Why Isn't the Reaction to this, A Call for Violent Revolution or "Tax the Rich"?
 

This is looooonnnng....and I'm assuming that you already "know what you know". I am only excerpting a small portion of Russ Winter's eye opening article, in the second quote box that follows....
Read it if you're curious, or if you have an urge to double check what you "know".....

The wealthiest Americans have succeeded in lobbying elected officials for the lowering of their tax burden, since the 1960's from a top rate of 90 percent on the highest portion of their income to below 40 percent, today. They have succeeded in cutting the tax rate on their passive income, income derived from capital gains, to just 15 percent.

It is reported that some of the wealthiest US families:
I am not concerned that there will be only a muted reaction when the bottom 80 percent of Americans "take the hit" in the real estate valuation implosion that is still only in it's infancy.

My concern is that there has not been and that there is no indication that there will be....a backlash by the masses in reaction to the uneven and still worsening....distribution of wealth statistics in the US. IMO, libertarians intend, if they achieve political power.....only to achieve even more drastic inequality in the distribution of wealth....their acquisition of political power may only be possible because of their intent to bring about a status quo that will favor the already drastically over favored...those who have bought the politcal representation away from the influence of the most of us.

Why have we let this happen to the most of us, and why are we so accepting of it, and seeming to want more? Will the line be drawn at the ballot box, or with armed action by the common man?

Because to a majority of Americans, it is more important that they be 'left alone', receive their government stipend, and continue to go to work for their families than it is to speak up and be heard or, god forbid, actually vote out of the mainstream(face it, it's both parties screwing us over) or vote from the rooftops. To most of these people, it is better to be ruled as subjects than it is to fight for freedom.

In fact, if you want a real eye opener, watch America: from freedom to fascism

I'll take the liberty of quoting 1776 (the musical) here. They talk about exactly why people were so accepting of the status quo even though it meant brutal oppression by King George.

We see all these displays of wealth around us and dream of one day having it for ourselves. The American Dream myth lives on. We've convinced the country that the only reason they're not filthy rich is that they don't work hard enough. Well for a select few hard work has indeed made them rich. But for many more hard cheating and dishonesty is what gave them their fortune. We admire Bill Gates for being the richest man on earth, but he got there by lying, cheating, and stealing from Xerox.

It's funny - Les Mis is my all time favorite musical. I saw it for the umpteenth time a few months ago but this time I saw it in a totally different light. Folks, those students and poor people in the French revolution aren't much different from us. The Revolution started in part because the gap between the rich and the poor widened to absurd proportions. We've got the same thing happening here right now, and eventually we'll get to the point where the poor have had enough and will start an uprising. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to matter to the wealthy in power because they're too busy counting their money.

the facts of this matter are in a sense evident.
enabling this has been a centerpiece of conservative politics since the reagan period.

the ideology that enabled it, and that enables it still functions: you see it all the time, implicitly in the way in which the dominant media apparatus--which mediates folk's relation to the world but only by providing infotainment, but also (more so) by framing reality as an accumulation of objects and politcs as the extension of the fact of their arrangement with the effect that whatever the existing order is is necessarily legitimate--and explicitly in the variants of neoliberalism--the ideology of "rational" markets (for example) that continues to be so dominant in the united states that it functions without a name.


people do not react to states of affairs at the empirical level.
in a sense, there are no states of affairs at the purely empirical level.
another way around: any state of affairs can be explained away because no state of affairs is understood independently of an ideological framework.
the perverse beauty of the existing order is that it has controlled the system of social reproduction long enough that it no longer needs to explicitly dominate people because people dominate themselves.

its easy peasy: if people understand capitalism to be a force of nature, then the states of affairs generated within it are simple effects of inevitable, natural processes. to revolt would then be to like king lear, trying to stop the ocean.

this is obviously insane, but it is also obviously how most americans live.

the effects of hegemony are ugly: if you control the frames of reference, you can generate consent for almost anything.


and at this time, there is no basis for political oppostion.


