View Full Version : A lesson on why socialism never works
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.
The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.
bilkenter
03-30-2009, 10:43 PM
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.
The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.
Really an amazing one. Thank you...
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.
The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.
Really an amazing one. Thank you...
Glad you liked it.
You'll probably be the only one.
devilsadvocate
03-30-2009, 11:29 PM
Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?
pentomato
03-30-2009, 11:34 PM
Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?
I was going to say that lol
Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?
"Made up"?
Explain.
Have you some sort of exclusive knowledge of human nature.
I have an idea - why don't you send me, oh, let's say, a thousand dollars, and I'll send you a nice thank-you note in return.
How's about that?
Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?
I was going to say that lol
But you decided to lol instead.
Life is pretty simple for you, eh?
Eat, sleep, lol.
Repeat.
Better hope you never lose your cookies, 'cuz you could never find your way back here, I'll bet.
Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?
Does it matter if its made up or not?
Barbarossa
03-31-2009, 08:32 AM
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.
The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.
I'd like to think that people in the real world would act a little less childishly than the students in this class :dry:
pentomato
03-31-2009, 09:20 AM
I was going to say that lol
But you decided to lol instead.
Life is pretty simple for you, eh?
Eat, sleep, lol.
Repeat.
Better hope you never lose your cookies, 'cuz you could never find your way back here, I'll bet.
I was goping to say that and that you are an idiot, that's all.
Yes life for me is very simple, you sound like my ex wife.
I wonder if you have any other life than to come to FST and make a fool out of yourself with your ideas from the middle ages, but then again, I could care less, you remind me of bozzo the clown, just for the stupid stuff you write.
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.
The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.
I'd like to think that people in the real world would act a little less childishly than the students in this class :dry:
To paraphrase an old song, 'People Are Children Wherever You Go'.
They're no more or less childish anywhere on the planet.
But you decided to lol instead.
Life is pretty simple for you, eh?
Eat, sleep, lol.
Repeat.
Better hope you never lose your cookies, 'cuz you could never find your way back here, I'll bet.
I was goping to say that and that you are an idiot, that's all.
Yes life for me is very simple, you sound like my ex wife.
I wonder if you have any other life than to come to FST and make a fool out of yourself with your ideas from the middle ages, but then again, I could care less, you remind me of bozzo the clown, just for the stupid stuff you write.
Each post a many-faceted jewel of.......well......hmmmm......oh, nevermind.
bigboab
03-31-2009, 10:24 AM
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.
The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.
Does this mean that you agree with putting students with the same ability in the same class? I don't think any social system can afford that.
Just wondering.:)
clocker
03-31-2009, 10:44 AM
Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?
Does it matter if its made up or not?
Surely you jest.
Until more specific info can be provided, this "economics professor from Texas Tech" and his anecdote about socialism is about as valid as WMDs in Iraq and giant albino alligators in the sewers.
The applicable description would be truthiness.
Since Texas is still trying (somewhat successfully) to insert creationism into their science programs, your gullibility can be understood- if not excused- Skiz.
devilsadvocate
03-31-2009, 01:32 PM
Sticking with the made up chain email plan huh?
Does it matter if its made up or not?
Probably not for the kind of people that use TV shows like 24 as proof that torture is justified.
bilkenter
03-31-2009, 01:36 PM
Does it matter if its made up or not?
Probably not for the kind of people that use TV shows like 24 as proof that torture is justified.
Lets raise the bets, not just torture but anything can be justified. I am not saying things like rape are good or bad, all i am saying anything can be justified. BTW what is wrong with 24 anyway? One can quote a movie but not a tv series? weird
devilsadvocate
03-31-2009, 01:52 PM
Probably not for the kind of people that use TV shows like 24 as proof that torture is justified.
Lets raise the bets, not just torture but anything can be justified. I am not saying things like rape are good or bad, all i am saying anything can be justified. BTW what is wrong with 24 anyway? One can quote a movie but not a tv series? weird
There's nothing wrong with the show 24 if that's the kind of show you enjoy.
You do however realize that it's fiction?
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.
The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.
I'd like to think that people in the real world would act a little less childishly than the students in this class :dry:
Texans, lulz.
Overlord
03-31-2009, 04:15 PM
A few of the posters in this thread need to take a course on political economy.
bilkenter
03-31-2009, 04:23 PM
Lets raise the bets, not just torture but anything can be justified. I am not saying things like rape are good or bad, all i am saying anything can be justified. BTW what is wrong with 24 anyway? One can quote a movie but not a tv series? weird
There's nothing wrong with the show 24 if that's the kind of show you enjoy.
You do however realize that it's fiction?
I do realize it is fiction, but you cant possibly say that it is all fiction. Movies sometimes reflect real events why not tv series? So someone justifying torture via events of 24 may actually refer to a real event. Just because we dont know the event itself is real or not doesnt make it fiction.
The Flying Cow
03-31-2009, 06:04 PM
Socialism is the plague of the 21st century.
My country is in a puddle of dog excrement because of it's socialist system.
Your example does perfectly elucidate what happens under Socialism Skee.
I'll cite an example from my own homeland.
A very small amount of people actually work hard here. Private initiative is less than 40% of the active labor-force. More than 50% suck off the public teat, which means that the State has no means of income other than taxation.
They thus tax highly on the small amount of people who are actually working, of their own devices. Something Socialism cannot accept is that some people are better at certain types of work than others, which is simply the nature of life. We are not all the same!
Instead of incentivating those who excel, Socialism squashes them. They get treated no better than those who are inferior at that particular craft. This is unfair. Ultimately, Socialism makes for a suffocating atmosphere where everyone is "in limbo".
Taxes are high, but salaries are low. However this is relative. Those working for the state (who have no boss, a job until they die from which they short of cannot be fired, do as they please, and still get payed for extra hours and the like) complain and go on regular strikes, because they also want an escalating salary that'll go up every year.
Their complaints ultimately result in the prices going up. Tickets for public transport go up, the price of most such services is at an all-time high, as a response to their jabberings, so that they'll earn more. Yet salaries remain low.
What people don't understand is the only way they can get higher salaries is if there is more private initiative. The economy is dead. Almost everything is indirectly state-owned, and the labor laws are so ridiculous nobody can even conceive of launching a business proper. You simply are not allowed to fire your employees. Which means they can do as they please, be lazy and faff about, because they're immune.
