Let me begin first by saying that I'm not a Republican. I'm more of a Libertarian in terms of views, but I don't like to identify myself with any one political party. I'm more apathetic than anything, really. However, earlier today I was contemplating the views of Democrats, and was wondering why they believe that the rich and privileged should have things taken from them and given to the poor. In my opinion, wealthy people (for the most part) got that way because they're smart and they worked hard to get where they are. Why should anyone have the right to take that away from them? Most poor people are that way because they're lazy and irresponsible, so why the hell should they be rewarded for it? Even if they're actually good, hard-working people that just got fucked somehow, they shouldn't be given preferential treatment. This doesn't make sense to me.


Do rich, Democratic politicians give all their money to charity and homeless people they see on the street? Probably not. It all just seems a bit hypocritical to me, and I don't see how they can justify their viewpoints. All it does is benefit the people who don't deserve benefits.

Let me begin first by saying that I'm not a Republican. I'm more of a Libertarian in terms of views, but I don't like to identify myself with any one political party. I'm more apathetic than anything, really. However, earlier today I was contemplating the views of Democrats, and was wondering why they believe that the rich and privileged should have things taken from them and given to the poor. In my opinion, wealthy people (for the most part) got that way because they're smart and they worked hard to get where they are. Why should anyone have the right to take that away from them? Most poor people are that way because they're lazy and irresponsible, so why the hell should they be rewarded for it? Even if they're actually good, hard-working people that just got fucked somehow, they shouldn't be given preferential treatment. This doesn't make sense to me.


Do rich, Democratic politicians give all their money to charity and homeless people they see on the street? Probably not. It all just seems a bit hypocritical to me, and I don't see how they can justify their viewpoints. All it does is benefit the people who don't deserve benefits.

You sure do throw around the word "most" alot without anything to back it up, don't you?

It has nothing to do with democrats, it is simply how the taxes work. Rich people pay taxes for all sort of things and benefits and they are the ones that will live much longer than poor people and therefore realize those benefits for a longer amount of time. Furthermore, 1% to someone making $20,000 is very crucial, compared to 1% to someone making $300,000, it is diminished value to the person with more money.

I think it's a little naive to seriously think that success in life doesn't have a lot to do with who your parents are.

It's fucking absurd to think that someone whose parents pay for them to go to college, give them enough financial support that they don't need to work going through, use their contacts to get them internships over summer and a good job after graduation 'deserves' their status above someone who had to put themselves through college and pay off loans afterwards, from a lower social rung without the ability to get places so easily.
Chances are even if they're MUCH smarter, the second person will probably have lower marks simply from having less time to study.

This isn't a reason per se for redistribution of wealth, but there's reason to ensure some semblance of equality of opportunity. (NOT outcomes)
If people are expected to accept the unequal distributions that will occur in a capitalist society, there needs to actually be a realistic degree of opportunity for everyone.

I agree with the OP in that it is immoral to punish people just because they are well-off (not even necessarily personally successful, I will admit). But socialistic tendencies are not limited to the democratic party anymore, unfortunately.

Nominally the U.S. national government has a two party system, but the two parties are very closely linked by special interests. It is unfortunate but true there is a vast conspiracy of politicians, powerful business interests, and elite media interests who conspire to control and dominate the American people. And most everyone in Washington is in on it.

Some websites for OP to check out if he's interested in libertarianism, all generally quick reads/blogs:

http://lewrockwell.com/

http://www.aynrand.org/

http://www.constitution.org/

http://www.reason.com/

Definitely a biased selection, I will admit. But great reading nonetheless

It has nothing to do with democrats, it is simply how the taxes work. Rich people pay taxes for all sort of things and benefits and they are the ones that will live much longer than poor people and therefore realize those benefits for a longer amount of time.

That's a really interesting point, actually. The notion that wealthier people have a longer time to benefit from public goods that their taxes pay for. I guess an example could be that a wealthy person would have more of an interest in a well maintained road since he's got a nicer car that he would like to be preserved, and thus is getting a good tradeoff for his higher taxes.

But how about the fact that wealthy people can get most things that are provided on a public level, such as education, protection/security, secure retirement in the private sector? And most often the private sector provides better quality so they obviously will turn to it more than rely on gov't services. Just a thought..

Obviously there should be a limit. To have freedom to do what you want with your own lives and possessions, you can't have the government always interfering to equalize everyone's quality of life and pursue specific social/environmental goals.

At the same time, money is a form of power. It's not a fair system; it doesn't give everyone an equal chance. A person can be enslaved into a shitty life of giving all their efforts away for next to nothing with money just as effectively as with force of arms. To have a truly free society the government needs to take steps to make sure everyone has the basic resources and opportunities they need to continue living and have significant choices in their lives.

i fully agree with the gist of the OP. this democratic class warfare strategy is the same kind of bullshit that has made it so easy for the GOP to walk into the white house these last 8 years.

In a time when the rich were really rich, an the poor were really poor this class rhetoric worked out well. only a minority was targeted.

In a society like ours, it turns out the majority of most people are well off economically. allowing them to fall within these tax lines. alienating them from the democratic party.

However not all blame can be laid on the democrats. the current manifestation republican party has its socialist leanings as well. lets face it. whether you call it distributing the wealth or taxing the populace one fact remains. the government needs money to run.

now does it need as much as it says it does? i don't think so. an a quick way to trim the budget would be to pull out of Iraq an Afghanistan an half the other countries we currently have bases in.

as far as the rich being hard working an the poor lazy, that is a common myth. plain an simple. if you dont understand that then we need to start a new thread.

an libertarianism. sheesh man. its thanks to those kind of fiscal policies that the world is in the mess it is in. listen i am all for small government. but not when it comes to my money. when it comes to my money i want as many people as necessary looking out for it.

You sure do throw around the word "most" alot without anything to back it up, don't you?


I never stated that anything I said was a fact. Should I go gather statistics on poor people before I post on Totse? Nobody does that. I said it was my OPINION.


Sure, I expected my parents to help me out throughout life and with college (being that their parents payed for them to go to school, even though they weren't rich), but after that, I don't expect that much from the Government. I'm never going to be on welfare, because I think that's unfair to certain people. When bad things happen to me, the last thing I want would be for the Government to get involved in my personal business. It should be every man for himself.


I still don't understand why politicians would have these views. A lot of them are independently wealthy and have many connections, so why would they pretend like they give a shit about poor people? Even if they actually do care about them, having those views doesn't benefit them directly, so why should it matter?

I never stated that anything I said was a fact. Should I go gather statistics on poor people before I post on Totse? Nobody does that. I said it was my OPINION.

Opinions about facts are retarded, you shouldn't hold them.


Sure, I expected my parents to help me out throughout life and with college (being that their parents payed for them to go to school, even though they weren't rich), but after that, I don't expect that much from the Government. I'm never going to be on welfare, because I think that's unfair to certain people. When bad things happen to me, the last thing I want would be for the Government to get involved in my personal business. It should be every man for himself.


I still don't understand why politicians would have these views. A lot of them are independently wealthy and have many connections, so why would they pretend like they give a shit about poor people? Even if they actually do care about them, having those views doesn't benefit them directly, so why should it matter?

Because it gets them elected. That's what democracy is; people decide they want something, they vote for someone who will get it for them. If someone wants to get elected, they have to be willing to do what the majority wants them to; that's the concept of representation.

In a society like ours that is the complete antithesis of self sufficiency, disrespect of private property is an inevitability. We often need what others have, and if they won't give it up freely, we have no choice but to take it. For example, there have been situations in the past in which food supplies are restricted by artificial market forces, and angry, starving populaces force government intervention. That's a reasonable example; there's been plenty of times when resources were just taken for no reason other than because everyone felt like it (ex. most wars for the past 50 years). Your money and possessions are only yours as long as the public allows them to be, you can't really expect otherwise.

Wealthy people are wealthy because they control the means of production, essentially exploiting the worker's labor.

Even if they actually do care about them, having those views doesn't benefit them directly, so why should it matter?

God forbid anyone should help someone else out.

God forbid anyone should help someone else out.


Yes, but that's not what politics is about. They don't give a shit about the people. They're only doing what they do to accomplish their own goals.

Yes, but that's not what politics is about. They don't give a shit about the people. They're only doing what they do to accomplish their own goals.

First it was "most" and now it's "they"?

First it was "most" and now it's "they"?


This is irrelevant to the debate. I said "most" when talking about citizens. I said "they" when talking about politicians.

This is irrelevant to the debate. I said "most" when talking about citizens. I said "they" when talking about politicians.

He's making fun of the fact that you make generalizations with no proof to back it up. Which he can rightly do in this situation.

He's making fun of the fact that you make generalizations with no proof to back it up. Which he can rightly do in this situation.

I did it both times because he wants to talk about people like they legitimately belong to some group. That is, "most" rich people are hard workers and "most" poor people are lazy. Likewise, he implied that politicians were nothing but people who were looking out for themselves, and I do not believe that is the case, just like I don't believe the postulate that "most" rich people are hard workers and "most" poor people are not.

Wealthy people are wealthy because they control the means of production, essentially exploiting the worker's labor.

That is the elite, ultra-wealthy class, not the wealthy class.

I think what OP is talking about is your neighbor who went to college and worked his ass off to start a chiropractic business and now can afford a Ferrari.
In the area I live in, this is the story of almost ever single business around, except for the few like Walmart or McDonalds.

I don't believe that these people should give up large portions of their money so that someone blaming their bad economic situation on God, George Bush, demons, or China , and refuses to work at a shitty job like McDonalds can sit on their ass all day collecting welfare.

This unfortunatly is more of a modern government kind of thing, not a democrat thing. Though the democrats are (openly) willing to take it a lot further than the republicans.

I still don't understand why politicians would have these views. A lot of them are independently wealthy and have many connections, so why would they pretend like they give a shit about poor people? Even if they actually do care about them, having those views doesn't benefit them directly, so why should it matter?

Money is not just pieces of paper that you can accumulate. Large accumulations of these bio-survival tickets have profound social, psychological, and even health consequences. Money is another form of power that absolutely needs to be kept in check. The founding fathers never predicted how much control corporations and large businesses would have, therefore when you're voting you're really just choosing whether you want the government to have more control or the corporate class. One has to answer to constituents and the other to shareholders. Pick your pimp.

what would happen if some ultra rich bankers paid lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, et al to in order to get a law passed that said the US now had to get all its money from them? Every dollar printed is owed to a banker. But no, these bankers earned it... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve)

Take for example a hypothetical company dumping chemical sludge into a river. it may not be profitable for a company to clean up after their mess, and the company may provide major funding to news organizations, thus they effectively keep the public unaware of their mishaps. Once a few people get sick and sue said company, the company has vast legal resources to settle for as little as possible. This is all part of the obligation to shareholders to be as profitable as possible.

Corporations, which are practically human under the law, use disproportionate amounts of public resources therefore they should pay more.
Example:
Say I have a square block of land next to your square block of land. If you own the patent to 4 walls, windows, doors, and a roof, you can use government resources to sue me for using your idea. Sure you may pay your lawyers, but that the same time you're tying up the court system and the limited amounts of judges that could be better put to other uses.

Patent enforcement is one of a myriad of resources corporations use. They tie up the legal system over all sorts of crazy shit. If you go to 3rd world country, bootlegs are sold freely on streets at insanely cheap prices. Isn't it good for corporations that they can prevent this situation from happening thanks to the willingness of law enforcement to work in their favor?
Crazy hazy Vermonter mentioned that the rich can send their children to private schools, but if you own any sizable company with a decent number of employees, chances are that most were educated in an american school system. So really, when wealthy people are paying high property taxes, it's an investment in keeping all the people under them educated and not dumb and revolting. I can choose from educated employees because somewhere along the line someone invested in the education system.

Now take roads. Everyone pays the same fuel tax, but large companies use large fleets, often semis as well. Obviously they get the better end of the deal as they are tearing up the road faster while subsidizing the cost.

Now think about security. The united states is heaven compared to other parts of the world. Try doing business in russia, or indonesia, or somalia, or whatever. Since the wealthy benefit the most from this stability, they should pay up.

The wealthy in the USA and other first world countries have it made. What a businessperson pays in taxes here, if they were on their own in guatemala or something they'd be making up for in paying for bodyguards and security systems.

Now, before you start flipping out over taxes, bear in mind that income taxes don't take into account money you make at a lower tax bracket when determining how much you pay at a higher tax bracket. If you make the assumption that working just a little harder will make your pay the same as someone working for less than you, think again. The way the tax system is curved only the wealthiest are hard hit. Under obama's plan, if you make a little above 250k, for example, you're still keeping more money than if you were making 249k. If the majority of people fearing obama's tax policies understood that, they'd relax a lot more.

I remember reading somewhere that joe the shill's 270k figure would have him paying just 600 bucks more.

That is the elite, ultra-wealthy class, not the wealthy class.

I think what OP is talking about is your neighbor who went to college and worked his ass off to start a chiropractic business and now can afford a Ferrari.
In the area I live in, this is the story of almost ever single business around, except for the few like Walmart or McDonalds.

I don't believe that these people should give up large portions of their money so that someone blaming their bad economic situation on God, George Bush, demons, or China , and refuses to work at a shitty job like McDonalds can sit on their ass all day collecting welfare.

This unfortunatly is more of a modern government kind of thing, not a democrat thing. Though the democrats are (openly) willing to take it a lot further than the republicans.

Welfare isn't permanent. You have to get a job in a certain amount of time.
http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

Opinions about facts are retarded, you shouldn't hold them.



Because it gets them elected. That's what democracy is; people decide they want something, they vote for someone who will get it for them. If someone wants to get elected, they have to be willing to do what the majority wants them to; that's the concept of representation.

In a society like ours that is the complete antithesis of self sufficiency, disrespect of private property is an inevitability. We often need what others have, and if they won't give it up freely, we have no choice but to take it. For example, there have been situations in the past in which food supplies are restricted by artificial market forces, and angry, starving populaces force government intervention. That's a reasonable example; there's been plenty of times when resources were just taken for no reason other than because everyone felt like it (ex. most wars for the past 50 years). Your money and possessions are only yours as long as the public allows them to be, you can't really expect otherwise.

Take labor unions. These guys are responsible for laws that get you paid after 40 hours, that get you paid if you have an injury at work, that let women take time off to give birth and raise a newborn, etc. These came about because workers decided to organize and level their share of the pie against those that organized and benefited from them getting as little pay and benefits as possible. Saying that people can't unite for their own interests is un-american :p Right now people blame unions for the fail of GM and Ford, and the government gives them 25 billion dollars to help them out, meanwhile honda and toyota simply make better products and treat their employees well and they're not on the verge of going bankrupt. If a company is too big to fail, it needs to be broken up, period. Fuck the invisible hand.

I did it both times because he wants to talk about people like they legitimately belong to some group. That is, "most" rich people are hard workers and "most" poor people are lazy. Likewise, he implied that politicians were nothing but people who were looking out for themselves, and I do not believe that is the case, just like I don't believe the postulate that "most" rich people are hard workers and "most" poor people are not.

*Most* people do belong to some group. That's why I said it. God dammit, I was just using a fucking example. I don't have to back my statements up, because I don't give a shit what you think. I can't name one time that anyone on Totse has made a statement like that and backed it up with hard evidence. THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM. I don't have to give you proof of my statements. I only said that Democrats believe in taxing well off people and giving it to poor people. How they became rich or poor doesn't matter. Ultimately, rich white people have their money taken from them, and it goes to the millions of blacks on welfare that don't deserve shit. How is that good for everyone?


I think what OP is talking about is your neighbor who went to college and worked his ass off to start a chiropractic business and now can afford a Ferrari.

Thank you. Someone who actually understand what I'm getting at. Even Bill Gates counts. He may be an ass with over 50 billion dollars, but he worked at something and got lucky. No one has any right to his money but him.

Thank you. Someone who actually understand what I'm getting at. Even Bill Gates counts. He may be an ass with over 50 billion dollars, but he worked at something and got lucky. No one has any right to his money but him.

Thomas Jefferson had this to say:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

Billy's empire spends billions of dollars and ties up our courts fighting the copying of his ideas. Read my previous post if you think billy makes all that money by himself, without society. Oh, and without government intervention bill would have virtually no competition, and could control the price of software as he pleased and choose not to work to improve his OS. If it weren't for competition from apple and open source your computer experience would suck a lot more.

Thomas Jefferson had this to say:

Read my previous post if you think billy makes all that money by himself, without society.

Yes.

Not to mention Bill Gates' computer knowledge cannot come about without the hard work of many many people before him (as in, he didn't independently come up with the idea that is computer all by himself). Same applies to his math, English/communicative skills...etc. He benefited from the education system, which is funded for by the public money.

*Most* people do belong to some group. That's why I said it. God dammit, I was just using a fucking example. I don't have to back my statements up, because I don't give a shit what you think. I can't name one time that anyone on Totse has made a statement like that and backed it up with hard evidence. THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM. I don't have to give you proof of my statements.

So then why the fuck would anyone pay attention to what you say, other than abject morons who take everything Fox News says as fact?

Ultimately, rich white people have their money taken from them, and it goes to the millions of blacks on welfare that don't deserve shit. How is that good for everyone?

Millions of blacks? Now you actually give me some hard numbers.

Well it turns out you are wrong:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/race.htm

Welfare recipients have been declining for many years with white, black, and latino families close to 800,000 families each at the start of 2000. Currently, there are only about 3.88 million (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-04-welfare_N.htm) welfare recipients altogether.

Millions of blacks, huh? :rolleyes:

So then why the fuck would anyone pay attention to what you say, other than abject morons who take everything Fox News says as fact?



Millions of blacks? Now you actually give me some hard numbers.

Well it turns out you are wrong:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/race.htm

Welfare recipients have been declining for many years with white, black, and latino families close to 800,000 families each at the start of 2000. Currently, there are only about 3.88 million (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-04-welfare_N.htm) welfare recipients altogether.

Millions of blacks, huh? :rolleyes:


It was an obvious exaggeration. I don't care how many there actually are, I just know they exist and there are many.

It was an obvious exaggeration. I don't care how many there actually are, I just know they exist and there are many.

It was a racist remark. There are plenty of very rich blacks too, including ex-ceo of merrill lynch, the ceo of american express, barack obama himself, hundreds of black entertainers, etc. They pay the same tax rate as the rich whites. There are more whites on welfare than blacks. That is fact. Your remark was pure garbage.

Try harder, nuclear rape. I gave you an explanation for "democrats" and you didn't bother to respond. Why come spouting your generalized beliefs if you can't defend them?

It was a racist remark. There are plenty of very rich blacks too, including ex-ceo of merrill lynch, the ceo of american express, barack obama himself, hundreds of black entertainers, etc. They pay the same tax rate as the rich whites. There are more whites on welfare than blacks. That is fact. Your remark was pure garbage.

Try harder, nuclear rape. I gave you an explanation for "democrats" and you didn't bother to respond. Why come spouting your generalized beliefs if you can't defend them?


It's obvious there are more whites on welfare than blacks, for the simple reason that there are about 6-7 times more white people in this country. The ratios are all that matter.


Unrelated to the discussion, but I seem to remember seeing people here claim that that prison system is made up of 60% blacks when they only constitute about 11% of the total U.S. population.

Unrelated to the discussion, but I seem to remember seeing people here claim that that prison system is made up of 60% blacks when they only constitute about 11% of the total U.S. population.

...which has absolutely nothing to do with blacks or whites on welfare.

Regardless, I've shown that the numbers of black, white, and Latino persons on welfare are about the same, even though whites outnumber blacks by a large amount. This would mean, tentatively, that blacks disproportionately use welfare. But it doesn't matter because you try to sensationalize the number of blacks on welfare, when the numbers are not really that high.

Sure blacks might commit disproportionally more crimes and use disproportionally more welfare than other races, but it doesn't exactly help your case by making exaggerated, sensationalist, and non sequitor claims.

It's obvious there are more whites on welfare than blacks, for the simple reason that there are about 6-7 times more white people in this country. The ratios are all that matter.


Unrelated to the discussion, but I seem to remember seeing people here claim that that prison system is made up of 60% blacks when they only constitute about 11% of the total U.S. population.

Defend the case that all wealthy people work hard for their money and they don't deserve to be heavily taxed. My posts in this threads havent gone anywhere.

The founding fathers never predicted how much control corporations and large businesses would have, therefore when you're voting you're really just choosing whether you want the government to have more control or the corporate class.



Zay, can you please explain to me how 55 of the wealthiest and most educated men in the United States (a nation of around 3 million) were able to design a document that essentially overthrew 13 separate governments and amalgamated them into one central bureaucracy while the majority of the population strongly opposed it?

Now, the wealthy men who created the document that explicitly prohibited (contract clause, gold and silver clause- article 1, section 10) the democratically elected state assemblies from taking the welfare of their citizens into their own hand and centralized it in one city, under the control of select few individuals, probably understood the notion of centralized control. In fact, they were scholars of it, ie Alexander Hamilton.

Making arguments based on the predictions (or lack thereof) of the framers who wrote the U.S. constitution in order to advance a specific stance is a very difficult thing to accomplish. Who really knows what they understood of the future? I don't think any of us can really make a very educated guess unless we devoted a lifetime to studying their personal communications.. or something extreme like that.


However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the founders never could have understood the notion of large corporations. Sure, they didn't have Pepsi or McDonalds back then, but they had the British East India Company, which certainly exhibited the traits many of these corporations do today. Some of them strongly opposed the idea of corporations and banks that were this large and expansive, including Jefferson, who was strongly opposed to central banks.

In the end, though, I get scared whenever anyone uses the language you do in attempting to invalidate the opinions of the framers, and by implication, the U.S. Constitution, by simply saying that it's really old. What other provisions are you cheese eating limp wristed latte sipping liberals going to try to erase from the Constitution next? Joking here but I'm still offended by you using the founders to support the rest of your post.

Oh and I offer my support to my beleaguered comrade who is attempting to explain why free market capitalism is the moral choice and why socialism is evil and how the United States is slowly heading into a socialist system, led by the Democratic party.

Here it is:

my support.

why socialism is evil and how the United States is slowly heading into a socialist system, led by the Democratic party.


Seriously? This country already has socialist programs and they would exist even if there weren't a Democratic Party. I understand some people are afraid of socialism, but without them we'd just be another third world country. A population of 1% doing very well exploiting the resources of the land, while the other 99% are sick, starving, and dying. Without some kind of equalizer between the classes, class mobility will be nonexistent and the very essence of competition just dies out.

Seriously? This country already has socialist programs and they would exist even if there weren't a Democratic Party. I understand some people are afraid of socialism, but without them we'd just be another third world country. A population of 1% doing very well exploiting the resources of the land, while the other 99% are sick, starving, and dying. Without some kind of equalizer between the classes, class mobility will be nonexistent and the very essence of competition just dies out.

You're right, we do have some socialist programs already. Many claim we already are a socialist country.

I tend to think there is some hope and that we can both stop the slide into further socialism and even turn back the tide and return to reasonable-sized government, individual liberty, and capitalism.


Oh, and I'm not going to claim the ability to argue why capitalism is the most productive AND fair economic system in the modern world in the space of a few short sentences in this thread, but you're incredibly wrong in saying that without socialism we would be a third world country.

So, so incredibly wrong.

...which has absolutely nothing to do with blacks or whites on welfare.

....which is why I said "unrelated to the discussion". I only thought it was an interesting fact (though I'm not quite sure it is, but I remember seeing the statistics somewhere).


Defend the case that all wealthy people work hard for their money and they don't deserve to be heavily taxed. My posts in this threads havent gone anywhere.

I don't have to, because I didn't say "all" do. I said "for the most part". You two are entirely missing the point. Yes, there are poor people that are smart and work hard, yet are still poor. Yes, there are rich people who are stuck up assholes who never worked a day in their life because they got everything from their parents. This is completely IRRELEVANT to the argument. I admit, for the last time, that I didn't bother to look up various statistics on rich and poor people, because I don't care what the case may be. All I was asking was why Democrats feel that they need to tax the shit out of rich people (regardless or how they got rich, because, again, it doesn't matter!), and give it away to people who really don't deserve it. However, I do think that the Government has to tax everyone somehow, otherwise they wouldn't have the necessary funds to operate.


All in all, I think that everything should be equal. Rich people are lucky, good for them. Poor people have no money, tough shit. No one has the right to take anything from anyone.

Seriously? This country already has socialist programs and they would exist even if there weren't a Democratic Party. I understand some people are afraid of socialism, but without them we'd just be another third world country. A population of 1% doing very well exploiting the resources of the land, while the other 99% are sick, starving, and dying. Without some kind of equalizer between the classes, class mobility will be nonexistent and the very essence of competition just dies out.

That would be a third-world country, similar to India.

I tend to think there is some hope and that we can both stop the slide into further socialism and even turn back the tide and return to reasonable-sized government, individual liberty, and capitalism.

I tend to think that it is more likely that I'll be pissing a rainbow in the next couple of minutes than America returning to free market capitalism. I've posted many times why it will only hold us back. One major point is that too many people will be wasting too many resources. Now, that might be all well and good because people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their own resources, but it inargueably for the greater good that they not waste precious resources that we have left that we need to ensure that our species survives not until the next millenium, or even to the next century, but for the next 20 years. We don't need people fucking shit up when it's crunch time to save the global quality of life.

Energy independence is not what Fox News tells you. Getting off Mid Eastern oil and using what we already have is not the answer. The answer is that we need to have a completely renewable energy economy. But that is only one facet of the problem. How long do you think we can go on raping and pillaging the earth for its elements? All known hafnium reserves will be depleted, not in 50 years, and not in 20 years, but in less than 9 years. It is incredibly important in semiconductor manufacturing. Gallium will be next, and it is also extremely important. We don't know of anything that can take their place.

The free markets, by definition, find the best product at least cost by, more or less, intelligent trial-and-error. It also assumes that a company can grow and flourish to an indefinite size because it assumes resources and time are infinite. They are most decidedly not. To wit, we don't have time to let the free markets determine how the energy infrastructure will look like even if we had completely free markets. We absolutely need a decisive approach to solving this problem, and the free market will not be able to deliver on time.

Sorry, the free market is not a magic bullet. It's not a big truck that you can just dump the world's problems onto.

All known hafnium reserves will be depleted, not in 50 years, and not in 20 years, but in less than 9 years. It is incredibly important in semiconductor manufacturing. Gallium will be next, and it is also extremely important. We don't know of anything that can take their place.

Slightly irrelevant but, is there anything I as an individual can do in regards to the depletion of these rare elements, as to ensure my own welfare? Not that the welfare of other people is not important, its just that I believe I am powerless as to what happens to other people.