libertarian politics of course has nothing to say. it is a self-paralysing variant of the dominant ideology, one that takes (for example) the neoliberal opposition of the state to a logical conclusion. it provides nothing that would enable a sustained critique of the existing order because it duplicates its ideological underpinnings. libertarian politics presupposes that there is a natural order within capitalism that is determined by the playing out of "free markets"--this playing out is distorted by the state. that is idiotic.

personally, i think that this would be a good time for people to begin thinking about what a truly radical oppositional politics might look like, to work out its conceptual premises, to generate positions and float them in the netaether (for example), opening them up to critique, etc. seen from a certain distance, the conditions for a radical change are beginning to emerge from within the exercize in sustained incoherence that is the present american system, but there are very few frameworks that enable people to see what is happening, and almost none that enable folk to imagine other alternatives toward which they might move, so there is no real political action and seemingly little possibility of such political action. there are and will no doubt once again be oppositional movements directed at specific issues like the bushwar in iraq, but these are not necessarily movements that go beyond being single-issue matters--and single-issue matters are interest group politics. they are not revolutionary politics. there are no revolutionary politics.


so bend over, folks, and accept the gifts of capitalism.
if you can't work out a coherent critique, then you have little choice but to learn to enjoy whatever comes your way.
who knows, maybe you can even convince yourself that getting fucked in this way is fun--not only that you like it, but that you deserve it because it has to be this way and only a deviant would think otherwise. if you need reinforcement, watch more tv.

good luck with that.

hmmm, i'm curious roach, are you trying to tell us that all of our troubles today are a result of capitalism? that if we'd only gone to a more socialist form of wealth distribution, that we'd be in a much better state of 'state', as it were?

i am not clear that you know what socialism means, dk: i have seen posts that equate it with fascism from you, which i think simply nutty. so i am not sure i see the point of entering into a conversation with you about this under the terms you choose to frame it. this is not to say that i am unwilling to debate--quite the contrary--but i see nowhere good for it to go if these are the terms within which it has to move.

step a bit outside your frame of reference and sure.
got a way to rephrase the question that might make the conversation more open?

ok, I can leave the socialism and fascism out of it and ask you simply, how does capitalism find itself responsible for the taxation system that host is saying is deserving of a revolution?

shakran, your John Dickenson quote, and your apprisal of the corporate owned media, roachboy, speak so well to what I am trying to bring out in this thread.

Aren't we better educated and feel less powerless than the masses in Mexico, as we slide in the direction of those extremely economically, and thus politically, pre-empted neighbors to our south?

Must we fall for the "line" that Dickenson so aptly described for us? Are we really allowing the Walton and Mars families, et al, to use their vast fortunes to purchase away (from our formerly one man, one vote) representative government, to do their bidding, instead of ours, in the hope that when we become "that rich", the lopsided "rules" that they bought into legislation, will favor us, as well, to the continuing disadvantage of the vast number of us who will never be able to afford the lawyers and lobbyists, or the acquisition and maintenance of the "connections" that make permanent elimination of inheritance taxes, for example, even a possibility?

The evidence of the trend toward even more increasingly unequal distribution of wealth in the US that I posted in another recent thread, of the Gini Coefficient, is well explained here:
I've read that a Gini number of 60 is a flashpoint for violent revolution....but we're gonna be rich....someday....right??? So....not to worry !!

Meanwhile, the corporate media reliably does it's part to influence our thinking:
<center><img src="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2006-12-28_MSNBC_Edwards_Multi-Millionaire.jpg"></center>
The page that I lifted the image from displayed a comment from a reader that illustrated why this example of GE/Microsoft propaganda for the economic status quo is relevant for our discussion.....the reader made the point that what John Edwards, highlighted as a multi-millionaire sponsoring an agenda of helping poverty stricken Americans is part of our tradition....not so unusual, not out of the "mainstream".....the reader posted:

Why is there no revolution like in 1776? It's not because more people cared back then, but because our protests are not ending in massacres.