Socialism is not even a utopia. It is just incorrect and unfeasible. All that anti-Capitalist (the system where "wolves attack each other and only the strongest survive") talk is fine and dandy, but there is no alternative.
Without healthy competition there can be no economic evolution. Man needs an incentive to work harder, or work at all for that matter. It's as simple as that. We are not some superior being that will only function ideally in a situation where the riches are distributed equally amongst everyone and nobody is richer and yet no-one is poorer. That is simply unrealistic.
The incentive of capital works. The ability to fire your employees is a good thing. Not only does it make them work harder (so as not to be fired) but it also means you are able to put into action a growing enterprise.
"Oh but if the company is raking in profit then it shouldn't be allowed to perform setbacks" Why not? A company can fire whenever it needs or decides to. Otherwise it always has a barrier to a possible development or progression. If you went to the trouble of building a company out of your own sweat, why shouldn't you be allowed to run it the best you can?
Even if the ethics of working and progression for an ever-increasing capital sound or feel corrupted, they are ultimately for the public good. At least for an economic good. Socialism is no different. Corrupted State officials rake in copious amounts of dough on the side and still live off better than the rest. This is no news.
In a Socialist regime you don't know for who you are working the land you're working. It doesn't belong to you, but you don't know who it belongs to. The "state"?
Marx and Engels spoke of the alienation of the worker under Capitalism.
I say the worker has no impetus to work under Socialism. I've seen good people get into the system and get corrupted by it. Why should they try? Why work harder? If your pay will be the same? Why be good or nice and not accept bribes? If the system is built in such a way that the vandals get the spoils and those who are honest get shat on?
Another particularly annoying aspect of Socialism here is pensions. Old people complain that they don't get enough a month for sitting on their couches crunching crisps or playing domino in the public gardens.
I say they should have saved up money throughout their life (trimming a bit off every month until their eventual retirement) so they'd be able to live off it later. If it isn't enough, then the odd job helps.
What doesn't help is having young people work hard to pay incredibly high taxes which also get subdivided into the pensions these old people get (I say old but young people get the dole as well, many to spend on heroine or other drugs and perpetuate their unemployment but we won't get into that chapter).
Why should you pay for someone else's pension? It's not like they payed you for anything.
When I worked I had to trim off a considerable amount of my salary for entities I knew nothing about. "Social security" has never done anything for me. And yet I had to pay for it even if I didn't want to. The rest went to the high taxes.
Rat Faced
03-31-2009, 06:34 PM
And yet the only countries not in recesion at the moment appear to be "Socialist"..
Extreme Socialism can't work, as your made up example shows...but neither can Capitalism if taken to extreme, as the very real slump caused by the Finance system also shows. Theres a finite amount of money in circulation and it accumulates at the top.
Human Nature = there will be greedy/lazy bastards that will spoil it for everyone else in either system.
bigboab
03-31-2009, 08:53 PM
[quote=The Flying Cow;3176734]Another particularly annoying aspect of Socialism here is pensions. Old people complain that they don't get enough a month for sitting on their couches crunching crisps or playing domino in the public gardens.
I say they should have saved up money throughout their life (trimming a bit off every month until their eventual retirement) so they'd be able to live off it later. If it isn't enough, then the odd job helps.
What doesn't help is having young people work hard to pay incredibly high taxes which also get subdivided into the pensions these old people get (I say old but young people get the dole as well, many to spend on heroine or other drugs and perpetuate their unemployment but we won't get into that chapter).
Why should you pay for someone else's pension? It's not like they payed you for anything.
[quote]
Am I to assume that you paid for all of your education out off your own pocket? Are you that rich you can pay for all your Health and education costs? If so where did all this money come from?
I worked for 50 years paying taxes, part of which paid for your education, that was a waste of taxes.
Rat Faced
03-31-2009, 09:32 PM
He also paid National Insurance, which was supposed to be towards his pension.
It's not his fault the various Governments just added the NI contributions into the general taxation pot and didn't invest them as the Private Sector has to.
UK National Insurance.. is this the biggest Pyramid Scheme in the world? And a Manditory one a that:angry:
OMiKRON
04-27-2009, 03:49 PM
yeah buying stuff on credit and then taking out a loan on your house is really that great, in fact its that great that it lead us direclty into the financial crisis..
btw to say a class of american students equals a populatuion of a country is just not defensible, oh great wonder young students rather go party than learn for school i am soooo suprised right now!
The Flying Cow
04-27-2009, 09:43 PM
Are you retarded?
lazor
04-28-2009, 04:51 AM
There's nothing wrong with the show 24 if that's the kind of show you enjoy.
You do however realize that it's fiction?
I do realize it is fiction, but you cant possibly say that it is all fiction. Movies sometimes reflect real events why not tv series? So someone justifying torture via events of 24 may actually refer to a real event. Just because we dont know the event itself is real or not doesnt make it fiction.
Perhaps.
But 24 is not one of those shows.
Rat Faced
04-28-2009, 10:23 PM
yeah buying stuff on credit and then taking out a loan on your house is really that great, in fact its that great that it lead us direclty into the financial crisis..
btw to say a class of american students equals a populatuion of a country is just not defensible, oh great wonder young students rather go party than learn for school i am soooo suprised right now!
And you want to live where?
A Cave maybe?
If you rent, guess what.. at some point the Landlord probably bought the house. Or someone else built it as an investment (much the same as buying one)
Now paying more than a house is worth.. I'd agree with you.
The UK Market has been over-valued for between 5-10 years (depending upon location). Just about everyone connected with the industry knew this and didn't buy during that time, unless it was to sell shortly afterwards at a profit or to rent out.
OMiKRON
04-29-2009, 09:38 AM
The UK Market has been over-valued for between 5-10 years (depending upon location). Just about everyone connected with the industry knew this and didn't buy during that time, unless it was to sell shortly afterwards at a profit or to rent out.
ok.. where i want to live.. in a country where people buy stuff they can afford would be a good start.
and you give a good example why capitalism istn that great either:
over-valued houses create money that just doenst exist through credits, and when the house is sold because you cant pay the credit you wont even come close to the credits value because you lied about its worth before when you wanted to get as much money as possible...
and this process is made everywhere, and when no lie can be told they just make a law and a patent and its out come is a stupid copyright law for example..
I'd like to think that people in the real world would act a little less childishly than the students in this class :dry:
Texans, lulz.
For the record, that was as much directed at the alleged professor as the theoretical students.
