Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 8

 

2009-09-12 03:25:54
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

Lai wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

burnzz wrote:


you should ~ between Islamic countries and China, we may need to learn how banking's done.

it may be the new system.
Chinese banking is shit btw. No ethics at all. Just imagine American bankers but will put your money in anything that seems nice.
Ethics are the enemy of innovation and creativity.
The human population is rising at an alarming rate. Humans also cause environmental impact. Poor people have the most kids. Should poor people sell their kids as food to the rich as a delicacy? This would close the gap of financial disparity, also lowering abortion and crime rates.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-09-12 03:50:51
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

That would be great in some Utopian world, but that just isn't the case.  The cost of land, materials, and labor would simply cost too much to pay for a house outright, and no market supply/demand could adjust for it.

Yes, parents should save for their child's education, but rarely do people make enough money to exist, plan properly for their retirement, while also saving enough money to pay for their child(ren's) education.  It would be difficult to do with one child, but what if some has 2 or 3 kids, which are normal family sizes.
I've been working for 10 years and I have a good old chunk of money behind me. In the alternate reality I can't imagine it being too much of stretch to own your own house by the age of say 50. Do you view owned housing as a right? Housing is just like an mp3 player: a product to be purchased, no? You don't necessarily have to own an Mp3 player.
That's fine, but you're also single.  A quick Google search pulled these results.  Based on the median income within the US, the wage chart ranges from $39,100-65,800.  These figures are based on a household with two children, and the chart shows the per child cost.  The cost from birth to legal age of 18, not including college education, was $170,460 per child. That comes down to $341,000 to raise two children to age 18.  Given inflationary costs costs, just how exactly do you expect a family to save for the full cost of their children's education, and put away enough to buy a home outright.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/fa … dscost.asp

Your thinking is also backwards.  Most people buy homes while they are raising their children, not at age 50.  Since homes will increase in value over time, many people use homes as part of their retirement fund.  In fact, home ownership ends up accounting for about 60% of the money people will use for their retirement.  Once the children are gone many people sale their homes and go to something less expensive, like a condo.  They take the extra money left over from the sale of their home and use it for retirement.

Sorry, but the elimination of credit simply is not feasible.  Getting people to stop abusing credit and getting in over their heads is what is needed, and teaching children early on in school about finances is the best way to address this.
It is just another example as to how Cam's "reality" differs from, well, reality.

Cam you have been working for a whopping 10 years, how long have you been paying for your own house or flat?

Last edited by lowing (2009-09-12 06:19:21)

2009-09-12 04:56:04
Lai
Member
+186|6438

Cybargs wrote:

Lai wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


Chinese banking is shit btw. No ethics at all. Just imagine American bankers but will put your money in anything that seems nice.
Ethics are the enemy of innovation and creativity.
The human population is rising at an alarming rate. Humans also cause environmental impact. Poor people have the most kids. Should poor people sell their kids as food to the rich as a delicacy? This would close the gap of financial disparity, also lowering abortion and crime rates.
No, poor children do not have enough meat on them to be sold as a delicacy.
2009-09-12 05:11:25
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

Lai wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Lai wrote:


Ethics are the enemy of innovation and creativity.
The human population is rising at an alarming rate. Humans also cause environmental impact. Poor people have the most kids. Should poor people sell their kids as food to the rich as a delicacy? This would close the gap of financial disparity, also lowering abortion and crime rates.
No, poor children do not have enough meat on them to be sold as a delicacy.
Well if parents raised them well enough till age 1, making them nice and fat, they will have enough meat.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-09-12 06:10:57
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

Lai wrote:

Ethics are the enemy of innovation and creativity.
Nope, don't see that at all.
Fuck Israel
2009-09-12 09:29:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economic_jurisprudence

I'm not one to usually support religion getting involved with business, but the Islamic concept of lending without interest has always appealed to me.
What moron is going to risk their assets without any form of compensation?