Our "revolution" was nothing more than a bunch of drunks dumping tea and rich merchants protesting a tax before the Boston Massacre. After that people were willing to stand up to the British, and the justifications for revolution followed afterwards.

There is no revolution because there is no bloodshed, and even the poor in this country have it pretty good. The vast majority have cars, TVs, and ample education if they seek it out. So they will have a few perks withdrawn, it's not as if they will be evicted because their new tax burden will bleed them dry.

Please provide proof of this instead of wildly inaccurate conjecture.

Seaver, that's pretty historically innacturate. The Boston Massacre was of "common" people, not of rich merchants/drunks. Tensions were running pretty high at the time, and while I think everyone would agree that you've found the match that set off the whole explosion that was the Revolution, you've oversimplified the facts you've chosen and ignored others that are salient to the arguement.

the version of the american revolution seaver presents is inaccurate on a number of levels: the one that links to the point i was making earlier is that it did not happen in an ideological vacuum, but rather took inspiration from tons of whiggish political agitation. and from the tradition of the english revolution itself. in comparison to others--like the french revolution--the american was relatively tepid and modest in many ways, but it was nonetheless what it is called.

there is nothing comparable in terms of oppositional political discourse at the present time. such an opposition remains to be built...so at the moment, if there were a revolt, it would probably come from the extreme right and would rely on bankrupt notions of nationalism to orient it, not because they are coherent---they aren't---but because they exist.

political actions are not things. they are processes. people have to have some idea of what they are doing and more importantly why they are doing it before they will act.

dk: short of time at the moment i am---i'll get back to this later. my apologies.

Our "revolutions" can be violent as evidenced by the civil war. I would add to that the union movement of the 30's. Marx's prediction of the uprising of the proletariat was correct, but failed to consider an eventual agreement between management and labor. Unions are now making their way into other countries, and they may become a force here again.

The majority of our "revolutions" have occurred due to public protest and the power of the ballot box. When the "robber barons" had won control of the government, there was a political "correction" such as the one under Teddy Roosevelt and later by FDR.

The latest "capitalist" overtaking of the government and economic policies will be a more difficult challenge under the "global" economic initiatives of the past two decades. As of today, we are no longer the preferred currency of exchange, and our debt is primarily held by China.

More than a year ago, Host referred to our currency as "script" and once again he has been proven prescient. We may very well become a third world nation under present economic conditions, and that may very well lead to a violent uprising against the government.

Folks, this is a broad sweep of history and heavy on opinion. I ask only that you give the "idea" of violent revolution some consideration.

We live in the most severe period of uneven distribution of wealth and political power in the US in 75 years. The wealthy elite who "own" (control) the assets and political power number less than the top half of the top ten percent of our population. The citations in the last five quote boxes, cover the preparations that they are making to control the coming reaction to the real estate valuation decline that will gouge the comparatively meager concentration of wealth centered currently in the hands of the masses, and some of the methods used during mass civilian detentions by US authorities in Iraq.

The top ten percent own most of the more liquid and still appreciating assets in the US, the stocks and bonds. The more illiquid, maintenance and property tax intensive residential real estate assets are mostly in the hands of the most tapped out and vunerable, lower 80 percent of the population, as these assets just begin a long decline in value. (read Russ Winter's article, linked in the OP)

The wealthy have prepared....DHS was not solely created to deal with the GWOT....the new domestic detention camp contracts bely that reality.

I am not advocating violence...if it comes, it will most likely be in response to premature and brutal repression by the authorities, themselves. They've been busy illegally wiretapping our phone calls, duping us into supporting the rights and privacy transfers contained in the patriot acts. Putting a new emphasis on tracking and reporting who is planning to exit the US, instead of who is trying to enter the country.

It is "us" vs. them....they know it, they plan for it....they intend to use the domestic security apparatus to maintain the status quo....they own most of it.