It has the ring of a thought experiment, turned chain email (as has been pointed out). And one perpetrated by someone not entirely clear over what socialism is.
If anything, grades and whatnot are allowable rewards within the system, afaik.
What the author is doing assuming is that money is, and should be, rewarded proportionally to how you perform (like a grade ought to be), which isn't really happening in any system I know of.
Communism, and socialism to a lesser extent, does away with that kind of thing, after a fashion, and just states that everyone should have equal means to live, also eliminating social classes and such. Basically it does away with the idea of money as a reward.
This is not the same as saying there should be no distinction between those who do a greater service to society, and those who do not. <10% of the population aren't allowed to sit on >90% of the wealth, whether they actually did anything to earn it, at that, though.
Rat Faced
04-30-2009, 05:16 PM
The UK Market has been over-valued for between 5-10 years (depending upon location). Just about everyone connected with the industry knew this and didn't buy during that time, unless it was to sell shortly afterwards at a profit or to rent out.
ok.. where i want to live.. in a country where people buy stuff they can afford would be a good start.
and you give a good example why capitalism istn that great either:
over-valued houses create money that just doenst exist through credits, and when the house is sold because you cant pay the credit you wont even come close to the credits value because you lied about its worth before when you wanted to get as much money as possible...
and this process is made everywhere, and when no lie can be told they just make a law and a patent and its out come is a stupid copyright law for example..
This is Crap, and I'm no fan of Capitalism as most people here will testify.
Property is worth what people are willing to pay, full stop.
Its the BUYERS that push the prices up. Capitalism is usually from the SELLER or PRODUCER downwards.
The "Price" of property that is advertised in Estate Agents is the price that people are paying for similar property in that location at the moment, with a few small additions/subtractions for the amount of work/modernisation required etc.
A very few "Estate Agents", the ones that are not also surveyors (Chartered Surveyors are regulated in the UK, Estate Agents aren't), will try and add on a couple percentage points to that figure (They do work off commision afterall, and no profession can put their hand on their heart and say everyone involved is honest)
Buyers then offer more than that price to ensure they get the property, hence the next ones will show a higher "Price". If people used their common sense and offered less, or the figure shown, the market wouldn't get overvalued.
Edit: Exception; there are times when land is worth more than the "Market" would show. Usually due to necessary infrastructure works that affect everything else. Thats one of the reasons for Compulsary Purchase Orders, so that the Taxpayer doesn't get ripped off by the people that own the property.
None of the extremism in compensation, or concentration of wealth, is a true reflection of true capitalism, nor any conservative precept I am aware of.
A true conservative capitalism aims for the type of practical integrity generally cited as lacking in today's financial scandals...it allows social and societal condemnation to accrue well and truly to those who trespass against a public propriety, rather than some expedient sought by greedy lawyers, intrusive courts, and a legislature drunk on the wine of non- and anti-constitutional heresy.
This country has never experienced this most equitable of systems - if you have a complaint about American capitalism, talk to the democrats and the republicans.
By the way, when I say 'conservative capitalism', I assert the Reagan Era never got there, either.
On a related note, why the animus toward those who inherit money?
Feel free to denigrate any number of them for slothful living, waste, what-have-you...I would like someone to make a case for confiscation of such wealth via tax or any other method.
If it's yours, it's yours, and if it's theirs, it's theirs; the poor have no claim to the wealth of the rich; relative wealth is not a zero-sum game - if you want what someone else has, get it for yourself, don't tax/steal theirs.
Rat Faced
04-30-2009, 09:47 PM
Ah, inheritance...
I have great respect for those that EARN their money (On saying that, I don't believe that most of the rich have earned it.. 1 Soldier or Nurse is worth more than the CEO of RBS anyday in my book)
I do have a problem with excessive inheritance.
I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to look after their families when they depart, I do believe you should be able to leave a sizable chunk without any taxation whatsoever (well in excess of that which the UK allows Tax Free)
However, I think that if this gets to say 7 figures, the excess should be very heavily taxed.
Looking after your family doesn't mean creating a bunch of rich playboys that do absolutely nothing to enrich society.
Ah, inheritance...
I have great respect for those that EARN their money (On saying that, I don't believe that most of the rich have earned it.. 1 Soldier or Nurse is worth more than the CEO of RBS anyday in my book)
I do have a problem with excessive inheritance.
I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to look after their families when they depart, I do believe you should be able to leave a sizable chunk without any taxation whatsoever (well in excess of that which the UK allows Tax Free)
However, I think that if this gets to say 7 figures, the excess should be very heavily taxed.
Looking after your family doesn't mean creating a bunch of rich playboys that do absolutely nothing to enrich society.
"Most of the rich..." referring to who, precisely?
Do you propose a standard by which wealth is subject to a determination of the worth/merit of an individual?
Do you think you are worth more or less than you earn, Rat?
To whom do these decisions fall?
Elected officials whose primary compulsion is to be re-elected?
The "rich" (to whom you ascribe such greed), who may just decide you should pay a higher rate than they do?
You generally decry the greed of American capitalism; what do you think of the potential for punitive/repressive taxation authored by whomever is charged with dictating the tax code?
The relative worth of a soldier or nurse compared with a CEO is not best parsed in monetary terms...if a CEO (by dint of his intellectual capacity and creativity) employs even a mere double-handful of people who in turn support their families, is his societal contribution not on a par with a nurse or a soldier?
If not, explain this, please.
Also:
Please define "excessive"?
clocker
05-01-2009, 12:28 AM
If it's yours, it's yours, and if it's theirs, it's theirs; the poor have no claim to the wealth of the rich; relative wealth is not a zero-sum game - if you want what someone else has, get it for yourself, don't tax/steal theirs.
I can agree with you with one major caveat.
Eliminate all the tax shelters/loopholes that are available to only the wealthy.
For too long the wealthy have leveraged their power to protect (and extend) their wealth, ultimately paying far less percentage-wise than the middle and lower classes.
The US tax code is a minefield that can only be successfully gamed by those with the means to hire expertise...expertise not available to the poor or even moderately well-to-do.
A close-to-home example of such "gaming" would be my brother, a successful small business owner.
During the Bush administration a stimulus tax bill was passed that was meant to incentivize purchase of new equipment.
Their tax attorney clued them in to the fact that due to the poor wording of the law, a Mercedes G-wagon- a $90,000 luxury SUV- qualified as a "heavy truck" and buying one would actually net them a tax rebate.