Also how are banks going to make money to pay for their employees? fees? Which is in a sense the same as interest just not based on amounts borrowed. Then you ave a problem of people no longer depositing their savings in banks because it offers them nothing in return. Better off keeping the money under the mattress. At least then you wont lose it when the bank goes bankrupt (which it most certainly will).
You're assuming banking should be private.  I'm suggesting it should be governmental.

If we disbanded the Fed Reserve and replaced it with a public central bank (like the one we used to have a long time ago), banking could become a government service not focused on profit and more focused on building the economy and infrastructure.
2009-09-12 09:38:40
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economic_jurisprudence

I'm not one to usually support religion getting involved with business, but the Islamic concept of lending without interest has always appealed to me.
What moron is going to risk their assets without any form of compensation?

Also how are banks going to make money to pay for their employees? fees? Which is in a sense the same as interest just not based on amounts borrowed. Then you ave a problem of people no longer depositing their savings in banks because it offers them nothing in return. Better off keeping the money under the mattress. At least then you wont lose it when the bank goes bankrupt (which it most certainly will).
You're assuming banking should be private.  I'm suggesting it should be governmental.

If we disbanded the Fed Reserve and replaced it with a public central bank (like the one we used to have a long time ago), banking could become a government service not focused on profit and more focused on building the economy and infrastructure.
You really haven't learned a single lesson from history. Show me a single case of an enlightened despot. Please.

Good things NEVER come out of handing over the government more power. Sure, it works great on paper until actual human beings come into the equation with all their biases, bigotry and power mongering.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-12 09:42:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:


What moron is going to risk their assets without any form of compensation?

Also how are banks going to make money to pay for their employees? fees? Which is in a sense the same as interest just not based on amounts borrowed. Then you ave a problem of people no longer depositing their savings in banks because it offers them nothing in return. Better off keeping the money under the mattress. At least then you wont lose it when the bank goes bankrupt (which it most certainly will).
You're assuming banking should be private.  I'm suggesting it should be governmental.

If we disbanded the Fed Reserve and replaced it with a public central bank (like the one we used to have a long time ago), banking could become a government service not focused on profit and more focused on building the economy and infrastructure.
You really haven't learned a single lesson from history. Show me a single case of an enlightened despot. Please.

Good things NEVER come out of handing over the government more power. Sure, it works great on paper until actual human beings come into the equation with all their biases, bigotry and power mongering.
An enlightened despot?  Ashoka:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great

And all the bigotry and power mongering still exists in the private sector as well, so I don't get what your point is.

Just because the government has several flaws doesn't make the private sector any better.

What this really comes down to is that the private sector isn't answerable to the will of the people, whereas the government is.  The majority of our financial problems come from the power that the Fed Reserve gives to the private sector to manipulate interest rates.

Bankers currently run the world from the private sector, and looking at all the damage they've done to the world through speculation and such, I'm quite eager to switch things over to a more directly accountable system.
2009-09-12 10:43:40
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You're assuming banking should be private.  I'm suggesting it should be governmental.

If we disbanded the Fed Reserve and replaced it with a public central bank (like the one we used to have a long time ago), banking could become a government service not focused on profit and more focused on building the economy and infrastructure.
You really haven't learned a single lesson from history. Show me a single case of an enlightened despot. Please.

Good things NEVER come out of handing over the government more power. Sure, it works great on paper until actual human beings come into the equation with all their biases, bigotry and power mongering.
An enlightened despot?  Ashoka:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great

And all the bigotry and power mongering still exists in the private sector as well, so I don't get what your point is.

Just because the government has several flaws doesn't make the private sector any better.

What this really comes down to is that the private sector isn't answerable to the will of the people, whereas the government is.  The majority of our financial problems come from the power that the Fed Reserve gives to the private sector to manipulate interest rates.

