Please don't chop up my words. Are food costs spiralling out of control? Are people cryng for universal food service? no. That proves my point. I'm not saying anything is that simple. Socialism however, to the extent that it is used anywhere, fails. The more socialistic, the worse things are. That works everywhere at all times and all places, without exception. I decided that the private sector is better because in every place in every country in the history of earth, and we have hundreds of examples, it's better every time. The reason the entire world isn't capitalism is because only socialism keeps the people at the top on top, and that's what we have, more and more socialism, and more and more oligarchies taking control. Capitalism is a threat to the rich and powerful, so it is being killed by them wherever they can kill it. As far as successful socialist countries there are NONE. The on;y successful countries are capitalist countries, and they all have mixed economies, parasites that they support with the wealth produced by capitalism. The more capitalistic they are, the better they are doing -- and in some sense the more socialism they can support -- like a successful family can support the ne'er do well brother. The problemwith the private mercanary argument is, that MIGHT work, but we HAVE a constritutional liberal society, so I want to move forward from there. If we were starting out fresh I'd be willing to experiment with private security firms, but i like how the rule of law and constitutionalism evolved and feel it is best to stick with that UNTIL we start forming interpplanetary economies -- then we can experiment with full anarcho-capitalist systems. For now that is unrealistic. I am a pragmatist. Capitalism as we know it definitly comes from government and rule of law and constitutionalism. I love all of that. I am not an anarchist. I am a liberal. In the united states land came from government distribution of it -- again, the product of a liberal constitutional order. I know it came from government. I am a believer in liberal democracy, just not socialism.
Why not? You're responding point by point just like me. The only thing that chopping up the post does is make it easier for the reader to understand which point a given section is responding to. If you want to do it this way, fine, but if I have to waste time clarifying something to you that would have been obvious otherwise, I'm going back to section by section.
You must be aware of the differences between food and healthcare/education as commodities. Food has finite demand and requires relatively low skilled labor, to name a couple of differences.
I suppose it's too much to ask for you to back up your claims about the relative success rates of the two systems. Actually, your claims are in a way unfalsifiable, since you'll attribute any success in a country to market elements and blame any failure on the government. However, could you at least try to explain the mechanism by which this phenomenon occurs?
What is a government besides a large, powerful corporation? What is a corporation besides a small government? What is so different about their natures that you have absolute faith in the success of one and the failure of the other?
In fact, if you have the kind of free market that allows monopolies and makes them the only thing between a worker and starvation, they have basically as much power as a government. Perhaps more than a democratic government, since they're not accountable to the voters. So what's so different about them that makes them superior?
If capitalism was the magic national panacaea you claim it to be, I'm sure most leaders would embrace it. It would be much better to be the leader of a rich, advanced, and successful country than a poor and dying one. Even if only a minority of leaders went this way, the socialist countries would not have survived in the more warlike eras.
I think you're being rather inconsistant with your terminology. One minute the US and Europe are socialist, the next they're capitalistic with mixed economies?
So why is security different than any other industry? You've been insisting this whole time that the private sector always does everything better than the government, why not put it in charge of defense, if you're so sure? Why is there any doubt that it would work better, when you have none when it comes to other industries? You're basically saying you want to use the less effective option out of tradition.
So if you acknowledge that wealth began with the government re-distributing stolen land, isn't property itself force? The only thing that makes a piece of creation yours and not someone else's is if you have the force to keep them off it. You didn't make that land, you didn't buy it from the creator, only force makes it yours. This doesn't mean anything in the real world, of course, but philosophically, I don't see how taking the use of land away from others is any less theft than taxation.
You're really setting up a false dichotomy with capitalism vs. socialism. It is, like I keep saying but you refuse to acknowledge, like arguing whether it's better to have modern medicine or an immune system. You can have both. They're not necessarily at odds with each other.
Would it ever be a rational economic decision for anyone but the government to build large scale infrastructure? A road and highway network benefits almost everyone, but only a little bit in the short term. As I see it, it's not worth the investment unless you directly benefit from everyone else's success, the way the government does through taxation.
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of putting an end to road building and maintenance? Repealing child labor laws? Anti employment discrimination laws? Getting rid of the FDA?
This doesn't have much to do with this discussion, but I think it's pretty demonstrably false that everyone has the same opportunity regardless of class. Yes, once in awhile you see someone from a poor family get rich, but the vast majority of the poor stay poor, and the rich tend to say rich. If it was truly equal, wouldn't the background of each social class contain proportional numbers of rich and poor?
I am in awe! You sir have the logic that a Vulcan would envy...if they were permitted to show envy that is.
Please don't chop up my words. Are food costs spiralling out of control? Are people cryng for universal food service? no. That proves my point. I'm not saying anything is that simple. Socialism however, to the extent that it is used anywhere, fails. The more socialistic, the worse things are. That works everywhere at all times and all places, without exception. I decided that the private sector is better because in every place in every country in the history of earth, and we have hundreds of examples, it's better every time. The reason the entire world isn't capitalism is because only socialism keeps the people at the top on top, and that's what we have, more and more socialism, and more and more oligarchies taking control. Capitalism is a threat to the rich and powerful, so it is being killed by them wherever they can kill it. As far as successful socialist countries there are NONE. The on;y successful countries are capitalist countries, and they all have mixed economies, parasites that they support with the wealth produced by capitalism. The more capitalistic they are, the better they are doing -- and in some sense the more socialism they can support -- like a successful family can support the ne'er do well brother. The problemwith the private mercanary argument is, that MIGHT work, but we HAVE a constritutional liberal society, so I want to move forward from there. If we were starting out fresh I'd be willing to experiment with private security firms, but i like how the rule of law and constitutionalism evolved and feel it is best to stick with that UNTIL we start forming interpplanetary economies -- then we can experiment with full anarcho-capitalist systems. For now that is unrealistic. I am a pragmatist. Capitalism as we know it definitly comes from government and rule of law and constitutionalism. I love all of that. I am not an anarchist. I am a liberal. In the united states land came from government distribution of it -- again, the product of a liberal constitutional order. I know it came from government. I am a believer in liberal democracy, just not socialism.
Why not? You're responding point by point just like me. The only thing that chopping up the post does is make it easier for the reader to understand which point a given section is responding to. If you want to do it this way, fine, but if I have to waste time clarifying something to you that would have been obvious otherwise, I'm going back to section by section.
You must be aware of the differences between food and healthcare/education as commodities. Food has finite demand and requires relatively low skilled labor, to name a couple of differences.
I suppose it's too much to ask for you to back up your claims about the relative success rates of the two systems. Actually, your claims are in a way unfalsifiable, since you'll attribute any success in a country to market elements and blame any failure on the government. However, could you at least try to explain the mechanism by which this phenomenon occurs?
What is a government besides a large, powerful corporation? What is a corporation besides a small government? What is so different about their natures that you have absolute faith in the success of one and the failure of the other?
In fact, if you have the kind of free market that allows monopolies and makes them the only thing between a worker and starvation, they have basically as much power as a government. Perhaps more than a democratic government, since they're not accountable to the voters. So what's so different about them that makes them superior?
If capitalism was the magic national panacaea you claim it to be, I'm sure most leaders would embrace it. It would be much better to be the leader of a rich, advanced, and successful country than a poor and dying one. Even if only a minority of leaders went this way, the socialist countries would not have survived in the more warlike eras.
I think you're being rather inconsistant with your terminology. One minute the US and Europe are socialist, the next they're capitalistic with mixed economies?
So why is security different than any other industry? You've been insisting this whole time that the private sector always does everything better than the government, why not put it in charge of defense, if you're so sure? Why is there any doubt that it would work better, when you have none when it comes to other industries? You're basically saying you want to use the less effective option out of tradition.
So if you acknowledge that wealth began with the government re-distributing stolen land, isn't property itself force? The only thing that makes a piece of creation yours and not someone else's is if you have the force to keep them off it. You didn't make that land, you didn't buy it from the creator, only force makes it yours. This doesn't mean anything in the real world, of course, but philosophically, I don't see how taking the use of land away from others is any less theft than taxation.
You're really setting up a false dichotomy with capitalism vs. socialism. It is, like I keep saying but you refuse to acknowledge, like arguing whether it's better to have modern medicine or an immune system. You can have both. They're not necessarily at odds with each other.
Would it ever be a rational economic decision for anyone but the government to build large scale infrastructure? A road and highway network benefits almost everyone, but only a little bit in the short term. As I see it, it's not worth the investment unless you directly benefit from everyone else's success, the way the government does through taxation.
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of putting an end to road building and maintenance? Repealing child labor laws? Anti employment discrimination laws? Getting rid of the FDA?
This doesn't have much to do with this discussion, but I think it's pretty demonstrably false that everyone has the same opportunity regardless of class. Yes, once in awhile you see someone from a poor family get rich, but the vast majority of the poor stay poor, and the rich tend to say rich. If it was truly equal, wouldn't the background of each social class contain proportional numbers of rich and poor?
Chopping up words breaks what people say into little out-of-context bits, and destroys meaning.
|Food is as infinite a demand as healthcare; everyone wants more/better food and the desire is insatiable.
The relative success rate of the two systems: the wealthiest societies on earth throughout all of history are the most market-oriented ones. How would you like me to back up a basic fact. America is richer than Europe, and is getting less so as we get more socialistic -- Europe, which was near bankrupt in the socialist 90s, instututed market reforms and started growing again. THEY learned from the failures of socialism -- we have not.
Look at Asia. Compare taiwan to China over the decades. China was bankrupt UNTIL they started mixing capitalis with their socialism.
Look at old east/west germany -- the difference was stark.
Look at states within the united states. the lower taxes the less government -- the higher growth.
open borders helps as well. Wherever the liberty index is higher, wealth is greatest.
just go spend some time on the Cato institutes site, or read any one of the hundreds of books on the subject. NO ONE makes an effective case for socialism -- but there are liteally hundreds maybe thousands of studies which show markets work.
Now a corporation is a socialist entity within a capitalist society, IF by corporation you mean a government created entity that limits the liability of owners. Again, that is a bad thing within the good thing of capitalism, and I agree, corporatism is a bad thing -- it is in fact anopther form of socialism -- a type of socialism known as fascism to be precise,
MORE socialism is not an effective means to solve socialistic problems -- in fact hostory shows it exacerbates the problems. regulating the corporate systems leads to one of two things -- it tends to kill the smaller businessman, because it raises the fixed cost of doing business, or causes the company to leave the country or state fgor less regulated pasutes, thus hurting the people more.
IN fact today companies are leaving the socialist United States to go to the less socilaist countries, countries which used to me more socialist than us but as socialism has grown here, are now comparatively less socialist and more market-oriented.
Th reason leaders don't embrace capitalism is because they want POWER. No matter how rich a society is, if you don't have a big government, you don't have power. These folks need socialism to keep the power they crave. Wealth doesn't interest them.
Now the beginning of all systems were force, and we are moving away from that,. THAT is evolution, towards greater and greater liberty. YOU are advocating moving backward, toward LESS liberty. I feel that is wrong, even though all societies began with corecion. That is no reason to continue using FORCE as our means of dealing, when something better, like liberty and free markets have been discovered.
I am not setting up a false dichotomy -- we are talking about GREATER and LESSER liberty within mixed economies. You need to note the context in which I was speaking. When comparing the US with France for instance, or energy industry is less socialistic than theres but both are socialistic.
that being said in some ways they are also both capitalistic, depending on the context. What I am saying in each instance is I believe a more market approach is always better than a socialistic (force) approach, and I believe that history has shown that that is the case.
now to talk about large scale infrastructures. Private industries do it all the time, as do governments. I am however, a pragmatist, and I am more than willing to accept some socialism with my capitalism for what is known as public goods, but to make that the RULE for society fails every time.
I'm not an absolutist on any of these things, I just favor the market in all of them> capitalism produces such enormous wealth it can always handle the drag a little bit of socialism creates. It's still better for the market to do it, but if people like socialism better in some of those things, it doesn't do much harm.
In things like health care it is a killer though, as we are seeing as it rapidly east up the budgets of Europe, as our SS system has done.
As to those red herrings of getting rid of various government agencies, I certainly think eventually all those things could be gotten rid of, or done in a better way. Child labor laws are a fascist response to simply not allowing children to contract, and that should end the issue of child labor. Employment doscrimination laws should certainly be gotten rid of in that they are a complete violation of the rights of owners. It claims that someone has a right to demand a job from someone which is horrible. The FDA is probably the worst way possible to deal with the issues it adresses -- that should have been the legislator's place, not the executive, so yes, do away with it.
Why should everyone have the same opportunity? Socialism doesn't make it so either -- in fact, socialism tends to freeze things wher they are and create LESS oportunity for everyone. But I don't se why everyone should have the right to demand "opportunity" from others. I just believe that free markets create the most opportunities for all, and again, there have been hundreds of studies and books done. Spemnd some time at the cato Institute, or some Friedman, or some Mises.
Socialists don't have nearly the body of work that prove any of their schemes have worked. Actually, the vast majority of poor stay proor because they are the ones who get the most socialism. The system is designed that way. read some Thomas Sowell on that. he shows that BEFORE all the government programs blacks and the poor were MORE upwardly mobile than they are now under the current socialist systems we have in place.
I never said I believe in equality, so not sure why you bring that up. I favor liberty, not equality. If liberty is your goal, you get more quality than if it is not. If equality is your goal, you tend to lose both liberty and equality.
Again if you want me to back these things up I'll be happy to recommend a few dozen books. What books do you know that demonstrate that socialism is better?
Just had to get that out of my system one more time. Sure feels good to be on the right side of history....
You mean towards a complete socialist state?
Boohoo, poor fishymage lost.
Wow.
I work for a major company, and I just recieved an email last friday that due to the elections and the upcoming tax burdens our international growth will be stiffled, and our year-end incentives will be cut.
Boohoo indeed.
Indeed, and look at how the market is tanking. I though he was going to make it all better?
Not seeing the magic yet.
FIRST of all...he's going to have a HUGE job fixing the crap Bush did in MANY arenas. SECONDLY....he's not president YET, Doofus.
Tell me all the great and mighty and wonderful things McCain could have done BEFORE he was sworn in. Better yet....tell me how OH SO MUCH he was going to change things, being that he voted exactly right alongside Bush 9 out of 10 times? So, what was really going to change? Oh yeah...I forgot....we would have had a VP that couldn't name ONE freaking newspaper and thinks being governor of Alaska qualifies her as a liason and diplomat to Putin. O.o
I'd rather take my chances with the Dems this time.
McCain's first important decision and he puts Palin on the ticket. I think that shows he just MIGHT not have very good judgment or common sense.
Just had to get that out of my system one more time. Sure feels good to be on the right side of history....
You mean towards a complete socialist state?
Boohoo, poor fishymage lost.
Wow.
I work for a major company, and I just recieved an email last friday that due to the elections and the upcoming tax burdens our international growth will be stiffled, and our year-end incentives will be cut.
Boohoo indeed.
Indeed, and look at how the market is tanking. I though he was going to make it all better?
Not seeing the magic yet.
FIRST of all...he's going to have a HUGE job fixing the crap Bush did in MANY arenas. SECONDLY....he's not president YET, Doofus.
Tell me all the great and mighty and wonderful things McCain could have done BEFORE he was sworn in. Better yet....tell me how OH SO MUCH he was going to change things, being that he voted exactly right alongside Bush 9 out of 10 times? So, what was really going to change? Oh yeah...I forgot....we would have had a VP that couldn't name ONE freaking newspaper and thinks being governor of Alaska qualifies her as a liason and diplomat to Putin. O.o
I'd rather take my chances with the Dems this time.
McCain's first important decision and he puts Palin on the ticket. I think that shows he just MIGHT not have very good judgment or common sense.
Ah, the namecalling. Doofus indeed.
The market runs on expectations, If business people thought Obama and his policies were going to be good for the economy, the market would be improving.
I didn't support McCain, so I don't know why you are bringing him up. This is about Obama and what HE is going to do, and what effect it is having.
How did Bush screw up the economy? I'd like to see some evidence of that, other than post hoc ergo propter hoc. Which BUSH policies led to the current crisis? It seems the policies of the last twenty years did this, not anything Bush did.
Palin was by far the best one out of McCain, Obama, and Biden -- BY FAR.
Just had to get that out of my system one more time. Sure feels good to be on the right side of history....
You mean towards a complete socialist state?
Boohoo, poor fishymage lost.
Wow.
I work for a major company, and I just recieved an email last friday that due to the elections and the upcoming tax burdens our international growth will be stiffled, and our year-end incentives will be cut.
Boohoo indeed.
Indeed, and look at how the market is tanking. I though he was going to make it all better?
Not seeing the magic yet.
FIRST of all...he's going to have a HUGE job fixing the crap Bush did in MANY arenas.
First, Ill be suprised if he fixes anything Bush did, tbh. Im not seeing anything convincing me he will really be any different right now.
SECONDLY....he's not president YET, Doofus.
You DO know the stock market is based on speculation, right? So he doesnt HAVE to be President yet for the presidency comming to effect the market.
Tell me all the great and mighty and wonderful things McCain could have done BEFORE he was sworn in. Better yet....tell me how OH SO MUCH he was going to change things, being that he voted exactly right alongside Bush 9 out of 10 times? So, what was really going to change? Oh yeah...I forgot....we would have had a VP that couldn't name ONE freaking newspaper and thinks being governor of Alaska qualifies her as a liason and diplomat to Putin. O.o
Newspapers are not worth mentioning anymore... this election proved that.
I'd rather take my chances with the Dems this time.
McCain's first important decision and he puts Palin on the ticket. I think that shows he just MIGHT not have very good judgment or common sense.
...dont talk to me about judgement on this one... trust me, if that was the ONLY bad McCain call in this campaign, then he ran away with Obama.
Just had to get that out of my system one more time. Sure feels good to be on the right side of history....
You mean towards a complete socialist state?
Boohoo, poor fishymage lost.
Wow.
I work for a major company, and I just recieved an email last friday that due to the elections and the upcoming tax burdens our international growth will be stiffled, and our year-end incentives will be cut.
Boohoo indeed.
Indeed, and look at how the market is tanking. I though he was going to make it all better?
Not seeing the magic yet.
FIRST of all...he's going to have a HUGE job fixing the crap Bush did in MANY arenas. SECONDLY....he's not president YET, Doofus.
Tell me all the great and mighty and wonderful things McCain could have done BEFORE he was sworn in. Better yet....tell me how OH SO MUCH he was going to change things, being that he voted exactly right alongside Bush 9 out of 10 times? So, what was really going to change? Oh yeah...I forgot....we would have had a VP that couldn't name ONE freaking newspaper and thinks being governor of Alaska qualifies her as a liason and diplomat to Putin. O.o
I'd rather take my chances with the Dems this time.
McCain's first important decision and he puts Palin on the ticket. I think that shows he just MIGHT not have very good judgment or common sense.
Ah, the namecalling. Doofus indeed.
The market runs on expectations, If business people thought Obama and his policies were going to be good for the economy, the market would be improving.
I didn't support McCain, so I don't know why you are bringing him up. This is about Obama and what HE is going to do, and what effect it is having.
How did Bush screw up the economy? I'd like to see some evidence of that, other than post hoc ergo propter hoc. Which BUSH policies led to the current crisis? It seems the policies of the last twenty years did this, not anything Bush did.
Palin was by far the best one out of McCain, Obama, and Biden -- BY FAR.
Palin couldnt name the 3 countries in Nafta, and didn't think Africa was a continent.... The list goes on for miles.
But that's not why I responded to you. This thread is about how Obama was the better choice of the two evils, if you want to put it that way. So I dont understand why people like you are bashing him when, his winning the presidency race is better than McCain doing so.
" If business people thought Obama and his policies were going to be good for the economy, the market would be improving."
The whole gas crisis and peaks of the economic crisis over the past months have caused people to go crazy with fear. In turn, it only made things worse. We cant help it if buisnesses are already afraid when perhaps maybe its just the shareholders who are afraid.. and lots of these people are just like the ones that fueled the economic crisis by panicing and making things worse.
Just had to get that out of my system one more time. Sure feels good to be on the right side of history....
You mean towards a complete socialist state?
Boohoo, poor fishymage lost.
Wow.
I work for a major company, and I just recieved an email last friday that due to the elections and the upcoming tax burdens our international growth will be stiffled, and our year-end incentives will be cut.
Boohoo indeed.
Indeed, and look at how the market is tanking. I though he was going to make it all better?
Not seeing the magic yet.
FIRST of all...he's going to have a HUGE job fixing the crap Bush did in MANY arenas. SECONDLY....he's not president YET, Doofus.
Tell me all the great and mighty and wonderful things McCain could have done BEFORE he was sworn in. Better yet....tell me how OH SO MUCH he was going to change things, being that he voted exactly right alongside Bush 9 out of 10 times? So, what was really going to change? Oh yeah...I forgot....we would have had a VP that couldn't name ONE freaking newspaper and thinks being governor of Alaska qualifies her as a liason and diplomat to Putin. O.o
I'd rather take my chances with the Dems this time.
McCain's first important decision and he puts Palin on the ticket. I think that shows he just MIGHT not have very good judgment or common sense.
Ah, the namecalling. Doofus indeed.
The market runs on expectations, If business people thought Obama and his policies were going to be good for the economy, the market would be improving.
I didn't support McCain, so I don't know why you are bringing him up. This is about Obama and what HE is going to do, and what effect it is having.
How did Bush screw up the economy? I'd like to see some evidence of that, other than post hoc ergo propter hoc. Which BUSH policies led to the current crisis? It seems the policies of the last twenty years did this, not anything Bush did.
Palin was by far the best one out of McCain, Obama, and Biden -- BY FAR.
Palin couldnt name the 3 countries in Nafta, and didn't think Africa was a continent.... The list goes on for miles.
But that's not why I responded to you. This thread is about how Obama was the better choice of the two evils, if you want to put it that way. So I dont understand why people like you are bashing him when, his winning the presidency race is better than McCain doing so.
" If business people thought Obama and his policies were going to be good for the economy, the market would be improving."
The whole gas crisis and peaks of the economic crisis over the past months have caused people to go crazy with fear. In turn, it only made things worse. We cant help it if buisnesses are already afraid when perhaps maybe its just the shareholders who are afraid.. and lots of these people are just like the ones that fueled the economic crisis by panicing and making things worse.
First, let's see ya prove those things are true about Palin.
I'm not bashing Obama -- I am hopeful for the future.
Personally, I hope Obama is a great president, has eight years of stunning growth, we put a man, no, a whole colony on mars, maybe even alpha centauri when our government-funded stem cell research money yields the unexpected result of cloned biological engines which can unlock wormholes and get around the speed of light problems.
I hope all war ends, the Jihad changes their heart, and they start a whole new genre of music, called Jihad, which means "they struggle with Allah in their music, dude," and that music revolutionizes sound and spawns a whole love of Arabic and Koranic verses.
I hope Obama, with nothing but sound reason and the forc of his personality, convinces China to become truly free and copy the way TAIWAN and Hong Kong do things and I hope they solve the problem of pollution by learning how to shoot the earths garbage into the sun, and do so on the cheap, buying all the ICBMs no longer needed.
I hope Russia realizes authoritarianism is not the way to go, and sells theit ICBMs to chine for the garbage program.
I hope Raul Castro, after being convinced by Obama that he should leave and buy an American baseball team, espenlishes democracy and Obama signs a huge free trade agreement.
I hope all criminals, wanting to CHANGE because Obama will lead us into a bright future, all turn themselves in, confess, go to Jail -- then they establish Obama repentance groups and start companies out of their own sell blocks which in three years of Obama, have enough wealth they can But the prison system and run it aat a substantial profit.
I hope Obama is a giant, and my country soars. I hope a lot of things.
I just don't see, and neither does business, that he has the policies that will do these great things, or even get us out of this mess we are in so we can break even.
Originally posted by Thrakk Palin couldnt name the 3 countries in Nafta, and didn't think Africa was a continent.... The list goes on for miles.
You mean the lies go on for miles. Why do you think the source within the McCain camp remains anonymous? Because the story is false. It has been completely debunked. There are two possible explanations why it was made up. Either someone within McCain's camp is trying to cover for the failures of his Presidential campaign or they are trying to discredit her potential bid for a 2012 run for the President. Probably a little of both. I wouldn't be surprised (though I am not making this accusation) that it was someone from the Romney camp who later joined the McCain team. Romney may give it another shot in 2012 and Palin has emerged as a political force in the Republican party.
The Palin phenomena is rather remarkable. Here we are 10 days after the election and she is still making headlines. She is the centerpiece at the Republican's governors' convention in Florida. Yesterday Keith Olbermann couldn't stop attacking her on his show. He is obsessed with Palin. I think he's got a crush on her.
Right side of history? Was there really an instance in history where any side is actually right? What even defines right in history?
Well you can say one side is always more popular or have better reasons. However, I cannot honestly say anything in terms of human history is considered "right".
Yes, you can rebute with some events that lead to our current lives, but that still doesn't make it right.
EDIT: Human live in sin because our history is made from sins we committed, the only thing we can do is to realize those sins, and try to move forward.
Comments
Why not? You're responding point by point just like me. The only thing that chopping up the post does is make it easier for the reader to understand which point a given section is responding to. If you want to do it this way, fine, but if I have to waste time clarifying something to you that would have been obvious otherwise, I'm going back to section by section.
You must be aware of the differences between food and healthcare/education as commodities. Food has finite demand and requires relatively low skilled labor, to name a couple of differences.
I suppose it's too much to ask for you to back up your claims about the relative success rates of the two systems. Actually, your claims are in a way unfalsifiable, since you'll attribute any success in a country to market elements and blame any failure on the government. However, could you at least try to explain the mechanism by which this phenomenon occurs?
What is a government besides a large, powerful corporation? What is a corporation besides a small government? What is so different about their natures that you have absolute faith in the success of one and the failure of the other?
In fact, if you have the kind of free market that allows monopolies and makes them the only thing between a worker and starvation, they have basically as much power as a government. Perhaps more than a democratic government, since they're not accountable to the voters. So what's so different about them that makes them superior?
If capitalism was the magic national panacaea you claim it to be, I'm sure most leaders would embrace it. It would be much better to be the leader of a rich, advanced, and successful country than a poor and dying one. Even if only a minority of leaders went this way, the socialist countries would not have survived in the more warlike eras.
I think you're being rather inconsistant with your terminology. One minute the US and Europe are socialist, the next they're capitalistic with mixed economies?
So why is security different than any other industry? You've been insisting this whole time that the private sector always does everything better than the government, why not put it in charge of defense, if you're so sure? Why is there any doubt that it would work better, when you have none when it comes to other industries? You're basically saying you want to use the less effective option out of tradition.
So if you acknowledge that wealth began with the government re-distributing stolen land, isn't property itself force? The only thing that makes a piece of creation yours and not someone else's is if you have the force to keep them off it. You didn't make that land, you didn't buy it from the creator, only force makes it yours. This doesn't mean anything in the real world, of course, but philosophically, I don't see how taking the use of land away from others is any less theft than taxation.
You're really setting up a false dichotomy with capitalism vs. socialism. It is, like I keep saying but you refuse to acknowledge, like arguing whether it's better to have modern medicine or an immune system. You can have both. They're not necessarily at odds with each other.
Would it ever be a rational economic decision for anyone but the government to build large scale infrastructure? A road and highway network benefits almost everyone, but only a little bit in the short term. As I see it, it's not worth the investment unless you directly benefit from everyone else's success, the way the government does through taxation.
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of putting an end to road building and maintenance? Repealing child labor laws? Anti employment discrimination laws? Getting rid of the FDA?
This doesn't have much to do with this discussion, but I think it's pretty demonstrably false that everyone has the same opportunity regardless of class. Yes, once in awhile you see someone from a poor family get rich, but the vast majority of the poor stay poor, and the rich tend to say rich. If it was truly equal, wouldn't the background of each social class contain proportional numbers of rich and poor?
I am in awe!
You sir have the logic that a Vulcan would envy...if they were permitted to show envy that is.
Why not? You're responding point by point just like me. The only thing that chopping up the post does is make it easier for the reader to understand which point a given section is responding to. If you want to do it this way, fine, but if I have to waste time clarifying something to you that would have been obvious otherwise, I'm going back to section by section.
You must be aware of the differences between food and healthcare/education as commodities. Food has finite demand and requires relatively low skilled labor, to name a couple of differences.
I suppose it's too much to ask for you to back up your claims about the relative success rates of the two systems. Actually, your claims are in a way unfalsifiable, since you'll attribute any success in a country to market elements and blame any failure on the government. However, could you at least try to explain the mechanism by which this phenomenon occurs?
What is a government besides a large, powerful corporation? What is a corporation besides a small government? What is so different about their natures that you have absolute faith in the success of one and the failure of the other?
In fact, if you have the kind of free market that allows monopolies and makes them the only thing between a worker and starvation, they have basically as much power as a government. Perhaps more than a democratic government, since they're not accountable to the voters. So what's so different about them that makes them superior?
If capitalism was the magic national panacaea you claim it to be, I'm sure most leaders would embrace it. It would be much better to be the leader of a rich, advanced, and successful country than a poor and dying one. Even if only a minority of leaders went this way, the socialist countries would not have survived in the more warlike eras.
I think you're being rather inconsistant with your terminology. One minute the US and Europe are socialist, the next they're capitalistic with mixed economies?
So why is security different than any other industry? You've been insisting this whole time that the private sector always does everything better than the government, why not put it in charge of defense, if you're so sure? Why is there any doubt that it would work better, when you have none when it comes to other industries? You're basically saying you want to use the less effective option out of tradition.
So if you acknowledge that wealth began with the government re-distributing stolen land, isn't property itself force? The only thing that makes a piece of creation yours and not someone else's is if you have the force to keep them off it. You didn't make that land, you didn't buy it from the creator, only force makes it yours. This doesn't mean anything in the real world, of course, but philosophically, I don't see how taking the use of land away from others is any less theft than taxation.
You're really setting up a false dichotomy with capitalism vs. socialism. It is, like I keep saying but you refuse to acknowledge, like arguing whether it's better to have modern medicine or an immune system. You can have both. They're not necessarily at odds with each other.
Would it ever be a rational economic decision for anyone but the government to build large scale infrastructure? A road and highway network benefits almost everyone, but only a little bit in the short term. As I see it, it's not worth the investment unless you directly benefit from everyone else's success, the way the government does through taxation.
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of putting an end to road building and maintenance? Repealing child labor laws? Anti employment discrimination laws? Getting rid of the FDA?
This doesn't have much to do with this discussion, but I think it's pretty demonstrably false that everyone has the same opportunity regardless of class. Yes, once in awhile you see someone from a poor family get rich, but the vast majority of the poor stay poor, and the rich tend to say rich. If it was truly equal, wouldn't the background of each social class contain proportional numbers of rich and poor?
Chopping up words breaks what people say into little out-of-context bits, and destroys meaning.
|Food is as infinite a demand as healthcare; everyone wants more/better food and the desire is insatiable.
The relative success rate of the two systems: the wealthiest societies on earth throughout all of history are the most market-oriented ones. How would you like me to back up a basic fact. America is richer than Europe, and is getting less so as we get more socialistic -- Europe, which was near bankrupt in the socialist 90s, instututed market reforms and started growing again. THEY learned from the failures of socialism -- we have not.
Look at Asia. Compare taiwan to China over the decades. China was bankrupt UNTIL they started mixing capitalis with their socialism.
Look at old east/west germany -- the difference was stark.
Look at states within the united states. the lower taxes the less government -- the higher growth.
open borders helps as well. Wherever the liberty index is higher, wealth is greatest.
just go spend some time on the Cato institutes site, or read any one of the hundreds of books on the subject. NO ONE makes an effective case for socialism -- but there are liteally hundreds maybe thousands of studies which show markets work.
Now a corporation is a socialist entity within a capitalist society, IF by corporation you mean a government created entity that limits the liability of owners. Again, that is a bad thing within the good thing of capitalism, and I agree, corporatism is a bad thing -- it is in fact anopther form of socialism -- a type of socialism known as fascism to be precise,
MORE socialism is not an effective means to solve socialistic problems -- in fact hostory shows it exacerbates the problems. regulating the corporate systems leads to one of two things -- it tends to kill the smaller businessman, because it raises the fixed cost of doing business, or causes the company to leave the country or state fgor less regulated pasutes, thus hurting the people more.
IN fact today companies are leaving the socialist United States to go to the less socilaist countries, countries which used to me more socialist than us but as socialism has grown here, are now comparatively less socialist and more market-oriented.
Th reason leaders don't embrace capitalism is because they want POWER. No matter how rich a society is, if you don't have a big government, you don't have power. These folks need socialism to keep the power they crave. Wealth doesn't interest them.
Now the beginning of all systems were force, and we are moving away from that,. THAT is evolution, towards greater and greater liberty. YOU are advocating moving backward, toward LESS liberty. I feel that is wrong, even though all societies began with corecion. That is no reason to continue using FORCE as our means of dealing, when something better, like liberty and free markets have been discovered.
I am not setting up a false dichotomy -- we are talking about GREATER and LESSER liberty within mixed economies. You need to note the context in which I was speaking. When comparing the US with France for instance, or energy industry is less socialistic than theres but both are socialistic.
that being said in some ways they are also both capitalistic, depending on the context. What I am saying in each instance is I believe a more market approach is always better than a socialistic (force) approach, and I believe that history has shown that that is the case.
now to talk about large scale infrastructures. Private industries do it all the time, as do governments. I am however, a pragmatist, and I am more than willing to accept some socialism with my capitalism for what is known as public goods, but to make that the RULE for society fails every time.
I'm not an absolutist on any of these things, I just favor the market in all of them> capitalism produces such enormous wealth it can always handle the drag a little bit of socialism creates. It's still better for the market to do it, but if people like socialism better in some of those things, it doesn't do much harm.
In things like health care it is a killer though, as we are seeing as it rapidly east up the budgets of Europe, as our SS system has done.
As to those red herrings of getting rid of various government agencies, I certainly think eventually all those things could be gotten rid of, or done in a better way. Child labor laws are a fascist response to simply not allowing children to contract, and that should end the issue of child labor. Employment doscrimination laws should certainly be gotten rid of in that they are a complete violation of the rights of owners. It claims that someone has a right to demand a job from someone which is horrible. The FDA is probably the worst way possible to deal with the issues it adresses -- that should have been the legislator's place, not the executive, so yes, do away with it.
Why should everyone have the same opportunity? Socialism doesn't make it so either -- in fact, socialism tends to freeze things wher they are and create LESS oportunity for everyone. But I don't se why everyone should have the right to demand "opportunity" from others. I just believe that free markets create the most opportunities for all, and again, there have been hundreds of studies and books done. Spemnd some time at the cato Institute, or some Friedman, or some Mises.
Socialists don't have nearly the body of work that prove any of their schemes have worked. Actually, the vast majority of poor stay proor because they are the ones who get the most socialism. The system is designed that way. read some Thomas Sowell on that. he shows that BEFORE all the government programs blacks and the poor were MORE upwardly mobile than they are now under the current socialist systems we have in place.
I never said I believe in equality, so not sure why you bring that up. I favor liberty, not equality. If liberty is your goal, you get more quality than if it is not. If equality is your goal, you tend to lose both liberty and equality.
Again if you want me to back these things up I'll be happy to recommend a few dozen books. What books do you know that demonstrate that socialism is better?
fishermage.blogspot.com
You mean towards a complete socialist state?
Boohoo, poor fishymage lost.
Wow.
I work for a major company, and I just recieved an email last friday that due to the elections and the upcoming tax burdens our international growth will be stiffled, and our year-end incentives will be cut.
Boohoo indeed.
Indeed, and look at how the market is tanking. I though he was going to make it all better?
Not seeing the magic yet.
FIRST of all...he's going to have a HUGE job fixing the crap Bush did in MANY arenas. SECONDLY....he's not president YET, Doofus.
Tell me all the great and mighty and wonderful things McCain could have done BEFORE he was sworn in. Better yet....tell me how OH SO MUCH he was going to change things, being that he voted exactly right alongside Bush 9 out of 10 times? So, what was really going to change? Oh yeah...I forgot....we would have had a VP that couldn't name ONE freaking newspaper and thinks being governor of Alaska qualifies her as a liason and diplomat to Putin. O.o
I'd rather take my chances with the Dems this time.
McCain's first important decision and he puts Palin on the ticket. I think that shows he just MIGHT not have very good judgment or common sense.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
You mean towards a complete socialist state?
Boohoo, poor fishymage lost.
Wow.
I work for a major company, and I just recieved an email last friday that due to the elections and the upcoming tax burdens our international growth will be stiffled, and our year-end incentives will be cut.
Boohoo indeed.
Indeed, and look at how the market is tanking. I though he was going to make it all better?
Not seeing the magic yet.
FIRST of all...he's going to have a HUGE job fixing the crap Bush did in MANY arenas. SECONDLY....he's not president YET, Doofus.
Tell me all the great and mighty and wonderful things McCain could have done BEFORE he was sworn in. Better yet....tell me how OH SO MUCH he was going to change things, being that he voted exactly right alongside Bush 9 out of 10 times? So, what was really going to change? Oh yeah...I forgot....we would have had a VP that couldn't name ONE freaking newspaper and thinks being governor of Alaska qualifies her as a liason and diplomat to Putin. O.o
I'd rather take my chances with the Dems this time.
McCain's first important decision and he puts Palin on the ticket. I think that shows he just MIGHT not have very good judgment or common sense.
Ah, the namecalling. Doofus indeed.
The market runs on expectations, If business people thought Obama and his policies were going to be good for the economy, the market would be improving.
I didn't support McCain, so I don't know why you are bringing him up. This is about Obama and what HE is going to do, and what effect it is having.
How did Bush screw up the economy? I'd like to see some evidence of that, other than post hoc ergo propter hoc. Which BUSH policies led to the current crisis? It seems the policies of the last twenty years did this, not anything Bush did.
Palin was by far the best one out of McCain, Obama, and Biden -- BY FAR.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You mean towards a complete socialist state?
Boohoo, poor fishymage lost.
Wow.
I work for a major company, and I just recieved an email last friday that due to the elections and the upcoming tax burdens our international growth will be stiffled, and our year-end incentives will be cut.
Boohoo indeed.
Indeed, and look at how the market is tanking. I though he was going to make it all better?
Not seeing the magic yet.
FIRST of all...he's going to have a HUGE job fixing the crap Bush did in MANY arenas.
First, Ill be suprised if he fixes anything Bush did, tbh. Im not seeing anything convincing me he will really be any different right now.
SECONDLY....he's not president YET, Doofus.
You DO know the stock market is based on speculation, right? So he doesnt HAVE to be President yet for the presidency comming to effect the market.
Tell me all the great and mighty and wonderful things McCain could have done BEFORE he was sworn in. Better yet....tell me how OH SO MUCH he was going to change things, being that he voted exactly right alongside Bush 9 out of 10 times? So, what was really going to change? Oh yeah...I forgot....we would have had a VP that couldn't name ONE freaking newspaper and thinks being governor of Alaska qualifies her as a liason and diplomat to Putin. O.o
Newspapers are not worth mentioning anymore... this election proved that.
I'd rather take my chances with the Dems this time.
McCain's first important decision and he puts Palin on the ticket. I think that shows he just MIGHT not have very good judgment or common sense.
...dont talk to me about judgement on this one... trust me, if that was the ONLY bad McCain call in this campaign, then he ran away with Obama.
You mean towards a complete socialist state?
Boohoo, poor fishymage lost.
Wow.
I work for a major company, and I just recieved an email last friday that due to the elections and the upcoming tax burdens our international growth will be stiffled, and our year-end incentives will be cut.
Boohoo indeed.
Indeed, and look at how the market is tanking. I though he was going to make it all better?
Not seeing the magic yet.
FIRST of all...he's going to have a HUGE job fixing the crap Bush did in MANY arenas. SECONDLY....he's not president YET, Doofus.
Tell me all the great and mighty and wonderful things McCain could have done BEFORE he was sworn in. Better yet....tell me how OH SO MUCH he was going to change things, being that he voted exactly right alongside Bush 9 out of 10 times? So, what was really going to change? Oh yeah...I forgot....we would have had a VP that couldn't name ONE freaking newspaper and thinks being governor of Alaska qualifies her as a liason and diplomat to Putin. O.o
I'd rather take my chances with the Dems this time.
McCain's first important decision and he puts Palin on the ticket. I think that shows he just MIGHT not have very good judgment or common sense.
Ah, the namecalling. Doofus indeed.
The market runs on expectations, If business people thought Obama and his policies were going to be good for the economy, the market would be improving.
I didn't support McCain, so I don't know why you are bringing him up. This is about Obama and what HE is going to do, and what effect it is having.
How did Bush screw up the economy? I'd like to see some evidence of that, other than post hoc ergo propter hoc. Which BUSH policies led to the current crisis? It seems the policies of the last twenty years did this, not anything Bush did.
Palin was by far the best one out of McCain, Obama, and Biden -- BY FAR.
Palin couldnt name the 3 countries in Nafta, and didn't think Africa was a continent.... The list goes on for miles.
But that's not why I responded to you. This thread is about how Obama was the better choice of the two evils, if you want to put it that way. So I dont understand why people like you are bashing him when, his winning the presidency race is better than McCain doing so.
" If business people thought Obama and his policies were going to be good for the economy, the market would be improving."
The whole gas crisis and peaks of the economic crisis over the past months have caused people to go crazy with fear. In turn, it only made things worse. We cant help it if buisnesses are already afraid when perhaps maybe its just the shareholders who are afraid.. and lots of these people are just like the ones that fueled the economic crisis by panicing and making things worse.
You mean towards a complete socialist state?
Boohoo, poor fishymage lost.
Wow.
I work for a major company, and I just recieved an email last friday that due to the elections and the upcoming tax burdens our international growth will be stiffled, and our year-end incentives will be cut.
Boohoo indeed.
Indeed, and look at how the market is tanking. I though he was going to make it all better?
Not seeing the magic yet.
FIRST of all...he's going to have a HUGE job fixing the crap Bush did in MANY arenas. SECONDLY....he's not president YET, Doofus.
Tell me all the great and mighty and wonderful things McCain could have done BEFORE he was sworn in. Better yet....tell me how OH SO MUCH he was going to change things, being that he voted exactly right alongside Bush 9 out of 10 times? So, what was really going to change? Oh yeah...I forgot....we would have had a VP that couldn't name ONE freaking newspaper and thinks being governor of Alaska qualifies her as a liason and diplomat to Putin. O.o
I'd rather take my chances with the Dems this time.
McCain's first important decision and he puts Palin on the ticket. I think that shows he just MIGHT not have very good judgment or common sense.
Ah, the namecalling. Doofus indeed.
The market runs on expectations, If business people thought Obama and his policies were going to be good for the economy, the market would be improving.
I didn't support McCain, so I don't know why you are bringing him up. This is about Obama and what HE is going to do, and what effect it is having.
How did Bush screw up the economy? I'd like to see some evidence of that, other than post hoc ergo propter hoc. Which BUSH policies led to the current crisis? It seems the policies of the last twenty years did this, not anything Bush did.
Palin was by far the best one out of McCain, Obama, and Biden -- BY FAR.
Palin couldnt name the 3 countries in Nafta, and didn't think Africa was a continent.... The list goes on for miles.
But that's not why I responded to you. This thread is about how Obama was the better choice of the two evils, if you want to put it that way. So I dont understand why people like you are bashing him when, his winning the presidency race is better than McCain doing so.
" If business people thought Obama and his policies were going to be good for the economy, the market would be improving."
The whole gas crisis and peaks of the economic crisis over the past months have caused people to go crazy with fear. In turn, it only made things worse. We cant help it if buisnesses are already afraid when perhaps maybe its just the shareholders who are afraid.. and lots of these people are just like the ones that fueled the economic crisis by panicing and making things worse.
First, let's see ya prove those things are true about Palin.
I'm not bashing Obama -- I am hopeful for the future.
Personally, I hope Obama is a great president, has eight years of stunning growth, we put a man, no, a whole colony on mars, maybe even alpha centauri when our government-funded stem cell research money yields the unexpected result of cloned biological engines which can unlock wormholes and get around the speed of light problems.
I hope all war ends, the Jihad changes their heart, and they start a whole new genre of music, called Jihad, which means "they struggle with Allah in their music, dude," and that music revolutionizes sound and spawns a whole love of Arabic and Koranic verses.
I hope Obama, with nothing but sound reason and the forc of his personality, convinces China to become truly free and copy the way TAIWAN and Hong Kong do things and I hope they solve the problem of pollution by learning how to shoot the earths garbage into the sun, and do so on the cheap, buying all the ICBMs no longer needed.
I hope Russia realizes authoritarianism is not the way to go, and sells theit ICBMs to chine for the garbage program.
I hope Raul Castro, after being convinced by Obama that he should leave and buy an American baseball team, espenlishes democracy and Obama signs a huge free trade agreement.
I hope all criminals, wanting to CHANGE because Obama will lead us into a bright future, all turn themselves in, confess, go to Jail -- then they establish Obama repentance groups and start companies out of their own sell blocks which in three years of Obama, have enough wealth they can But the prison system and run it aat a substantial profit.
I hope Obama is a giant, and my country soars. I hope a lot of things.
I just don't see, and neither does business, that he has the policies that will do these great things, or even get us out of this mess we are in so we can break even.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You mean the lies go on for miles. Why do you think the source within the McCain camp remains anonymous? Because the story is false. It has been completely debunked. There are two possible explanations why it was made up. Either someone within McCain's camp is trying to cover for the failures of his Presidential campaign or they are trying to discredit her potential bid for a 2012 run for the President. Probably a little of both. I wouldn't be surprised (though I am not making this accusation) that it was someone from the Romney camp who later joined the McCain team. Romney may give it another shot in 2012 and Palin has emerged as a political force in the Republican party.
The Palin phenomena is rather remarkable. Here we are 10 days after the election and she is still making headlines. She is the centerpiece at the Republican's governors' convention in Florida. Yesterday Keith Olbermann couldn't stop attacking her on his show. He is obsessed with Palin. I think he's got a crush on her.
Right side of history? Was there really an instance in history where any side is actually right? What even defines right in history?
Well you can say one side is always more popular or have better reasons. However, I cannot honestly say anything in terms of human history is considered "right".
Yes, you can rebute with some events that lead to our current lives, but that still doesn't make it right.
EDIT: Human live in sin because our history is made from sins we committed, the only thing we can do is to realize those sins, and try to move forward.