Slightly irrelevant but, is there anything I as an individual can do in regards to the depletion of these rare elements, as to ensure my own welfare? Not that the welfare of other people is not important, its just that I believe I am powerless as to what happens to other people.

Stop buying expensive electronics, but everyone and their grandmother always buy the newer iProduct, so the point is rather moot. I read a couple weeks ago that there were over one billion cell phones sold, in just 2007. In 2006, 990 million were sold. One person that stops buying them isn't going to change much.

Of course, the main use of hafnium is in nuclear power plants and as a refractory material to reflect intense heat. Of course, there are other moderator metals out there that we have plenty of, however hafnium is one of the most effective. These being used in industrial settings, people can't really affect their usage in these environments very much. Another main reason for the use of hafnium in the nuclear industry is because of its corrosion resistance, especially important in high-pressure water reactors. These types of reactors are the most common reactors currently operating worldwide, and are cheaper and much safer than other designs. Several of China's nuclear reactors that are currently being constructed are of this type. In fact, China said in 2004 that it wants to build 30 new reactors by 2020. (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html) (I didn't realize until now the pebble-bed design was so old)

Semiconductor manufacturing is growing rapidly, but the parts are also getting smaller, and thus they use less materials to make. This may be able to extend the resources for a fw more years if miniturization and conservation can overcome consumer demand. However, much more attention has been paid to nuclear power technology in the last few years, John McCain being one powerful person wanting more in America. Many other countries are building or planning for them right now.

Sorry, the free market is not a magic bullet. It's not a big truck that you can just dump the world's problems onto.

I appreciate your Ted Stevens reference. Im a fan of the soon to be unemployed 84 year old pork connoiseur from Alaska

but if I werent drunk right now I might explain to you why capitalism is the best system for dealing with scarce resources. First off, your statement that capitalism assumes infinite growth is possible because of infinite resources is completely wrong. Capitalism is based on the principles of scarce resources and how to allocate them in the most productive manner. Always has been..

all I have time to say right now is centrally planned economies such as the Soviet Union are the worst polluters. Capitalism is much better for the environment than any technocratic centralized solution you can come up with, because there is a profit motive in preserving the environment for future generations.

more later

but if I werent drunk right now I might explain to you why capitalism is the best system for dealing with scarce resources. First off, your statement that capitalism assumes infinite growth is possible because of infinite resources is completely wrong. Capitalism is based on the principles of scarce resources and how to allocate them in the most productive manner. Always has been..

Which is why we aren't running out of oil and other natural resources... ohh wait. :rolleyes: We are running out of oil like a bleeding pig is running out of blood. We have absolutely nothing that can take it's place. We don't have a decade or two for a market solution to cut the competition's throat. We had that chance in the 70's and capitalist solutions looked, as they always do, to short-term profit. Thus, a market solution to oil scarcity never surfaced. You hedge your bets that a market slution will arise, but what if society destabilizes before it comes?

Watch out! Here comes the invisible hand to puch you in the balls!

all I have time to say right now is centrally planned economies such as the Soviet Union are the worst polluters. Capitalism is much better for the environment than any technocratic centralized solution you can come up with, because there is a profit motive in preserving the environment for future generations.

The Soviet Union was more polluting because it had extremely low average population densities, a corrupt government, vastly inferior technology, and a poorly run economy due to it's corruption. Basically, they never had the money for clean technology, let alone the money to seriously threaten the US in conventional warfare. It's amazing that they never waged nuclear war, because they had little to lose.

I actually find it funny that you mention a "technocratic" solution. I actually just researched technocracy in more detail and found that is the government I have been talking about all this time. One of the key tenents of technocracy is based on a closed thermodynamic loop applied to ecosystems. That is, you don't use more water than you give back, you don't consume more resources than you replace, etc.

http://www.technocracy.org/Ecology%20of%20Man%201.htm

Sorry... since when did government intervention automatically mean entirely centrally planned economies?

part of the issue here is that the price of these resources clearly hasn't taken into account their future scarcity.
Theoretically it should, but it clearly hasn't.
Perhaps it might have if we had futures markets and it was possible to take long positions on various rare elements at a given strike price with delivery occurring in oh.... 5 years?
I can sorta see why exchanges can't be bothered trying to set those up actually :P


It probably should have happened a long time ago, but something as simple as a tax at the primary producer level could help a LOT. (eg a tax on sales of the raw material)
Naturally that's going to increase the price of goods manufactured using these materials, which means a drop off the numbers sold (less use).
ALSO though, the increase in the cost of material makes recycling a very profitable endeavor.
It would mean that these elements would probably be used only in really important applications rather then being frittered away on junk.

Not clue as to an appropriate level of tax, but it's certainly possible.

Perhaps it might have if we had futures markets and it was possible to take long positions on various rare elements at a given strike price with delivery occurring in oh.... 5 years?

We already have something like that for oil, and it started fucking up the entire world's economies when oil got near $150/barrel. Economics in general is a poorly understood field, moreso when you play stock market by crystal ball.

Perhaps it might have if we had futures markets and it was possible to take long positions on various rare elements at a given strike price with delivery occurring in oh.... 5 years?
I can sorta see why exchanges can't be bothered trying to set those up actually :P


The whole idea of futures strikes me as speculation.

We already have something like that for oil, and it started fucking up the entire world's economies when oil got near $150/barrel. Economics in general is a poorly understood field, moreso when you play stock market by crystal ball.

Given the likely state of world oil production over the next few years, the aberration here isn't that it was being driven higher by speculators, rather that it came back down.

To some extent prices coming back down would be related to the financial crisis, both it's effect on speculators and on oil consumption.
Don't get me wrong, markets overreact to everything and it's not difficult for large actors in them to screw with them if they're clever.

Still, in reality wouldn't you agree that in recognition of the likely to occur problems in supply/demand markets are probably underpricing oil?

Still, in reality wouldn't you agree that in recognition of the likely to occur problems in supply/demand markets are probably underpricing oil?

Econmics is not something my field of work has much need of, thus I odn't know the subject exceptionally well. However, recently the futures market for oil seems to have not much effect, so for arguement's sake I will say it has no effect at this moment in time. Assuming that, there would be an undervaluation of oil, given it's increasing relative scarcity.

To be honest, it is impossible to properly determine its true price, because future demand, supplies, and other monetary conditions will be known at present. Not only that, how it is valued also depends on how far into the future you think that the oil will still be there and at what rate it's consumption and depletion will be. That is, how much its value is appreciating over some arguable length of time. This is why the free market cannot handle resource and commodity futures well.

Econmics is not something my field of work has much need of, thus I odn't know the subject exceptionally well. However, recently the futures market for oil seems to have not much effect, so for arguement's sake I will say it has no effect at this moment in time. Assuming that, there would be an undervaluation of oil, given it's increasing relative scarcity.

To be honest, it is impossible to properly determine its true price, because future demand, supplies, and other monetary conditions will be. Not only that, how it is valued also depends on how far into the future you think that the oil will still be there and at what rate it's consumption and depletion will be. That is, how much its value is appreciating over some arguable length of time. This is why the free market cannot handle resource and commodity futures well.

Yeah, futures prices are stupid.
The key problem is the irrational expectations of the participants. I agree with you almost entirely on that.

Given that, yeah, you're probably right about it not mattering even if futures markets were possible for say... germanium.
It is worth noting that most futures positions are closed out before delivery, the markets mainly being used for hedging exposure.

It would be interesting to see how over the counter contracts on goods for which there are no futures compare.
After all there probably would be OTC derivatives on various rare elements.
It might give more of an insight into 'purer' supply/demand issues without the reams of speculators.
I can't be fucked looking now though and I'm not even sure data would be available.

I appreciate your Ted Stevens reference. Im a fan of the soon to be unemployed 84 year old pork connoiseur from Alaska

but if I werent drunk right now I might explain to you why capitalism is the best system for dealing with scarce resources. First off, your statement that capitalism assumes infinite growth is possible because of infinite resources is completely wrong. Capitalism is based on the principles of scarce resources and how to allocate them in the most productive manner. Always has been..

all I have time to say right now is centrally planned economies such as the Soviet Union are the worst polluters. Capitalism is much better for the environment than any technocratic centralized solution you can come up with, because there is a profit motive in preserving the environment for future generations.

more later

If you weren't also a hopeless idealist you'd understand that free-market is a failed experiment. The CIA and the chicago school of economics tried to instate these free market principles in Chile, Indonesia, and other parts of the world.
If the great depression of 1929 isn't enough to convince you:

Case study: Chile

In Chile, a relatively calm semi-socialist state with free healthcare subsidized education, and a few nationalized industries, the cia funded a military overthrow and dozens of financial advisors taught by Milton Friedman himself attempted to implement free-market economics. Milton Friedman himself gave personal lessons to Pinochet. What resulted was massive unemployment, massive inflation, cuts to nearly all social programs that resulted in a drop in the literacy rate, millions of people without healthcare, and most of the manufacturers that originally supported pinochet went bankrupt when they coudn't compete with cheap foreign goods after trade barriers were lifted. The economy contracted to pre-WW2 levels, and unemployment levels soared to 20%, where they had been at 3% before the US -funded liberation.

The cold war on communism was a failed attempt at introducing free-market capitalism to barely socialist states arbitrarily labeled as communist in order to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few oligarchs. The invisible hand was nowhere to be seen.

I mean, even Adam Smith supported some kinds of socialist functions of the state. What gets me is that libertarians on the fringe of anarchy just assume that a balance can be struck without society engineering itself. Reality says otherwise when the wealthy get too much power, and pass such things as the federal reserve act.

Would you say that the socialist policy of the state ending racism has done more to help or to hurt us? After all, in a free market those shops and schools should never have been forced to desegregate.

The state is there for a reason.

Look at military technologies and NASA. Venture capitalists are decades away from having space flights on the scale of nasa. They're barely getting rockets into the atmosphere. Tesla motors is struggling hard to make sexy electric cars mainstream, and they could do a lot more with state support, instead 25 billion bailout bucks go to GM and Ford. The problem isn't the state, it's who runs it, and when morons convince the masses that evil leftists are there to strip their rights away, we end up in a mess like we're in now.

Let's go back to resources though. As precious metals and petroleum run out, and there have been no suitable alternatives found, how will the magic hand fix that? The growth-dependent economy will contract and chaos will ensue. Well have to revert back to a concentration of power to sort society out and allocate limited resources to everyone, or just let some people die out.

Thank you. Someone who actually understand what I'm getting at. Even Bill Gates counts. He may be an ass with over 50 billion dollars, but he worked at something and got lucky. No one has any right to his money but him.


Billy's empire spends billions of dollars and ties up our courts fighting the copying of his ideas. Read my previous post if you think billy makes all that money by himself, without society. Oh, and without government intervention bill would have virtually no competition, and could control the price of software as he pleased and choose not to work to improve his OS. If it weren't for competition from apple and open source your computer experience would suck a lot more.

I failed to mention that bill gates' dad was in the army and went to college because of the GI bill. His first house with mary gates was bought with a VA loan. His mother was a schoolteacher, thus she got paid by the state. Bill Gates sr, soros, and warren buffet are all on record saying they support the estate tax. Without the state there may not even be a microsoft :o

If you weren't also a hopeless idealist you'd understand that free-market is a failed experiment. The CIA and the chicago school of economics tried to instate these free market principles in Chile, Indonesia, and other parts of the world.
If the great depression of 1929 isn't enough to convince you:

Case study: Chile

In Chile, a relatively calm semi-socialist state with free healthcare subsidized education, and a few nationalized industries, the cia funded a military overthrow and dozens of financial advisors taught by Milton Friedman himself attempted to implement free-market economics. Milton Friedman himself gave personal lessons to Pinochet. What resulted was massive unemployment, massive inflation, cuts to nearly all social programs that resulted in a drop in the literacy rate, millions of people without healthcare, and most of the manufacturers that originally supported pinochet went bankrupt when they coudn't compete with cheap foreign goods after trade barriers were lifted. The economy Icontracted to pre-WW2 levels, and unemployment levels soared to 20%, where they had been at 3% before the US -funded liberation.

The cold war on communism was a failed attempt at introducing free-market capitalism to barely socialist states arbitrarily labeled as communist in order to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few oligarchs. The invisible hand was nowhere to be seen.

I mean, even Adam Smith supported some kinds of socialist functions of the state. What gets me is that libertarians on the fringe of anarchy just assume that a balance can be struck without society engineering itself. Reality says otherwise when the wealthy get too much power, and pass such things as the federal reserve act.

Would you say that the socialist policy of the state ending racism has done more to help or to hurt us? After all, in a free market those shops and schools should never have been forced to desegregate.

The state is there for a reason.

Look at military technologies and NASA. Venture capitalists are decades away from having space flights on the scale of nasa. They're barely getting rockets into the atmosphere. Tesla motors is struggling hard to make sexy electric cars mainstream, and they could do a lot more with state support, instead 25 billion bailout bucks go to GM and Ford. The problem isn't the state, it's who runs it, and when morons convince the masses that evil leftists are there to strip their rights away, we end up in a mess like we're in now.

Let's go back to resources though. As precious metals and petroleum run out, and there have been no suitable alternatives found, how will the magic hand fix that? The growth-dependent economy will contract and chaos will ensue. Well have to revert back to a concentration of power to sort society out and allocate limited resources to everyone, or just let some people die out.



If I was truly a libertarian I might ask you what good firing a couple dozen phallic rockets into space at the cost of tens of billions of taxpayers dollars?

I'd ask you why the market hasn't yet produced anything on the scale of the American space program? Because pissing contests don't make PROFIT for the shareholders. Worthless self-aggrandizement is not rational behavior, it is the behavior of the uniquely irrational entity you get when you combine the uneducated masses into one big room and tell them that consensus is the only thing required to gain a right to anything and everything under the sun, and it's called the STATE. This is why more expensive wars, monuments, and museums are created and funded by governments than by the influence of private individuals.

But since I'm not a hopeless idealist I will admit that NASA and the space program did a whole lot of good, including but not limited to scientific research in space conditions that cannot be simulated on Earth, weapons technology like ICBMs, satellite networks that allow us to casually use cell phones and wireless internet every day... the list goes on. So in this case good did come from a government program. WOW- I admitted it. However, this isn't to say that if those tens of billions over the past 40-50 years were never taxed and left in the hands of individual taxpayers, that even greater technology would not have been produced. We may never know..


And you've obviously researched Chile and thus know more than I do but I can't help but find your assessment of capitalism's impact there rather bleak. Doing a quick, and I emphasize very brief skimming on wikipedia, I found some interesting information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile


And the Cold War was primarily a military struggle that had to do with balance of power considerations rather than ideology. Many if not most of our allies weren't proper capitalists either. So I don't even know how I could debate you on this question because the Cold War is simply irrelevant to this particular discussion.

And when did I say or imply that equal protection is socialistic? It is a constitutionally guaranteed right, fool. Protecting your constitutional rights has nothing to do with socialism. Sure, there is some debate over whether the judiciary invalidating state laws on the basis of the interstate commerce clause amounts to a violation of federalism, but I wouldn't say many people who side with the states in these questions would refer to their opposition as 'socialists'.

Way too general. I didn't even offer my opinion on segregations and the free market. How can I be a hopeless idealist if you don't even know my positions on most economic issues? I've said that the government will probably do a terrible job of finding solutions to the energy crisis. I've also probably said Obama's tax plan amounts to thinly veiled steps closer to socialism by taxing wealthy people more and distributing cash payments to members of society making less money. I'd hardly define those two positions as "hopeless idealism"

Capitalism is based on the principles of scarce resources and how to allocate them in the most productive manner

Dude, ALL of economics is about allocating scarce resources, not just capitalism.

Dude, ALL of economics is about allocating scarce resources, not just capitalism.

You're right but capitalism does it in the most efficient, and in the long run, fair, manner IMO.

You're right but capitalism does it in the most efficient, and in the long run, fair, manner IMO.

Not necessarily.
Free market capitalism definitely works better then command economies, but the reason is more to do with the 'free market' aspect. It's markets that efficiently distribute resources.
Yes, that means private property has to exist, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the "means of production" need to be privately owned.