slashes to the military budget, then it's money well spent for them.
Fox News is owned by Fox Entertainment Group, which is owned by Murdoch's News Corporation. There's virtually no accountability on what is actually selected as news, and news is decided by the people at the top, according almost entirely to profit motives. Their primary goal is to sell consumers to advertisers, i.e. big businesses, I mean this is explicit, that's how a big news company is run. They don't just get money from showing a company's ads, they get money (and repeated business so to speak) from reporting news in a way that benefits those benefactors.
Oil is a huge motive for us, this is almost transparently true, we've sought a presence in the middle east since the 40s for precisely this reason. I mean if you want relatively recent evidence, in 2001 Dick Cheney commissioned a report on energy security from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, it's kind of disgusting to read: http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/study_15.pdf
Well, lets just dispense with the anti-fox stuff, all the news organizations are all ridiculous, i think you know that. You described it best: news influenced by those that report it, hired by the people that own the business to echo their sentiments. Thats news in our country, whether its CBS, FOX, CNN, or MSNBC. They are all guilty. Onward:
On the oil issue, you are really missing the boat, Cody. Invading Iraq was never about the oil. We were never entitled to the oil Iraq has, we haven't gotten any at a discount, and we are currently getting none, their ability to draw crude from their wells is crippled since the war. Now that we have pulled out of Iraq, the ruling body, which was never cozy with us, is opposed to what our presence brought their country so you can bet we won't be getting any assurances on oil from them. You'd be on an island with the kind of radical thought to assume that Bush and Cheney were war-mongering because they wanted to enforce oil policy in the middle east. Saddam always overstated his ability to influence policy or wage war, the white house wasn't worried about his ability to pull the strings on the world market enough to invade Iraq. I really hope you don't buy into this conspiracy theory nonsense about the white house using 9/11 to systematically invade iraq under the guise of WMD in an attempt to influence oil prices? Because, if so, there was always easier and more popular ways of doing that besides a full scale invasion, lol. The mere proposition is laughable, it just doesn't stand up. It's the one fallacy that has been perpetuated by so many people, I hear it regularly. The only problem is, ive yet to hear a plausible explanation of what Bush expected to gain, oil-wise, by invading Iraq. I've yet to see any possible correlation between the war and oil businesses. The fact is, lots of money was lost in the war, and very few fortunes were gained, save for a few military contractors. You won't sell me on Bush invading Iraq to fill the coffers over at Blackwater.
And for the record, I never voted or supported that ass-clown.
If you want my take on how our economy should be structured, I think the only goal has to be maximizing society's average well-being, of course putting greater emphasis on minimizing suffering than on increasing happiness (e.g. there's a vast difference in the quality of life affected when a poor person receives $500 as opposed to a rich person). So I'm open to any economic system that does maximize our well-being, and it could be the case that there are multiple systems that could do this.
In practice, it's too complex a problem for me to suggest that I know the optimal economic structure, the best we can do is make incremental changes in the short term that would be foreseeable improvements (like getting money out of politics, sign this! http://anticorruptionact.org/). I wouldn't say socialism has been dealt any kind of death blow though, and heck, every country can be considered socialist to some extent. In any case, I think we need further reins on the capitalist system we have now, it is actually making us less free; when tuition prices continually get higher, and work prospects for so many people are part-time jobs that don't pay livable wages, people really don't have any options. Sometimes letting people do as they wish has the end result of interfering with society's freedom of action, we can't always assess what is and isn't interference in the short term.
I do have to disagree on your assessment of government handouts; nobody is getting wealthy off them, they're simply so people can survive, they are definitely not the problem here. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if we just slashed our absurd military budget, which would be more possible if we could get money out of politics, and actually have politicians pay attention to what the majority wants. Health care though man, around 26,000 people die per year from lack of insurance. That's something that has nothing to do with laziness, and we need taxation in this area precisely because charity is not footing the bill, not even coming close. And again I don't think there would be any qualms about spending much more on health care if we cut our military down to say, 200-300 billion per year, which would still be spending more than any other country.
No, there isn't anything remotely conspiratorial about profit motives. I just don't understand how profit motives, or the actions behind them are fit to be demonized. You can reference corporate greed all you want, but if profits are made within the constricts of the law, then it must not be trifled with. The thrust for maximized profits is the very heart and soul of the free market system, and to modify the flow of money through government intervention would alter the course of our country, and its already happening.
As far as lobbying, I won't get into it. The government is broken in this sector, I agree with ever assertion you've made on that subject. It's terrible.
No, I would be a fool to suggest that there was no economic factor for the war, but it is my onus to set the record straight. I'm implying that the economic factors that resulted from the war were merely circumstantial, an unintended by-product of one countries invasion of another. Surely you realize that the driving universal resource of the modern world is currency in one form or another. You would be hard pressed to find an isolated event as significant as an invasion where there wasn't a monetary incentive in one way, shape, or form. A hurricane happens, cleanup ensues, and there is money to be made. Palestine tensions run high with Israel, cue military buildup, and there is money to be made. A president from a different political party is elected in a country that supports a more international economy, there is money to be made, ect. You get the point. I can hardly believe that George W. Bush, a man proven through his actions to care deeply about his legacy, would risk tarnishing it to make a few extra dollars on the side. Yet the Iraq war effectively torpedoed his chance at standing abreast with exceptional former leaders. I hardly think a handful of private contractors drilling for oil to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq is evidence of marked net benefit to the United States. It certainly wasn't in anyones endgame that after all was said and done the Iraq oil fields would lie in ruin and need revitalizing.
I think you are misinterpreting the focus of the article. We aren't getting control of the oil fields, merely paying for the right to drill there. And if not, what then? Iraq has nothing else to drive its economy. If we didn't drill for oil, they could not effectively do it on their own. You are right though, there is a correlation between the war and oil companies, but only by chance. Hypothetically, Americans wouldn't be drilling in Iraq if Saddam hadn't made the decision to torch the fields back in the twilight of the invasion. There are clear factors that dictate that these 'profit motives' are more opportunistic than connived.
Getting back to your overall view of the 'money tree' in the U.S., the reality of the 2% or 1% holding the vast majority of funds is the reality of free market capitalism. The 1% also drives our economy and creates jobs through lending, borrowing, and investing. If the 1% decided to put their money in the bank, or say, give it to the poor, the economy comes to a grinding halt. I hope that none of your tenets of belief on the economy involves wealth redistribution, socialism doesn't work, it is a non-sustainable model that has been proven time and time again to fail. You can reference Sweden all you want, but the reality is that socialism has ravaged the countries of europe and many more before them. The flow of money to the 1% and 2% even with people starving, hungry, and without health care is a reality that must be stomached in order to maintain a strong national economy. I hate big government with a passion, and even when I lost my job I refused to collect unemployment because the very principle of it strikes me wrong. No one should ever be afforded a resource for nothing, the very core of that action will destroy any civilization or establishment, or at the very least, bring it to its knees.
America is dealing with the cold reality of mortgaging its future for the American dream, so the gainfully employed could own another home, so the underemployed could own a house instead of an apartment, and for the poor to survive without working. For those teetering on the edge of survival? Private enterprise has always footed the bill for them long before our country was born, charity isn't a novel idea. The economy fires me up Cody, thats why I don't give a flying f@#! about social issues I think its a waste of time, and people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want if it doesn't interfere with the liberty of others. Abortion and gay marriage is a waste of time to debate. The government needs to stop interfering in your and my affairs, Cody. I hope we can agree on that last part, if nothing else :)
So your solution to a lack of jobs paying livable wages is to slash the armed forces budget, which employs over a million people? I think much of this opportunism around 'increasing the average well being' is great! I support this ideology. I am not a ass, I don't want to see people dying or not getting health care. The reality is Cody, the well has run dry. There isn't a viable source to draw from anymore in this country. There once was, but the good times are no longer rolling. Say you slash the military budget. That is a finite budget cut. This unto itself is non-sustainable. It cannot be grown, it is a fixed amount of money from the government. The displaced, laid-off military members are now part of your pool of less fortunate health care beneficiaries. What happens when the money is all gone, spent to subsidize the health care of the less fortunate on a yearly basis? What then? You end up in the same spot, only with 500,000 (1/2 the military, i dont know how many people the armed forces employs, just a guess) less people employed. Those 500,000 people used to be paid wages, which they went out and spent on the free market, driving the economy. No longer! That money has been appropriated for health care. It's highly unlikely that 500,000 doctors and nurses will be employed to pick up the slack in the job market, thats generous - theres no way. Doctors get paid premium wages, they are part of that high income bracket you are talking about, and that is who the money will flow to. So not only are you losing employed americans, that money is going to the hands of the few. So you do what every good socialist proposes we do. Tax those very same people! Re-appropriate the money! But by now the stack is getting smaller and smaller. There is less of it out there, production is down overall, less Americans are at work.
Your proposal is nothing new. It's noble, but ultimately everyone cannot share a high quality of life. Some must suffer so the society can thrive. The United States offers opportunity for those that seize opportunity through hard work. There is only so much of it though. The top 1% or 2% of earners you speak of - they have seized that opportunity. And their reward? For the vampires to gather around and suck them dry. And what then after we have run out of the upper class to tax? Not to mention the people the tax money is earmarked for that will never see it because of an incompetent government. How about instead re-appropriating the money from the rich to the poor like some modern day robin-hood class action, we start to tear down our bloated government. The government is set up to fail. It's no surprise that private firms from our free market system do a better job in basically every facet of what the government does. It is time for a revolution. You suggest cutting the military, taking away from the defense of our sovereign nation. I suggest cutting the fat from the bloated, socialist-driven government practices that produced the solyndra fiasco and subsidies for ethanol based fuel. What a joke! I have just one question for you Cody, the one question that trips up every socialist - How do you plan to sustain these changes you propose? Where will the money come from? I'm anxious to hear your response, im quite enjoying this dialogue.
We could employ even more people in the armed forces if we were so inclined, but it would be like paying people to dig a hole in the desert, not beneficial for anyone except those getting paid. The way things currently are is just as you fear, we're paying the majority of our military to do things of no extra benefit, and in many cases of additional harm. This is not unlike the idea of too many people thriving on welfare, not that I think all welfare is a bad thing, in fact your experience of not accepting unemployment shows that people really don't like to stay dependent on others, and want to work. We couldn't possibly slash the military budget overnight, lest we simply put countless people out of work with no other career lined up, but we need to start reducing it dramatically, routing people from these useless or harmful professions to ones that help more of society.
I'm not suggesting we put all military cuts into health care, but we need to put a hell of a lot more in, especially since it would serve the exact same purpose of protecting our citizens' lives. We have the option of saving 26,000 more lives per year at home, or continuing to overspend in efforts to kill enemies/civilians abroad, saving no one and endangering ourselves by breeding more hatred against us. Now doctors, nurses, and medical workers get paid pretty well, as they should, but unlike soldiers, their professions dramatically boost our economy by saving lives and preventing injury; even if you're talking about dollars and cents, and not more important intangibles like the value of human life, a single doctor can do more good for society than a hundred soldiers. Work-related injuries cost around 250 billion per year, and employers cover less than 25% of that, one way or another, medical bills need to be made affordable to the poor and the middle class, without putting them even deeper in debt.
Our government is bloated in one area only; defense spending. And if we had a good chunk of the military in the private sector, rather than just sucking our tax dollars up, we would have a much more prosperous society. While the free market isn't bogged down by government bureaucracy and can often operate efficiently, it doesn't do a better job than government in many crucial areas. Health care for one: private insurers look for every possible way to invalidate people's contracts, for example, one woman was denied breast cancer surgery because she had been treated for acne once, one man's policy was nullified because his agent happened to enter his weight incorrectly. In industries where we deal with decisions that dramatically affect people's quality of life, we've seen that adhering to a profit-driven system does not produce the best outcome. In those industries, we need very strict rules and regulations, since every decision makes such a huge impact on someone's life. Or take the prison system; private prisons are absolutely terrifying, they lobby for more oppressive laws because they get money based on how many people they incarcerate. If we had nothing but private prisons, we'd be living in a society where as many people as possible are imprisoned at all times.
It's odd that you ask how these changes would be sustainable, when our current system has proven unsustainable. Our recession was caused by lack of regulation, and because businesses can count on getting bailed out when they fail (because of their own control of congress), doesn't matter how badly it screws over the country. We have the ability to dramatically reduce our military budget, have those would-be soldiers employed elsewhere, spend more on education and healthcare, and still pay less taxes overall, I mean that's how bloated our military is. Again, even if we cut over 500 billion from the military, we'd still have the largest army by far. And I think the key to being able to enact better governmental policy that wouldn't lead to such colossal waste in this area is getting money out of politics; we can't make our politicians better people, but we can change their incentives.
-
How/Why is obama president, when he is not of American decent? No valid social security # (that has been provided).
-
How/Why is obama president, when he is not of American decent? No valid social security # (that has been provided).
The legality of Obama's residency has been challenged repeatedly by right wingers since he first announced his candidacy. Obama's campaign repeatedly ignored calls from the right to surrender his birth certificate and documentation that he was a US citizen, as they were under no legal obligation to do so, vetting is done by the government, not in the court of public opinion. Eventually, his birth records were released publicly to quell the oppositional voice, which was growing with every day of non-disclosure, as this was a hot-button issue at the time. Continuing this dialogue on his legality as a citizen, his social security number has come into question. Specifically, how his social security number prefix is assigned to Connecticut, a state he certainly wasn't born in, it couldn't be farther from his birthplace of Hawaii. There are theories both ways, but at this point im going to go with the fact his birth records have been vetted and confirmed, and go ahead and say he is a legitimate US citizen, and in fact has provided a valid social security number. Social security numbers have been known to be poorly regulated, and he was probably just issued a odd number based on an error, certainly something that has happened many times over before.