The question is...why are we all so complacent ....so accepting, and when will that change? First, a little history:
This is a snippet of our history of violent "blowback":

<b>Some details of the plans to maintain domestic security, i.e., to control us and to detain us if they feel threatened enough......</b>

host, it's great to see you coming around and recognizing the tyranny and oppression that is utilized by the 'government', but have you thought about HOW effective a violent revolution will be without civilian access to standard military weaponry is going to be? has any of this changed your position on the gun control laws in this country? It is all well and good to be up in arms about violations of civil rights, but only if you can be up in arms about all of them, not just a select few.

I don't think violence is the answer...hell no! :eek: It's all about the money.....we stop giving it to them....make them give it to us! :lol:

Ya know what? We know how you feel about this. I don't see any need to threadjack so many topics to try and bring them around to yet another fight about gun control. But here you make a pretty good point for me. There ISN'T a call to revolution even though there has been ample reason for it over the past 6 years. What does this tell us? Despite the fact that these people theoretically have the unabridged "right" to carry guns (you're still wrong about that btw) they're not using the guns for the reason that right was supposedly granted by the 2nd. Instead the guns are being used to rob convenience stores and kill people.

What can we learn from this? Simple: The people as a whole cannot be trusted to have guns unless they are in a well regulated organization. Not a gang, but an actual well-regulated body who's purpose is to keep the government in line. You are clearly on the other side of this fence. You seem to support the senseless murder of thousands as a necessary consequence of maintaining this disorganized general-public-"control" over the government - A control that we have proven to you dozens of times does not exist and cannot exist because the government will always have more, better, and more powerful weapons than the people can possibly acquire.

You might be able to find a receptive audience among the idiots over at bladeforums.com, but then those guys seem to be firmly convinced that one guy with a desert eagle can take on the world. We here at TFP tend not to have such Rambo complexes.

But since anyone who supplies a voice of reason or even dares to question the 2nd is banned from that site, I think you'll find a much friendlier crowd to your way of thinking. A way of thinking that is, quite frankly, wrongheaded and delusional. The people cannot now and never will be able to overthrow this government until they follow the 2nd amendment to the letter - form a well-regulated militia that has the financial resources to buy some decent weaponry, because you and and other protectors-of-our-rights aren't going to do crap with your popguns.

And before you bring up Koresh, please consider that when I say "well-regulated" I don't mean "quasi-religious nut who thinks he's the 2nd coming of Jesus and rapes little girls," and neither did the framers of the constitution.

Now can we please get back to what we were discussing before you jacked the thread?

it seems to me that the information host is posting is an index of the scale and effects of conservative class warfare. it provides a good indication of what has been happening behind the screen of conservative market-libertarian ideology, behind the one-dimensional militarism, behind the jingoism, behind the demonization of the state and dismantling of regulations.
it is an index of the degree to which the right's response to globalizing capitalism is to give up trying to render the american system coherent.

"take what you can now, boys, the shit is going to hit the fan.
we dont know what to do, so taking short-term profits seem a good idea.
and dont worry about the social consequences: there is a nice extensive "security" apparatus set up to crush any and all coherent response."


so it appears that we are the enemy: those of us not participant in the feeding frenzy of the past 20 years, those of us not part of the american economic aristocracy. and who knows, maybe the right really does think at some level, collectively, that there will be a deus-ex-machina of armageddeon time to absolve them of responsibilty for the consequences of what they have been doing.

the american system is obviously very vulnerable at this point.

but that vulnerablity--and internal incoherence--does NOT automatically translate into anything like a call for revolution. we are already seeing, and have been seeing, the "management" of class warfare by state repression: anything like a direct violent confrontation with the state now would be a simple, ugly bloodbath---which would no doubt be accompanied by systematic approval across the whole of the existing media apparatus, if such a thing were to remain in place. there is nothing to prevent the orchestration of such consent, just as there is nothing to prevent other forms of suicide.

where the existing order is vulnerable is ideology.
there must be a sense that another way of doing things is possible generated--and consent for the existing order will perhaps begin to evaporate as a sense that something else is possible takes hold.
but there IS NO SUCH SENSE at the moment because folk who are politically inclined to develop such a view have not been doing so.
they are themselves caught in the same problem: the collapse of the older left tradition has created serious problems for the articulation of alternate possibilities.
what ought to happen is that folk who think that other ways of organizing are possible should stop wasting their time on messageboards and begin the long, patient work of constructing counterhegemonies.

in the french revolution, the trigger for chaos was the implosion of the state. the phases of the revolution itself can be seen as collective efforts to work out and implement alternative arrangements in the context of intense real-time pressure.
the end result was military dictatorship.

in the russian revolution, a parallel type of dynamic unfolded, and the end result was another form of dictatorship, which was substantially worse.

without some kind of sustained effort to generate political positions that outline how another type of arrangement is possible, what it might look like, what kind of collective self-organization is entailed and so on, the implosion of the existing american order--which i sometimes think the american right is preparing for---will result in nothing good.

I wonder why everyone assumes that it's market libertarianism that's the cause of all this, when libertarian Capitalism expressly disallows things like corporations, protectionism, union-busting, and strike-breaking. Either such things are viewed as Market Distortions, which are impermissible, or Initiation of Force, which is likewise impermissible.

It's not Capitalism, that much is obvious. So the question is, if it's not Capitalism, what is it?

the dunedan: what you post sounds like hayek or some such ideology about capitalism. there is nothing descriptive about it. the question here is not about what one wishes capitalism was: it is about the particular variant of capitalism that is unfolding in the states in real time, more or less. within this, it is about the politics of the concentration of wealth. the idea that you can separate the concentration of wealth from the economic system that enables it is not tenable. period.

you can wish capitalism was anything you like.
but that has nothing to do with the question at the core of this thread.

no-one denies that the problem of the distribution of wealth is of a piece with the capitalist mode of production---no-one who is looking at the empirical world, at any rate: that is at the actual history of capitalism as it has unfolded in historically.

not even american conservatives deny that there is a problem that follows from the distribution of wealth: they just think it is normal, natural etc. and that those who loose out in the game deserve to loose, are worth in every way less than are those who do not loose.
and they construct ideological fictions to justify this position---and insofar as these fictions acknowledge the problem of the unequal distrbution of wealth, they are preferable to those of a hayek or von mises.

Yes....roachboy, you aptly described what I am trying to do here. Before you edited your most recent post, it contained a description of capitalism as one group that controls capital and the means of production, enjoying the ability to buy the service of the larger group which sells the only thing that it has to sell....the labor of each of it's individuals to the highest bidder, or words to that effect.

It is no "small thing" that recent tax "reform" included reduction of the percentage of taxation on capital gains to a mere flat fifteen percent, while providing no such break to those who sell their labor.

My great grandmother was born here....it is still one of the poorest places in the UK. The nearest village was at least 5 miles from the coal pits. The population swelled in the late 19th century to about 800. All of the housing units, about 200,were built by the employers. It is reliable to assume that the living conditions that my great grandmother was born into were as described....

....great grandma emmigrated to the US in 1920....here immigration record at Ellis Island lists Rankinston as her birthplace.

My father, the oldest son of her only daughter, was the first in his family to go to college.
He earned a law degree. His father's family emmigrated in the mid 1800's to Northumberland, UK, from Ireland. The Irish who were too poor to afford passage to America ended up seeking work in the UK coal mines, but were mostly deemed unworthy to do that work, and instead, were employed in the chemical plants fed by the coal mines. The UK 1881 census shows, for my father's grandfather's brothers, such employment was the case.

In the early 1920's, they too, emmigrated to the US. The 1930 census shows that my father's grandfather, and Irishman born in Northumberland because of the never ending search of workers for opportunity to sell their labor, was a "janitor", at age 58, in a New England grocery store.

On my mother's side, here maternal grandmother could trace here ancestry to an emmigrant to the US from England, in 1635. She became pregnant with my grandfathe, in 1884, at age 14, by an Irish immigrant, ten years her senior. She married just two weeks before the birth of my grandfather in early 1885.

