urville

What the hell everyone in here seems to love bitter sourness.

How does it promote fairness? What I see is certainly openness, with no way to stop more of exactly what your complaining about. This system is pretty open as it is, enough to allow them to nearly destroy us and get away nearly scott free. Yeah, give me more of THAT!

I agree that the current system does the same thing. Thats my point. Dont mistake me for a common liberal, no offesnse to anyone but my admitted choice of Obama was nothing more than the less of two evils. Every time a con calls him a socialist I can only think of how that entire wing of philosophy is ignorant of fact in favor of ideology. This man went to this one area in Iran and couldnt prove facts you and i know because their ideology said otherwise. they believed without question so deeply that they were sure he was using trickery. Thats the right, and it fits perfectly into their whole leaning toward fascism, theocracies, and fundamentalism. It's centered in that exact thinking you espouse. That you believe it so it is true. Which it isnt.

You think I dont understand you because its the only way you can solve for the fact that I'm not buying it. Not that i simply dont agree because we are philosophically and fundamentally apart. but your wrong, and theres just about all of history to prove it.

I apologize, I was assuming you didnt do it on purpose which frankly in my mind was more in your favor. So,You left them out to simplify? Thats convenient because they all make up the "golf" system or society as you put it. It requires all of them to function so leaving them out doesnt simplify, it chnages the argument, no surprise in your favor.You left out the people who made your argument ineffective. It proves what your saying to be not true. They need those people, but pay them the least they can get away with to maximize profit and keep that system that allows them to amass capital at amazing rates intact. Sharing the bare minimum is not trickling down being effective.

Thats MY point. Of course there is a trickle down happening, but its always there, they have to give them something in that system. it isnt a model for an entire economic philosophy because it ignores completely that they arent going to give any more, and citing Ford does nothing for your argument. It simply isnt true. There no basis for it in a free system. If they dont have to, no one is going to.

It's true now. When the American labor force either enchroaches on, or more likely when these executives decide they need to free up money for more profit. The first thing they do is outsource it to a country that doesnt have all those pesky laws for peoples rights. Its not just their wage, its the benefits, aorkmans comp that has to be paid, unemployment, taxes, workplace conditions, all of that adds up.

Yeah, lol, I know labor is exploited. You actually believe by opening up and deregulating, and I guess just trusting in the good nature and progress based instincts of companies and thier owners (their intellignece to know its ion thier best interest?), to actually improve that system. This is Randian heroism at its most ridiculous whether you intended it that way or not. It would never happen. I dont disgaree that govenrment makes it worse right now, and will do so if you get a con in or even a tea candidate. This is where your blind belief will fail you. Mark my words. I have issue witht he entire philosophy.

I dont know the value of labor in my market, only because I have no reason to. Its immaterial to me if most could figure it out, I can and they could learn. I can predict now with absolute confidence what is paid is out of scale with what it should be and certainly out of scale with the cost of products and property. None of this is amazing nor should be, its designed this way on purpose and your proposed system and philosophy will only worsen it not improve it. No its not your fault, but you should be kept from capitalizing on it because its unethical. Oh please, youd just love even less government and yet you make the argument that the gov should know better, thats laughable. listen to yourself.

No offense, but the moment you can convince me I should take this serious I'll certainly cite you tons of material on it. I'm sure you can use the internet quite capably in the meantime.



I know, and hence I dont take you too seriously, because how can I?

Hah...
Government shoudlt create wealth, thats not its job and so it cannot be efficient at it in comparison to individuals acting collectively. Are you excitied? so what?

It's you that doesnt understand.

Without regulation you cannot control wealth creation no matter where it comes from. Wealth is like anything, abusable, and done so without regard the very minute there is no rule or law to keep such from happening. This makes it a failed system as a whole. It cant self regulate, and any attempt to regulate it just degrades into beauacracy so deep and expansive it becomes impossible to operate. Leaving it alone and/or opening it up creates choas and allows only those willing to do anything to succeed and it quickly degrades into that. because it relies on a negative and primal human urge called greed to operate and somehow benefit everyone only it has no way other than "optional" to enforce that. We already had that, its called monarchies. The supposed cream rising to the top. More like the most ruthless, uncouth, and low rising to the top. Thats the genius of the modern society, fiscal monarchies and the middle class. You do understand that the whole philosophy was invented by the European nobility to suppress that middle class, don't you? It allows the ruling class to amass the money they need to have power over our society while doing no actual work.

It doesnt work on any level, because instead of progressing us it keeps us base. We dont progress in any matter socially, or otherwise. It's antiquated system for humans of an atiquated time that like any system must acknowledge and take caution of, but in this case relies on, mans selfishness. They all must at least take it into account, one of socialisms biggest shortcomings is that it didnt do this effectively. Instead of harnessing it for the species moving us up and forward it serves only the individual and thus holds us back.

Here we are at some form of Rand, of the right, and thus We are at a philosophical impasse. Having said that, I am afraid of nothing you have to say. Been there, considered it, been it, not impressed. Its nothing more than an excuse for greed and power, essentially adolescence. Luckily I had the will and conscience to think better. We should be moving beyond this because its usless to us a species as a people and will most obviously and ultimately destroy us. What more proof do you need than the very whole of human history?



just my nickel hah

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

I disagree, and I think that assumption is dangerous. I think we're just under halfway there, and if nothing changes especially the education system, it will move that way exponentially. Talk about "Slow change you can believe in"...