Bankers currently run the world from the private sector, and looking at all the damage they've done to the world through speculation and such, I'm quite eager to switch things over to a more directly accountable system.
Yes, but when there is competition the flawed businesses fall by the wayside. If a bank won't cater to black people then it will be sued. If the central bank all of a sudden decided to stop serving white males what recourse would I have? To sue? Laughable.

This of course is an extreme example but I think you can see my point.

Edit - Responsible to the will of the people? How so? They're unelected officials. As I've argued in previous threads when the political choices are picking the lesser evil among the Republicrats there is no real choice at all.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-09-12 10:45:41)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-12 11:30:03
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


You really haven't learned a single lesson from history. Show me a single case of an enlightened despot. Please.

Good things NEVER come out of handing over the government more power. Sure, it works great on paper until actual human beings come into the equation with all their biases, bigotry and power mongering.
An enlightened despot?  Ashoka:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great

And all the bigotry and power mongering still exists in the private sector as well, so I don't get what your point is.

Just because the government has several flaws doesn't make the private sector any better.

What this really comes down to is that the private sector isn't answerable to the will of the people, whereas the government is.  The majority of our financial problems come from the power that the Fed Reserve gives to the private sector to manipulate interest rates.

Bankers currently run the world from the private sector, and looking at all the damage they've done to the world through speculation and such, I'm quite eager to switch things over to a more directly accountable system.
Yes, but when there is competition the flawed businesses fall by the wayside. If a bank won't cater to black people then it will be sued. If the central bank all of a sudden decided to stop serving white males what recourse would I have? To sue? Laughable.
Equally laughable is the premise that they would stop serving white males.  Anyway, if racism occurs in government policy, laws are made to change it.  I don't know if you noticed, but historically, it usually takes a change in government policy to correct racism before any effects occur in the private sector.

The only reason you can sue private companies now over racism is because of civil rights legislation.  Before that, you couldn't.

So, with the laws that are already on the books, it would be rather straightforward to force a government program or agency to end a racist practice.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Edit - Responsible to the will of the people? How so? They're unelected officials. As I've argued in previous threads when the political choices are picking the lesser evil among the Republicrats there is no real choice at all.
There could be elected officials responsible for appointing the banking officials.  And, if Obama's administration is any indication, appointees get ousted rather quickly when there is a public outrage over something about them.
2009-09-13 05:02:00
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


You're assuming banking should be private.  I'm suggesting it should be governmental.

If we disbanded the Fed Reserve and replaced it with a public central bank (like the one we used to have a long time ago), banking could become a government service not focused on profit and more focused on building the economy and infrastructure.
You really haven't learned a single lesson from history. Show me a single case of an enlightened despot. Please.

Good things NEVER come out of handing over the government more power. Sure, it works great on paper until actual human beings come into the equation with all their biases, bigotry and power mongering.
An enlightened despot?  Ashoka:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great

And all the bigotry and power mongering still exists in the private sector as well, so I don't get what your point is.

Just because the government has several flaws doesn't make the private sector any better.

What this really comes down to is that the private sector isn't answerable to the will of the people, whereas the government is.  The majority of our financial problems come from the power that the Fed Reserve gives to the private sector to manipulate interest rates.

Bankers currently run the world from the private sector, and looking at all the damage they've done to the world through speculation and such, I'm quite eager to switch things over to a more directly accountable system.
turquise, the difference is, choice. We are able to choose who in the private sector we want to do business with. Consumers have power to make a business successful or force them to fail. The private sector can ill afford bad press, which has brought many companies down. With govt. they lie to get power, and it is years before any changes can be made and then it is too late and the damage is done..This, if for no other reason is why the private sector is better than govt.
2009-09-13 05:07:14
Lai
Member
+186|6438

lowing wrote:

