Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

2006-05-17 07:33:52
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|7011|Atlanta, GA USA

Xietsu wrote:

volunteer...have you read the post of mine...covering, essentially, different public perceptions of ethics and civics? If you haven't you should. I think it's thoroughly flawed that someone waste funds that they don't even need.

I'm all for debating guidelines defining about how this would be carried out in a more fine detail, but most people are still so attached to the type of ethics and civics that I've been discussing.
I have read all of your posts.  Most don't really make sense, and I totally disagree with your proposal.  As I said before, if someone legally earns their money, they should be entitled to do with it what they will.  It doesn't matter if they have $100 or $100 Billion, it is their money.  Who are you to say that they are not entitled to keep what they earn?
EDIT: As a Libertarian, your proposal is contrary to everything that I believe.

Last edited by atlvolunteer (2006-05-17 07:50:13)

2006-05-17 07:49:22
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6936|NJ
Could we please stop this he said, she said stuff? It's a debate or serious talk and everyone is intitled to their opion I have my own and there not with the original post, but I'm putting in my 2 cents(actually intill friday all I have is 6 saqajuas) haha. So lets count, counterpoint, cause I've got some good ideas or views and there not being adressed because everyone wants to point out the other person isn't making any sense.
2006-05-17 09:08:22
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Everyone on this thread is ripping into Xietsu for having a say into it....
My problem with what Xietsu is saying is that I find it an unwarranted encroachment of individual rights.  I am not denying that our country has problems.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Here's a shocker, our politicians don't actually care about the values or welfare of the masses. Any law that has been created in the past, has been created by the RICH and doesn't reflex the common man.
I don't entirely disagree with this.  Clearly our politicians only care about those who can afford access to their influence.  I don't blame the rich, however, I blame the politicians and the system.  I believe a system which minimizes the function and role of government would be more effective than one that enhances it.  Growing the role of government will only grow the existing problems with it.  If businesses and the wealthy do not NEED the support of government as much, their desire to influence it with money will be reduced.  If the role of government is increased, the desire of those with the means to influence it will be increased as well.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

A real Communistic rule has as much chance as a real Democracy. A good part of your tax dollar is thrown away every year on structors that could never work.
For the reasons I enumerated in my last post, a communist system is doomed to failure.  It is not a workable alternative.
2006-05-17 10:07:32
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6936|NJ
But in the same light, a capitilist/democracy Government is doomed to failure as well. I learned in collage history that most of the capitalist governments failed and turned into a socialist government. Now I'm not for communism either because it just wouldn't work, and I'm totally for less government and more power to the people and less to corperations like Wallmart and Mcdonalds.
2006-05-17 10:11:39
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6907

cpt.fass1 wrote:

But in the same light, a capitilist/democracy Government is doomed to failure as well. I learned in collage history that most of the capitalist governments failed and turned into a socialist government. Now I'm not for communism either because it just wouldn't work, and I'm totally for less government and more power to the people and less to corperations like Wallmart and Mcdonalds.
Please name a few successful socialist governments that were once capitalist governments.  Not attacking you, just curious.

Back to Xietsu, curious, on the chance you are in the US of A, what was your total charitable contributions for 2005?  What was your social giving last year?  Many successful Capitalist do much social good via Charities and Foundations.  I'd rather they contribute on their terms, than to be dictacted by government.

Last edited by Ilocano (2006-05-17 10:52:07)

2006-05-17 10:21:16
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

cpt.fass1 wrote:

But in the same light, a capitilist/democracy Government is doomed to failure as well. I learned in collage history that most of the capitalist governments failed and turned into a socialist government. Now I'm not for communism either because it just wouldn't work, and I'm totally for less government and more power to the people and less to corperations like Wallmart and Mcdonalds.
With all due respect, it sounds to me like your history prof. had an axe to grind.  Can you share the examples he gave you?  I can't seem to come up with any.  BTW, History major, to the Masters level, at your service; and I would count Germany, Japan, USA and UK as well known successes of partially capitalist systems.

I would say that the more likely trend is that of Socialist systems which have abandoned attempts at pure socialism to become partially capitalistic (Russia, China, Eastern Europe).  Those which have declined to adopt capitalism in any form (Cuba, North Korea) do not appear to have an enviable record.

To be sure, I cannot name one purely capitalist system in History.  Most modern states are a mix of the two in various measures.
2006-05-17 10:34:19
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6936|NJ
I never said successful socialist governments but one is Rome, an other is Germany. Germany was a "Democracy" before it became a socialist government.

But Whittsend I could be wrong, You at bat homey true or not true. At work don't have that much time to research.
2006-05-17 10:53:17
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6907

cpt.fass1 wrote:

If you weren't born rich, you will not be rich, your kids will not be rich chances are is they're going to be poorer then you.
These lesser known billionaires weren't born millionaires:
Carl Berg
Samuel Wyly
Todd Wagner
John Stanton
Jorge Perez
Theodore Waitt
Scott Cook
Larry Page
Sergey Brin
Pierre Omidyar

Some from middle/lower class:
JK Rowling
Anton Schlecker
Calvin Ayre
Friede Springer
Graeme Hart
Jeffrey Skoll
Guy Laliberte
Tamir Sapir

Most of my relatives are richer than their parents.  Most of my neighbors are richer than their parents.  Most of my friends are richer than their parents.  The only ones not richer are those with parents who own their own business or are real estate savvy.

Last edited by Ilocano (2006-05-17 11:14:56)

2006-05-17 10:58:08
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I never said successful socialist governments but one is Rome, an other is Germany. Germany was a "Democracy" before it became a socialist government.

But Whittsend I could be wrong, You at bat homey true or not true. At work don't have that much time to research.
Here's the problem with the labels we (not just you) are using:  No government in recent memory is pure.  They are all mixtures.  Germany has had elements of Socialism, Democracy and Capitalism for quite some time.  So has Italy.  The ratio of the mixtures may have changed here and there, but the elements are still there.  It certainly is not accurate for one to say that Germany was Capitalist and became Socialist.  Germany is currently one of the most successful capitalist economies in the world (third largest economy, if I'm not mistaken).  It did adopt several elements of Socialism, but did not forsake capitalism.
2006-05-17 11:09:51
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6872|949

Yes, Germany is the third largest economy, followed closely by the UK and France.  Out of all of those, France has the most elements of socialism.  I think someone would be severely mistaken if they believed a complete socialist system would work on a large scale.  On a small, local scale, it is very plausible.  The question I have is why do politicians constantly tout our "free market"?  The US does not have a free market, and probably never will.  So what is the intention of touting a free market?  Has there ever been concrete evidence of the "unseen hand" that Adam Smith talked about guiding our economy?
2006-05-17 11:15:52
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Well yeah we're just using labels because it makes it easier to debate.
Unfortunately, if we use those labels without accounting for the fact that they are not entirely representative of the subject, the debate is purely academic.  We have take note of the fact that the systems are not pure representations of the ideas debated if the discussion is to have any meaning.  Certainly, history provides no examples of pure systems (though it might provide some of systems that tried to be pure); so the debate which does not take into account the true nature of the systems being discussed, cannot even accurately rely on historical examples.  Such a discussion is purely an intellectual excercise with no practical application.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

The question I have is why do politicians constantly tout our "free market"?  The US does not have a free market, and probably never will.  So what is the intention of touting a free market?  Has there ever been concrete evidence of the "unseen hand" that Adam Smith talked about guiding our economy?
You are correct - the US, while free by comparison to many others, is not 'free', or even the 'most free.'  To my knowledge no system has ever been unfettered enough to test Adam Smith's ideas (it is a myth that 19th Century American Capitalists were wholly unregulated - in fact they colluded with the government often).

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-17 11:19:30)

2006-05-17 11:21:35
jamestx10
TX##
+3|7035|Allen, TX
we need a flat tax in the US. If you make 10k you pay X% in tax if you make 50 billion you still pay X% in tax. Why should a person who is working to make more money have to pay a higer % then the guy that just does enough to get by?

I would perfer that we do away with income tax all together and go to a federal sales tax. That way all the people that don't pay there taxes now still have to pay and you only pay taxes on things that you buy. This would promote saving money.

The HUGE problem would be getting used to the price of stuff. That new TV that cost $5000 now would cost more like $6500 - $7000.

Last edited by jamestx10 (2006-05-17 11:22:05)

2006-05-17 11:22:20
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6936|NJ
Well yeah we're just using labels because it makes it easier to debate.

Edited to make this usefull.

Well all governments are built on idea's that really work on paper but once you get people involved it will get corrupted. Think of all the laws that have been made Since the making of this country. One I know of is ducks have to wear pants in Georgia.

Most sucessfull politicans come from money and they make the laws from the only point of view they know. That's why a speeding ticket in New Jersey is about 150 dollars, and a minum wage persons weekly paycheck take home is 171 dollars(40 hours x 5.25 = 230 x .70). Now mimum wage is suppose to be the bear minimum that someone can live off of? Also majority of our government is getting strained with supporting their own salaries and programs.

Yeah but the main thing is we're all just killing time at work or home.
2006-05-17 11:37:33
JG1567JG
Member
+110|6828|United States of America
Just wondering what a person is supposed to do if they make say 500k a year and they only spend 200k a year the left over 300k would pass the 2 million mark in 7 years. So does this person continue to work for free, take a paycut to what they spend per year, or retire and go broke over the next  10 years.

Just Wondering
2006-05-17 11:52:12
=JoD=Corithus
Member
+30|6798
This idea is, to put it quite bluntly, utter nonsense.  Yes, Bill Gates is disgustingly rich, but the fact that all that cash is in his pockets, dosen't mean he's keeping it out of other people's.  That economic idea is called zero sum, the theory that there is a set amount of cash that all people have to share.  That simply isn't the truth.  Yes, there is a limited amount of paper cash, but that dosen't matter at all since 99% of the funds in this nation and most others exsist solely in the electronic world.  There is no limit to the amount of capital that can be put into our economy.  If I start my own company as an entrepaneur, and make 20 million in a year, that's simply 20 million dollars more to stimulate the economy, as with a company of that size, I have to pay my employees, my attourneys, my bankers, and several thousand other people who will take the money that I earned, and distribute it to acquire goods or make more money, there by raising the amount of capital in circulation even more.
2006-05-17 16:37:00
vedds
Member
+52|6995|Christchurch New Zealand

yerded wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

vedds:  Capitalism is only a meritocracy in theory.  Those born into poverty do not have a chance to get a good level of education and make money.  By the same token, those who are born into wealth typically have to work less for better results.
My family accepted food assistance from the state of Utah when I was young. I've been working full time sinse I was  fifteen.
     While not "rich"  , I will be if I want.  My company, ran by two dullards ( me and step dad ) is now worth about a million bucks.
     Like someone once said "  if you are not a liberal when your young you don't have a heart, but if your not a conservative when your old you don't have a brain."
     I was able to pay cash for this 5K computor, I got 60K in the bank, and no wet behind the ears punk as still living with mommy can talk with any sort of creditability about redistribution.
    When you've earned something you'll get pretty uptight when somebody suggests you don't deserve it or should share with everybody.
    I find these pro socialism threads highly entertaining.
Bubbalo - i was about to write pretty much the same thing, but my personal circumstances are not as illustrative as yerded.
2006-05-17 16:39:47
LockerFish
Member
+47|6946
Not reading any of the other posts after the origininal, I'm going to have to say that's a very communist idea...
2006-05-17 19:06:35
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801
yerded:  That's all well and good for you, but what about those who aren't lucky enough to get that support, and those in places like sub-Saharan Africa where nobody get's that support?
2006-05-17 19:30:12
IRONxWyvern
Member
+14|7081|Atlanta, GA

Bubbalo wrote:

yerded:  That's all well and good for you, but what about those who aren't lucky enough to get that support, and those in places like sub-Saharan Africa where nobody get's that support?
What exactly has this to do with this thread.  The excess earnings to be confiscated for Government Redistribution Domestic Programs not international Humanitarian aid, which of course would be the next logical step for a "Nanny State" as so strongly advocated by many of the posters.
2006-05-17 19:39:17
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801
If you followed the conversation you would know that:

1)  People argued that this was a communist idea and therefore bad
2)  I asked what everyones beef with communism is
3)  vedds said that capitalism was better as it is a meritocracy
4)  I pointed out that that was only true in theory
5)  yerded argued that it was true in reality
6)  I said only for some

Of course, technically capitalism isn't a meritocracy in theory as a meritocracy is a political system not an economic one, but I take the meaning he intended.  Was that rundown good enough Wyvern?
2006-05-17 19:57:41
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Xietsu wrote:

...and use all proceeds from the cap for redistribution towards all domestic needs of the government at all levels.

(Come on, does Bill Gates really need his house to be the size of a museum? Okay, so maybe we up the cap to 100 million so that Bill Gates can still support his property value of 113 million.)
Absolutely positively, no caps on income. this is America, and we are free to make as much ( or as little ) as the market and our resumes will bare. I won't be entering this discussion, because there is no real arguement to support such a notion in the USA.
2006-05-17 20:09:07
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6877|Westminster, California

Bubbalo wrote:

yerded:  That's all well and good for you, but what about those who aren't lucky enough to get that support, and those in places like sub-Saharan Africa where nobody get's that support?
Support???

I was kicked out of my house when I was fifteen. Encouraged to quit school and get a job. The only support I had was from other mentally savaged people with whom I could relate to. Myself, it near a near death experience on El Capitan in 98 ( triple direct 5.9 A2 ) for me to get motivated about life and stop whallowing in my own mental shit. To get a life was to  value the one I had.
     As for the people in  Africa, the best thing the world could do would be to make property rights available for everybody. With property rights you get to own and sell things. Employee people. As long as a person from Africa can be ran off, killed or otherwise mistreated after putting effort into a enterprise their fucked.
     But you also ignore the original question as it did not involve Africa. If this social trend your guys are pushing is going to be a worldwide trend I'm going to start shooting real bullets.
2006-05-18 02:32:09
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801

yerded wrote:

My family accepted food assistance from the state of Utah when I was young.
Cha-ching.

Also, I might point out that you are wrong because:

3.  I Am The World
Example:  I don't listen to country music.  Therefore, country music isn't popular*

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

This idea is, to put it quite bluntly, utter nonsense.  Yes, Bill Gates is disgustingly rich, but the fact that all that cash is in his pockets, dosen't mean he's keeping it out of other people's.  That economic idea is called zero sum, the theory that there is a set amount of cash that all people have to share.  That simply isn't the truth.  Yes, there is a limited amount of paper cash, but that dosen't matter at all since 99% of the funds in this nation and most others exsist solely in the electronic world.  There is no limit to the amount of capital that can be put into our economy.  If I start my own company as an entrepaneur, and make 20 million in a year, that's simply 20 million dollars more to stimulate the economy, as with a company of that size, I have to pay my employees, my attourneys, my bankers, and several thousand other people who will take the money that I earned, and distribute it to acquire goods or make more money, there by raising the amount of capital in circulation even more.
Actually, no.  Money only has value so long as it is backed up.  It is backed up by goods.  The theory of more money=more money is what sent both Russia pre- and just post-Revolution and Germany pre-WWII into a masssive spiral.  As more money was printed, it's value was less, as there were no goods to back it up.

*I got a list of these of another forum, and they're brilliantly useful.  My personal favourite is:
21. Failure To Recognize What's Important
Example:  My house is on fire!  Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-05-18 05:29:43)

2006-05-18 08:43:39
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6998|MA, USA

Bubbalo wrote:

IRONxWyvern wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

yerded:  That's all well and good for you, but what about those who aren't lucky enough to get that support, and those in places like sub-Saharan Africa where nobody get's that support?
What exactly has this to do with this thread.  The excess earnings to be confiscated for Government Redistribution Domestic Programs not international Humanitarian aid, which of course would be the next logical step for a "Nanny State" as so strongly advocated by many of the posters.
If you followed the conversation you would know that:

1)  People argued that this was a communist idea and therefore bad
2)  I asked what everyones beef with communism is
3)  vedds said that capitalism was better as it is a meritocracy
4)  I pointed out that that was only true in theory
5)  yerded argued that it was true in reality
6)  I said only for some
We Tend to ignore what we want to, don't we?  If you had followed the conversation you would know:

whittsend wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Out of curiosity, what's everyone's beef with communism?
Communism is a system doomed to failure, and here is why:  It is human nature to desire sole posession of property.  Communism is at odds with this.  For communism to work, everyone within the system must rise above the base desire to have sole posession of anything.  This will never occur, but the communist system requires it, so the communist system MUST compel its citizens to comply.  This compulsion is where the system fails.  Essentially, to have a successful communist state, the state must be a police state, but in becoming one, the communist goals of the proletarian utopia are lost.  That is why every communist state has ended up as a police state, and why every future communist state will end up as a police state.
Moving on, how DOES any of this apply to Sub-Saharan Africa (where most governments would best be described as 'Kleptocracies')?

As far as this goes:

Bubbalo wrote:

Actually, no.  Money only has value so long as it is backed up.  It is backed up by goods.
You are wrong, and =JoD=Corithus is closer to the truth.  Monetary supply is governed by credit extended by private banks, which is in turn governed by the interest rate set by Central banks.  There has been no X amount of money backed up by Y goods since we went off the gold standard in the 70's.  Currently, monetary supply fluctuates based on the needs of the economy, and the cost (i.e. interest rate) of that money charged by the banks (Think along the lines of: "Is my need for this money worth the 'cost' being charged by the bank?"  If the interest rate is too high, you won't bother, and that is how monetary supply is controlled).  As noted previously, the cost of money (and thus the amount available to be 'bought') is governed by the Central Banks (in the US by the FED).  If the balance of money in the economy, or the interest rate set by the Central Banks, get out of alignment, you get inflation or deflation depending on the direction of the misalignment.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-18 08:52:15)

2006-05-18 08:52:01
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6936|NJ
'Kleptocracies' could you elebrate? I like knowledge.

Cause

"knowledge is power"

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard