Bailout Alternative???

[Michael Schrengohst]

One of my favorite pistols is made in germany :gun:

I finally bought a Glock 17

 

[Andrew Walker]

I finally bought a Glock 17

The Glock 17 is a nice full size pistol. Personally I like the Glock 19 with a little attachment.

I love Arizona.

 

[number6]

A couple of on-topic individual thoughts to play with:

Money is virtual work-product.....



.....Per Capita monetary system: The Government should not be able to print .....

Just a few thoughts....

Bob

All very interesting.

 

[Priyesh P.]

The John Linder / Neal Boortz "Fair Tax".

Per Capita monetary system

Just a few thoughts....

Bob

I like the idea of the per capita monetary system. But I have some problems understanding the "fair tax" concept.

 

[GlennChan]

So now large multinational corporations truly are monsters, with no moral conscience

To keep things in perspective, I would point out that:

A- Capitalism has worked out pretty well for those living under it. Safety, life expectancy, quality of life, etc. has gone up dramatically in capitalist countries.

Compare this with communism and dictatorships, where life isn't as good. In capitalist countries, natural disasters usually don't wipe you out. We don't starve when there is a drought or famine. Yet there are other people in the world who do. That's a huge difference.

And it was only several generations ago where scores of people would get wiped out by diseases and the plague.

B- A downside to capitalism is that the distribution of wealth is uneven and that not everybody has benefited from the massive improvements in quality of life.

-
I don't think that corporations should be obligated to try to make the world a better place, other than avoiding unethical business practices. Corporations are good at their core competencies, e.g. making money in their niche/market. They tend to fair poorly outside the things they are good at. Some companies like Coca Cola have tried to diversify into other businesses with disastrous results.
And also, when they donate money, it can be problematic as it can be a subtle form of lobbying (e.g. donation to a private school so that a politician's kid gets in) or be towards a cause that is beneficial for the corporation but not the best way of helping people out. And heck, tobacco companies which air anti-smoking ads could theoretically design their ads to increase smoking. I don't think that their ads have decreased smoking (hmm...).

It could be potentially better to simply tax corporations so that the government can redistribute such wealth. And I believe that our government should stick to the things it is good at, or can be good at. It's not that bad at running public health care (and possibly dental care). Certainly it is better at that than running welfare, which is vulnerable to fraud and sometimes is structured in a way that discourages people from working.

Another route would be for citizens to donate money to effective NGOs and charities. Though the problem with that is that citizens would have to be good at picking organizations that are good at delivering aid. Some charities unfortunately spend most of their money on marketing, which is not helpful. Or they do not spend their money quickly for disaster relief programs.

There also happens to be some people who make an insane amount of money and try to make the most effective use of their money for charitable causes. e.g. the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (which Buffett is putting his money towards).

And then there's Communism, which is better in theory than in practice.

 

[Priyesh P.]

And then there's Communism, which is better in theory than in practice.

Communism can`t work because it totally ignores the human nature, which (in my opinion) has a natural tendency towards capitalism. Funnily most communist leaders live like capitalists and politically act like imperialist - totally schizophrenic. The best we can do is try to find a balance in between, none of the extremes have proven to be practical, as we can see.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Communism can`t work because it totally ignores the human nature, which (in my opinion) has a natural tendency towards capitalism. Funnily most communist leaders live like capitalists and politically act like imperialist - totally schizophrenic. The best we can do is try to find a balance in between, none of the extremes have proven to be practical, as we can see.

Absolutely true.

Communism can't work, because most people are simply too selfish, they don't care about ideals. They care about their individual interest and that's actually fine. The sum of individual successes can produce a real success for a society.

Communism only worked in the theoretical minds of some brilliant dreamers... And these very dreamers are usually killed in the first days of the "revolution" by the "Stalin" types of characters...

It's grotesque how the biggest communists of the past are now the biggest and savage capitalists... There are many examples in Eastern Europe,.. including my own country :sad: .

Just look at the Russian oligarchs.

And so many people suffered and died as "necessary victims" in the pursuit of that "ideal". Many of my relatives too. :sad:

Grotesque absurdity.

Anyway, I don't like the word "communism" and I don't like the word "capitalism" either.

I like words like "democracy", "civil society", power for the ordinary citizen to control the politicians, the idea of a strong middle class, etc.

And that's what we're trying to do here... but it's slow and hard as the country is still pretty much in the hands of communists... who have switched their hypocritical servility to the USSR with one to the western powers...

It takes long for the sh*t to clear out...

:angry02:

 

[Joseph Ward]

Ancient Roman plebeii [ordinary citizens without noble titles] protested against the old republican state and won their right to elect tribunus populi, which were kind of like a second government, which could veto every decision made by their Senate [legislative body] and consuls [executive power].

It was a more democratic country later on and it worked beautifully - Romans conquered much of what was worth conquering in the world.

But it was this very conquest that killed them in the end...

Thats interesting I did not know that. I wonder how long it lasted? Seems in some ways the ancients worked systems as a whole that better served its own people?
I am trying to find out what worked, that best helped the people of a certain state and the world. I want to try at least, to put all the best ideas together that worked and see if I can help promote it or others that are good as well.
For me I would kind of love if every country can be independent(economically, military, energy, ect.) without the need for starting wars, only for defending its self, but I know that seems impossible. :sad: But life goes on and even if there isnt anything new under the sun at least I can die knowing I tried.:matrix:

 

[Priyesh P.]

the ancient concept of democracy also envisaged that everyone should be able to take part in politics and therefore should be compensated since he couldn`t work and support his family - this way not only those who had accumulated enough wealth could be in politics but all professions and social levels. but look what we have today - europe is virtually ruled by lawyers.

 

[jpp]

What is clear, reading this thread, is that Americans from different parts of the country have nothing in common with each other today -- we might as well live on different planets. So maybe Todd & Sarah Palin had the right idea: voluntarily break up the union, on ideological lines.

Populous blue state America would no longer be prevented by politicians from Oklahoma or Wyoming from pursuing social and economic policies favored overwhelmingly by their citizens, such as single-payer health insurance and other forms of socialism, and red states would be free to pursue flat taxes, theocracy, unrestricted gun ownership, and an end to social welfare programs, liability lawsuits and international treaties.

It would mean a significant loss of revenue for the red states -- Federal subsidies would no longer flow from the despised liberal states -- but surely that's a small price to pay for freedom? Besides, blue states might well end up funding the Red Union anyway. These are spineless liberal appeasers, after all. All you need do is threaten them a little.

For the tens of millions of Americans who are more apt to look to Sweden or France for a model of a decent society than to Texas or Alabama, the only other choice, as far as I can see, is leaving the country, which doesn't seem quite fair.

 

[number6]

What is clear, reading this thread, is that Americans today have nothing in common with each other today -- we might as well live on different planets. So maybe Todd & Sarah Palin had the right idea: voluntarily break up the union, on ideological lines.

Populous blue state America would no longer be prevented by politicians from Oklahoma or Wyoming from pursuing social and economic policies favored overwhelmingly by their citizens, such as single-payer health insurance and other forms of socialism, and red states would be free to pursue flat taxes, theocracy, unrestricted gun ownership, and an end to social welfare programs, liability lawsuits and international treaties.

It would mean a significant lose of revenue for the red states -- Federal subsidies would no longer flow from the despised liberal states -- but surely that's a small price to pay for freedom? Besides, blue states might well end up funding the Red Union anyway. These are spineless liberals appeasers, after all. All you need do is threaten them a little.

For the tens of millions of Americans who are more apt to look to Sweden or France for a model of a decent society than to Texas or Alabama, the only other choice, as far as I can see, is leaving the country, which doesn't seem quite fair.

There you go again...

 

[number6]

Thats interesting I did not know that. I wonder how long it lasted? Seems in some ways the ancients worked systems as a whole that better served its own people?

mmmmm....No! See Caligula.

 

[jpp]

I'm happy to admit, number6, that your understanding of geopolitics and the economy is on a par with your understanding of film, and film and video production. Where's Finner when we need him?

 

[Priyesh P.]

...the only other choice, as far as I can see, is leaving the country, which doesn't seem quite fair.

I know a couple of americans who do really well here in Germany...so, it`s already happening...

 

[number6]

Where's Finner when we need him?

Probably not in your corner. Finner's argumentative but Finner got sense.:usd:

 

[number6]

I know a couple of americans who do really well here in Germany...so, it`s already happening...

Kalone, we've got HUGE communities of Germans here in the U.S. Some of our best citizens!

(Ahem, there is a Winterbaur in my oun ancestry:whistling: )

 

[jpp]

Probably not in your corner. Finner's argumentative but Finner got sense.:usd:

Granted, it would be silly to take oneself, or anything said here, too seriously, but I can't say I find that statement funny. Maybe I'm the only whose patience you have exhausted (time for me to leave the country, or at least reduser?), but with 1000+ posts to your credit and counting, and not one of them informational or helpful in any way, I rather doubt it.

 

[number6]

Granted, it would be silly to take oneself, or anything said here, too seriously, but I can't say I find that statement funny. Maybe I'm the only whose patience you have exhausted (time to leave the country, or at least the forum?), but with 1000+ posts to your credit and counting, and not one of them informational or helpful in any way, I rather doubt it.

I really don't understand your problem. Your candidate is clearly likely to win... your preferential party will control both houses of Congress and you are talking about leaving the country?

Will you only stay if everyone agrees to conform to your way of thinking?

Look. My choices for being governed are not likely to win, but unlike you now, and Ms Streisand after the last election, I am going to stay here and go on with my life. Whoever is the party in power or the person in power does not define me, and I am adaptive enough to conform to whatever changes in the rules occur.

jpp... are you in financial trouble? What's eatin' you? Please, let it go. Been there done that (I apparently saw this financial thing comin' so I took my bankruptcy 8 or nine years ago. Couldn't borrow money after that so had to live within my means I would probably be considered an A+ risk by now, but who needs a loan? MY REDS ARE PAID FOR AND THEY ARE NOT ANYONES COLLATERAL!:w00t: )

 

[jpp]

I really don't understand your problem.

My problem is, I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but we don't agree on what the rules of evidence or discourse are.

So I'd ask you not to comment on my posts and I'll try to return the favor. Fair enough?

 

[number6]

My problem is, I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but we don't agree on what the rules of evidence or discourse are.

So I'd ask you not to comment on my posts and I'll try to return the favor. Fair enough?

Fair enough.