turquise, the difference is, choice. We are able to choose who in the private sector we want to do business with. Consumers have power to make a business successful or force them to fail.
In theory yes, but once you hit monopoly you'd be better of with governments. Just look at how things went after the privitization trend in Europe. Health care, energy supply, railroads, etc. all have been privatized in the last ten years or so. We're getting the same stuff now as when it was government controlled, with the difference that they charge more and service is less. Also they are completely unreliable on the long term as they change policies like a chameleon changes colour.
2009-09-13 05:12:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Lai wrote:

lowing wrote:

turquise, the difference is, choice. We are able to choose who in the private sector we want to do business with. Consumers have power to make a business successful or force them to fail.
In theory yes, but once you hit monopoly you'd be better of with governments. Just look at how things went after the privitization trend in Europe. Health care, energy supply, railroads, etc. all have been privatized in the last ten years or so. We're getting the same stuff now as when it was government controlled, with the difference that they charge more and service is less. Also they are completely unreliable on the long term as they change policies like a chameleon changes colour.
You dislike monopolies, well what the hell do you think a govt controlled program is? Monopolies are not allowed in the US in the US private sector..
2009-09-13 05:21:44
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

lowing wrote:

Lai wrote:

lowing wrote:

turquise, the difference is, choice. We are able to choose who in the private sector we want to do business with. Consumers have power to make a business successful or force them to fail.
In theory yes, but once you hit monopoly you'd be better of with governments. Just look at how things went after the privitization trend in Europe. Health care, energy supply, railroads, etc. all have been privatized in the last ten years or so. We're getting the same stuff now as when it was government controlled, with the difference that they charge more and service is less. Also they are completely unreliable on the long term as they change policies like a chameleon changes colour.
You dislike monopolies, well what the hell do you think a govt controlled program is? Monopolies are not allowed in the US in the US private sector..
Ummm Microsoft?

In the end you don't have one several monopolies, but you get a couple of large businesses working together to buttfuck the local people. Has everybody forgotten about the progressive and reconstruction era?

There should be a strong balance between private and a public banking system. If citizens are unhappy with their government theres one simple thing: RIOT.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-09-13 05:25:02
Lai
Member
+186|6438

lowing wrote:

Lai wrote:

lowing wrote:

turquise, the difference is, choice. We are able to choose who in the private sector we want to do business with. Consumers have power to make a business successful or force them to fail.
In theory yes, but once you hit monopoly you'd be better of with governments. Just look at how things went after the privitization trend in Europe. Health care, energy supply, railroads, etc. all have been privatized in the last ten years or so. We're getting the same stuff now as when it was government controlled, with the difference that they charge more and service is less. Also they are completely unreliable on the long term as they change policies like a chameleon changes colour.
You dislike monopolies, well what the hell do you think a govt controlled program is? Monopolies are not allowed in the US in the US private sector..
Complete monopolies are not allowed in Europe either, but practical monopolies are the rule. Of course a govt controlled program is monopolistic as well, but (semi-)social services are still better controlled by the govt, because the govt does not maintain them from a profit geared perspective.

That said I do not necesarily object to all kinds of practical monopoly or at least I do object against the way in which they are countered. For example take Microsoft being sued for including stuff like webbrowsers and mediaplayers in their OS. The integration of these products is part of the total product's quality in terms of customer convenience. The average customer does not want to have to shop for a seperate mediaplayer and the few that do, can simply replace the ones provided with the OS.
2009-09-13 05:26:15
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Lai wrote:


In theory yes, but once you hit monopoly you'd be better of with governments. Just look at how things went after the privitization trend in Europe. Health care, energy supply, railroads, etc. all have been privatized in the last ten years or so. We're getting the same stuff now as when it was government controlled, with the difference that they charge more and service is less. Also they are completely unreliable on the long term as they change policies like a chameleon changes colour.
You dislike monopolies, well what the hell do you think a govt controlled program is? Monopolies are not allowed in the US in the US private sector..
Ummm Microsoft?

In the end you don't have one several monopolies, but you get a couple of large businesses working together to buttfuck the local people. Has everybody forgotten about the progressive and reconstruction era?

