What to do in the mad, mad world?

=selfish. and somewhat spiteful.

=not listening. i agree we should get rid of the fed, but to substitute a free-reign capitalism is not the best answer.

=i think you're confused. people are born into a class whether they like it or not, and it doesn't simply come down to choice whether they like it or can change it because of that capitalistic circumstance of there will always be filthy rich and always be filthy poor.

i didn't say you are self-pitying, if anything you're self-indulging, i was saying you're somewhat pitying of others.
we're all dependent on things, its the issue of what must we hold onto.

family members should be as family as any other person in this world. we share the same world, we're all humans, but unfortunately there are people like you that support a system that exclusively fends for one's self, and it's unnecessary. you can technically say that when one surpasses their own needs in finances, they're fucking someone else over. thats because of the fundamentals of money once again.

and why do you discredit such things so easily without investigating?
i honestly dgaf about obama being born in kenya, it doesn't change anything besides an arbitrary rule set of who should be a politician, imo there shouldn't be politicians!

 

You're just quick to reach a judgment without necessity acquiring any facts and instead relying on assumptions of your own creation.

We're stuck with capitalism, like it or not, unless you would like to return to something closer to the stone age. More than anything else, sound money would benefit us all.

You aren't forced to remain in the class you're born into, unless of course you take a defeatist attitude to life.

Is it wrong to pity others? I find it natural and a source of what leads to charitable acts of compassion. I find nothing wrong with self indulgence on occasion either.

I only said that family should come first. I just didn't elaborate with second, third...
I obviously view things much differently than you, and what another has takes nothing away from me as I look for ways in which I can acquire what fulfills my own needs and desires in ways that I can achieve in spite of those that you feel are "fucking" someone else over.

I said I listen, but I've not heard anything convincing, nor has further investigation panned out.
Are you an anarchist?

 

LOL

I’m sure I’m not the only one that noticed you haven’t produced those elusive ‘answers’ you claim to have given but never seem able to show where or repeat.

*

On democracy you have suggested giving wealth extra voting power so that it could counter the votes of majority, and you have implied you support some early system in the US where only property owners could vote or hold office (limiting the franchise to only about 10% of the population).

*

Oh hell not this again, why do you keep just repeating stuff rather than addressing the criticisms of your view that remain outstanding and unaddressed?

Once again you take a simplistic viewpoint. The very fact you speak of ‘Most businesses’ makes it clear that not all businesses are honest or responsible, so that is why laws and regulations are needed along with the mechanisms to back them up.

To protect the public good and allow the honest and responsible business to compete on a level playing field.

The other problem with a neo-liberal system is that if not regulated properly and reined in it has a tendency to create bubble that the theory has no mechanism to deal with.
Try reading – Utopia no just Keynes.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353&highlight=Utopia%2C+Keynes&f=36

The next problems with a move toward a free market system is outlined in –
Free market=Plutocratic tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

All these things are the reason why a ‘true’ free market has never and will never exist.

 

Indie

LOL who says that I just focus on US politics? You want to talk to me about the politics of other areas and countries I’d be happy to join in (and have done here) but this site has a US focus and I find US politics interesting.

(At the moment I’m reading Red Heat by Alex Von Tunzelmann, a British Historian, it is a study of superpower involvement in the Caribbean during the cold war. But before that I read the fascinating The world without us by Alan Weisman)

You once said that you had an interest in ancient Middle Eastern history, why? I mean you claim to have been born in the US and claim to now be living in a communist country in Asia (supposedly Laos) so why are you interested in the Ancient Middle East – well you said you have leant things from studying it – well I learn a lot here.

As I’ve said many times this site is not the be all and end all of my existence, its just a bit of fun.

I have been involved in British politics, and have done my time talking at meeting and canvassing door to door and on street corners etc

*

It seems to me the only reason you are telling me to bug off is because you seem unable to address the issues I’ve raised or defend your ideas from my criticisms, but there is an old saying – don’t shoot the messenger – its not my fault you can’t answer, have you ever thought that maybe the reason your ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny is because your ideas are not that good?

 

Doesn't all that also apply to a non-free market?

 

Who was it that said Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%? Yes, I made such a suggestion, with the implication that the problem is that people most often are led to vote for whatever provides them the most at the expense of others. Who in their right mind would vote against getting something for free? If everyone had to pay the same rate of taxes on income no matter how much earned, fewer would support tax increases. If all government spending increases required tax increases instead of debt increases, how much more difficult would it be to create new programs unless the majority felt the cost to them was reasonable. I do feel that those who pay the bills should have greater say than those who simply reap the benefits.

There are already more than enough laws on the books, in fact too many, to protect us from dishonest and irresponsible business practices.

And even with government intervention, bubbles occur and burst. Perhaps they would grow so large and be so disastrous without so much government intervention in the first place.

So we have to try much harder to accomplish our goals of bringing about a free market without government screwing up the works.

I don't have time to jump around reading posts here and there, so if there is some content you feel pertinent, just paste it, but try and keep it concise as I don't make a living by reading lengthy left wing philosophical dribble.

 

Actually, I don't have much interest in how other countries are governed. That's the business of the citizens of each country, and as long as they pose no threat to me or the country I live in, it's their business.

At the time I was curious about how religion developed, and curious about the spread of what we call 'civilization'.

Not telling you to bug off, but would like to see you put more effort into bringing about the changes you support in a country where you live and have more direct influence so that we can all see the results, good or bad.

Lets see some proof, before we all become bankrupt.

 

It depends on what it is that makes it a non-free market. Describe one.

 

No people are not led to get the most at the expense of others. People are led to get their good on the basis of what that model of good looks like. People do not vote to keep other people down. Your zero sum perspective of winners and losers distorts the perceived potentials of human
enterprise. Your view is elitist and results in the particular brand of paranoia that you display. You feel to protect you and yours from the common masses of this world. On the other hand you could contribute to the well being of everyone, yourself included.

As though having money makes you more valuable. The ones who pay the bills , pay the bills from the proceeds of slave labor, not from their own worthy effort. It is not the one with the best talent that wins in this system, but the one who controls resources.

I think the majority of US now sees the need for tax increases to reach fiscal responsibility. People don't mind paying for things they feel improves their quality of life. It is only the ideologues that hate taxes as matter of principle.
When did our huge deficit begin. After tax cuts and unrelenting spending. No spending was vetoed and that fiscal irresponsibility was anathema to republican base, and produced over the period a net loss in jobs. Now we are back to the same republican ideology that increasing taxes kills jobs. They are doing it because they feel wrongly that the 2010 election was a mandate for their economic philosophy but it was not. It was a lashing out at the incumbent status quo.

Bubbles are speculative and as such are like a game of musical chairs where everyone gets rich until the truth responds to that artificial inflation, and the ones farthest removed from the real price are left out to dry.

Right wing philosophical dribble doesn't flow any faster. Someday you may see that there is no appreciable difference between jerking off and jacking off.

 

I didn't say that people vote to keep other people down, they vote for who is going to give them the most believing that those with more than they have owe them something. I have no zero sum perspective and recognize that wealth can be created and life can be a win win situation, although not all humans have equal potential. I'm not the one spreading paranoia, like if government doesn't do this or that people will die on the streets. I contributed all my working life, and now have retired to living a simple but satisfiable life. My well being is a result of careful planning over many years.

You can cease being a slave any time you wish.

You are half right about the deficit, it is caused by excessive spending. Government does many things that kill jobs, raising taxes is one, a minimum wage is another, excessive regulation, and corporate taxes which often make it attractive for a business to move it's factories overseas where the same job can be accomplished at much lower costs, producing the same products to sell at lower prices, and provide profits which reward not just the rich, but also the investors and pension plans for many workers.

The Democrats controlled both houses, so what was the status quo the voters lashed out about?

Bubbles are a natural economic occurrence, but government intervention and manipulation can cause bubbles, like the housing loans, to grow to immense proportions before they ultimately burst, creating a much sought after crisis for the government to use as an excuse for even greater intervention and manipulation not to mention the waste of money.

I'll leave the jerking/jacking off to you while I put my hands to better and more productive use. I have to commend you for your most appropriate choice of a handle.

 

At the expense of others you said.

I thought you said it was a level playing field. Why do you think some humans have more potential. You don't recognize our economy as a win win situation because it is not. The competitive economy guarantees that there are winners and losers and it is not the relative value of human that makes the difference, but the control of resources. You suggest that those who have not, expect something from those who have. What they expect is that you do not use your advantage to defeat them when they have no way of defending themselves. Those with money overwhelm the rights of those without. Those without money do not have equal rights under the law, perhaps in letter but not in practice.

I said you were paranoid not spreading paranoia.
Much of your well being is the result of your connection to others. Where you are born, what family you are born in, the hard work of your neighbors as they contribute to the fabric of our society. There are no discrete systems in reality, you are not the supremely competent, independent commodity you think you are.

Your measure of prosperity depends on slave labor. The reason petro energy is cheap, is because somebody else did the work of sequestering it. That supply of energy represents the efforts of countless lives through ages of time and thinking we can own the planet and it's resources we are robbing from our ancestors as well as our children.

Pollution happens when there is more waste in any given area than the cyclical nature of natural restoration can accommodate.

I will point out that the deficit spending occurred during the republican administration in combination with, get this, tax cuts. There are two poles to the equation, revenue as well as spending, not just spending. Net loss of jobsduring the period. Massive public bailout of financial system.
If tax cuts produce jobs, where are the jobs?

Which pension plans are those, the broke ones?

First they are pissed about the bailout which was demanded by the way, by the republican treasury secretary, and subsequently by the accusation that the democrats are the spending hawks that are causing the mess. The tea party movement simply takes advantage of the overall frustration with these results, and that general nonspecific frustration is taken over by ideologues to further their agenda.

Sorry, bubbles are not natural economic occurrences, variability in supply is a natural occurrence, like drought cutting into harvests. Bubbles are purely speculative.

Yep, the "free market" deregulation caused criminal practices, taking unreasonable risks for immediate short term profit of a few. I will admit that the democrats saw dollar signs as well from this arrangement.

Thank you, I really like it.

 

Yes, but I did not say "to keep others down".

Did I say it was a level playing field? Obviously we vary in many ways from one another and although we may excel in some area(s) it is quite likely that another or many others might be found who excel beyond our capacity. Life is very competitive, which is what produces progress. The economy can be more of a win win situation if each of us makes the effort necessary to achieve success. How do you get around to equating money with rights?

Now you're just making things up, and I think the term "paranoid" might more appropriately be focused on you. Our individual contributions are the source of the rewards we receive in life. No one is supremely competent, but some are obviously much more competent than others. The same applies to your use of the word independent.

Prosperity does require labor, but you appear to believe that having to work for a living in order to fulfill you needs and wants equates to slavery. Should I then make the claim that I am a retired slave, who slaved for 40 years before gaining my freedom? Are you now talking of grave robbing? Most obviously we are robbing from our future descendants by relentlessly creating a growing unpaid debt for their inheritance. You do find that acceptable don't you?

Now we're beginning to jump around. Yes pollution is a problem and will continue to grow with population growth.

Deficit spending is not sourced to just one political party, and Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, along with other social programs were not creations of the Republican party, although some may have been supportive.

Where are the tax cuts? Also it's is a little more complex than simply a tax reduction, uncertainty of what new laws and regulations government may introduce has a significant affect on job creation.

Mine has done quite well.

Not all Republicans are conservative fiscally or socially. That's what brought about the Tea party movement, the lack of an opposition party.

You seem to have ignored demand. Advancements in technology often have the effect of bursting the bubble of thriving businesses, greatly reducing or eliminating completely their demand, putting them out of business and eliminating the jobs they had previously provided. Some, but not all businesses, quickly adapt by moving to other areas of production.

Are there not already criminal laws on the books to apply? Personally I don't think corporations should be held liable for any wrong doing, but do feel that the human individuals responsible for running the corporations should collectively be held liable.

You're quite welcome.

 

Indie
On democracy: so basically you lied when you said “I too am an advocate of Democracy” it sounds to me that you are much more in favour of plutocratic oligarchy. This is what I mean about you being a dishonest debater.

Easy to say but the problem is in the detail with the wealth controlled government your ideas would bring about the laws it would repeal (or enact) would further their interests not those of the public so the protection of the ‘public good’ goes out the window.

 

Indie

You should read up on Keynes
Try - Keynes: the Return of the Master by Robert Skidelsky
Anyway – here is an edited version of the op of the thread Utopia no just Keynes
Let’s think about it

Can the business cycle be tamed; well many think its effects can be alleviated, softened so that the effects are not as bad for most people.

There are Keynesian-ish ways to do that, now what follows is very basic and based on stuff I leant over twenty years ago but let me see…

In the up period the government pays off its debts incurred in the low period and possibly its stakes in some industries and business it nationalised or bought in the low period.

In the low period the government is then in a position to put money into the system and nationalise or buy up viable businesses that have got into trouble.

In low periods the interest rate would be set low to simulate growth and in up periods set higher to curtail a run away market.

Same with taxes in low periods it would be set low for most people and businesses to stimulate growth and in up periods set higher to pay off state debt and get such things as businesses to pay for those infrastructural requirements they might need to conduct their business (e.g. roads, public transport, education etc). In low periods infrastructural needs might be paid for directly by government to increase employment (and wages in the system) and to have the structures in place for recovery.

Also taxes in the up period on wealth can be used to curtail excessive risk, if people at the top are so well cushioned against any fall, they are likely to take risk if they know that if they go wrong they will not really suffer but if go right they get even greater wealth.

It also is a means of distributing the gains of an up period more equitably.

At the same time regulation is used to try and keep any crisis contained, such as putting up firewalls between various parts of the financial sector, so that a failure in one cannot bring down another (look at the Glass-Steagall Act)

It might not be utopia but it seems a lot better and saner than what neoliberal ideas have got us into.

**

Now neoliberals advocates mostly of the right didn’t and don’t like Keynesianism.

They’re against government involvement in the invisible hand of the markets.

They thought regulation held back new and innovative financial methods.

And there were also arguments that taxes should be low all the time and that it didn’t matter if interests rates were low all the time.

That huge payouts to those at the top were only what was due and not that the gains of the up were mainly going to a few.

That huge annual bonuses didn’t led to people taking risks especial among people that could survive and live in luxury even if the risk blow up or sank.

And that there was little to worry about because the ‘new’ economic model they were pushing was able to take on any ‘shock’ and survive.

This led to the idea among some that having a huge national debt during an up period was ok because there wouldn’t be a ‘down’.
Of course if a down turn came and a bail out was needed it would vastly balloon that debt.

And some encouraged the idea that if things went wrong the market would sort it out, companies or banks would just go to the wall and the taxpayers wouldn’t need to bail them out. But many people pointed out (and were ridiculed or dismissed) that at some point in a crisis a government might have to step in or watch the whole financial system go down the tubes.

Of course the logical conclusion of neoliberal ideas would seem to say let it go.

Although it’s a bit hard to pick up the pieces again if their theories turn out to be wrong and people are fighting to death over a tin of beans in a burnt out Wal-mart.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353&highlight=Utopia%2C+Keynes%20&f=36

 

Indie

LOL spoken like a true fanatic

The problem is that you still haven’t been able to defend your ‘free market’ ideas from its critics.

I mean there never has been a ‘free market’ and it is my contention that there never could be one.

Anyway here is the op from the thread Free market=Plutocratic tyranny

There is an argument that has been set out here several times that corporatism comes about because the market isn’t free enough.

I’d say, don’t get fooled again.

The reality is that any move toward free market principles strengthens the hands of wealth and it that route continues to be taken wealth gets strong enough to corrupt the system to its own wishes.

To me the ‘free market’ model always seemed like a lie, a con game meant to fool the gullible. This was because it proponents seem to be claiming that they were a complete model that could deal with boom or bust, when in fact it wasn’t anything of the sort, it was in fact not even half a model, it wasn’t very good in boom times (except for wealth) and didn’t have anyway of dealing with busts.

That is why when the neo-liberal model inevitably fails Keynesian ideas are brushed off and used. All the supposed supporters of neo-liberal ideas like Nixon, Reagan, Bush and many others all turned to Keynesian ideas when the free market ones failed.

So you end up with the untenable – Keynesian ideas in the low periods meaning the general population pays for the recovery and neo-liberal ideas in the up time which not only create the conditions for a down turn to happen but also means that wealth gains the profits and the general population gain little.

So why did such a bad model gain prominence?

It was funded and promoted. It opponents failures were screamed loudly its own failures were white washed over or spined to look like others failures (the old chestnut being that failure was due to the system not being ‘free’ enough) while even the tiniest success on its part were trumpeted as a triumphs.

(see ‘A brief history of neoliberalism’ or ‘The shock doctrine’ for more details)

Now some argue that some strands of ‘free market’ thinking were always about creating a corporatist system but others are pure but that doesn’t seem to fit in with the history and it certainly doesn’t explain why there are still many on the right who cling passionately to free market ideas.

I think many people became corrupted along the way just as the system was, but the problem wasn’t the type of ‘free market’ solution; it was the free market solution.

Because all free market systems favour wealth, the freer a ‘market system’ becomes the more wealth takes over power until a tipping point is reached and that’s when wealth re-orders things to its own interests and if left unchecked forms a tyranny of the wealthy.

So in fact there never has been a totally and completely ‘free market’ because long before that could be achieved wealth has taken over and taken control, subverting the levers of government to do its bidding.

As observed in ‘The Predator State’ by James K. Galbraith about wealth’s recent behaviour

What did the new class - endowed with vast personal income, freed from the corporation, and otherwise left to the pursuit of its own social position - set out to do in political terms? The experience of the past decade permits a very simple summary explanation: they set out to take over the state and to run it - not for any ideological project but simply in the way that would bring them, individually and as a group, the most money, the least disturbed power, and the greatest chance of rescue should something go wrong. That is, they set out to prey on the existing institutions of the American regulatory and welfare system.

Oh wealth and it’s cronies still claim that a ‘free market’ is what they want and what would ‘really make things work’ properly. You only have to look at all those well financed free market think tanks and well paid lobbyists still out there and unbelievably still being listened to and taken seriously even when what they have been claiming for has only ever resulted in wealth becoming more wealthy and powerful and the supposed ‘freer’ system coming more under there control and corrupted to their interests.

The mirage of a real ‘free market’ is a trap set up by wealth to ensnare the gullible.

Because take that road and long before the destination is ever reached the real drivers take a fork to somewhere completely different.


http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

 

Indie

Oh this had me hooting with laughter

I mean the person who has banged on about the virtues of working hard is too lazy to do a bit of reading…priceless.

And if it is ‘dribble’ why have you not been able to refute it?

But of course this is just another trick, another piece of evasion – it is about trying to give the impression you could answer your critics when you know perfectly well you can’t (or you would have by now).

Oh and I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s noticed that once again you haven’t produced those elusive ‘answers’ you claim to have given but never seem able to produce or repeat.

 

Indie

But what country do you live in?

But how would you know if another country posed a thread or not if you didn’t know anything about it and had absolutely to interest in trying? This has been the major problem with a lot of US foreign policy in the past.

You should give the book I’m reading at the moment a try Red Heat by Alex Von Tunzelmann, it makes it clear that a lot of the problems with US – Cuban relations came about because many US politicians didn’t understand Cuba or wished to learn. And the same could be said for US involvement in such places as Vietnam and the Middle East.

Sorry but you attitude seem intellectually moribund.

I mean you are coming to a politics forum but are not interested in politics it begs the question why you are coming here?

So you haven’t always being so intellectually moribund you once had an interest in how other countries were governed.

Again you had me laughing – you can’t even put in the effort to defend you ideas, but you haughtily command others to work harder.

And what country do you live in – I mean you’ve said it is one of the communist states, does that government know that you are working to bring them down and install a right wing libertarian state?

You mean proof that your ideas don’t seem very good? Easy - your inability to defend them from criticism.

 

Democracies are fine, but not A democracy.

You've not shown how your ideas would eliminate, or even reduce, the influence of wealth upon government, especially a large and powerful centralized government. We would probably disagree greatly on the definition of the "public good".

 

Is sensitivity itself a position of partisanship in and because of the public good? Or is sensitivity more at grass roots bias taken up by groups and individuals because of the broader bias later to be realized in the partisan support by and of the special interest groups?

 

However government has shown that in up periods it spends more because more is available to spend, and in down periods it spends even more in an attempt to show continued growth. Let the markets go, and they will balance out naturally. The tax rate should be fixed and only allowed to be increased temporarily in the event of war or a national disaster, after which the tax rate should return to the normal fixed rate. Budgets should be based on money government can count on receiving monthly, and borrowing should only be allowed in the event of war or a natural disaster, and debts should be repaid completely in a timely fashion, not left for future and unborn generations who may also have to contend with wars and/or natural disasters.