So they did.
I don't begrudge them the ability to own such an egregious vehicle, I do object to them getting a tax break for doing so.
I concur completely and wholeheartedly.
Now, do I have your vote.
clocker
05-01-2009, 11:28 AM
What are you running for?
I am running for my life.
A simple Tea party can lead to unintended, um.......eventualities.
Politics looms, and is writ large(r than usual).
I endeavor to resist, as ever.
By the paragraph, then:
What the author is doing assuming is that money is, and should be, rewarded proportionally to how you perform (like a grade ought to be), which isn't really happening in any system I know of.
It shouldn't be?
It isn't?
It "happens" all over the place, all the time, here in the U.S.
Our media makes sure you hear naught about it, though, preferring to present the errants as if they are the norm, which they most definitely are not.
Communism, and socialism to a lesser extent, does away with that kind of thing, after a fashion, and just states that everyone should have equal means to live, also eliminating social classes and such. Basically it does away with the idea of money as a reward.
How do communism and socialism "do away with that kind of thing"?
How do communism and socialism "state" everyone should have "equal means to live", i.e., if my neighbor has a Volvo S80, and I have the S40, My government can be expected to address this iniquity, and forthwith, too.
Social classes and such are "eliminated"?
Do communism and socialism "eliminate" personal judgement as well?
You're talking about a, well...you couldn't call it a society, rightly - after all, you're talking about cloning, but by means of legislature and judiciary, rather than scientific means.
Kinda scary-sounding, if you ask me...I mean, gee whiz, Snee, you and I aren't equal - may be more appropriate to say we are not...congruent.
Nor, I think, would you want us to be.
This is not the same as saying there should be no distinction between those who do a greater service to society, and those who do not. <10% of the population aren't allowed to sit on >90% of the wealth, whether they actually did anything to earn it, at that, though.
You speak as if there were a pile of something, designated "WEALTH", upon which a small group of people have set up shop for the express purpose of poking others off it.
One more time:
Wealth is not finite.
Wealth is not zero-sum proposition.
One can make a pile of one's own to sit on, as can one's neighbors and relatives.
Rat Faced
05-02-2009, 12:12 PM
Ah, inheritance...
I have great respect for those that EARN their money (On saying that, I don't believe that most of the rich have earned it.. 1 Soldier or Nurse is worth more than the CEO of RBS anyday in my book)
I do have a problem with excessive inheritance.
I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to look after their families when they depart, I do believe you should be able to leave a sizable chunk without any taxation whatsoever (well in excess of that which the UK allows Tax Free)
However, I think that if this gets to say 7 figures, the excess should be very heavily taxed.
Looking after your family doesn't mean creating a bunch of rich playboys that do absolutely nothing to enrich society.
"Most of the rich..." referring to who, precisely?
Do you propose a standard by which wealth is subject to a determination of the worth/merit of an individual?
Do you think you are worth more or less than you earn, Rat?
To whom do these decisions fall?
Elected officials whose primary compulsion is to be re-elected?
The "rich" (to whom you ascribe such greed), who may just decide you should pay a higher rate than they do?
You generally decry the greed of American capitalism; what do you think of the potential for punitive/repressive taxation authored by whomever is charged with dictating the tax code?
The relative worth of a soldier or nurse compared with a CEO is not best parsed in monetary terms...if a CEO (by dint of his intellectual capacity and creativity) employs even a mere double-handful of people who in turn support their families, is his societal contribution not on a par with a nurse or a soldier?
If not, explain this, please.
Also:
Please define "excessive"?
That's not what I said.
I don't believe most of the Rich have earned their money, agreed. I even gave examples of poorly paid people that I believe are worth more than them.
I didn't say those that have earned it should be more favourably taxed. A Tax system should be open and transparent; above all it should be simple.
If not, then you get the situation we have today whereby the Rich and Corporations take advantage of loopholes to avoid the Tax they should be paying. This increases the burden on everyone else.
There are examples of people in this country earning very substantial sums and paying less Tax than those on very modest incomes. Any system that allows this is morally bankrupt, as are the people that do it.
I also declared that the threshold where one should pay any Tax from an Inheritance should be much higher than it is at present. I do not believe that you should not be able to look after your family after you've gone.
However, as I've said, there is a limit.
At the moment I'd put that at 7 figures: Say everything over £1,000,000 should be taxed as income to those individuals that inherited.
You will notice that those that have substantially above this would still be able to reduce the Tax burdon by spreading the money around his familly.
I also do not believe that people should be forced to sell their Homes (as an example) to pay Tax. I have no problem with this Tax being deferred if it is tied up in assets, or indeed that the Government becomes a temporary non-voting shareholder if there is a Company involved, until that debt is paid.
"Most of the rich..." referring to who, precisely?
Do you propose a standard by which wealth is subject to a determination of the worth/merit of an individual?
Do you think you are worth more or less than you earn, Rat?
To whom do these decisions fall?
Elected officials whose primary compulsion is to be re-elected?
The "rich" (to whom you ascribe such greed), who may just decide you should pay a higher rate than they do?
You generally decry the greed of American capitalism; what do you think of the potential for punitive/repressive taxation authored by whomever is charged with dictating the tax code?
The relative worth of a soldier or nurse compared with a CEO is not best parsed in monetary terms...if a CEO (by dint of his intellectual capacity and creativity) employs even a mere double-handful of people who in turn support their families, is his societal contribution not on a par with a nurse or a soldier?
If not, explain this, please.
Also:
Please define "excessive"?
That's not what I said.
I don't believe most of the Rich have earned their money, agreed. I even gave examples of poorly paid people that I believe are worth more than them.
I didn't say those that have earned it should be more favourably taxed. A Tax system should be open and transparent; above all it should be simple.
If not, then you get the situation we have today whereby the Rich and Corporations take advantage of loopholes to avoid the Tax they should be paying. This increases the burden on everyone else.
There are examples of people in this country earning very substantial sums and paying less Tax than those on very modest incomes. Any system that allows this is morally bankrupt, as are the people that do it.
I also declared that the threshold where one should pay any Tax from an Inheritance should be much higher than it is at present. I do not believe that you should not be able to look after your family after you've gone.
However, as I've said, there is a limit.
At the moment I'd put that at 7 figures: Say everything over £1,000,000 should be taxed as income to those individuals that inherited.
You will notice that those that have substantially above this would still be able to reduce the Tax burdon by spreading the money around his familly.
I also do not believe that people should be forced to sell their Homes (as an example) to pay Tax. I have no problem with this Tax being deferred if it is tied up in assets, or indeed that the Government becomes a temporary non-voting shareholder if there is a Company involved, until that debt is paid.
Oh.
Stunning to hear these types of things occur over there, where socialism (the "cure") has held sway all these years.
What do you suppose that means.
Btw-
Just as an exercise, try to construct a reasonable-sounding paragraph or so, designed to justify or validate the idea of confiscatory taxation of estates/inheritances.
Every time I've tried it, it hasn't worked at all; it comes out sounding as if government interests (which are not uniformly sound) always trump those of the individual.
Just for larks, how about a system whereby the government stipulates an amount to be ceded, and the party in question is allowed to designate the charities/causes to be enriched?
Just casting about, you see.
By the paragraph, then:
What the author is doing assuming is that money is, and should be, rewarded proportionally to how you perform (like a grade ought to be), which isn't really happening in any system I know of.
It shouldn't be?
It isn't?
It "happens" all over the place, all the time, here in the U.S.
Happens all the time?
Some people work hard all their lives, and end up with nothing.
Some don't lift a finger, and inherit billions.
"all the time" is not quantifiable, and even if it were, it doesn't happen every time, which is the point. No current system is fair.
Our media makes sure you hear naught about it, though, preferring to present the errants as if they are the norm, which they most definitely are not.
I'd argue that most people who are considered wealthy, with regards to monetary means, in the US, and in most of western society at that, have way more than they'll ever need, and most likely way more than they are worth.
It's not just what's in the media either, it's what I actually see in real life.
If some of the people I've had the distinct displeasure of working with got paid after what they accomplish, they'd be paid in negative sums, but they aren't. Meanwhile, the women doing the salaries in some places I've been consulting at work harder than I, but make considerably less.
Communism, and socialism to a lesser extent, does away with that kind of thing, after a fashion, and just states that everyone should have equal means to live, also eliminating social classes and such. Basically it does away with the idea of money as a reward.
How do communism and socialism "do away with that kind of thing"?
It doesn't reward people with money.
Communism in its purest form removes money as a reward, and ensures that everyone has enough to live, and more or less the same to live with.
(In theory it does, in reality that hasn't really had the chance to happen yet. Mainly, I'd say, because some people are still locked in the notion that they need to have more than others, and some of those people always find the way to the top.)
Socialism, as I see it, keeps people from dropping too low or rising too high, but it's less strict.
The social democracy I'm in just tries to keep people from dropping too low.
How do communism and socialism "state" everyone should have "equal means to live", i.e., if my neighbor has a Volvo S80, and I have the S40, My government can be expected to address this iniquity, and forthwith, too.
Bugger the model and make of your car. The point is that the intent is to make sure that there's neither poverty, nor extreme wealth. No one's children has to go hungry, and no one sits on more cash than they and their entire family can spend in their entire lifetime.
Social classes and such are "eliminated"?
Do communism and socialism "eliminate" personal judgement as well?
You're talking about a, well...you couldn't call it a society, rightly - after all, you're talking about cloning, but by means of legislature and judiciary, rather than scientific means.
No, I don't, but thanks for trying.
Saying that you ought not have lots more stuff than your neighbors won't strip you of your individuality.
Nor does saying that making money shouldn't be the way you distinguish yourself.
Kinda scary-sounding, if you ask me...I mean, gee whiz, Snee, you and I aren't equal - may be more appropriate to say we are not...congruent.
Nor, I think, would you want us to be.
This is not the same as saying there should be no distinction between those who do a greater service to society, and those who do not. <10% of the population aren't allowed to sit on >90% of the wealth, whether they actually did anything to earn it, at that, though.
You speak as if there were a pile of something, designated "WEALTH", upon which a small group of people have set up shop for the express purpose of poking others off it.
One more time:
Wealth is not finite.
Wealth is not zero-sum proposition.
One can make a pile of one's own to sit on, as can one's neighbors and relatives.
Ever heard of inflation? Pump more currency into the equation, and it'll only end up being worth less per unit.
Means, by which I mean food, materials for homes, ground to build them on, fuel for your car, and so forth, ARE limited. And will continue to be so. The more limited, the more valuable.
Until the stuff is available in an unlimited supply, you'll still have more of what there is, if you have more to spend to begin with. Everyone can't have what, say, Bill Gates has. Because there's not enough on the entire planet to go around.
I'd wager that a lot of people, if not most, would have a higher standard of living, if things were distributed more evenly, though.
Which brings us right back to the silly example as featured by yon made up texan nutter: Grades are purely an intellectual construct, and an ultimately arbitrary one at that. Money is similar, but not the same.
There's no upper limit to what you can own, money-wise, but there's almost certainly an upper limit to what you need, or can use. There's an upper limit to how good marks you can get, on the other hand.
I'll agree with you in part when it comes to equality. We aren't created equal. And it'd be pretty boring if we had to be. I'd not mind if the total sum of our wordly possessions were equal in terms of value, though. And I'm saying that without knowing which of us currently has more.
Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.
Do this for me, Snee:
Recount for me the greatest-ever example of a successfully-run government business, or government invention; please reserve for yourself the entire history of the known universe to draw from.
Planes, trains, automobiles, computers, stoves, cell-phones, magnetic-resonance-imaging, banks, washers & dryers, the shingles on your roof and whatever-else your house is made of, the concrete or asphalt under your feet/wheels...
All of these things are the result of the people endeavoring to be rich and make money, not people consumed by an all-encompassing altruism.
Government can confiscate and legislate, but that is all.
Governments aspiring to creativity are merely profligate...again, historically-speaking.
Besides which, to whatever extent you would claim your own government to have successfully experimented with socialism, one does not just jerk the economic "engine of the world" (to whatever diminishing extent we may still claim that to be the case) off it's tracks and send it in another direction.
I wish I had more time to respond, but I am off to personally replace an employee who is sick.
BTW-
Do I owe him for the shift he's missing, or does the government?
clocker
05-02-2009, 11:02 PM
Recount for me the greatest-ever example of a successfully-run government business, or government invention; please reserve for yourself the entire history of the known universe to draw from.
NASA- specifically, the Apollo program which resulted in 1969's Moon landing.
Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.
"Government ineptitude" has become such a cornerstone of your posting that one could easily conclude that you are not actually a conservative, rather a full-blown anarchist.
NASA- specifically, the Apollo program which resulted in 1969's Moon landing.
I'll grant that one - tel me about all the others.
Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.
"Government ineptitude" has become such a cornerstone of your posting that one could easily conclude that you are not actually a conservative, rather a full-blown anarchist.
A bit of a leap, that.
Tell me why you believe so heartily in socialism.
Or do you.
clocker
05-03-2009, 12:22 AM
You asked for one example and I provided one.
Now I'm supposed to spend the next "X" weeks writing all the others?
Re: "a bit of a leap"...
Why don't you provide some examples of what you would consider proper government powers and examples of same.
You asked for one example and I provided one.
Now I'm supposed to spend the next "X" weeks writing all the others?
Re: "a bit of a leap"...
Why don't you provide some examples of what you would consider proper government powers and examples of same.
Your PM box is full, brother.
As to proper government powers, start and end with defending our borders, which used to be kind of a staple concern, I believe, and is currently not even on Washington's radar.
Make a few laws, a tad bit of regulatory oversight...work the job part-time, go home and make room for the next guy.
It's just that simple.
clocker
05-03-2009, 12:54 AM
PM box now empty.
I assume that in this pastoral eden you describe you'll be riding to work- wait, will you even have to work?- on a unicorn.
Sounds great.
Also sounds completely unrealistic, but you can't have everything.
Rat Faced
05-04-2009, 10:29 PM
As to proper government powers, start and end with defending our borders, which used to be kind of a staple concern, I believe, and is currently not even on Washington's radar.
Make a few laws, a tad bit of regulatory oversight...work the job part-time, go home and make room for the next guy.
I don't agree.
I would agree with "Defending our Nation" or "Defending our Society". Would even have had a little sympathy for "Defending our Culture".
Borders are only one part of a Country, and frankly they are probably not the most important. The Citizens are.
Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.
Do this for me, Snee:
Recount for me the greatest-ever example of a successfully-run government business, or government invention; please reserve for yourself the entire history of the known universe to draw from.
Planes, trains, automobiles, computers, stoves, cell-phones, magnetic-resonance-imaging, banks, washers & dryers, the shingles on your roof and whatever-else your house is made of, the concrete or asphalt under your feet/wheels...
All of these things are the result of the people endeavoring to be rich and make money, not people consumed by an all-encompassing altruism.
First of all, let's examine some of what you are on about there:
Let's see. Airplanes - we have them, in the shape they are today, because of war, that's what pushed their development. Wars are generally run by governments. For that matter a lot of our technology looks like it does today because of wars. I'm pretty sure it's also affected cell-phones.
Concrete/asphalt - The romans invented concrete, pretty hard to say why they did it, tbh. Taxes paid for a lot of the applications, anyhow. Then and today.
Asphalt? Well, I don't know who invented it, but I do know who plans and builds the public roads over here. That would be the government.
Secondly, as for innovations, the thing is that basically all the medical (and other) research that comes out of our universities, is sponsored in part or in full by our government.
Furthermore they provided our powerlines, most of our railroads, and sponsored cheap housing. They run most of our hospitals, our schools, and the aforementioned universities. They provide us with power, in part. They subsidize medication, and medical treatments. And so on, and so forth.
And for that matter, this entire country is their business, and it's running relatively well.
Government can confiscate and legislate, but that is all.
Governments aspiring to creativity are merely profligate...again, historically-speaking.
Besides which, to whatever extent you would claim your own government to have successfully experimented with socialism, one does not just jerk the economic "engine of the world" (to whatever diminishing extent we may still claim that to be the case) off it's tracks and send it in another direction.
I don't really think you see the point. As long as we need money, and it's available as a reward, ie: if you do something good, you may be rewarded with more money, that will drive somedevelopment, as people need to eat, and most of us don't want to worry about where our next meal is coming from.
If society is restructured, so that everyone has things enough to live well, that doesn't mean there can't be rewards, even if money ceases to be a concern.
Just look at all the people who want to be famous, in one way or another. People will always find ways to motivate themselves.
Thatsgreat
05-12-2009, 09:48 PM
This has probably already been posted. But you say that socialism NEVER works... well that's wrong.
Cause in theory, in a society where everyone is honest, it would work.
Rat Faced
05-12-2009, 10:03 PM
This has probably already been posted. But you say that socialism NEVER works... well that's wrong.
Cause in theory, in a society where everyone is honest, it would work.
Socialism often works. Communism doesn't.
Communes sometimes work, however I think you'll find that the ones that do have quite a high turnover of members outside the core.
They aren't often "Real" communes either, as the members usually have some form of income from the outside to enable it to carry on.
Saroman
05-14-2009, 11:01 AM
Not that I intend to add anything substantial to this argument.. But remembered a quote by Winston Churchill :
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Had to write an essay on the quote above..
Not that I intend to add anything substantial to this argument.. But remembered a quote by Winston Churchill :
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Had to write an essay on the quote above..
Hmmm.
A reasonable shot at a blessing, vs. bleak and monotonous misery.
Just think:
Sir Winnie, referring to misery as a virtue - nevermind why.
I think he was onto something...
Anyway, seems a simple enough choice.
ahctlucabbuS
05-14-2009, 11:21 PM
Well...
Personally I'm not for the extremes in any one ideology, be it communism or hyper-capitalism. Both ideologies show marked flaws...
A touch of socialism never hurt anyone, on the contrary. It creates more buying power from the 'poor' which again stimulate the economy. It also help strengthen the trust among the people in society which again leads to more easy going money flow AKA stimulation of economy. IIRC there were a nobel price winning economist, a few years ago, accounting 10 percent (more or less) of a country's GDP to level of trust among the people in society.
Well...
Personally I'm not for the extremes in any one ideology, be it communism or hyper-capitalism. Both ideologies show marked flaws...
A touch of socialism never hurt anyone, on the contrary. It creates more buying power from the 'poor' which again stimulate the economy. It also help strengthen the trust among the people in society which again leads to more easy going money flow AKA stimulation of economy. IIRC there were a nobel price winning economist, a few years ago, accounting 10 percent (more or less) of a country's GDP to level of trust among the people in society.
A touch of socialism, you say.
If paving the way for the poor via increased purchasing power is to be a priority for liberals, why do they wallow in Walmart-hate?
Just curious.
How do you account for
ahctlucabbuS
05-15-2009, 08:41 AM
Well...
Personally I'm not for the extremes in any one ideology, be it communism or hyper-capitalism. Both ideologies show marked flaws...
A touch of socialism never hurt anyone, on the contrary. It creates more buying power from the 'poor' which again stimulate the economy. It also help strengthen the trust among the people in society which again leads to more easy going money flow AKA stimulation of economy. IIRC there were a nobel price winning economist, a few years ago, accounting 10 percent (more or less) of a country's GDP to level of trust among the people in society.
A touch of socialism, you say.
If paving the way for the poor via increased purchasing power is to be a priority for liberals, why do they wallow in Walmart-hate?
Just curious.
How do you account for
You're stuck on labels again.
A touch of socialism, you say.
If paving the way for the poor via increased purchasing power is to be a priority for liberals, why do they wallow in Walmart-hate?
Just curious.
How do you account for
You're stuck on labels again.
No, I'm stuck on words.
It's much better than grunting, you see.
Human nature is the acknowledged problem with all isms, which point I have made many, many (many) times.
bigboab
06-05-2009, 06:49 PM
Human nature is the acknowledged problem with all isms, which point I have made many, many (many) times.
Somebody has to suffer for any politically based 'ism to succeed.:rolleyes:
Human nature is the acknowledged problem with all isms, which point I have made many, many (many) times.
Somebody has to suffer for any politically based 'ism to succeed.:rolleyes:
Please define "succeed", Bob.
bigboab
06-06-2009, 12:31 PM
Somebody has to suffer for any politically based 'ism to succeed.:rolleyes:
Please define "succeed", Bob.
A budgie with no teeth.
Sorry, could not resist.:)
What I meant was that in order to win there has to be a loser. Everybody can't be successful. Everybody in any political system is not born on a level playing field. There are many rich people who never need to work in their lives. They are as much leeches of society as Monarchs and the plain lazy at the bottom of the heap.
Please define "succeed", Bob.
A budgie with no teeth.
Sorry, could not resist.:)
What I meant was that in order to win there has to be a loser. Everybody can't be successful. Everybody in any political system is not born on a level playing field. There are many rich people who never need to work in their lives. They are as much leeches of society as Monarchs and the plain lazy at the bottom of the heap.
Not quite.
In the capitalist ideal, anyone who chooses to elevate themselves actually can.
What is often overlooked is the effort required to do so, which fact indicates the level of (to borrow your word) laziness is quite a bit more pervasive; some of us would argue this is due to the nanny-state.
It is not easy, and many think the effort isn't worth it.
They are wrong.
One of the fallacies of "other-than-capitalism" is the 'zero-sum' argument... there is no mathematical one-for-one correlation between winners and losers.
There is room on the hill for everybody.
Fact.
bigboab
06-06-2009, 06:50 PM
A budgie with no teeth.
Sorry, could not resist.:)
What I meant was that in order to win there has to be a loser. Everybody can't be successful. Everybody in any political system is not born on a level playing field. There are many rich people who never need to work in their lives. They are as much leeches of society as Monarchs and the plain lazy at the bottom of the heap.
Not quite.
In the capitalist ideal, anyone who chooses to elevate themselves actually can.
What is often overlooked is the effort required to do so, which fact indicates the level of (to borrow your word) laziness is quite a bit more pervasive; some of us would argue this is due to the nanny-state.
It is not easy, and many think the effort isn't worth it.
They are wrong.
One of the fallacies of "other-than-capitalism" is the 'zero-sum' argument... there is no mathematical one-for-one correlation between winners and losers.
There is room on the hill for everybody.
Fact.
When everybody is on the hill how do you measure success? You are becoming parochial here. The world is a big place, are you suggesting that in the worlds biggest democracy(India) it is possible for everyone to get on the hill? From what I have seen Indians are hard working and striving for success. They will work from morning till night to be successful in this country. Why cant they do it in their own country? I am not being racist here. I just don't think everyone can succeed. We will have to agree to differ.:)
Not quite.
In the capitalist ideal, anyone who chooses to elevate themselves actually can.
What is often overlooked is the effort required to do so, which fact indicates the level of (to borrow your word) laziness is quite a bit more pervasive; some of us would argue this is due to the nanny-state.
It is not easy, and many think the effort isn't worth it.
They are wrong.
One of the fallacies of "other-than-capitalism" is the 'zero-sum' argument... there is no mathematical one-for-one correlation between winners and losers.
There is room on the hill for everybody.
Fact.
When everybody is on the hill how do you measure success? You are becoming parochial here. The world is a big place, are you suggesting that in the worlds biggest democracy(India) it is possible for everyone to get on the hill? From what I have seen Indians are hard working and striving for success. They will work from morning till night to be successful in this country. Why cant they do it in their own country? I am not being racist here. I just don't think everyone can succeed. We will have to agree to differ.:)
Ah, you've made my point, Bob.
There will always be a bottom.
There will always be a top.
Redistribution of wealth is social and cultural poison.
My point is, in any case, that whomever chooses to expend effort on his/her own behalf does not do so in vain.
I prefer a work ethic to the other.
The government hasn't the ability to differentiate between those who deserve their wealth and those who do not; neither has it in the past several decades proven it has the ability to determine who properly deserves it's ill-gotten largesse.
The liberal impetus (such as it is) has always been to "close the wealth gap".
After 55 years or so of trying, no progress can be claimed.
Rat Faced
06-09-2009, 09:05 PM
My point is, in any case, that whomever chooses to expend effort on his/her own behalf does not do so in vain.
Then you think that Inheritance Tax should be 100%?
I think boabs point on rich leeches was the playboy kids that have done absolutely nothing to get where they are except take the money off Daddy, who worked so hard he didn't have the time to teach the kids their Social Values.
bigboab
06-09-2009, 09:14 PM
My point is, in any case, that whomever chooses to expend effort on his/her own behalf does not do so in vain.
Then you think that Inheritance Tax should be 100%?
I think boabs point on rich leeches was the playboy kids that have done absolutely nothing to get where they are except take the money off Daddy, who worked so hard he didn't have the time to teach the kids their Social Values.
Go easy RF. You have read me correctly but has Kev?:)
Well, then - where to start...
No Bob, you are correct: not everyone can be successful, but what constitutes success?
Food in your stomach?
A roof over your head?
A snazzy car?
Some people are lucky to have the first two - we have stupid people, lazy people, handicapped people...some need help, I guess, but how much help?
Inflate them financially until they are...what?
What is enough?
As to why Asian Indians can't make a go of it in India, ask them, because I have no idea.
I would rather tell you why, when they come to the United States, they are much more often than not successful...which fact tells you we in the US must be doing something right.
Right?
Rat-
It is plain you reserve judgment on the rich, but again, as I've pointed out to Bob - wealth is not a zero-sum game, and penalizing the (lazy, idle) rich for having money is naught but purely punitive, and doesn't help the poor at all, no matter how good it makes you feel.
Rat Faced
06-13-2009, 01:49 PM
I was just saying what I thought Boab meant.
I have nothing against someone getting rich, if its done through hard work and ethically (ie They done do it via Bank Robberies etc etc)
I dont have a problem with people leaving a substantial inheritance for their Children.
I do have a problem with families hording Billions for generations.
Why should a family be "Idle Rich" now; when the family made their fortune in, as an example, The Slave Industry?
I was just saying what I thought Boab meant.
I have nothing against someone getting rich, if its done through hard work and ethically (ie They done do it via Bank Robberies etc etc)
I dont have a problem with people leaving a substantial inheritance for their Children.
I do have a problem with families hording Billions for generations.
Why should a family be "Idle Rich" now; when the family made their fortune in, as an example, The Slave Industry?
Shit...these days it's considered racist if a honkie like me even denies complicity in the "slave question".
It's what is considered to be a "disqualifying" blow in the arena of ideas.
Anyhoo...
How do you propose to qualify the idle rich for your morally-justified (read government-sanctioned) fleecing?
How many tabloid appearances would be required, for instance?
clocker
06-14-2009, 05:13 PM
Shit...these days it's considered racist if a honkie like me even denies complicity in the "slave question".
It's what is considered to be a "disqualifying" blow in the arena of ideas.
Oh, poor Kev....the "Woe is me, the poor beleaguered conservative" card hits the felt.
Really, when was the last time you had to actively defend yourself against hostile blacks regarding your "complicity"?
Are there even any blacks at all in your neck o the woods?
Shit...these days it's considered racist if a honkie like me even denies complicity in the "slave question".
It's what is considered to be a "disqualifying" blow in the arena of ideas.
Oh, poor Kev....the "Woe is me, the poor "beleaguered conservative" card hits the felt.
Really, when was the last time you had to actively defend yourself against hostile blacks regarding your "complicity"?
Are there even any blacks at all in your neck o the woods?
That's an awfully klutzy-sounding name you've coined - file it alongside your own "right-wing conspiracy" and "right-wing media", all of which qualifies as fictional..anyway, name for me a conservative who is not "beleaguered" by you Alinskyites?
As to your "are there any" query, the answer is yes.
clocker
06-14-2009, 09:21 PM
If you don't think that Fox News qualifies as "right wing", you're delusional.
If you don't think that Fox News qualifies as "right wing", you're delusional.
And if you don't think ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al, qualify as left-wing, you are delusional.
Barbarossa
06-15-2009, 09:47 AM
Is there no un-biased news in America?
clocker
06-15-2009, 06:54 PM
If you don't think that Fox News qualifies as "right wing", you're delusional.
And if you don't think ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al, qualify as left-wing, you are delusional.
Ah, I see.
You get to claim that ABC et al are left biased while simultaneously claiming that Fox is "fair and balanced".
How convenient for you.
And if you don't think ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al, qualify as left-wing, you are delusional.
Ah, I see.
You get to claim that ABC et al are left biased while simultaneously claiming that Fox is "fair and balanced".
How convenient for you.
And you get to claim precisely the opposite, no matter that you do so without any acclamation whatsoever...even more convenient.
Rat Faced
06-15-2009, 08:42 PM
Congatulations you two, whens the Big Day?
In the meantime, why not get a room? :whistling
I was just saying what I thought Boab meant.
I have nothing against someone getting rich, if its done through hard work and ethically (ie They done do it via Bank Robberies etc etc)
I dont have a problem with people leaving a substantial inheritance for their Children.
I do have a problem with families hording Billions for generations.
Why should a family be "Idle Rich" now; when the family made their fortune in, as an example, The Slave Industry?
Shit...these days it's considered racist if a honkie like me even denies complicity in the "slave question".
It's what is considered to be a "disqualifying" blow in the arena of ideas.
Anyhoo...
How do you propose to qualify the idle rich for your morally-justified (read government-sanctioned) fleecing?
How many tabloid appearances would be required, for instance?
I'm pretty sure that I gave my opinions upon Inheritance Tax recently, but I honestly can't be bothered to look up the post..
Suffice to say I think that there should be a substantial amount that is "Tax Free" (Far more than the UK has as a threashold now), to support the family of the Deceased.
The rest should be very heavily taxed, with no loopholes. If they want to leave to avoid paying, let them.. but don't let them back in either (even to visit) until they've paid the Tax.
Generally;
The Rich often pay accountants and end up paying less than office cleaners, and then demand special consideration by local authorities for Policing etc. Frankly, the country would be better off without some of them.
I encourage Michael Caine etc to live in the USA where they can have their "Special" status and pay the Private Sector there for the stuff they want for free here.
I'm all for closing loopholes, etc., but how do you even presume to appropriate money that does not belong to any but he/she who possesses it?
No matter what you think of them personally, I mean?
If the law says you cannot thieve it away from them, you choose government auspices?
By the way, do you propose to mark the houses of the idle rich (I'm thinking Michael Caine, here) with some sort of bobby-not signage?
I mean, ffs - actually, hang on a sec.......
Would you be interested in swapping Mr. Caine for Ms. Streisand?
We'll throw in the Brolin fellow for free...
Ah, I see.
You get to claim that ABC et al are left biased while simultaneously claiming that Fox is "fair and balanced".
How convenient for you.
And you get to claim precisely the opposite, no matter that you do so without any acclamation whatsoever...even more convenient.
I don't think there's a media organisation in the world that can be said to be completely free of bias.
Having said that, though, CNN is kind of internationally respected as being fairly accurate, which certainly is in clocker's favour. I've no real bearing on the others, and I don't much follow the political bits in your media, including CNN, 'cos it was all sort of stupid since there was so much taking of sides last I bothered.
Some people on the internets seem to think NBC are closest to center, though.
Didn't Fox like label that Mark Foley guy as a democrat? That was kind of really bad, if so.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.