There should be a strong balance between private and a public banking system. If citizens are unhappy with their government theres one simple thing: RIOT.
Ummmm Apple? Microsoft does not have a monopoly. the problem is, much like beta and vhs, microsoft won the marketing wars. Now, the tide is turning and Apple is getting noticed as the better system.
2009-09-13 05:37:15
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Lai wrote:

lowing wrote:

Lai wrote:


In theory yes, but once you hit monopoly you'd be better of with governments. Just look at how things went after the privitization trend in Europe. Health care, energy supply, railroads, etc. all have been privatized in the last ten years or so. We're getting the same stuff now as when it was government controlled, with the difference that they charge more and service is less. Also they are completely unreliable on the long term as they change policies like a chameleon changes colour.
You dislike monopolies, well what the hell do you think a govt controlled program is? Monopolies are not allowed in the US in the US private sector..
Complete monopolies are not allowed in Europe either, but practical monopolies are the rule. Of course a govt controlled program is monopolistic as well, but (semi-)social services are still better controlled by the govt, because the govt does not maintain them from a profit geared perspective.

That said I do not necesarily object to all kinds of practical monopoly or at least I do object against the way in which they are countered. For example take Microsoft being sued for including stuff like webbrowsers and mediaplayers in their OS. The integration of these products is part of the total product's quality in terms of customer convenience. The average customer does not want to have to shop for a seperate mediaplayer and the few that do, can simply replace the ones provided with the OS.
I see, so you approve of a program not geared toward making a profit. Is this a tactic you employ with your own finances, you throw money at things that you know you are going to have to throw more at to keep it alive? If not, why would you approve of this for the govt., since it is YOUR money they are going to throw at their losing programs.
2009-09-13 06:09:15
Lai
Member
+186|6438

lowing wrote:

I see, so you approve of a program not geared toward making a profit. Is this a tactic you employ with your own finances, you throw money at things that you know you are going to have to throw more at to keep it alive? If not, why would you approve of this for the govt., since it is YOUR money they are going to throw at their losing programs.
I only agree of non profitable programs concerning public welfare. Things like infrastructure are simply too essential to be left to free market fluctuations and the associated risks. I'm not saying these enterprises can't or shouldn't generate money, I'm just saying their aim should not be to acquire as much money as possible for personal spending. Also, the advantage with a government controlled program is that even if it fails at some point, generally money can be taken from another more succesfull program. When your private program fails, it generally just fails.
2009-09-13 06:13:04
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:


You dislike monopolies, well what the hell do you think a govt controlled program is? Monopolies are not allowed in the US in the US private sector..
Ummm Microsoft?

In the end you don't have one several monopolies, but you get a couple of large businesses working together to buttfuck the local people. Has everybody forgotten about the progressive and reconstruction era?

There should be a strong balance between private and a public banking system. If citizens are unhappy with their government theres one simple thing: RIOT.
Ummmm Apple? Microsoft does not have a monopoly. the problem is, much like beta and vhs, microsoft won the marketing wars. Now, the tide is turning and Apple is getting noticed as the better system.
Microsoft owns 90% of the PC market... Yeah totally have no control on whats going on whatsoever. And they literally own Apple as well.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-09-13 06:17:58
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX
The inevitable destiny of capitalism is one person owns everything, the remainder nothing.

Most nations have anti-monopoly legislation, not that it works really.
Fuck Israel
2009-09-13 06:25:13
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Lai wrote:

lowing wrote:

turquise, the difference is, choice. We are able to choose who in the private sector we want to do business with. Consumers have power to make a business successful or force them to fail.
In theory yes, but once you hit monopoly you'd be better of with governments. Just look at how things went after the privitization trend in Europe. Health care, energy supply, railroads, etc. all have been privatized in the last ten years or so. We're getting the same stuff now as when it was government controlled, with the difference that they charge more and service is less. Also they are completely unreliable on the long term as they change policies like a chameleon changes colour.
Everyone always talks about monopolies and how terrible they are for the consumer. Please, show me a single monopoly that exists in the world. You won't be able to. Monopolies by their very nature are doomed to failure. Now if you want to continue prattling on some more about things you don't understand be my guest.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-13 06:30:12
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Lai wrote:

lowing wrote:

I see, so you approve of a program not geared toward making a profit. Is this a tactic you employ with your own finances, you throw money at things that you know you are going to have to throw more at to keep it alive? If not, why would you approve of this for the govt., since it is YOUR money they are going to throw at their losing programs.
I only agree of non profitable programs concerning public welfare. Things like infrastructure are simply too essential to be left to free market fluctuations and the associated risks. I'm not saying these enterprises can't or shouldn't generate money, I'm just saying their aim should not be to acquire as much money as possible for personal spending. Also, the advantage with a government controlled program is that even if it fails at some point, generally money can be taken from another more succesfull program. When your private program fails, it generally just fails.
When a program fails it is because it is supposed to fail under the conditions it existed. To artifically keep a losing program alive by throwing ( see wasting) more money at it, is fiscal suicide, and fiscal sucide leads to social suicide.

There is nothing too essential to be left to the free market and competition. Govt. control is fraud waste and abuse with a bow around it.
2009-09-13 06:34:43
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


Ummm Microsoft?

In the end you don't have one several monopolies, but you get a couple of large businesses working together to buttfuck the local people. Has everybody forgotten about the progressive and reconstruction era?

There should be a strong balance between private and a public banking system. If citizens are unhappy with their government theres one simple thing: RIOT.
Ummmm Apple? Microsoft does not have a monopoly. the problem is, much like beta and vhs, microsoft won the marketing wars. Now, the tide is turning and Apple is getting noticed as the better system.
Microsoft owns 90% of the PC market... Yeah totally have no control on whats going on whatsoever. And they literally own Apple as well.
They own 90% pf the PC market because the consumer allows this. they want the Microsoft product.

Microsoft owns Apple? I did not know this. Does Steve Jobs know this?
2009-09-13 06:40:01
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

lowing wrote:

They own 90% pf the PC market because the consumer allows this. they want the Microsoft product.

Microsoft owns Apple? I did not know this. Does Steve Jobs know this?
Yeah, it's a conspiracy against the consumer

Microsoft:
A) Doesn't have a monopoly and
B) has been losing market share for years now. Windows Vista was awful
C) People generally choose Microsoft OS because there are a lot of programs written for it. It's easy to code in Windows. The same can NOT be said for Mac OS. What may make it so easy to write viruses for a PC also makes it easy for you to be playing BF2.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-09-13 08:12:58
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6698|'Murka

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


You really haven't learned a single lesson from history. Show me a single case of an enlightened despot. Please.

Good things NEVER come out of handing over the government more power. Sure, it works great on paper until actual human beings come into the equation with all their biases, bigotry and power mongering.
An enlightened despot?  Ashoka:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great

And all the bigotry and power mongering still exists in the private sector as well, so I don't get what your point is.

Just because the government has several flaws doesn't make the private sector any better.

What this really comes down to is that the private sector isn't answerable to the will of the people, whereas the government is.  The majority of our financial problems come from the power that the Fed Reserve gives to the private sector to manipulate interest rates.

Bankers currently run the world from the private sector, and looking at all the damage they've done to the world through speculation and such, I'm quite eager to switch things over to a more directly accountable system.
turquise, the difference is, choice. We are able to choose who in the private sector we want to do business with. Consumers have power to make a business successful or force them to fail. The private sector can ill afford bad press, which has brought many companies down. With govt. they lie to get power, and it is years before any changes can be made and then it is too late and the damage is done..This, if for no other reason is why the private sector is better than govt.
You mean near-immediate accountability?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard