A bit of government related discussion

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
User avatar
Lumpy Burgertushie
Registered User
Posts: 66324
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:11 am
Contact:

A bit of government related discussion

Post by Lumpy Burgertushie » Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:16 am

[b][color=#CC6600]Marshalrusty[/color][/b] wrote: This topic was created by splitting off-topic posts from Topic #2058815 - Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?
---------------------------------------

oleg-karow wrote:The whole problem can be put down to ------them and us = justice or just-us ( or just-U.S. as in bohpal / BP ) . No one no where should have any kind of imunity from the law .

The whole thing proves that we dont live in democracy . The pregnant questions are in what system do we live , what are our dutys and what are our rights ? We live in a sort of financial apartheid where the rich can do what they want and get away with it . We do the work , we take the blame , we pay , we have no rights . They are on unearned permanent luxury holiday . Give rich people a shovel and see how long it takes them to get rich .
now sure what country you are in. If you are in the US, then you are correct, we dont' live in a democracy.
the US has never been a democray and was never intended to be a democracy.
Our form of government is a Constitutional Republic/Representative Republic.
True democracy means that everyone votes on every single thing ( EVERY single thing ) and then the majority rules. That has never been a very successful form of government anywhere in the world.

Oh, and if it wasn't for those nasty rich people, you wouldn't have a job or be able to support yourself and your family etc.

If you gave most rich people a shovel, they would get just as rich because they would figure out how to duplicate the shovels, setup a shovel making company, hire you to make the shovels and then sell them to people that needed a shovel.


robert

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Post by Darth Wong » Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:59 pm

Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:Oh, and if it wasn't for those nasty rich people, you wouldn't have a job or be able to support yourself and your family etc.
The interesting thing is that this would still be true if those rich people were only half as rich as they are. America's greatest economic growth period was in the 1950s, when the top income tax rate was 90%.
If you gave most rich people a shovel, they would get just as rich because they would figure out how to duplicate the shovels, setup a shovel making company, hire you to make the shovels and then sell them to people that needed a shovel.
Do you sincerely believe that? What evidence do you have for this? You are completely discounting the effect of social networking (the real kind, not the on-line kind) and family and business connections in the creation of wealth, even though every study of the subject has shown that this is an enormously important factor.

If you took a rich person away from not just his current business but all of his social, family, and business connections, assets, and history, you might be surprised at how much difficulty he runs into. Do you understand why well-heeled families send their kids to expensive Ivy League schools even though the quality of education is not necessarily any better? It's not about learning material; it's about making connections and filling out an impressive resume.

User avatar
Lumpy Burgertushie
Registered User
Posts: 66324
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:11 am
Contact:

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Post by Lumpy Burgertushie » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:22 am

You quite missed the point.
rich people own companies, rich people are the ones creating the jobs in this country.
notice I did not say all rich people, I said most. The ones that did not create their wealth from any particular knowledge or skill are not the ones I was talking about and they are not the ones that create the jobs for the masses.

robert

User avatar
Highway of Life
Former Team Member
Posts: 6048
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Spokane, WA
Name: David Lewis
Contact:

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Post by Highway of Life » Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:07 am

It’s the question: How do the rich get rich?
People who work hard, have great ideas, are shrewd, there are many ways that people have figured out how to 'get rich'. So yes, Lumpy is highly accurate. Give them a shovel, and they will find a way to get rich. Is there anything wrong with that?
The phpBB Weekly Podcast - Discussing the developments of phpBB4 and beyond.

New to phpBB3? Want to learn about programing?
Visit phpBB Academy at StarTrekGuide to learn how.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Post by Darth Wong » Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:35 am

Highway of Life wrote:It’s the question: How do the rich get rich?
People who work hard, have great ideas, are shrewd, there are many ways that people have figured out how to 'get rich'. So yes, Lumpy is highly accurate. Give them a shovel, and they will find a way to get rich. Is there anything wrong with that?
Yes, there's something wrong with that. It's the fact that you present zero evidence whatsoever for this proposition, other than your say-so.

I point out the enormous importance of connections in building personal wealth. I point out that the entire Ivy League university network is based on the importance of building these connections. No one even tries to refute this. Instead, you both just repeat the same mantra: that rich people must have gotten that way by being so awesome that they would inevitably have gotten there without anyone's help.

I've known plenty of rich people. Not one of them started poor. Every single one of them started either in a rich family, or at least a solidly upper middle-class one. There are rags-to-riches stories out there, but they are few and far between. For most of us, we are where we are in large part because the Fates smiled upon us, and put us in the right position to build wealth.

I think there's a real problem when rich people start telling themselves that they did it all on their own: they will also start telling themselves that they deserve every penny, and that they have no social obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves. In fact, they can even go farther and declare that it would be immoral to help those less fortunate than themselves (this is Glenn Beck's position).

User avatar
Marshalrusty
Project Manager
Project Manager
Posts: 29247
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: New York City
Name: Yuriy Rusko
Contact:

Re: Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

Post by Marshalrusty » Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:22 am

I hear this "rich people make jobs, so if they get richer, they'll make more jobs" pitch quite often, but nobody ever seems to back it up with anything. It's passed off as being such an intuitive concept that no justification is necessary. That kind of thing always increases the presence of "wishful thinking".

Imagine a town where a number of different farms provide fresh milk to the community. There is competition and things are generally going well. Now along comes someone looking for a business opportunity and decides to open a milk bottling plant. He buys the milk from the farmers in bulk (which is good for the farmers, since they can spend more time farming and less time selling) and sells bottled milk to consumers with little or no price increase. Over time, most people start buying milk from the new company, which has now cornered the market and can increase prices since there's nobody around to reasonably compete with them.

Now you can say that any person with enough ingenuity can come along and find a way to compete here, but that's clearly not the case. This type of phenomenon has created giants like Walmart, supermarket chains, the telecommunications industry (with 4 giant companies in the US competing with each other, but not really), etc. So you could make the case that Walmart is better at business and therefore deserves to put local retailers out of business (free market, right?), but is this actually a good thing overall? Should we now not tax Walmart so they create more jobs? Perhaps for the same people who went out of business because Walmart provided cheaper and more convenient options for consumers? Maybe if people saw the big picture, they would recognize that purchasing imported items for $0.30 cheaper at Walmart instead of the local small business is actually costing them far more than $0.30 in the long run.

Summary:
If our system is based on consumer choice (people choosing which companies stay in business by voting with their money) and consumers are making choices against their overall long-term interests (due to their limited perception and strong desire to save a few dollars now), then wouldn't that make the system severely flawed? Isn't providing tax-cuts to these companies (to presumably allow them to create more jobs) only encouraging them to continue exploiting these flaws and thus screwing the same people whom they are supposedly helping by providing jobs?
Have comments/praise/complaints/suggestions? Please feel free to PM me.

Need private help? Hire me for all your phpBB and web development needs

User avatar
Lumpy Burgertushie
Registered User
Posts: 66324
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:11 am
Contact:

Re: A bit of government related discussion

Post by Lumpy Burgertushie » Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:28 pm

can't argue with any of those points. the problem is, you are bringing "morals" into the picture.
this country runs on the free enterprise system of capitalism.
do some people get hurt? you bet! Does that suck? you bet!
Can the free enterprise system crash? Just did!

however, just like has been said about our form of government, "it aint perfect but it is better than anything else out there".

as far as proving that rich people create the jobs, that is nonsense. that is like saying " prove that the sun is there".
If the rich do not create the jobs and therefore the economy, then who do you think is doing it, the poor?
the homeless?


Even the "ivy league" bunch will still be the owners of business and therefore the creators of jobs etc.
bottom line is, for good or evil, the business owners are what keep this country alive. If you take away their incentive to grow and produce, they will stop. Then where will the jobs go? How will any of us make a living?


Also, I doubt there are many, if any, of us here on this board that wouldn't just love to be one of those "rich people".


robert

User avatar
Marshalrusty
Project Manager
Project Manager
Posts: 29247
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: New York City
Name: Yuriy Rusko
Contact:

Re: A bit of government related discussion

Post by Marshalrusty » Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:30 pm

Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:can't argue with any of those points. the problem is, you are bringing "morals" into the picture.
this country runs on the free enterprise system of capitalism.
do some people get hurt? you bet! Does that suck? you bet!
Can the free enterprise system crash? Just did!
I suppose the question would be "why did it crash?". Depending on which side you listen to, you will hear that either companies took advantage of the freedom or that the government over-regulated. Now, there seems to be a bit on an inconsistency with the latter reason since the same people are saying that government can't actually so anything right. So the government is hopelessly incompetent, but also intelligent enough to cause widespread system instability that went unnoticed (at least in the mainstream) for years. From my perspective, there is little or no regulation in a vast number of areas; the Bernard Madoff case demonstrates this very nicely. If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog...
Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:however, just like has been said about our form of government, "it aint perfect but it is better than anything else out there".
If you're referring to the Winston Churchill quote, then he also said "the best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" and "you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else".

In any case, I'm obviously a fan of both Democracy and Capitalism, but Capitalism doesn't mean "anarchy" either. As I said above, there are problems that are created by the free market that are not solved by the free market. If the system rewards the most clever individuals with wealth, then it is only natural that they will exploit the system itself to gain more wealth. Create a dog treat dispenser for desired behavior (like doing tricks). The dumb dogs will starve, the average dogs will perform the tricks to get the treats, while the smartest of the bunch will go around back and break open the door used to refill the dispenser.
Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:as far as proving that rich people create the jobs, that is nonsense. that is like saying " prove that the sun is there".
If the rich do not create the jobs and therefore the economy, then who do you think is doing it, the poor?
the homeless?
Let's look at this another way. The goal of companies ("the rich") is to make a profit and presumably continue increasing that profit, correct? Creating jobs is not the same goal. Sometimes revenue can be generated by creating jobs (ie. expanding a factory, opening a new store, etc.) and sometimes there are other ways (ie. firing a few people to downsize, firing 20 people and hiring 20 more at a decreased salary, firing 1000 factory workers to outsource the labor).

The homeless aren't creating jobs, but the goal of the rich isn't to create jobs either. Would you invest your money with someone who made decisions in your favor only when it also made them the greatest amount? It would be a conflict of interest if a broker purposely lost your money to make the greatest profit himself, yet this is often what happens when companies receive tax cuts and then don't actually use that money for job creation.
Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:Even the "ivy league" bunch will still be the owners of business and therefore the creators of jobs etc.
bottom line is, for good or evil, the business owners are what keep this country alive. If you take away their incentive to grow and produce, they will stop. Then where will the jobs go? How will any of us make a living?
You shouldn't take away their incentive to grow and produce, but you also shouldn't reward them for exploiting the system, and you definitely don't want to ever be delusional about their motivations. Increasing profits does not always go hand-in-hand with job creation. In some cases, such as with outsourcing, the two are polar opposites.
Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:Also, I doubt there are many, if any, of us here on this board that wouldn't just love to be one of those "rich people".
While most people wouldn't reject additional money (for obvious reasons), I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with anything.
Have comments/praise/complaints/suggestions? Please feel free to PM me.

Need private help? Hire me for all your phpBB and web development needs

Popp Singh
Registered User
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:31 pm
Contact:

Re: A bit of government related discussion

Post by Popp Singh » Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:29 pm

1 :- Lets get the definition and use of the word democrasy straight . The definition is basicaly what you said exept for the fact that not everybody MUST vote only the people that want to and there is not an obligation to vote on everything only the posibility . The use is diferent = we call the systems where people can vote democracys but they arent . There has never been a democratic state or election = whoever wants to can vote and can vote for whoever they want . We are allowed to vote for the people who make decissions for us and that is called a party political democracy . Its nearly the oposite of a real democracy and the thing that oliver cromwell fought against = rich people , bishops , barons , lords and kings = partys . If you look at the british elections the people lost as they do every time . No party got more than around 1/3rd of the votes = from the people who did vote the majority voted against all the partys = about 2/3rds voted for other partys than the one that "won" . Then think about why the rest who didnt vote didnt vote ? = because the most of them see no point in voteing for people who come on a scale from village idiots to professional criminals ...... = criminal idiocracy . And because who wants to vote for the establishments = rich peoples A , B or C team ?

2 :- Are you saying that a republic cant be a democracy as the word is used ?

3 :- If your country isnt a democracy , as the word is used , why do you have elections ?

4 :- I havent got a job .I`m 80 % disabled .

5 :- If my share of this planet hadnt been stolen from me by the powers that be = vested interests = the criminaly rich i could suport myself and my family . ( the same goes for all poor people ) As it is now i get 3600 euros a year pension to buy my food , clothes , pay bus fares and all the other things that i need to live . My rent is payed for the slum i`m forced to "live" in and i have health insurance ....... but i still have to pay to go to the doctors and pay for the health system through taxes and pay for the prescriptions and only get the absolute minimum . I have paid much more than that in taxes and my mother and father have paid millions in taxes . So when it comes down to it even after being cheated out of my fair share i have paid and still am paying for a much better treatment than i get .

6 :- All rich people arent nasty . I have friends who are rich and they are not nasty . My mother is rich and shes not nasty . I have nothing against some people haveing more than others if they have earned it honestly and use the money well. Most rich people havent earned it they have inherited it and / or abused people and / or the system to get it .

7 :- If those rich people got a shovel the only way that they could get rich is if they hit poor people with it and forced them to work for them for less than they and their work are worth = The most people would end up in the same position that they are in now = in poverty with no real choices .

8 :- Think about who is rich and why . Your country is rich because it was based on ethnic cleaning / genoside / theft from the indians . Because of abuseing chinese and mexicans to build your railways . Slavery . And what most of the world hate and object about = american foreign policy . My country is rich because of slavery and attacking other countrys and stealing their valuables . Germany is rich because of arms dealing and not haveing to finance an offensive army ( well untill a few years ago ) . Another reason is because the united nations is dominated by the countrys on the standing comitte , the world tradeing organisation and the world bank who all act together and protect the interests of a few western countrys against the rights of the poor majority of the population of the world .

Then think about the fact that the most rich people are white caucasians and why that is . It is not because they are more intelligent or hard working than anyother group of people in the world .

9 :- Your shovel example forgets the patent laws . If the guy with a shovel hasnt got a patent on it everyone could make their own and compete with him for jobs and to get a patent one has to be rich . Look at the prices of patents to see that . Guess who controles the prices of patents ....... rich white caucasians .

10 .- If your country is a reprasentative republic please explain why two not elected representatives of the arms industry = cheyney and rumsfeld , can determine american foreign policy ? Then explain why the two of them were behind the wars in vietnam and iraq and afghanistan and others . Then think about this ...... those wars were illegal . Against international law and were / are war crimes where those two people were able to send your boys to get murdered in those countrys for no other reason but profit for the arms and oil industrys . Why no ( or next to no ) politicians or rich peoples kids went . Why the majority of the people who went were black . Why you the people of the states had to pay for all that plus the munitions . And lastly look at who the only people who profited are = the arms industry / rich people .

11 :- Why is the world totaly dominated by the people who own stocks and shares who are only about 2 % of the population of the world .

12 :- In a republic there is no monarch/y , your country doesnt have one , BUT you do have the equivalent = people like the kennedys and bushes and their hereditry dynastys . SO whats the real difference between your alibi republic and our alibi monarchys / democracys ? That they dont wear crowns ?

13 :- "however, just like has been said about our form of government, "it aint perfect but it is better than anything else out there"." Please explain that and how you come to that conclusion ? I dont see a diference = the poor work , pay the bills , get abused , get sent to war , get murdered , pay the debts of the rich corupt banking system , get blamed and the rich have a get out oif jail free card and are on permanent free luxury holiday .

That was a reply to you and not only you so please dont feel shot at and dont feel that anyone is expecting you to take the responsibility for or defend what has hapened in the world and been said here . This isnt a battle between you and me or anyone else here . Its a discusion about polytricks , fairness , honesty , freedom and human rights . And i hope about educateing ourselves and learning to take our responsibilitys for eachother and the planet .

User avatar
Lumpy Burgertushie
Registered User
Posts: 66324
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:11 am
Contact:

Re: A bit of government related discussion

Post by Lumpy Burgertushie » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:02 pm

wow, relax, take a breath.
It is obvious that you have a very large chip on your shoulder against someone rich. (maybe someone very close to you? )

I never said that all rich people were wonderful or even that most of them were great people with altruistic motives. However, you are ranting against rich people saying they are why you and others are so poor ( including me).
Sorry, just aint so.
I am in the financial position I am in because of choices I made in my life, not because some rich person took anything away from me. I would suggest that this is true for most people.

We could argue about all the political stuff you mentioned but that is not what this discussion has been about.
You started off blaming rich people for all the troubles in the world or maybe just your troubles.
I simply stated the fact that rich people are the ones that create the jobs in this country and I assume in your country as well. If you remove their incentives to create jobs/grow and produce etc., then the economy goes to hell.
Now, the economy can go to hell because of greedy rich bastards as well.
I never said that some rich people were not greedy bastards.

AS for democracy, the definition of democracy is that everything has to be voted on by the citizens.
Every citizen gets one vote and the majority rules.
WE would not elect a congress to vote on things for us, we would all just vote on everything, every law, etc.

If enough people voted that murdering your neighbor was ok, then it would be legally ok.

Thank goodness our founders ( and yours ) were smarter than that.

I think that this is the best form of government out there. Can you show me another form of government that allows any of it's citizens ( yes even you or me ) to be or do pretty much anything we want to?
Any one of us can become the leader of our country, or wealthy beyond dreams etc.
All we have to do is work hard enough to get what we want.
Most other countries in the world do not have that type of opportunity for their citizens.

oh well,
I wish you and everyone else the best.
robert

robert

User avatar
Highway of Life
Former Team Member
Posts: 6048
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Spokane, WA
Name: David Lewis
Contact:

Re: A bit of government related discussion

Post by Highway of Life » Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:49 am

I can’t go through and read the entire topic, but just read this one paragraph and had to comment on it...
oleg-karow wrote:"however, just like has been said about our form of government, "it aint perfect but it is better than anything else out there"." Please explain that and how you come to that conclusion ? I dont see a diference = the poor work , pay the bills , get abused , get sent to war , get murdered , pay the debts of the rich corupt banking system , get blamed and the rich have a get out oif jail free card and are on permanent free luxury holiday .
This is actually quite false. The entire paragraph.
  1. The poor work, yes. The rich hard to work to get where they are, and now while they have MORE responsibility than the poorer, they do not physically have to work as hard.
  2. The Poor do not pay the bills. The rich do. The rich actually pay a much MUCH higher majority of taxes than the poor do. Our current tax system is actually quite hard on the rich, taxing a much greater percentage of the income of the individual.
  3. Get abused? Not true at all. Although Americans complain about a lot, we actually have it quite good. Much better than in most countries. Consider China, where you have slave labor, and the rich are actually abused. In America, anybody can make their own way. You can even get rich if you work hard enough. Many do. There are not a few number of rich people in America, there are hundreds of thousands of them. Dare I say at least a million? That’s pretty good odds for a country that “abuses the poor”.
  4. Get sent to war? Do you know anything about the United States? We do not have a draft like most countries. People like me, can decide to go into the armed forces to serve our country. It’s a choice for Americans, nobody is forced to go into the Military.
  5. The poor get murdered and the rich don’t? That’s such a terribly absurd statement that it doesn’t even require a defense.
  6. Pay the debts of the rich corupt banking system [sic]. This again, is false. The Rich pay out many times greater than the poor do.
  7. The poor get blamed... for what? It’s the rich that are blamed. It’s Holywood and all of it’s stars that are watched like hawks. The music artists who are blamed for when they do bad (for being bad role-models, for example). The rich CEO’s of companies that screw up. The rich Politicians that run our country. No, it’s not the poor that get blamed, it’s the rich. They have far more responsibility than the poor do. But in America, the line between rich and poor is blurred, there is no defined line like there is in many monarchy-run countries.
  8. The rich have more power with money, this is true, but it is certainly NOT a get out of jail free card. Because of the way our justice system works, if you are found guilty, you go to jail. There are hundreds of stories of “rich” going to jail for various crimes. Although usually crimes related to business.
  9. The rich have a lot, they are rich, but that is not a permanent free luxury holiday. There are many that easily lose that wealth, they have to keep working if they want to maintain that wealth. Just like anywhere.
The phpBB Weekly Podcast - Discussing the developments of phpBB4 and beyond.

New to phpBB3? Want to learn about programing?
Visit phpBB Academy at StarTrekGuide to learn how.

User avatar
RMcGirr83
Recognised Extension Developer
Posts: 21034
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: Your display
Name: Rich McGirr
Contact:

Re: A bit of government related discussion

Post by RMcGirr83 » Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:32 am

I am seeing my name tossed around a lot in this topic...and I like it!! :)
...and are on permanent free luxury holiday.
There is no such thing as a "free lunch" for a rich person and money does not cure all that ails you. It helps but it also creates a lot of problems as well. For example, many, many "lottery winners" will say that the worst decision they ever made was to tell their family that they "hit it big". Why? I haven't a clue, I would think the family members would be happy for them but more than likely, they are looking for that "free lunch".

I know quite a few people that would be deemed "rich", I would not trade with them for one second simply because I hate working more than 50-60 hours a week (with no overtime pay mind you) as is...and they generally put in close to 70 hours and are usually "on call".

PS I thought this topic was about Government anyway. FWIW, I have yet to see or meet a poor politician. I wonder why that is. :?

Kim_Possible
Registered User
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Re: A bit of government related discussion

Post by Kim_Possible » Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:18 pm

RMcGirr83 wrote:I know quite a few people that would be deemed "rich", I would not trade with them for one second simply because I hate working more than 50-60 hours a week (with no overtime pay mind you) as is...and they generally put in close to 70 hours and are usually "on call".
My SO and I have definitely have had the "how much work is too much" discussion recently. I am partial owner in a small business. Simply put, my business partner and I have more work than can be done in 80 hours a week (40 each), so if I am willing to work 60 hours this week, that is money I don't have to pay one of our contract employees, and that money goes right into my pocket. My general approach has been to take every job I could, and contract out the jobs I literally couldn't do (because of scheduling conflicts). During the busy seasons of the year, that means I work 10-12 hours a day, six or seven days a week (usually seven), and those hours are spread out all during the day (whenever the work needs to be done).

My SO has become the "domestic partner" (which is hilarious if you know her), because I literally don't have time to do anything else (and she only works about 50 hours a week - and for very little money at this point).

It has not been easy, and I think this schedule would be much harder to maintain if I were older, but I figure I'm only young once. Better to "make hay while the sun shines" . . . as they say around here. And I'm not complaining, because we have been very successful. We are 25, our house is paid for as are both our cars. Student loans are paid off, and now we are living on my SO's income and saving all of mine.

That seems to be the secret to getting "rich" that my classmates at University still haven't figured out: "Find a way to live on less money than you make, and spend the money you save on things that will make more money."

[/ramble]

User avatar
god0fgod
Registered User
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: A bit of government related discussion

Post by god0fgod » Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:50 pm

I can't read all these posts but I will add my opinion on economic systems.

The problems with capitalism can be solved by adding laws on economic systems. Completely free markets are bad but a governments should highly encourage private enterprise. The government needs to ensure everything is done fairly and opportunities exist for everyone.

Governments need to implement very strict but fair laws to protect companies against anti-competitive behaviour. This is not being done properly in the US and many other countries. This is why unfair monopolies are being made. Governments also need to protect consumers. To protect consumers, the government will need to stop anti-competition. The two problems overlap. Finally, governments need to protect workers, giving them fair rights. Businesses should be able to succeed and do well but in fairness with others.

I blame all the dreadful governments for not controlling these situations.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: A bit of government related discussion

Post by Darth Wong » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:24 am

Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:however, just like has been said about our form of government, "it aint perfect but it is better than anything else out there".
Red herring. Nobody is talking about changing our entire system of government. We're just talking about altering the tax rate formula. Don't exaggerate.
as far as proving that rich people create the jobs, that is nonsense. that is like saying " prove that the sun is there".
It is quite easy to prove that the Sun is there. You merely need to produce evidence of observational data consistent with an entity matching the described characteristics of the Sun.

You are essentially arguing that your "money in rich peoples' hands is better than money in everyone else's hands" ideology requires no supporting evidence: an utterly preposterous and quite frankly dishonest thing to say. Everything requires supporting evidence: yes, including the existence of the Sun.
If the rich do not create the jobs and therefore the economy, then who do you think is doing it, the poor? the homeless?
Primarily, the middle class. Small business has been described as the primary engine of job growth. But your whole line of reasoning is bizarre: are you saying that it must be one class or the other? All employed people contribute to the economy and create jobs, by virtue of having jobs and spending their money. Why are you pretending that rich people are somehow more responsible for this than anyone else?
Even the "ivy league" bunch will still be the owners of business and therefore the creators of jobs etc. bottom line is, for good or evil, the business owners are what keep this country alive. If you take away their incentive to grow and produce, they will stop. Then where will the jobs go? How will any of us make a living?
Nice black/white fallacy, but I'm afraid I won't take that bait. No one is proposing to completely eliminate the incentive to become rich. I said you could reduce it; this is not the same as saying that you would eliminate it.
Also, I doubt there are many, if any, of us here on this board that wouldn't just love to be one of those "rich people".
And plenty of rich people also believe in paying higher taxes, because they understand that they should give something back to the community. Here's an example of Warren Buffet saying precisely that:

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
Buffett tells Dems rich need to pay more

If you can't produce evidence to support your claim that tax cuts for rich people benefit the economy, then the claim itself is groundless, ie- worthless. Don't try to come up with a clever excuse to continue refusing to provide evidence.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”