How is he president: In a non-incumbent year, he defeated Sen. John McCain in 2008, and as the incumbent candidate, defeated Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012. Both of these election cycle successes revolved around soundly winning the battleground states of the republic of Shyguy (Ohio) and Florida.
-
We could employ even more people in the armed forces if we were so inclined, but it would be like paying people to dig a hole in the desert, not beneficial for anyone except those getting paid. The way things currently are is just as you fear, we're paying the majority of our military to do things of no extra benefit, and in many cases of additional harm. This is not unlike the idea of too many people thriving on welfare, not that I think all welfare is a bad thing, in fact your experience of not accepting unemployment shows that people really don't like to stay dependent on others, and want to work. We couldn't possibly slash the military budget overnight, lest we simply put countless people out of work with no other career lined up, but we need to start reducing it dramatically, routing people from these useless or harmful professions to ones that help more of society.
I'm not suggesting we put all military cuts into health care, but we need to put a hell of a lot more in, especially since it would serve the exact same purpose of protecting our citizens' lives. We have the option of saving 26,000 more lives per year at home, or continuing to overspend in efforts to kill enemies/civilians abroad, saving no one and endangering ourselves by breeding more hatred against us. Now doctors, nurses, and medical workers get paid pretty well, as they should, but unlike soldiers, their professions dramatically boost our economy by saving lives and preventing injury; even if you're talking about dollars and cents, and not more important intangibles like the value of human life, a single doctor can do more good for society than a hundred soldiers. Work-related injuries cost around 250 billion per year, and employers cover less than 25% of that, one way or another, medical bills need to be made affordable to the poor and the middle class, without putting them even deeper in debt.
Our government is bloated in one area only; defense spending. And if we had a good chunk of the military in the private sector, rather than just sucking our tax dollars up, we would have a much more prosperous society. While the free market isn't bogged down by government bureaucracy and can often operate efficiently, it doesn't do a better job than government in many crucial areas. Health care for one: private insurers look for every possible way to invalidate people's contracts, for example, one woman was denied breast cancer surgery because she had been treated for acne once, one man's policy was nullified because his agent happened to enter his weight incorrectly. In industries where we deal with decisions that dramatically affect people's quality of life, we've seen that adhering to a profit-driven system does not produce the best outcome. In those industries, we need very strict rules and regulations, since every decision makes such a huge impact on someone's life. Or take the prison system; private prisons are absolutely terrifying, they lobby for more oppressive laws because they get money based on how many people they incarcerate. If we had nothing but private prisons, we'd be living in a society where as many people as possible are imprisoned at all times.
It's odd that you ask how these changes would be sustainable, when our current system has proven unsustainable. Our recession was caused by lack of regulation, and because businesses can count on getting bailed out when they fail (because of their own control of congress), doesn't matter how badly it screws over the country. We have the ability to dramatically reduce our military budget, have those would-be soldiers employed elsewhere, spend more on education and healthcare, and still pay less taxes overall, I mean that's how bloated our military is. Again, even if we cut over 500 billion from the military, we'd still have the largest army by far. And I think the key to being able to enact better governmental policy that wouldn't lead to such colossal waste in this area is getting money out of politics; we can't make our politicians better people, but we can change their incentives.
Let's stick with the sustainability theme, as I think it is very important to find a system that works. You say the recession was caused by a lack of regulation, and I agree with that. Mortgage lending regulation giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were universally responsible for the housing collapse, im sure we can agree on that, its common knowledge. The irresponsibility of loaning to those that should have never qualified for loans in the first place led to this collapse. I argue that the government's ability to influence lending to private citizens is the central cause of the problem. The idea that every US citizen should enjoy a better quality of life, and the government will pick up the tab is non-sustainable. Lets face it, any way you want to split this issue, the government runs firms poorly. There is little accountability, and as you have repeatedly referenced, the lobbying is out of control in our country. If government run programs run under their budget, instead of being rewarded for this surplus, their funding is cut. This leads to a culture where efficiency is punished, and incompetence is the status quo. This is where I believe there is unnecessary intrusion into affairs that the federal government should have no hand in. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have never been conceived, and should have been abolished as soon as they were created. Not that the ideas behind these entities is wrong or a bad idea, it is just the universal fact that the government can not run them effectively.
Nested in this same belief is my vehement opposition to government sponsored, single payer healthcare. Government simply can not do the job as well as the private sector, as much as the system may appear broken. What about how government is run currently gives you any faith that they can run that program well, despite your repeated references about how broken the system is. How could the cure for a broken system be to tax private citizens at a higher rate to make the broken entity larger and more powerful? And I am still waiting on how Obama's plan, as we approach the 'fiscal cliff' is going to sustain and grow the economy. From my point of view, the plan only constricts, there is no opportunity for growth. Thats notwithstanding the fact that Obamacare will crush small business with its mandate. How is forcing a business to purchase healthcare anything approaching the ideals we hold as private citizens?
We fundamentally agree on the root causes of these problems, and I think we see the issues for what they are Cody, but I just don't believe this is a job for the government. I don't understand when people started turning their back on capitalism and forgot say's law, which has been proven to be true throughout the longevity of our economic history.
-
I didn't read all of that, but since you asked me in the first post to say stuff, I will.
Unregulated capitalism has been the cause of a lot of suffering (slavery, Civil War, why we're in the Middle East). Corporations are outsourcing more than ever, the top 1% controls something like 40% of the countries wealth, and the gap between lower and upper class is growing larger everyday. Your idea of private schooling and private healthcare further f@#! over these people and prevent them from contributing to society. There are things called positive and negative externalities in economics. The existence of negative externalities is a reason in itself while capitalism is flawed. For example, in unregulated capitalism, a business could cut corners and pollute, something that effects everyone even if they support the business or not... That's a negative externality and that is why government regulation is needed... I mean, isn't it enough to look at American history before labor laws? Anyway, people staying alive and being educated to contribute to society is considered a positive externality, and when you make people pay for things like school and healthcare, you're always going to be excluding the poorest of people. So not only does privatized everything create negative externalies, it reduces the amount of positive externality output.
Yet with this knowledge, people (like Walrus) say poor people are lazy and socialism will just take hard earned money from hard workers. Let me ask you this; How come the vast majority of people who are born into poverty stay into poverty and the vast majority of people who are born into wealth stay wealthy? You call it lazy but in actuality it is the result of being paralyzed by an oppressive system. Look at the history of African Americans in the United States. They've been slaves well into the 20th century. Even after the Civil War, the greedy white men in power oppressed them so they couldn't have basic rights. The aftermath of such oppression carries over from generation to generation. A common example - you are born into poverty in an urban area, you turn to crime to feed yourself, your father is in jail and your mom is a junkie and you sling dope for a living. Many of these destitute people are in a psychological cage where they believe they will never become anything. Not to mention the amount of racism still in this country, not only individually, but in the justice and school systems. Justice system and the death penalty are extremely racist, present day and historically. Poor urban area schools get shit tier funding, therefore they aren't producing much success. These are the people who decide not to go see a doctor for a medical problem because they can't afford it, further digging them a hole in society. Meanwhile, the people who are being raised in wealth get meals all day, high quality schooling paid for by parents, and don't hesitate going to the doctor for the slightest problem. Not everyone is created equal - we have different strengths, weaknesses, abilities, talents, etc. So what is wrong with the idea that everyone in the country gets an equal opportunity to make a success out of himself? That's the basic credo of socialism. Healthcare is free, schools are free (and with more revenue coming in, these will actually be quality schools), etc.
How do they get free? Tax the shit out of the top bracket. This should not be seen as a punishment for being "successful", although it is by the right who have an individualistic mindset rather than a collectivist mindset. Look at a standard, successful corporation. The heads of the company these days are making hundreds of times more than their employees as opposed to before Reagan when they were only making about 10 times as much as their employees. So, are you trying to tell me these CEOs have really started working super duper hard sitting at their office chairs to be earning 100s and sometimes 1000s more than their employees? What changed to make you think they are so much harder workers than everybody else? First of all, whether you want to admit it or not, becoming really wealthy is mostly luck. Lucky if you were born into it, lucky if you were in the right place at the right time, etc... Rarely are they ever working much harder than everyone else in society. If you refute that idea, then I'll ask again to answer why people born into poverty stay into poverty and people born into wealth stay into wealth. That's the main problem with the premise of a lot of libertarians.. they believe everyone is equal when they aren't, and they believe anyone can become successful through hard work. The research and statistics clearly show this premise to be false.
Also, no one becomes a millionaire in a bubble. Show me someone who has not taken advantage of government funded entities, such as roads, schools, police, fire department, etc. My favorite thing to bring up is how we live our lives today in regards to health awareness. Did we not learn a shit ton about life and health because of government funded studies and research? Some of your daily health activities are probably the learned result from government funded studies. The point is, it is impossible to make it ANYWHERE without the mass amount of help of your community and government. So what is the problem with being taxed and giving back to the community for later generations to benefit? Keep in mind, mainly the top bracket earners would be getting taxed large amounts, and even being taxed an amount such as 70% of your income would still leave these people with millions of dollars to "survive" on. Before Reagan, the largest brackets were being taxed as high as 70% and the economy was booming, the infrastructure was great, quality of life and satisfaction index rose, etc... Then Reagan came along and cut taxation on the upperclass by a shit ton, and what happened? This is history, it's all there for you to see. Reagan created a huge national debt because he didn't have enough taxes. All he did was help his rich friends.
Walrus, when you say socialism's core element is greed, it's totally false. It's the exact opposite. Capitalism is ALL about greed. Democrats and Republican both care about nothing except money. USA historically - slavery, Civil War, we're in Afghanistan for their poppy fields, we took out Hussein because he was going to buy oil with the euro, oil wars, the list goes on and on... All of these things are unregulated capitalism. Not only are the motivations behind these wars capitalism and greed, but the methods and means of acting these wars out further hurts the people the system is oppressing! We spend trillions on the military to fight these greed-ridden wars, that is money that could be put into schools and healthcare. A society can't be sustained without large amount of taxation. Well, I guess it would be an aristocracy for the lucky ones. Look at the Articles of Confederation - why did they not work? Taxes were practically optional, and that system crumbled HARD.
Final notes: 1. A lot of European nations use a form of democratic socialism, and these countries consistently top in the rankings for education, healthcare, low crime, quality of life, satisfaction, etc. Look at the Scandinavian nations. If these principles are doing so well for these countries, why be so against the idea of it all? I understand these are different countries with different cultures, but that doesn't mean we can dismiss their governments as being flawed in our country. It would take a lot of time and reform, I understand these aren't thing you can just throw into the mix and expect to work.
2. I absolutely hate how the United States still follows a piece of paper that was written over 200 years ago. It is seriously flawed and out of date. The electoral college makes a complete mockery out of the ideas of democracy and the way voting is set up in this country ensures that change is almost impossible through the voting polls. It's a f@#!ing plutocracy. All-or-nothing voting doesn't appropriately represent the people's opinions the way that proportional voting does. How much money do politicians spend on campaigns? That's right, you only get to vote for the people rich enough to advertise their election. Oh yeah, and now that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people and can fund political campaigns, lobbying is that much easier. Corporations get to lobby politicians around into making legislation that benefits them, but hey, that's all fair game in capitalism. For f@#! sake, gay marriage is outlawed in almost every state because insurance companies lobby the hell out of politicians to keep the status quo. Do you see how capitalism tends to work at the expense of human rights? All of this made possible by the Constitution that basically set this country up for failure (breeding corrupt judges, not setting term limits, creating an atmosphere where getting votes means more than doing what's best for society).
3. I saw some things up there about Fox News... I skimmed it.. Just want to say Fox News is clearly an entertainment business. My concentration at college is in media production, and every professor I've talked to said that the journalism community is in complete agreement that Fox News is a sham and has no journalistic integrity... Not sure if that's what you guys were talking about, was too lazy to read... Never cite Fox News for anything, EVER.
Also, going with Walrus's book recommendations, I have a watching recommendation for fellow enthusiasts: HBO's The Wire, a television show with an extremely realistic portrayal of urban life in various facets of Baltimore - often cited as the greatest television show ever made and one of the greatest literary achievements of the 21st century.
-
I completely agree with everything Shy said, I have no idea how you wrote so much so quickly. On sustainability, plenty of governments have more socialized healthcare than us, and vastly outrank us in how well they provide for their citizens. We might have to select the right combination of public and private organizations to actually deliver the healthcare, but for footing the bill, it should be more on the shoulders of the general public, and there is good evidence to suggest some kind of single-payer system is better and more sustainable than what we have now.
Look at Canada for example, they spend 10.4% of their GDP on healthcare compared to our 16%, and from what I've read, the effectiveness of both systems is comparable. The UK's National Health Service is also single-payer, and everything I've read about it suggests it's noticeably more effective than our system. We definitely spend gross amounts on healthcare and get relatively little in return, I think it's a good enough example of an industry in which the free market fails (in terms of insuring people, at least).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/us-preventable-death-rate_n_1843409.html
You're pointing to the government being the problem in every situation; it's kind of like saying the gun is the culprit in a murder. We bailed out all those companies, with virtually no requirements for them to pay the public back (and really, some of the banks went on to screw us over further), precisely because of the power those companies wield. Their lobbying effectively determines our public policy. This is not something that can't be changed, we really can make rules to end our system of legalized bribery and create a government that listens to its citizens, and not just to those with the most cash. Getting rid of the government, or reducing the ability of corporations to influence it negatively, which sounds more realistic/better for society?
-
Ultimately the best way to rank a country's success is its citizen's quality of life.
Things like safety index and health care systems have never seen the US rank above 7th in public studies (http://www.google.es/search?client=opera&rls=es-ES&q=quality+of+life+index+2012&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest) and it's only recently it's gone up from lower than 10th positions (mainly due to other countries being struck harder by the economical crisis (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf))
What do you think of this, Walrus?
-
I didn't read all of that, but since you asked me in the first post to say stuff, I will.
Unregulated capitalism has been the cause of a lot of suffering (slavery, Civil War, why we're in the Middle East). Corporations are outsourcing more than ever, the top 1% controls something like 40% of the countries wealth, and the gap between lower and upper class is growing larger everyday. Your idea of private schooling and private healthcare further f@#! over these people and prevent them from contributing to society. There are things called positive and negative externalities in economics. The existence of negative externalities is a reason in itself while capitalism is flawed. For example, in unregulated capitalism, a business could cut corners and pollute, something that effects everyone even if they support the business or not... That's a negative externality and that is why government regulation is needed... I mean, isn't it enough to look at American history before labor laws? Anyway, people staying alive and being educated to contribute to society is considered a positive externality, and when you make people pay for things like school and healthcare, you're always going to be excluding the poorest of people. So not only does privatized everything create negative externalies, it reduces the amount of positive externality output.
You are a little bit all over here, Shy, so im going to attempt to clarify while staying inside the bounds of the original discussion. Let's drop the idea of unregulated capitalism where no labor laws or pollution controls exist, because no one in this thread is for that from what I can see. Tying capitalism to slavery and the civil war is prepackaged rhetoric, and again is a topic that involves a great deal of issues, very few of which relate to the dialogue here. Lets stick to the basics. If you want to revisit that later, im game, but lets cap the current discourse first. The most important point you address is the privatization of healthcare and schooling, we'll get back to that. The most important part of my endorsement of privatization is that private enterprise is, at a base level, infinitely more efficient than the government. My measure of efficiency in this case is capital, or more specifically, currency. Private enterprise can provide cheaper schooling the government can, and a switch to privatization can allow for total reform of the unions that strange our public schooling system. By doing this, taxes can be lowered, which will result in more jobs. With enough flexibility in the job market, these so called 'unfortunates' with 'no hope' can enjoy gainful employment which results in a more productive society.
Yet with this knowledge, people (like Walrus) say poor people are lazy and socialism will just take hard earned money from hard workers. Let me ask you this; How come the vast majority of people who are born into poverty stay into poverty and the vast majority of people who are born into wealth stay wealthy? You call it lazy but in actuality it is the result of being paralyzed by an oppressive system. Look at the history of African Americans in the United States. They've been slaves well into the 20th century. Even after the Civil War, the greedy white men in power oppressed them so they couldn't have basic rights. The aftermath of such oppression carries over from generation to generation. A common example - you are born into poverty in an urban area, you turn to crime to feed yourself, your father is in jail and your mom is a junkie and you sling dope for a living. Many of these destitute people are in a psychological cage where they believe they will never become anything. Not to mention the amount of racism still in this country, not only individually, but in the justice and school systems. Justice system and the death penalty are extremely racist, present day and historically. Poor urban area schools get shit tier funding, therefore they aren't producing much success. These are the people who decide not to go see a doctor for a medical problem because they can't afford it, further digging them a hole in society. Meanwhile, the people who are being raised in wealth get meals all day, high quality schooling paid for by parents, and don't hesitate going to the doctor for the slightest problem. Not everyone is created equal - we have different strengths, weaknesses, abilities, talents, etc. So what is wrong with the idea that everyone in the country gets an equal opportunity to make a success out of himself? That's the basic credo of socialism. Healthcare is free, schools are free (and with more revenue coming in, these will actually be quality schools), etc.
The history of oppression is our country is long and its legacy is deeply engrained in our society. Blacks still suffer because of the sins of our fathers (as we are white), and have less opportunity than whites. Again, this is mostly a social issue, and not really part of the main discussion here. There is an economic difference, but im sure we can agree this is mostly because of social standing and prejudice, and no amount of money appropriated by the government is going to solve that. The blacks aren't the only ones that are born into poverty-like conditions with strikes against them. See: Indigenous Native Americans. Lets drop racism for now, again something we can revisit later. You are taking an issue in a totally different direction, and it confuses the issue at hand.
How do they get free? Tax the shit out of the top bracket. This should not be seen as a punishment for being "successful", although it is by the right who have an individualistic mindset rather than a collectivist mindset. Look at a standard, successful corporation. The heads of the company these days are making hundreds of times more than their employees as opposed to before Reagan when they were only making about 10 times as much as their employees. So, are you trying to tell me these CEOs have really started working super duper hard sitting at their office chairs to be earning 100s and sometimes 1000s more than their employees? What changed to make you think they are so much harder workers than everybody else? First of all, whether you want to admit it or not, becoming really wealthy is mostly luck. Lucky if you were born into it, lucky if you were in the right place at the right time, etc... Rarely are they ever working much harder than everyone else in society. If you refute that idea, then I'll ask again to answer why people born into poverty stay into poverty and people born into wealth stay into wealth. That's the main problem with the premise of a lot of libertarians.. they believe everyone is equal when they aren't, and they believe anyone can become successful through hard work. The research and statistics clearly show this premise to be false.
I can't refute your assertion that becoming wealthy is mostly luck, its an important point. Most people who have risen to prominent positions (CEOs, ect.) will attribute much of their success to luck, being at the right place at the right time. Alternatively, you have to work hard to put yourself in the position to even have luck be a factor. This applies to people of any color, from any walk of life, from any income bracket. Unfortunately, taxing the sit out of the top bracket isn't a real solution. I'd love for someone from France on these forums to come in here and tell you how the proposal to tax the wealthy at a 75% rate is going. The proposal from Francois Hollande has the wealthy scrambling, as a 75% tax rate should. The wealthy affected are ready to leave the country entirely, taking their businesses with them. So how is that going to help? Especially with the rise of foreign direct investment these days among the rich in the USA, who is to say your tax proposals won't drive them out of the country entirely. Mexico for years have based much of their economy on becoming attractive landing spots for american companies. Your 1% will depart for Mexico long before they pay any sort of crazy rate you are envisioning. And for the record, anyone can be successful through hard work as long as they have a job. Your proposals don't create any jobs. Companies don't create positions when they are taxed more heavily, rather when they are taxed at a lower rate. Why do you think that one of Obama's first significant decisions in office was to extend the Bush tax cuts?
Also, no one becomes a millionaire in a bubble. Show me someone who has not taken advantage of government funded entities, such as roads, schools, police, fire department, etc. My favorite thing to bring up is how we live our lives today in regards to health awareness. Did we not learn a shit ton about life and health because of government funded studies and research? Some of your daily health activities are probably the learned result from government funded studies. The point is, it is impossible to make it ANYWHERE without the mass amount of help of your community and government. So what is the problem with being taxed and giving back to the community for later generations to benefit? Keep in mind, mainly the top bracket earners would be getting taxed large amounts, and even being taxed an amount such as 70% of your income would still leave these people with millions of dollars to "survive" on. Before Reagan, the largest brackets were being taxed as high as 70% and the economy was booming, the infrastructure was great, quality of life and satisfaction index rose, etc... Then Reagan came along and cut taxation on the upperclass by a shit ton, and what happened? This is history, it's all there for you to see. Reagan created a huge national debt because he didn't have enough taxes. All he did was help his rich friends.
I envision government as a entity working in tandem with its citizens to provide freedoms directly outlined in the constitution. Government should be responsible for providing protection for these freedoms in terms of a strong national army and stout militia at a local and state level. Your argument for government funded studies holds no water. There are plenty of studies done by private companies that have been just as influential on the direction of life and health, as you put it. There is no reason to believe government is the only body capable of executing and producing results of studies. If you want examples i'll cite them, but theres no reason to at this point, its a universal fact. I bet you are furious that your liberal contemporaries are selling off the development and upkeep of roads to private companies, especially with your mandate of this being a job of government. As far as your points you've made so far, you've stuck with facts. But when it comes to Reagan, you are dead wrong. Under Reagan, unemployment fell more sharply then it ever had in US history, and the economy grew exponentially. Reagan cut taxes indeed like you said, but in his second term, with the help of congress, pushed through the single largest tax increase in US peacetime history. He then presided over several more tax rate hikes in his first term, the most notable were for social security and credit card debt? I think? Fact check me. The economy grew, more people had jobs, social security was strengthened for the future retirees. Criticizing Reagan is a terrible place to start if you want to rail on someone for ruining the economy. Start with Jimmy Carter.
Walrus, when you say socialism's core element is greed, it's totally false. It's the exact opposite. Capitalism is ALL about greed. Democrats and Republican both care about nothing except money. USA historically - slavery, Civil War, we're in Afghanistan for their poppy fields, we took out Hussein because he was going to buy oil with the euro, oil wars, the list goes on and on... All of these things are unregulated capitalism. Not only are the motivations behind these wars capitalism and greed, but the methods and means of acting these wars out further hurts the people the system is oppressing! We spend trillions on the military to fight these greed-ridden wars, that is money that could be put into schools and healthcare. A society can't be sustained without large amount of taxation. Well, I guess it would be an aristocracy for the lucky ones. Look at the Articles of Confederation - why did they not work? Taxes were practically optional, and that system crumbled HARD.
Greed is a poor choice of words, ill recant that statement. It's entitlement I think socialism creates. Also, if you want to argue against the two party system or foreign wars, I'm game. I'll stand next to you and echo your exact sentiments. I support an isolationist foreign policy and a forced reform of the two party system. I think the country needs a little revolution now and then, like Jefferson said, "Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Obamacare and the forced mandate of healthcare eliminates the power of choice, choice that doesn't interfere with the rights of others should never be forced upon anyone. It's an infringement on my rights as a private citizen of the US.
Final notes: 1. A lot of European nations use a form of democratic socialism, and these countries consistently top in the rankings for education, healthcare, low crime, quality of life, satisfaction, etc. Look at the Scandinavian nations. If these principles are doing so well for these countries, why be so against the idea of it all? I understand these are different countries with different cultures, but that doesn't mean we can dismiss their governments as being flawed in our country. It would take a lot of time and reform, I understand these aren't thing you can just throw into the mix and expect to work.
By 'a lot' you mean Scandinavia. How are Italy, Spain, and France doing with their sky high taxation rates? It's no surprise that the countries with your pure socialist models have almost no armed forces and rely upon coalitions of the world if they were ever attacked. They rely on the United States and like countries to defend them if they were attacked. You can argue for ceased aggressions, but we all know that will never happen, its human nature. Wars will always be fought, these countries are all gambling that other countries will defend them. It's hard to find an effective country that is well rounded on all fronts, I would probably say Germany is doing pretty well with its pseudo-socialist policies. Germany cracks the mold somehow, the effective socialist countries tend to be sparsely populated, Ropa posted a list of global satisfaction, its no surprise the top 10 are all very small countries population-wise with little military save for Germany.
2. I absolutely hate how the United States still follows a piece of paper that was written over 200 years ago. It is seriously flawed and out of date. The electoral college makes a complete mockery out of the ideas of democracy and the way voting is set up in this country ensures that change is almost impossible through the voting polls. It's a f@#!ing plutocracy. All-or-nothing voting doesn't appropriately represent the people's opinions the way that proportional voting does. How much money do politicians spend on campaigns? That's right, you only get to vote for the people rich enough to advertise their election. Oh yeah, and now that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people and can fund political campaigns, lobbying is that much easier. Corporations get to lobby politicians around into making legislation that benefits them, but hey, that's all fair game in capitalism. For f@#! sake, gay marriage is outlawed in almost every state because insurance companies lobby the hell out of politicians to keep the status quo. Do you see how capitalism tends to work at the expense of human rights? All of this made possible by the Constitution that basically set this country up for failure (breeding corrupt judges, not setting term limits, creating an atmosphere where getting votes means more than doing what's best for society).
Corporations are not whats wrong with lobbying, that is a stupid argument. The system is broken, and where there are cracks in the foundation, people will take advantage. This extends from welfare and unemployment all the way up to lobbying. Corporations drive the lobbying, yes. But when politicians are having their campaigns funded by special interests, where is the problem, really? Is it the special interest group, or the law that allows them to perpetrate the US political system? Come on, Shy. Don't let your feelings cloud the actual issues.
3. I saw some things up there about Fox News... I skimmed it.. Just want to say Fox News is clearly an entertainment business. My concentration at college is in media production, and every professor I've talked to said that the journalism community is in complete agreement that Fox News is a sham and has no journalistic integrity... Not sure if that's what you guys were talking about, was too lazy to read... Never cite Fox News for anything, EVER.
Also, going with Walrus's book recommendations, I have a watching recommendation for fellow enthusiasts: HBO's The Wire, a television show with an extremely realistic portrayal of urban life in various facets of Baltimore - often cited as the greatest television show ever made and one of the greatest literary achievements of the 21st century.
Pretty much all television and print media involves bias. Pretty hard to quote news or even reference news without referencing the bias that comes packaged with it. Just take it with a grain of salt. Pretty sure your hair on your back wouldn't have bristled at the idea of me quoting an MSNBC story.
-
Ultimately the best way to rank a country's success is its citizen's quality of life.
Things like safety index and health care systems have never seen the US rank above 7th in public studies (http://www.google.es/search?client=opera&rls=es-ES&q=quality+of+life+index+2012&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest) and it's only recently it's gone up from lower than 10th positions (mainly due to other countries being struck harder by the economical crisis (http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf))
What do you think of this, Walrus?
Firstly, thanks for posting that, Ropa, its actually pretty good information. I'd say the United States is doing pretty well to be perfectly honest when stacking it up against other large countries. Germany seems to be doing the best among densely populated countries. I'm going to do a little research on Germany, i know general information from national news but I could stand to learn quite a bit. I think much of the problem with why the US is down the list involves our school system, we are saved by the fact that the US still attracts highly talented immigrants from other countries. We are still leading the world in science at the top, but losing the battle for tomorrow at the very bottom. Frankly, It's a tough comparison when the country at #1 has a population of 8 million, and the US has over 300 million citizens. An interesting list though, nonetheless.
-
The total population has no influence at all with these numbers. It says income per person, divorce rate per 1000 people, life expectancy (again, per person), unemployment rate (percentage) etcetera.
You could argue that population density could play a role, but if you look here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Countries_by_population_density.svg), you can see that this also doesn't explain away the rankings.
As for the US leading the world in science, that's also debatable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita
Clearly, the countries with only 1 or 2 laureates make for an unreliable number for laureates per capita, but the amount of Nobel prizes going to Switzerland is quite baffling for such a small country. Well done, SPW!
You could also say that politics are involved with Nobel prizes, and rightly so. It's a travesty that dr. Kolff never got a Nobel prize. The guy invented the artificial kidney and was instrumental in developing the artificial heart. How much more awesome can you get?
If you're going by volume, then yes, the US wins. More inhabitants, more scientists, more scientific papers, simple math. I won't deny the role of the US in the scientific world, though, it's a major player. Someone apparently made a comparison of scientific papers per capita: http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2008/01/10/science-papers-per-country/ and in that category, the US is not on the #1 spot either. China's working bloody hard to get past the US too.
-
The total population has no influence at all with these numbers. It says income per person, divorce rate per 1000 people, life expectancy (again, per person), unemployment rate (percentage) etcetera.
You could argue that population density could play a role, but if you look here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Countries_by_population_density.svg), you can see that this also doesn't explain away the rankings.
As for the US leading the world in science, that's also debatable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita
Clearly, the countries with only 1 or 2 laureates make for an unreliable number for laureates per capita, but the amount of Nobel prizes going to Switzerland is quite baffling for such a small country. Well done, SPW!
You could also say that politics are involved with Nobel prizes, and rightly so. It's a travesty that dr. Kolff never got a Nobel prize. The guy invented the artificial kidney and was instrumental in developing the artificial heart. How much more awesome can you get?
If you're going by volume, then yes, the US wins. More inhabitants, more scientists, more scientific papers, simple math. I won't deny the role of the US in the scientific world, though, it's a major player. Someone apparently made a comparison of scientific papers per capita: http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2008/01/10/science-papers-per-country/ and in that category, the US is not on the #1 spot either. China's working bloody hard to get past the US too.
No I get that the total population doesn't influence these specific numbers. I am arguing that the larger the population, the harder it is to maintain the standards that are measured in that study/page/collection, whatever it is. Surely you can't believe that providing excellent healthcare to all of your citizens is the same in a country like Monaco when compared to the US. Nobel laureates per capita is certainly an interesting characteristic, but the same argument stands. The very reasons why it is hard to maintain a 'happiness' standard for 8 million versus 300 million are the same for why the US is the world leader in science. I'm not arguing that we have the smartest man or woman scientifically, merely we overwhelm with numbers, and our technology is basically superior across the board because of the large amount of scientific minds. You are right about one thing, the times are changing, and the world is catching up. China is going to have a hard time getting past the US, even with their incredible ability to steal. They are the kings of intellectual property theft, a veritable world leader. They would be leading in that metric if it were part of that study :)
Take a look at a quick graph I made, it charts these scores by the quality of life index and compares them to the populations of the countries:
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/jimcoombs/graph.png)
Aside from a few blips, these are relatively small countries, population wise, with only a few with more than 10 million inhabitants. Of the worlds 20 most populated countries, only 3 appear in the top 20 of the happiness index. That should tell you something unto itself. Theres a simple correlation here that I didn't invent all on my own. More people -----> less overall happiness. With few exceptions. Also interesting enough: Germany appears to be the perfect model for large countries according to the QLI metric. This also shows the massive difference in population between the US and any other country on this quality of life list. Coincidence?
One thing is certain, the Swiss have it made. :)
-
Wally, one of the most prosperous times in US history, in the 50s and 60s, we had a 90% tax rate for the highest income bracket. That was also a period in which there was enough government support to make tuition only 100-200 dollars per year, which is jaw-dropping. We can tax the rich a hell of a lot more, it's silly to think everything we take out of their pockets will simply hurt us to an equal extent. The majority of the resistance simply comes from the rich themselves, and their influence on politics. Saying that we need less government, fewer social programs right now plays directly into the hands of the super rich, and hurts the vast majority of the populace, though it would be a good way to ensure a revolution; the occupy protests are a genuine glimpse at that.
"Corporations are not whats wrong with lobbying"; so bribing someone isn't wrong, only the person accepting the bribe is at fault? They're both at fault of course, anyone who sits at the top of a power structure, whether it's governmental or private, tends to be corrupt. But the point is, we can stop the possibility of this even happening. By limiting campaign contributions significantly, we can put candidates on a similar playing field, so that it's not always the person with the most money, the person most indebted to a tiny minority of the wealthy, who wins an election. And since some money might still need to play a role, this site: http://anticorruptionact.org/ suggests giving a 100 dollar tax rebate that can be used for campaign contributions.
-
I didn't read all of that, but since you asked me in the first post to say stuff, I will.
Unregulated capitalism has been the cause of a lot of suffering (slavery, Civil War, why we're in the Middle East). Corporations are outsourcing more than ever, the top 1% controls something like 40% of the countries wealth, and the gap between lower and upper class is growing larger everyday. Your idea of private schooling and private healthcare further f@#! over these people and prevent them from contributing to society. There are things called positive and negative externalities in economics. The existence of negative externalities is a reason in itself while capitalism is flawed. For example, in unregulated capitalism, a business could cut corners and pollute, something that effects everyone even if they support the business or not... That's a negative externality and that is why government regulation is needed... I mean, isn't it enough to look at American history before labor laws? Anyway, people staying alive and being educated to contribute to society is considered a positive externality, and when you make people pay for things like school and healthcare, you're always going to be excluding the poorest of people. So not only does privatized everything create negative externalies, it reduces the amount of positive externality output.
You are a little bit all over here, Shy, so im going to attempt to clarify while staying inside the bounds of the original discussion. Let's drop the idea of unregulated capitalism where no labor laws or pollution controls exist, because no one in this thread is for that from what I can see. Tying capitalism to slavery and the civil war is prepackaged rhetoric, and again is a topic that involves a great deal of issues, very few of which relate to the dialogue here. Lets stick to the basics. If you want to revisit that later, im game, but lets cap the current discourse first. The most important point you address is the privatization of healthcare and schooling, we'll get back to that. The most important part of my endorsement of privatization is that private enterprise is, at a base level, infinitely more efficient than the government. My measure of efficiency in this case is capital, or more specifically, currency. Private enterprise can provide cheaper schooling the government can, and a switch to privatization can allow for total reform of the unions that strange our public schooling system. By doing this, taxes can be lowered, which will result in more jobs. With enough flexibility in the job market, these so called 'unfortunates' with 'no hope' can enjoy gainful employment which results in a more productive society.
Slavery and the Civil War were just examples I gave that showed what capitalism has historically led to. Today, capitalism oppresses the working and lower class as well as other groups.
Pollution was just an example of a negative externality that capitalism produces. Capitalism means laissez faire, it doesn't want government regulating it... But just to clarify, you do support government regulations on businesses?
Like I said before, privatized schooling will exclude the poorest of the poor, that's why the system is so oppressive. You can't compensate that fact by saying lowering taxes will create more jobs therefore more citizens will be productive to society. Also, another problem with private schooling is that they can teach whatever the hell they want. This is a problem right now, even with public schools and the issue with evolution. There needs to be universal guidelines for what to teach across the country. Forbidding evolution is absolutely unacceptable in a world that is rapidly progressing forward.
f@#!, how do you quote individual things in a post? I'm just gonna have to quote stuff...
"The history of oppression is our country is long and its legacy is deeply engrained in our society. Blacks still suffer because of the sins of our fathers (as we are white), and have less opportunity than whites. Again, this is mostly a social issue, and not really part of the main discussion here. There is an economic difference, but im sure we can agree this is mostly because of social standing and prejudice, and no amount of money appropriated by the government is going to solve that. The blacks aren't the only ones that are born into poverty-like conditions with strikes against them. See: Indigenous Native Americans. Lets drop racism for now, again something we can revisit later. You are taking an issue in a totally different direction, and it confuses the issue at hand. "
The main part of this discussion seems to be economics, and since economics is a branch of sociology, it doesn't make much sense to brush off my points by calling them social issues and saying I'm missing the point. You want to drop racism, why? It's a valid point in discussing flaws of capitalism. Because of racism, a large amount of people are excluded from the fruits of capitalism, and it was capitalism that was the cause of much of this racism!
"I can't refute your assertion that becoming wealthy is mostly luck, its an important point. Most people who have risen to prominent positions (CEOs, ect.) will attribute much of their success to luck, being at the right place at the right time. Alternatively, you have to work hard to put yourself in the position to even have luck be a factor. This applies to people of any color, from any walk of life, from any income bracket. Unfortunately, taxing the sit out of the top bracket isn't a real solution. I'd love for someone from France on these forums to come in here and tell you how the proposal to tax the wealthy at a 75% rate is going. The proposal from Francois Hollande has the wealthy scrambling, as a 75% tax rate should. The wealthy affected are ready to leave the country entirely, taking their businesses with them. So how is that going to help? Especially with the rise of foreign direct investment these days among the rich in the USA, who is to say your tax proposals won't drive them out of the country entirely. Mexico for years have based much of their economy on becoming attractive landing spots for american companies. Your 1% will depart for Mexico long before they pay any sort of crazy rate you are envisioning. And for the record, anyone can be successful through hard work as long as they have a job. Your proposals don't create any jobs. Companies don't create positions when they are taxed more heavily, rather when they are taxed at a lower rate. Why do you think that one of Obama's first significant decisions in office was to extend the Bush tax cuts?"
If people can't handle the tax rate, let them leave and take their business with them. Socialism does not erase the free market; Someone else who can handle the taxes will replace them. Your assertion that hard work leads to success still doesn't hold. I'll ask the question again; why does the vast majority of people born into poverty stay into poverty and the vast majority of people born into wealth stay into wealth? It's ridiculous to assume that everyone in the lower class (which is a large amount now) is lazy and can't work hard. People on welfare want to work, being on welfare is not a free ticket to paradise... they are living on the bare essentials. These businesses that you're afraid will flee the country are the ones most concerned with profit, look how they are outsourcing far more than ever. How is that helping the people who want to work, when the corporations would rather hire people from across the sea to work for nickels? The private sector clearly isn't helping these people, the government needs to be putting out more jobs. I'm sure there is plenty of infrastructure that could be improved. The government could be hiring citizens to do these public works, but instead, we have private businesses utilizing the cheap labor of illegal immigrants, and to my knowledge, there is still no law that targets those who hire them, so there is virtually no risk for these businessmen to cut corners... Speaking of cutting corners, look at the BP Oil Spill and the vast harm it has caused to nature... there's a negative externality for you that could have been avoided with more regulation.. But now I am getting off point.
"I envision government as a entity working in tandem with its citizens to provide freedoms directly outlined in the constitution. Government should be responsible for providing protection for these freedoms in terms of a strong national army and stout militia at a local and state level. Your argument for government funded studies holds no water. There are plenty of studies done by private companies that have been just as influential on the direction of life and health, as you put it. There is no reason to believe government is the only body capable of executing and producing results of studies. If you want examples i'll cite them, but theres no reason to at this point, its a universal fact. I bet you are furious that your liberal contemporaries are selling off the development and upkeep of roads to private companies, especially with your mandate of this being a job of government. As far as your points you've made so far, you've stuck with facts. But when it comes to Reagan, you are dead wrong. Under Reagan, unemployment fell more sharply then it ever had in US history, and the economy grew exponentially. Reagan cut taxes indeed like you said, but in his second term, with the help of congress, pushed through the single largest tax increase in US peacetime history. He then presided over several more tax rate hikes in his first term, the most notable were for social security and credit card debt? I think? Fact check me. The economy grew, more people had jobs, social security was strengthened for the future retirees. Criticizing Reagan is a terrible place to start if you want to rail on someone for ruining the economy. Start with Jimmy Carter."
My point still stands. Yes, there have been great private studies, but the cycle remains the same... Did the scientists who conducted these private studies grow up in a vacuum with no help from the government or community? No, they didn't, no one can. That's the point I'm making. Growing up in society wouldn't be possible without everything the government gives to us, and we have an obligation to give back through taxes to help later generations. The problem is that the top bracket is convinced taxation is theft of hard earned money and they bitch about taxation. Why do you think we're in such debt right now (besides the military budget)? Because the government is funding various things in society (at least trying to), and the people who are lucky enough to make huge amounts of money think they did it all by themselves and don't want to give back to the government that helped them reach that status, so the government is pouring out more money than it is receiving... and once again, it's total greed. These CEOs who are making thousands more than their employees don't think they can live comfortably with still tens of millions of dollars even after a 70% income tax. How much do you think the average person in the top 1% spends a year? Do you think they even come close to spending half of their income in a year? You realize that most of the money they make just sits there, when it could be put back into society to help the less fortunate? I'm not dead wrong about Reagan. You can easily look up any graph and see that when Reagan took office, taxes were sharply cut and the national debt sky rocketed. http://greghollingsworth.org/storage/post-images/Income_Tax_Rate_v._National_Debt.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1250006419085 There is a simple graph... Income tax goes down, national debt goes up, right after Reagan takes office. The only economic gain you see from Reagan was through the highest bracket. He totally f@#!ed the lower class. Like I said in our private discussion, if there was one president I would compare to Hitler, it would be Reagan for what he did to the lower class... I challenge you to google "Reagan lower class", a neutral term, and show me how many goods things you find, because everything I'm reading through is pretty diabolical, and I don't want to bother listing everything when you can do the research yourself. Also, I'm pretty sure the Austrian School of Economics is the only school that takes Reagan seriously. Just like Fox News is a joke in the educated journalism community, Reagan is a complete joke to the educated economics community.
"Greed is a poor choice of words, ill recant that statement. It's entitlement I think socialism creates. Also, if you want to argue against the two party system or foreign wars, I'm game. I'll stand next to you and echo your exact sentiments. I support an isolationist foreign policy and a forced reform of the two party system. I think the country needs a little revolution now and then, like Jefferson said, "Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Obamacare and the forced mandate of healthcare eliminates the power of choice, choice that doesn't interfere with the rights of others should never be forced upon anyone. It's an infringement on my rights as a private citizen of the US."
Amen, the two party system wants the same thing and is totally corrupt.
I don't know the specifics of Obamacare. All I know is I condone single-payer healthcare so the poorest people aren't afraid of costs when deciding to go to the doctor or not. Privatized healthcare, like private schools, will exclude the poorest of the poor, just another example of how capitalism is the oppressor of the working and lower class.
"By 'a lot' you mean Scandinavia. How are Italy, Spain, and France doing with their sky high taxation rates? It's no surprise that the countries with your pure socialist models have almost no armed forces and rely upon coalitions of the world if they were ever attacked. They rely on the United States and like countries to defend them if they were attacked. You can argue for ceased aggressions, but we all know that will never happen, its human nature. Wars will always be fought, these countries are all gambling that other countries will defend them. It's hard to find an effective country that is well rounded on all fronts, I would probably say Germany is doing pretty well with its pseudo-socialist policies. Germany cracks the mold somehow, the effective socialist countries tend to be sparsely populated, Ropa posted a list of global satisfaction, its no surprise the top 10 are all very small countries population-wise with little military save for Germany."
Yes, I was referring to Scandinavia mostly and other countries that practice social democracy. Maybe these countries who aren't building arms realizes that there isn't a profit to make for someone going to war with them. There's no profit in going to war with a country like Iceland, and if someone did, they'd practically be asking for WWIII. Why does population and military matter, anyway?
"Corporations are not whats wrong with lobbying, that is a stupid argument. The system is broken, and where there are cracks in the foundation, people will take advantage. This extends from welfare and unemployment all the way up to lobbying. Corporations drive the lobbying, yes. But when politicians are having their campaigns funded by special interests, where is the problem, really? Is it the special interest group, or the law that allows them to perpetrate the US political system? Come on, Shy. Don't let your feelings cloud the actual issues. "
Mablak already took this one.
"Pretty much all television and print media involves bias. Pretty hard to quote news or even reference news without referencing the bias that comes packaged with it. Just take it with a grain of salt. Pretty sure your hair on your back wouldn't have bristled at the idea of me quoting an MSNBC story."
I don't learn news from TV or radio. I prefer using independent sources that can't be touched by corporations such as democracynow.com. Fox News is packed with propaganda and is an entertainment station for anyone not brainwashed by them. For god sake, they aired Glenn Beck, he is an entertainer, not a journalist. The fact that you said Bill O'Reilly is everything that is right with journalism scares me. Look up some youtube videos of O'Reilly. Just search his name and everything that comes up is him making a complete ass out of himself because he doesn't know how to argue logically and he treats his guests like shit. He knows he's an entertainer and not a journalist.
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/jimcoombs/graph.png)
Honestly dude this graph shows nothing... You have a steady green line and you're trying to say that the purple line that is jagged all the way shows some kind of correlation... You don't even need text and context data on that graph to see the two lines are independent from one another. Like D1 said, it's per person or per some amount of persons to eliminate the population bias.
-
ugh let's keep this to maybe one very specific topic... It's too much of a chore to respond to everything.. This thread has caused me to stay up writing till 5 and 6 AM for the past two nights
-
f@#!, how do you quote individual things in a post? I'm just gonna have to quote stuff...
Well, I just copy-paste the first [ quote] bit and end with [/ quote] :) Make ctrl-c and ctrl-v work for you!
Take a look at a quick graph I made, it charts these scores by the quality of life index and compares them to the populations of the countries:
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/jimcoombs/graph.png)
Aside from a few blips, these are relatively small countries, population wise, with only a few with more than 10 million inhabitants. Of the worlds 20 most populated countries, only 3 appear in the top 20 of the happiness index. That should tell you something unto itself. Theres a simple correlation here that I didn't invent all on my own. More people -----> less overall happiness. With few exceptions. Also interesting enough: Germany appears to be the perfect model for large countries according to the QLI metric. This also shows the massive difference in population between the US and any other country on this quality of life list. Coincidence?
Short answer: yes. ShyGuy handled this one already.
Face it, Wally, we take better care of our own people in Western Europe and there's a simple reason for that: the upper class (man, that term leaves a nasty taste in my mouth) can't function on their own without the lower and middle class (same there) doing what they do. I can't do my job if there weren't truck drivers bringing supplies to the hospital, carpenters and masoners who built the hospital I work in, built the road I use to get to work, architects who designed them, the work force at the power plant to provide electricity, nino's slaves who provide bull meat, etcetera, etcetera. Society would collapse without them, so why the hell won't the guys at the top take better care of them in the US?
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
Numbers don't lie. Costs of living have increased, but the minimum wage hasn't changed. It took a democratic congress in 2006 to finally raise the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years.
Income and spending are skewered in the US and that's the reason countries like Switzerland score higher.
-
Income and spending are skewered in the US and that's the reason countries like Switzerland score higher.
that and their not sure if moral bank policy
-
The cleaning ladies get divident from the bank?
-
f@#!, how do you quote individual things in a post? I'm just gonna have to quote stuff...
Well, I just copy-paste the first [ quote] bit and end with [/ quote] :) Make ctrl-c and ctrl-v work for you!
Take a look at a quick graph I made, it charts these scores by the quality of life index and compares them to the populations of the countries:
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/jimcoombs/graph.png)
Aside from a few blips, these are relatively small countries, population wise, with only a few with more than 10 million inhabitants. Of the worlds 20 most populated countries, only 3 appear in the top 20 of the happiness index. That should tell you something unto itself. Theres a simple correlation here that I didn't invent all on my own. More people -----> less overall happiness. With few exceptions. Also interesting enough: Germany appears to be the perfect model for large countries according to the QLI metric. This also shows the massive difference in population between the US and any other country on this quality of life list. Coincidence?
Short answer: yes. ShyGuy handled this one already.
Face it, Wally, we take better care of our own people in Western Europe and there's a simple reason for that: the upper class (man, that term leaves a nasty taste in my mouth) can't function on their own without the lower and middle class (same there) doing what they do. I can't do my job if there weren't truck drivers bringing supplies to the hospital, carpenters and masoners who built the hospital I work in, built the road I use to get to work, architects who designed them, the work force at the power plant to provide electricity, nino's slaves who provide bull meat, etcetera, etcetera. Society would collapse without them, so why the hell won't the guys at the top take better care of them in the US?
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
Numbers don't lie. Costs of living have increased, but the minimum wage hasn't changed. It took a democratic congress in 2006 to finally raise the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years.
Income and spending are skewered in the US and that's the reason countries like Switzerland score higher.
lol, my shitty graph wasn't trying to illustrate a trend, I think you got that part at least but Shy is clueless. I was just trying to show visually how many of those countries' populations on that list are smaller. Also, I've never heard anyone referencing western europe when talking about prosperity before, lol. France and Spain are in deep, deep shit.
Also, I know you are no economist, but when in the midst of a economic recession, with unemployment at a high level, the last thing you want to do is raise the minimum wage. Some of the ideas that Shy and Mab have posted up here actually have merit, I just worry about the implications for the country long-term. Raising the minimum wage is just a flat out horrible idea Dark, companies are hurting enough without the government pricing low wage jobs over the market. If you want people making more money over the long term, raising minimum wage in the short term would be a colossal mistake. We've seen 2 recessions in America while fighting 2 foreign wars last decade. Raising the federal minimum wage was a terrible idea in 2006, and its a terrible idea now. You cut young americans and immigrants out of jobs, mostly young americans who are trying to scrape their way along. The states with more jobs, better jobs have increased their minimum wages as such. Other states would be devastated. The US needs more jobs, not better wages right now.
Mablak - It's not about fairness.
-
f@#!, how do you quote individual things in a post? I'm just gonna have to quote stuff...
Well, I just copy-paste the first [ quote] bit and end with [/ quote] :) Make ctrl-c and ctrl-v work for you!
Take a look at a quick graph I made, it charts these scores by the quality of life index and compares them to the populations of the countries:
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/jimcoombs/graph.png)
Aside from a few blips, these are relatively small countries, population wise, with only a few with more than 10 million inhabitants. Of the worlds 20 most populated countries, only 3 appear in the top 20 of the happiness index. That should tell you something unto itself. Theres a simple correlation here that I didn't invent all on my own. More people -----> less overall happiness. With few exceptions. Also interesting enough: Germany appears to be the perfect model for large countries according to the QLI metric. This also shows the massive difference in population between the US and any other country on this quality of life list. Coincidence?
Short answer: yes. ShyGuy handled this one already.
Face it, Wally, we take better care of our own people in Western Europe and there's a simple reason for that: the upper class (man, that term leaves a nasty taste in my mouth) can't function on their own without the lower and middle class (same there) doing what they do. I can't do my job if there weren't truck drivers bringing supplies to the hospital, carpenters and masoners who built the hospital I work in, built the road I use to get to work, architects who designed them, the work force at the power plant to provide electricity, nino's slaves who provide bull meat, etcetera, etcetera. Society would collapse without them, so why the hell won't the guys at the top take better care of them in the US?
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
Numbers don't lie. Costs of living have increased, but the minimum wage hasn't changed. It took a democratic congress in 2006 to finally raise the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years.
Income and spending are skewered in the US and that's the reason countries like Switzerland score higher.
lol, my shitty graph wasn't trying to illustrate a trend, I think you got that part at least but Shy is clueless. I was just trying to show visually how many of those countries' populations on that list are smaller.
I was just confused as to why you would make a graph with two variables if you weren't trying to establish a trend
-
I knew a girl at my last job at Office Depot, she was the hardest worker I've ever seen. Despite being the most valuable employee at their store for many years, she got paid just a tiny bit more than the rest of us at minimum wage. She had nobody else in her life, and had to pay all her bills on those meager wages, she barely had enough to eat. I refuse to accept the idea that huge corporations like Office Depot or Walmart are simply unable to pay their employees, at the very least, a livable wage. There are companies like Costco and New Seasons who pay their employees a respectable amount, and while that might not be feasible for all companies, it certainly is for huge and successful ones.
There are policies in place to lessen the impact of minimum wage hurting small business; I think we can raise it right now, and it was higher decades ago, adjusted for inflation. But if you're worried about companies finding ways to avoid paying that extra money, by say, employing fewer people, I can certainly say that in a lot of retail stores companies are already employing the bare minimum of people, for the bare minimum of hours, and could hardly cut further. Walmart employs 1.4 million workers, they're the largest workforce of any kind outside of the US and Chinese militaries, and they are definitely not paid what they need to live. Nonetheless, getting paid is fairly useless if it's below a certain amount; would you rather have 1000 people employed and none of them able to eat/pay the bills, or 900-something employed, and all getting enough? Maybe wage changes would be best accomplished by unions, who might be able to better ensure employers don't take out those losses on them, but given that so many companies prevent unionization, a higher minimum right now would be better than nothing.
-
Raising the minimum wage is just a flat out horrible idea Dark, companies are hurting enough without the government pricing low wage jobs over the market.
How do you expect people to consume if they don't have enough money to spend? Less consumption = less profit.
At any rate, your sales pitch is kind of tough to sell if you consider that the average salary at goldman sachs in 2009 (including everybody that worked there - banktellers, janitors, professional pencil sharpeners, security etcetera) was $700k (ballpark).
When we're talking about minimum wage, it shouldn't go up if you ask the big boys in corporate America. When we're talking about the salary of the guys at the top, it has to go up and taxes have to go down according to them.
These are also the guys that didn't see the credit crunch coming because they didn't realise cashflow isn't infinite. If doctors f@#!ed up on this scale, there would be riots and we would be lynched. Just saying.
-
f@#!, how do you quote individual things in a post? I'm just gonna have to quote stuff...
Well, I just copy-paste the first [ quote] bit and end with [/ quote] :) Make ctrl-c and ctrl-v work for you!
Take a look at a quick graph I made, it charts these scores by the quality of life index and compares them to the populations of the countries:
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/jimcoombs/graph.png)
Aside from a few blips, these are relatively small countries, population wise, with only a few with more than 10 million inhabitants. Of the worlds 20 most populated countries, only 3 appear in the top 20 of the happiness index. That should tell you something unto itself. Theres a simple correlation here that I didn't invent all on my own. More people -----> less overall happiness. With few exceptions. Also interesting enough: Germany appears to be the perfect model for large countries according to the QLI metric. This also shows the massive difference in population between the US and any other country on this quality of life list. Coincidence?
Short answer: yes. ShyGuy handled this one already.
Face it, Wally, we take better care of our own people in Western Europe and there's a simple reason for that: the upper class (man, that term leaves a nasty taste in my mouth) can't function on their own without the lower and middle class (same there) doing what they do. I can't do my job if there weren't truck drivers bringing supplies to the hospital, carpenters and masoners who built the hospital I work in, built the road I use to get to work, architects who designed them, the work force at the power plant to provide electricity, nino's slaves who provide bull meat, etcetera, etcetera. Society would collapse without them, so why the hell won't the guys at the top take better care of them in the US?
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
Numbers don't lie. Costs of living have increased, but the minimum wage hasn't changed. It took a democratic congress in 2006 to finally raise the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years.
Income and spending are skewered in the US and that's the reason countries like Switzerland score higher.
lol, my shitty graph wasn't trying to illustrate a trend, I think you got that part at least but Shy is clueless. I was just trying to show visually how many of those countries' populations on that list are smaller.
I was just confused as to why you would make a graph with two variables if you weren't trying to establish a trend
I claim laziness. 1 graph with 2 variables = easier than 2 graphs with one variable. What do I look like, a statistician? It's amazing i even put in the time to enter all the integers in the first place. Take it for what it is, a meager attempt at visualisation. If you want to make a better one, im all for it.
-
Raising the minimum wage is just a flat out horrible idea Dark, companies are hurting enough without the government pricing low wage jobs over the market.
How do you expect people to consume if they don't have enough money to spend? Less consumption = less profit.
At any rate, your sales pitch is kind of tough to sell if you consider that the average salary at goldman sachs in 2009 (including everybody that worked there - banktellers, janitors, professional pencil sharpeners, security etcetera) was $700k (ballpark).
When we're talking about minimum wage, it shouldn't go up if you ask the big boys in corporate America. When we're talking about the salary of the guys at the top, it has to go up and taxes have to go down according to them.
These are also the guys that didn't see the credit crunch coming because they didn't realise cashflow isn't infinite. If doctors f@#!ed up on this scale, there would be riots and we would be lynched. Just saying.
I agree with everything you said Dark, its just that there is a time and a place for these proposed changes of yours. You cant expect a blanket change like that to be implemented at any old time, and expect results. You have to consider the current state of the economy. In a vacuum, your plan would work just fine, but basic economics tell you that in the short term, it significantly makes things worse. The same thing goes for reining in inflation. Reducing inflation is a problem when you have to increase interest rates. When the US approaches the so called 'fiscal cliff', increasing interest rates is the last thing you want to do to sustain or promote growth. Shy, Mab, and yourself have descent ideas, it is just nearly impossible to push through sweeping changes right now, as they will produce diminished returns with the state of the economy. The US needs a stopgap plan, things are going south in a hurry and implementing incremental long term solutions is a incredible gamble when the economy is sensitive enough to change as it is. I think you are all missing the boat when it comes to what is needed at this exact moment.
-
I knew a girl at my last job at Office Depot, she was the hardest worker I've ever seen. Despite being the most valuable employee at their store for many years, she got paid just a tiny bit more than the rest of us at minimum wage. She had nobody else in her life, and had to pay all her bills on those meager wages, she barely had enough to eat. I refuse to accept the idea that huge corporations like Office Depot or Walmart are simply unable to pay their employees, at the very least, a livable wage. There are companies like Costco and New Seasons who pay their employees a respectable amount, and while that might not be feasible for all companies, it certainly is for huge and successful ones.
There are policies in place to lessen the impact of minimum wage hurting small business; I think we can raise it right now, and it was higher decades ago, adjusted for inflation. But if you're worried about companies finding ways to avoid paying that extra money, by say, employing fewer people, I can certainly say that in a lot of retail stores companies are already employing the bare minimum of people, for the bare minimum of hours, and could hardly cut further. Walmart employs 1.4 million workers, they're the largest workforce of any kind outside of the US and Chinese militaries, and they are definitely not paid what they need to live. Nonetheless, getting paid is fairly useless if it's below a certain amount; would you rather have 1000 people employed and none of them able to eat/pay the bills, or 900-something employed, and all getting enough? Maybe wage changes would be best accomplished by unions, who might be able to better ensure employers don't take out those losses on them, but given that so many companies prevent unionization, a higher minimum right now would be better than nothing.
Ah Mablak, I think me and you should have a private chat sometime, I work for Tesco, and I have seriously never been so disgusted in my life at the way this company runs its business and treats its staff...
-
You have to consider the current state of the economy. In a vacuum, your plan would work just fine, but basic economics tell you that in the short term, it significantly makes things worse.
What you're saying is that in a bad economy, companies should have to spend less on wages to compensate for the smaller income. Sounds legit.
Here's an idea: spend less on bonuses: [link removed at the request of the site maintainer]
Tesco is mentioned as an example here: a news report from 4 days ago mentions that Tim Mason is leaving the company and with his departure receives 5.7 million pounds (at the current rate, that's $9.14 million). How many year salaries is that? What kind of work does he do for that kind of money anyway? High profile assassination? It's not like his own money is at risk with his work, anyway. If the company goes bankrupt, he gets to keep all his money (in contrast, in Japan, if a company goes bankrupt, the director loses everything). Basically, the guys at the top get the rewards while the guys at the bottom run the risk. That's messed up, man.
-
You have to consider the current state of the economy. In a vacuum, your plan would work just fine, but basic economics tell you that in the short term, it significantly makes things worse.
What you're saying is that in a bad economy, companies should have to spend less on wages to compensate for the smaller income. Sounds legit.
Here's an idea: spend less on bonuses: http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/2012-investment-banking-bonuses/
Tesco is mentioned as an example here: a news report from 4 days ago mentions that Tim Mason is leaving the company and with his departure receives 5.7 million pounds (at the current rate, that's $9.14 million). How many year salaries is that? What kind of work does he do for that kind of money anyway? High profile assassination? It's not like his own money is at risk with his work, anyway. If the company goes bankrupt, he gets to keep all his money (in contrast, in Japan, if a company goes bankrupt, the director loses everything). Basically, the guys at the top get the rewards while the guys at the bottom run the risk. That's messed up, man.
Yeah, the monster bonuses to CEO's are pretty terrible, I'm torn because as a CEO, you should be paid many times more than the average worker in my opinion. The 'many times' has become exponentially astronomical, though. I think they've worked harder than others to achieve their position so they do deserve more. I can't really offer a solution, as I don't believe in governments telling private companies how to structure their pay system. Regulating minimum wage is one thing, that is a government issue, I do not believe capping bonuses paid in a private corporation should be a function of government. Once you start with that, where does it end? What would government end up not controlling in private enterprise? I don't want to be a business owner trying to turn a profit with a government telling me where to spend what money and what to pay which workers.
-
You have to consider the current state of the economy. In a vacuum, your plan would work just fine, but basic economics tell you that in the short term, it significantly makes things worse.
What you're saying is that in a bad economy, companies should have to spend less on wages to compensate for the smaller income. Sounds legit.
Here's an idea: spend less on bonuses: http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/2012-investment-banking-bonuses/
Tesco is mentioned as an example here: a news report from 4 days ago mentions that Tim Mason is leaving the company and with his departure receives 5.7 million pounds (at the current rate, that's $9.14 million). How many year salaries is that? What kind of work does he do for that kind of money anyway? High profile assassination? It's not like his own money is at risk with his work, anyway. If the company goes bankrupt, he gets to keep all his money (in contrast, in Japan, if a company goes bankrupt, the director loses everything). Basically, the guys at the top get the rewards while the guys at the bottom run the risk. That's messed up, man.
Yeah, the monster bonuses to CEO's are pretty terrible, I'm torn because as a CEO, you should be paid many times more than the average worker in my opinion. The 'many times' has become exponentially astronomical, though. I think they've worked harder than others to achieve their position so they do deserve more. I can't really offer a solution, as I don't believe in governments telling private companies how to structure their pay system. Regulating minimum wage is one thing, that is a government issue, I do not believe capping bonuses paid in a private corporation should be a function of government. Once you start with that, where does it end? What would government end up not controlling in private enterprise? I don't want to be a business owner trying to turn a profit with a government telling me where to spend what money and what to pay which workers.
Paid a few times more maybe, not hundreds times more though. The only reason you might want a CEO to be paid more is because salaries might have to be structured like a pyramid scheme, just to maintain incentives for workers to move up the ladder. But what would be wrong about the government (ideally meaning us, the people) telling companies to spread their wealth out more effectively, in a way that better benefits society? I think we have to do something about the religion centered around the false idea that a business performs best when it attempts to maximize one factor only, shareholder value. This is a good article on corporate purpose:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/6/18%20corporate%20stout/stout_corporate%20issues.pdf
The slippery slope argument could be applied to anything though, I mean you could ask 'once we start taxing people, where will it end?', yet no one's pushing for arbitrarily high taxes. I really don't see the risk for getting out of control here, and I'm sure no matter what caps we put in place, CEOs will still be making exorbitant amounts.
-
Save us from Berlusconi Wally!
-
Yeah, the monster bonuses to CEO's are pretty terrible, I'm torn because as a CEO, you should be paid many times more than the average worker in my opinion. [...] I think they've worked harder than others to achieve their position so they do deserve more.
How do you know that they've worked harder? Did they have night shifts? Did they have to work multiple jobs like minimum wage workers? What is it that these people do, anyway?
-
The difference in wage between minimum wage workers and the CEO's is fairly small in Norway compared to other countries/economies. I'm really happy about it, as I don't see the benefit of someone being payed several times more the average worker. The values of our society is based upon equality.
Walrus, I'm curious, what do you think of the way the case of Anders Breivik was handled? He was sentenced to atleast 21 years in prison for killing 77 people. Would you rather have seen him take the death penalty? In prison, Breivik can access a computer, he's got books to read, he has his own room to work out in, and he is currently studying political science. What do you think about this?
-
In prison, Breivik can access a computer, he's got books to read, he has his own room to work out in, and he is currently studying political science. What do you think about this?
you're building Hitler 2.0
-
How do you know that they've worked harder? Did they have night shifts? Did they have to work multiple jobs like minimum wage workers?
So the guy flipping burgers and working the drivethrough at McDonalds should run the company, because in all reality, theres nothing that CEO's do. They don't even show up to work, and just cash multi-million dollar bonus checks. ::) I'm really trying to be reasonable here, but this:
What is it that these people do, anyway?
Is absurd. What makes you think some average shmuck off the street can successfully run a corporation? You realize most CEO's work like dogs and have basically no time for family life or otherwise, not to mention it is a ton of management and responsibility.....A fellow I met when I was in treatment for drug addiction had a father who was a CEO of a decently large company. He and his father had no relationship because his father basically left the house at 6 and came home at 10 and just went to bed, and then did the same thing over and over again. I get where the large divide in salary is a problem, but questioning the difference in occupation and the demands as such, just wow. Running a firm isn't really a hands-off kind of job, I'm pretty sure the ones who don't work as hard see their corporations tank. Pay everyone the same amount, and see how many people want to study 10 years to be a doctor, when you can get paid the same as a job that requires a 2 month training class. Thats not socialism, thats communism.
Walrus, I'm curious, what do you think of the way the case of Anders Breivik was handled? He was sentenced to atleast 21 years in prison for killing 77 people. Would you rather have seen him take the death penalty? In prison, Breivik can access a computer, he's got books to read, he has his own room to work out in, and he is currently studying political science. What do you think about this?
I'm not an advocate for the death penalty. I am appalled to hear that he only recieved 21 years in prison. Under what system of law does a man that dangerous have a chance of being unleashed upon society again at some point? I wouldn't kill him, but there should have been no way he was afforded a computer or books. The liberties he now enjoys are the ones he stole from his victims. That isn't justice. That isn't rehabilitation. That is a gross missapropriation of justice. I still can't believe that. You meant sentenced to 211 years in prison, I hope.
-
The middle is the best.
Wally's system is nice because it rewards people who make an effort (and thereby stimulates the creative forces in the economy). On the other hand, it is too rigid, because there are indeed many tasks within a society that are better in the hands of a central power with no commercial aspirations than in the hands of private folks.
And IMO it is the task of a government as well to take care of the excesses of the economic system and ensure the well-being of ALL of its citizens and not just the ones who have had the fortune to be considered 'life's winners'. Children, the elderly, handicapped people and even underprivilidged people (biologically or socially) are all likely to fall victim to a system that rewards people for their skills in private enterprise.
Charity is not going to cover that. People are way to shortsighted and selfish for that. Especially today. Even if they have the means and the will to do good, they won't just throw 40% of their paycheck on the street.
What you also need to realize is that the US cannot compete with the 'East' when it comes to cheap, manual, industrial labour like in the old days. The west can only compete by specializing in high tech jobs, the kind that need real education ánd capital. Both of these are readily available in most places in the west.
This is why it is so important to have good education and good education for áll citizens. You're gonna create a lot of trouble when you make education a privilidge and only allow a small percentage of your population to follow high education, while forcing businesses to seek talent elsewhere, overseas. It will create huge differences between rich and poor, perhaps even complete social strife (starting with more socialist minded presidents like Obama), while at the same time the economy will depend more and more on imported workers who might one day just stay in their homecountries and work for multinationals there. No difference.
Not saying the European socialist policies are that superb though. Here too we have many excesses, but most of them of the complete opposite as in the US. We do have CEO's with badass bonuses, but most problems are on the other hand. Lots of people not making too much of an effort anymore to make a living. Cause of all the subsidies for many people it is actually more attractive to get a minimum wage than say 500-1000 euro above that, cause that's when the taxes kick in and many special services aren't available anymore. This stimulates people to stay in the position they are in and not work towards higher functions anymore.
Not to say people don't try, as many here suffer from burnouts as well, but yeah, it's not a system IMO that gets the best out of people who lack inner motivation.
Not to mention absurdities like the one mentioned by Crazy. Policies that may seem humane, but are at the same time very unfair to the real victims and their families.
Regarding the army stuff. There's no real need for small countries to spend a shitload on arms here. Our direct neighbours are no threat as they share the same 'market' and thus equal economic interests and democratic populations (that have everything they need at hand) don't really feel a need to risk their lives in a dirty, bloody war with an other democratic nation. For the US, as the world's superpower things are a little different.
Btw, it's easy to say the Iraq war only cost money and wasn't beneficial at all in economic terms, but that's in hindsight. The Bush administration envisioned a very different outcome. A swift, easy invasion, the overthrowing of the regime and a solid and beneficial cooperation with the new people in power. That would without much doubt indeed have resulted in a very positive outcome, in oil, money and power.
It didn't turn out that way.
-
Save us from Berlusconi Wally!
We in America would love it if Monti stayed in power as long as possible, its a shame hes stepping down. Be interesting to see what the populists do in this next election in Italy. I think Berlusconi saved himself from Berlusconi ;) There is a chance you could see him up there again, hes been prime minister what, at least 3-4 times now? No reason a little bunga bunga couldn't stop him from a 5th term :)
What you also need to realize is that the US cannot compete with the 'East' when it comes to cheap, manual, industrial labour like in the old days. The west can only compete by specializing in high tech jobs, the kind that need real education ánd capital. Both of these are readily available in most places in the west.
Lots of good stuff in your post, but I wanted to share some information. I did some independent research and it appears that the pendulum is shifting, and that eventually jobs will either come back to the united states or go elsewhere for manufacturing. Apparently the manipulation of the yuan that the chinese have been doing for years has finally run its toll. Because of pressure put on them from the United States and other countries because any country that imports products that compete with the Chinese are effectively losing. They are losing because the Chinese, in artificially driving down the value of their currency, are able to make cheaper products to increase exporting. Normally all this exporting would increase the raw value of their yuan, but they have been holding it down to basically slaughter the competition in hopes that their monopolistic practices would leave them the sole provider of the cheap labor and industrial output that they have been. They are basically damaging the living conditions of their citizens as they do this, as the people that profit are the government, as the country has seen itself go from basically a agricultural third world country to a world superpower in the span of half a century. Basically, the trend is reversing and China is no longer able to hold down the value of their yuan, and firms from the United States are even bringing business back, albeit on a very slow scale so far. It qill be quite some time before a significant shift is seen, and I am definitely not saying industry will return to pre 1980's levels. I could write all day on this, as I already have, if anyone is in the mood for some light reading I did a write up on US - Chinese trade relations. It was supposed to be for a dissertation for my political science degree but ended up being just for my own pleasure. Instead of posting up a block of text, I attached it if anyone is interested in learning a little bit more, beware though, it checks in at about 2500 words ;)
[attachment=1]
-
I reckon you are right Wally, but the process will take a looong time. China will develop an economy that will eventually resemble a western one more and more as wages are rising, consumer demands are increasing and the education level of the people is growing constantly.
But... next in line is not the US. Once labour in China starts to become more expensive the multinationals will simply move south, to India and south East Asia and maybe even Africa on the long run.
According to your view the US workers have to sit it out until the rest of the world is earning as much or even more as US citizens before the loans can finally rise. In about 100 years or so... meanwhile the prices are going up every year and more and more people at the bottom are having issues making ends meet. It seems much more efficient, and humane, to educate these people so they can be employed in a different kind of labour, that requires more skill and promises increased revenues, for the citizens and for the nation as a whole.
At the same time, there needs to be at least a half-reasonable minimum wage for people who are just not able to qualify for the better jobs. This will enable them to lead the life of a regular (middleclass) citizen, which is good for the society as a whole. There's no profit in having them end up in deteriorated neighbourhoods where crime and social strife reign and children are brought up without any real prospect of moving up on the social ladder.
For businesses this is really not that big a deal. They think in quantities that go way beyond the billions of dollars.
If you can afford to give a CEO half a million you can surely afford to give a cleaning lady +100 dollars each month.
-
well i have some geopolitical questions to the great wally.
u have spoken from an foreign politic based on Isolationism. do you think it was wrong the usa took part in ww2 in europe even the outcome was a big succes? furthermore what do you think about the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you think its ok to send military forces to crash a regime which is oppressing people?
What do you think about the United Nations? which role should they play on worldwide conflicts?
What can be done to avoid a debacle with peacekeeping forces like in Srebrenica or Rwanda?
What can the UN do to avoid creating a platform for authoritarian regimes to share their political ideas? (like in the Durban Review Conference from 2009)
Do you think the state of palestine deserves a full membership in the united nations, even their government is unwilling/unable to controll their own people not to attack a legitimate country according to international law in their direct neigborship?
-
So the guy flipping burgers and working the drivethrough at McDonalds should run the company, because in all reality, theres nothing that CEO's do.
Is absurd. What makes you think some average shmuck off the street can successfully run a corporation? You realize most CEO's work like dogs and have basically no time for family life or otherwise, not to mention it is a ton of management and responsibility.....
[...] Pay everyone the same amount, and see how many people want to study 10 years to be a doctor, when you can get paid the same as a job that requires a 2 month training class. Thats not socialism, thats communism.
Well, now you're just being silly. The guy flipping burgers won't be able to live just from his McDonalds salary though. (S)he'd have to have another job on the side for that, especially if there's a family to feed.
As for the work of a CEO: I'm not saying they don't work. I'm saying it's not nearly as special as the salary for it suggests. They don't risk their lives at work (military personnel, firemen, pilots, nurses (you know, contagious diseases and all that), construction workers (tall buildings for example), radiation workers, policemen etcetera) for example.
It's not extraneous mental activities (theoretical physicists, mathematicians for example), not extraneous physical activities (military personnel, construction workers, stunt guys).
You mention the example of a CEO. I know an example of an intervention radiologist (well, 2 in the hospital where I work). They of course have their normal working days, but in addition to that, they're on call for vascular emergencies (people bleeding out, brain aneurysms). Since there are only 2 of them, that means half the year, they can be called at any time during the day, evening and night - including sundays and holidays. It's not unheard of for them to have to go to work at 3am and then still have to show up for work the following morning.
Now, doctors make a nice living, of course, and I'm not complaining about the money I'm making right now - but even with my salary it would take me a couple of decades to earn some of these bonuses (for example, the average yearly salary of goldman sachs employees). You can't convince me that CEOs work more than 10 times as hard as I do (or anyone else with a full time job, really), since a week doesn't have that many hours
Sure, certain jobs should pay more than other jobs, but holy crap, dude, they're not the saviours of the earth. I don't think their positions can be defended as things stand now.
-
well i have some geopolitical questions to the great wally.
u have spoken from an foreign politic based on Isolationism. do you think it was wrong the usa took part in ww2 in europe even the outcome was a big succes? furthermore what do you think about the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you think its ok to send military forces to crash a regime which is oppressing people?
Ahh, Peja. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. You have brought worthy questions to my table, and are deserving of a worthy response. Since you have requested I slowly bequeath my knowledge unto you, so therefore it shall be done:
U.S. was following isolationist tenets and was as close to true isolationist foreign policy as it ever had leading up to Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of war following the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. Churchill had been lobbying nonstop for quite some time leading into the U.S. entry into the war to get Roosevelt to join with him in the fight against the Axis. Roosevelt was steadfast in the notion that the U.S. would not enter the war, falling in line with the wants of the U.S. public. However, he changed his mind. Pearl Harbor was not a suprise attack.
In fact, Churchill and FDR were co-conspirators in the greatest turncoat action ever perpetrated on the American people. At the time, congress and the American people were very opposed to the war, and Roosevelt got all the justification he needed with the Pearl Harbor attack. Roosevelt denied intelligence to the armed forced in Hawaii about the location of the Japanese fleet and deceived them regarding ongoing relations with the Japs. He made ready the red cross to prepare for the disaster before it even happened. The 'devastation' of the pacific navy fleet was a myth, the ships destroyed in the attack were older ships nonessential to the main force of the navy in that region. FDR had the essential ships put out to sea previous to the attack in preparation. I forget who he called, but he called someone with the British government, I don't think it was Churchill, mere minutes after being informed about the attack and without any damage reports, and told them that none of the newer ships were in the harbor. Churchill and J. Edgar Hoover have both confirmed that FDR had knowledge that the Japanese were coming. He intentionally kept Hawaii in the dark to spark public outrage when the attack happened, knowing that was the only way congress would let him enter the war. The was in an era where you needed the support of congress to declare war ::)
That being said, the U.S. entry into WWII was a net positive. I have no doubt Hitler could have stonewalled Stalin and Churchill without the intervention of the U.S. The Axis would have dominated all of Western Europe and the Russians were far too poorly organized to ever defeat the Nazis on their own. One of Hitler's biggest miscalculations was the United States' willingness to enter the war. FDR did a deplorable thing to get the U.S. into the war, but it needed to happen. In this case, Isolationism is defeated by the greater good of the largest part of the civilized world at the time. I would have opposed entering the war, and I would have been dead wrong. That being said, lets move to your next question:
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were both deplorable. There as no reason for either, with or without Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction. That's why it is a moot point for me, and my eyes glass over when people argue about Bushs' intentions, and whether or not there was actionable military intelligence on WMD's. It doesn't matter. Possession of WMD's in the hands of an aggressive country isn't a crime, we would have turned on Isreal long ago. Of course, Netanyahu isn't gassing his own people, but still, there was no aggression toward another country. There is no doctrine that requires the United States to be the watchdog of the world. Judgement must be applied, and action taken only when the greater good of a large group of countries is at stake, and it wasn't. Afghanistan is barely a country. Iraq was downright inept, it's a good thing they invaded Kuwait preceding the Gulf War, because they would have gotten their ass handed to them if they invaded anywhere else.
Alternatively, I approve of strike actions like the one that netted us Bin Laden. Sovereignty is overrated. I know that will anger some of the purists here, but one constant of the United States has been a strong military, and that allows us to do whatever the hell we want, basically. I draw the line short of occupying a country. People may cry foul about this, "The United States is a bully," and "The US has no right." We have the right, and its stamped on every serviceman's uniform and piece of war machinery. It's the universal law of force, and we didn't invent it. It's been practiced in every civilization from the dawn of time. Any notion that we have simply moved past it is a fallacy. Mablak and Shy might want to cut military spending way down, but there's a reason no country has even though about invading the United States in 60 years. Theres a reason North America is the safest place in the world in terms of armed conflict. Could you imagine if the US was situated in mecca with its current force? Would Hezbollah be running skirmishes on our borders? I think not. The people that want to cut military spending in half, are the very people that take their absolute safety every day for granted. I know that is a hard line, but I feel military spending is important to the United States. Who in this country is really suffering? I mean, really. Take a trip down skid row in Mumbai and tell me the soup kitchen line in Los Angeles compares. The needs of the many have always outweighed the needs of the few.
Long story short, Peja. No. I wouldn't commit the resources. I'd bomb the shit out of key locations and equip the oppressed as best I could, but liberation of a country rests in the hands of its citizens. My country was founded on those principles. Only in situations of world war and/or a threat to the immediate safety of the American people do I order troops to occupy a country.
-
The people that want to cut military spending in half, are the very people that take their absolute safety every day for granted. I know that is a hard line, but I feel military spending is important to the United States. Who in this country is really suffering? I mean, really.
what an atrocious and ignorant statement. First of all, we assassinated Hussein and invaded the Middle East for monetary reasons, not safety reasons for the American people. That was the front we sold. We invaded for oil and drugs, two of the worlds top commodities. With that being said, I can without a doubt say our military spending is outrageous while not taking my safety for granted. Who in this country is really suffering? The people living in poor urban areas that are run by gangs, the thousands on innocent people who die by gang violence every year. Something like 9/11 happens once in a blue moon, and for the record, read some wikileaks war logs and just see how many innocent people our army kills. I don't know how someone can support the US army without being totally brainwashed or ignorant to reality.
Cut military spending, we already have enough shit to blow up the world 100 times over, why must we keep pumping trillions of dollars into it? We could be using that money to clean up these shitty urban areas so kids don't feel like growing up in a gang is their only option to life
-
what an atrocious and ignorant statement. First of all, we assassinated Hussein and invaded the Middle East for monetary reasons, not safety reasons for the American people. That was the front we sold. We invaded for oil and drugs, two of the worlds top commodities.
Shhh. This is an international forum. We don't need anyone knowing that the real reason we invaded Afghanistan was for the vast droves of heroin that the government secretly distributes to the ghettos to keep the destitute at bay.
Who in this country is really suffering?
You bit quoted me, I was making a comparison. We have it great in America. I was once homeless and living conditions were quite good. I lived in a shelter where living conditions were quite good. I was given clothes, a bed, somewhere to shower, and 3 meals a day. The shelter even ran a program to get people jobs that were having trouble. I worked my way out of there into an apartment. You act like there is no way out of being poor.
Cut military spending, we already have enough shit to blow up the world 100 times over, why must we keep pumping trillions of dollars into it?
Because other countries haven't cut spending. To maintain a military that no country in the world would dare challenge costs money, big money. How many countries are kept at bay because of the might of the U.S. military? Look at what happened in Georgia a couple of years ago. You think imperialistic-minded countries might act differently if the U.S. wasn't on their ass? I'm not a big supporter of the U.S. watchdog mentality, but it does do some good. Without the U.S. and a few other countries, South Korea would be part of North Korea. Georgia would be part of Russia. Iran would most certainly annex a weakened Iraq. So I take it you are at least with me on the U.S. not helping out other countries when the situation doesn't directly interfere with us? Because you can't have it both ways. You can't defend other countries on a budget, you have seen how much the Iraq war cost America.
If you can afford to give a CEO half a million you can surely afford to give a cleaning lady +100 dollars each month.
On the lighter side, cleaning ladies in our country do very well for themselves, they are hurting the least. The polish cleaning lady my mother employs drives a cadillac CTS, its an all cash business, so very few of them actually pay taxes. All while clearing close to $30,000+ tax free. Sophia is killing it, she's straight balling out.
-
Haven't we already established that we could cut military spending in half and still have the largest military in the world by far? Even if we cut it by 500 billion, we would still be the biggest superpower, not that I even think we have to be on top. It should be noted that dumping as much money as we possibly can into our military is not a long-term path to peace, only gradual universal disarmament is. And didn't we already talk about the 26,000 people who die from lack of health care every year? Health care would be a vastly more effective form of guarding our citizens from death. Shy is correct, our own intelligence agencies had predicted that terrorism would be increased by invading Afghanistan, and it was; our safety is not their primary concern. Also, there is one imperialist country that is most certainly not kept at bay by the might of the US, that is, the US.
Military intervention needs to be predicated on a simple moral tenet; treat others the way you want to be treated, barring the occasional exception. It's amazing how this simple principle seems to escape us constantly. If it's wrong for another country to constantly barrage us with drone strikes and kill hundreds or thousands of civilians in the process while keeping communities in a state of constant terror (i.e. terrorism), then it's also wrong that we're doing that right now in Waziristan in Pakistan. If it's wrong for someone else to invade a country on false pretenses, it's wrong for us to do that in Iraq. It's an incredible double standard that pretty much doesn't even register for most people.
-
I haven't updated here in awhile, and the world is still spinning! More issues have cropped up in the political sphere. Lets take a jaunt through a news story that has been in the forefront of American lives lately:
I'm going to launch right in, if you want to read about the attack, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
Secretary of State Clinton's total failure to protect american lives in Benghazi. Transmissions ignored, and instead of reinforcing the position in Benghazi, Americans were abandoned. This follows the negligent foreign policy of an inept presidency. Clinton should have been removed from her post immediately following the attack, failing to take action cost the lives of four americans that could have been otherwise saved. I feel like Rand Paul and John McCain were on point with their criticisms of her. I feel a bit blindsided because I consider myself a Clinton supporter, as 'ol Bill was one of my favorite presidents.
President Obama has made a habit of weakening the USA and bending to the will of extremist countries to the point of endangering american citizens. I am furious with his decisions and foreign policy. To forge alliances with countries traditionally cool to relations with the USA, he has sold his soul. In the most recent act, he has gifted 20 F-16 fighter jets and over 200 M-1 tanks to Egypt. Unbelievable. You are telling me this is my president? If I knew we were going to start operating like Russia, selling arms to any country regardless of the negative collateral damage that can and will be done with it? I'm sure Ben Netanyahu is going to be appreciative that we just armed up Egypt. This asinine aid package was likely conceived before Mohammed Morsi took power, and considering the current regime in Egypt, it should have been scrapped. It could have been scrapped, according to sources, but Obama decided to go through with it. How much longer will Americans put up with the negligent buffoon we have elected into office? I'm incensed to be an American, today. Not only did I have to put up with George H.W. Bush, but now I have to endure Obama's policies? In an area of the world where constant conflict has been the pervasive trend, we are arming the forces of totalitarianism.
To those people(s) of the middle east that frequent these forums that believe in peace: I apologize for the United States' constant undermining of the peace process. I can make allowances for the United States' actions in correlation with Iran and Israel, but I cannot condone the direct supply of weapons to wage war put into the hands of a dictator who has done nothing but threaten to wage war with neighboring countries and on his own people. I don't get it. Maybe someone could point me in the direction of a country that is accepting citizenship applications because the ignorance of my own people is appalling. Even after Clinton's unbelievable negligence that killed 4 Americans in Benghazi, her approval rating hangs around 70%. Are you joking? This is what Americans think good on-job performance is? I could use some good old anti-american sentiment, just for today. Join me.
-
I don't see peace in the middle east happening, because neither party is willing to even acknowledge that the other guys are suffering from this war. Doesn't help that religion is a major thing in the region either.
But then again, maybe they just need this
-
What's mainly outrageous is how steadfastly and consistently our government lies to us; the incident was not preceded by protests about the anti-Muslim video, as was first claimed. Granted, there has been outrage over that video, and to hell with people who think we should respect their religious dogma at the cost of free speech, but it was demonstrably not the cause in this case. At first I uncritically accepted the original explanation; we should always be skeptical when the only news source is straight from the administration's mouth.
As far as Hillary Clinton's failure, the blame can't be put squarely on her, and I think this issue is nothing more than another partisan distraction, which both sides absolutely love. As a general rule, the more attention the media gives to an issue, the less important it actually is. Take gun control for example, we could easily be focusing on the misguided drug war instead, as legalizing more drugs would curb gang violence dramatically, but instead we focus on a more superficial issue (which needs addressing, but still). And yeah, we really seem to enjoy propping up dictators in the middle east, so that we can later go to war with them.
-
What's mainly outrageous is how steadfastly and consistently our government lies to us; the incident was not preceded by protests about the anti-Muslim video, as was first claimed. Granted, there has been outrage over that video, and to hell with people who think we should respect their religious dogma at the cost of free speech, but it was demonstrably not the cause in this case. At first I uncritically accepted the original explanation; we should always be skeptical when the only news source is straight from the administration's mouth.
As far as Hillary Clinton's failure, the blame can't be put squarely on her, and I think this issue is nothing more than another partisan distraction, which both sides absolutely love. As a general rule, the more attention the media gives to an issue, the less important it actually is. Take gun control for example, we could easily be focusing on the misguided drug war instead, as legalizing more drugs would curb gang violence dramatically, but instead we focus on a more superficial issue (which needs addressing, but still). And yeah, we really seem to enjoy propping up dictators in the middle east, so that we can later go to war with them.
The problem I have with the Obama administration is lack of transparency. Obama is one of the slickest back-door operators we have seen in the oval office. To his credit he is an amazing politician, despite taking accountability or culpability in anything, instead criticism seems to slide right off of him. The idea that he would have been able to get through the whole Clinton situation without throwing her under the bus is amazing. He knew he didn't want to lose the Clinton support and somehow stood by her and her people. I also see this as a partisan distraction, seems like a copout to me though, that can be used as a universal defense for anything and everything. Hillary was simply left alone by the democrats because anyone who is anyone on capitol hill knows that you can't shake a stick at anything Clinton if you want to go anywhere politically.
As for religion, there is a cut and dry reason for another couple of centuries of infighting on the strip. I don't see the jews and muslims cohabiting the holy land, so I think people are just going to have to accept that the battle of religion is going to be fought there for a very long time. I think most of the focus in the region has to be shifted to possibly imperialistic countries like Iran. Iran is a menace to the region because of the ruling party and their nuclear program. Netanyahu isn't dumb enough to resort to a nuclear solution, he just holds it above the other countries' heads as an ultimate threat. He knows the most powerful ally he has, the US, deserts him the instant he resorts to nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad, I am not so sure he plays by the same rules as Israel. Ultimately, I don't see Iran using a nuclear weapon, but the threat of one is very real.
I feel the US should consider withdrawing from embassies throughout the middle east, and strongly discourage its citizens from traveling to certain countries. There is little reason to maintain a presence in certain places and risk more American lives. The embassies do a world of good for relations and protecting American citizens, but im not sure the good outweighs the bad at this point.
-
What the f@#!! My one-liner was the ultimatum of politics and you f@#!ing delete it. Bitches.
To Free: re-read the first post of this thread. Not even you in your infinite wisdom are exempt. Breeze, you, and a few others have gotten posts deleted because they were either too short or just a partisan snipe. This thread isn't about one-liners about how shitty you think a party is or whatnot. Adhere to the rules and Peja will leave your posts be.
I'll finish off your questions since I have some time now Peja.
What do you think about the United Nations?
United Nations is a worthy foray into creating a unified ruling body that can police its child nations. Unfortunately, the UN can't get anything done, with the powerful nations bypassing and brushing off ineffective UN sanctions. I can't remember a case where UN sanctions caused a rogue nation to reverse it's foreign policy. The UN just doesn't wield enough influence to hold nations to it's collective ideals. It was a good idea, but I would compare it to the articles of confederation here in the United States. The AoC gave the federal government so little power, nothing could get done. The states held more power than it's collective government and so they had no incentive to cave to the federal government unless it suited them, exactly the scenario we see now. The UN is a net negative to large global powers such as the US, China, Russia, ect. The smaller countries of course are all in favor of the UN, because it affords them a collective voice and defense. This isn't changing anytime soon. A drastic change in policy would require the US, Russia, and China to all submit; and they will not, there are too many points to hold out on individually, much less all at once. Read underlined part one more time for effect.
which role should they play on worldwide conflicts?
They should play a peacekeeper role, a collective action controlled by the members of the security council. Just like it is done now. Again, they are currently too weak collectively to have an effect on any conflict of reasonable size.
What can be done to avoid a debacle with peacekeeping forces like in Srebrenica or Rwanda?
Real power behind the deployed UN peacekeepers. They didn't have it.
What can the UN do to avoid creating a platform for authoritarian regimes to share their political ideas? (like in the Durban Review Conference from 2009)
I'm not currently aligned with the ideas around exclusion of nations. Ahmadinejad should have been, and was allowed to, elaborate on his doctrines, mostly of hate and repression. Once you start exclusion, it creates an imbalance of power. The only situation I agree with exclusion is if there are currently hostilities provoked by a member country or prospective member country. The DRC was held for this expressed purpose.
Do you think the state of palestine deserves a full membership in the united nations, even their government is unwilling/unable to controll their own people not to attack a legitimate country according to international law in their direct neigborship?
I don't think the UN can recognize Palestine at this point as a full member nation. Israel toes a very razor thin line between following or defying the UN. Lets be clear. Palestine is unwilling to control their people. State sponsored terrorism exists, and it isn't a well kept secret. I ultimately side with Israel, I don't hide my support for Netanyahu, although my support not unilaterally exclusive. This is also a sticky situation where it is one or the other. You can't accept both knowing full well there will be conflict. The holy land hasn't been continually without war for thousands of years. I have no solutions to this situation, religion trumps good politics every day of the week.
-
Since the election cycle is rolling around again in america, I am once again taking questions about politics and ready for contemptuous debate.
Donald Trump is a visionary.
-
del
-
sure we can talk about jobs and taxes every election but aslong as we are lying to ourselves what really happened on 9/11
it's a huge wound and it hasn't been healed properly
(http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/articles/September%20Clues%20and%20the%20Choper%205%20Layers%20of%20Deception%20-%20Final%20version%20-%209-8-16_files/image001.jpg)
this kind of shit has to be fixed so people have more trust in their government and then we can start fix other things
-
sure we can talk about jobs and taxes every election but aslong as we are lying to ourselves what really happened on 9/11
it's a huge wound and it hasn't been healed properly
(https://i.imgflip.com/1aevbo.jpg)
-
Are we still pretending nuking japan didn't save lives in the long run? Or still shortsighted?
-
Why is Trump the better choice Wally?
The only thing I see on the media at my disposal is Hillary = good; Trump = evil, so let's focus on how Trump is digging his own grave with silly statements.. in short, the typical liberal bullshit propaganda.
So cos of the shit I have no idea what Trump or Hillary stands for lol.
I have sympathies for Trump cause he (used to at least) speak his mind and not play the game of pretending to be a morally uptight christian housewife (we all know Hillary is a royal b*tch when there's no mic); that and his new approach to foreign affairs (middle east and Russia), where Hillary seems to continue down the path of cold war and third world imperialism. Well anywho.
Why you're on Trump's side Wally and ya think he stands a chance amidst the media storm?
-
Why is Trump the better choice Wally?
The only thing I see on the media at my disposal is Hillary = good; Trump = evil, so let's focus on how Trump is digging his own grave with silly statements.. in short, the typical liberal bullshit propaganda.
So cos of the shit I have no idea what Trump or Hillary stands for lol.
I have sympathies for Trump cause he (used to at least) speak his mind and not play the game of pretending to be a morally uptight christian housewife (we all know Hillary is a royal b*tch when there's no mic); that and his new approach to foreign affairs (middle east and Russia), where Hillary seems to continue down the path of cold war and third world imperialism. Well anywho.
Why you're on Trump's side Wally and ya think he stands a chance amidst the media storm?
I was being sarcastic.
I hate both of these candidates, but Hillary is likely less shitty than Trump.
-
(http://cdn1.tnwcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2016/07/giphy-2-1.gif)
Ahh.
Still though, what's the difference in policies?
You just going on experience and general 'reliability'?
-
If it wasnt because I couldnt find my american security card to vote overseas, I'd vote for Jill Stein. People say that's like supporting Donald Trump (not voting Hillary), but then I think they missed the point of democracy.
-
Honestly, this is just the result of winner takes all in your voting system
in '92, 20% of the votes went to an independant candidate, but only 1 of the 435 seats didn't go to republicans or democrats.
Fix that broken system and perhaps one day, there will be viable alternatives.
-
I don't think the system can be fixed as currently constructed, D1.
I'll just keep hoping for a small government advocate who doesnt try to strip our civil liberties in the meantime. Ideologically, Trump is somewhere in that spectrum, but the only problem is he is the anti-christ. Too bad.
-
Trump he is the anti-christ. Too bad.
Lmao, where you got that from?
About civil liberties, I think you already lost them after 9/11 xd
-
So can we have some discussion for 2020? What's your opinion on candidates Wally? I really have surface level knowledge for all, but I am curious and I want to learn more.
Imo Joe Biden should have just enjoyed his retirement cause I don't think he has a chance against Trump. He's kinda like a forced meme lol. Also this site (https://joebiden.info/) does a great job to give him a negative image. ;D
How's Elizabeth Warren? I heard people say she seems to shift towards what people want to hear as opposed to making people want to hear her, what's your opinion?
I guess Bernie Sanders has a kind of charm for some people and people think he can beat Trump. But he's not really my favorite. Much better than f@#!in Biden tho.
By the way how Andrew Yang does against other candidates? He kinda intrigued me.
-
By the way how Andrew Yang does against other candidates? He kinda intrigued me.
Yang seems alright, while I don't agree with all of his policies (cough migration) I still think he beats all the other Democrat candidates by far, mainly due to his sense of pragmatism. I can recommend watching this interview:
None of the other candidates seem all that good tho imo, I'd rather just have Trump for 4 more years. Most of what he says is bs, but at least he's rational when it comes to governing a country. The economy is booming, minority groups are prospering more than ever before, etc.