My point is, that for all of their moves in search or work, and in spite of my father's education, and my own, and my work experience since, I see no commonality with either side of my family, and the circumstances of the "rich". There is no family advantage on my mother's side, to ancestry in America, nearly 300 years before the great waves of immigration.

Almost all of us are eternally beholden to a system controlled by the elite, where are politcal power is bought from under us, where we are kept unorganized to prevent any advantage in our constant quest to sell our labor to those who control the capital.

I am puzzled that so few of us recognize our lot, or that we don't believe in organizing into strong unions or trade guilds, or why we are eager to reduce the tax burden of the rich, in our own time. Was my great grandmother's father, better off that an unemployed citizen, today, in France or Germany, because he "enjoyed" employment in the 1880 Ayrshire coal pits that affored him the miserable quality of life pictured above?

Isn't it obvious that the primary purpose of the Department of Homeland Security is to control us? Indeed, president Bush insisted that DHS be exempt from civil service and union regulations that benefitted the workers of that agency, as a condition of it's formation.

If everyone is so in favor of revolution I propose that you, yourself fire the first shot. If such things as stated above have driven you to that level of anger than act upon it.

Or would you rather not place at risk the comfortable place you occupy with such actions.

I do agree that things could be greatly improved but are they terrible enough that a violent uprising (and killing) is necessary?

We have invaded and overthrown a government that had done nothing to us and did not have the capabilities of doing anything to us. Then we mismanaged that war so terribly that the end of it isn't even in sight, and we have most likely started a civil war that may well degenerate into a regional war, and perhaps grow even larger than that since all the other countries will get interested once their oil supply is in question.

We have then, through no-bid contracts, wasted BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars by letting Haliburton and a few others corrupt their way to riches, all acquired on the backs of the poor and middle class tax payers.

We have allowed a man to be appointed by a council of judicial ministers rather than to be elected by the public, then when he ran for election in 2004 we have allowed suspect voting machines (I promise to deliver Ohio for President Bush, said the CEO of Diebold) to call in to question even that election. In short, our leader, is not our rightful leader.

If this isn't bad enough to make you think we need to stop the government, NOW, then I don't have any idea what it would take to get you angry enough.


Why don't we start shooting? Because there aren't enough of us, and it wouldn't do any good. Even if 25% of the country rose up to fight the government, our pistols, rifles, and shotguns cannot hope to defeat the military. And, once they'd killed or arrested all of us, there would be that much less of a check on the runaway power of the neoconservative movement. In short, at this point, until more people get angry, a revolution would be a very dumb idea.

Maybe the crushing of that 25% would be enough to anger the rest of the population to rise up.

If you feel so strongly, wouldn't your martyrdom be worth the outcome?

Revolutions are started by people willing to give it all up for their cause.

As a journalist, you should know that people will ONLY get riled up enough when they are PERSONALLY and PHYSICALLY affected by government oppression. A botched war, misspent billions, and troops dying for little to nothing are never going to be enough to start any kind of focused action against the government.


What is the population of this country? 300 million...approximately? 25% is 75 million people. 75 million vs. 5 million and you think that the government would still defeat us? enough threadjack though, in regards to this particular subject and taxation.....rebellion has been done for excess taxation in the past...if it continues, it will eventually happen again.

The complacency which defies understanding is that of anyone who would accept being taxed at a 90% rate. Furthermore, anyone who thinks another SHOULD be taxed at a 90% rate has a degree of confidence in the government usage of those funds that is inaapropriate, at least in light of historical spending by our elected leaders. Or possibly an enormous amount of envy.

A reduction from ninety percent is bad policy? Here is an example yet to be discredited by any logical argument.

Is someone concerned that their free lunch is, in fact, exploitation?

so wait:

in the beginning, this thread was about among other things the effects of conservative tax reductions, which are of a piece with the largest transfer of wealth toward the wealthy in history. it was about the effects of neoliberalism as they have played out in the states. it was about wondering why people accept this state of affairs.

dk never seemed to exactly understand what was being discussed...then late in the thread, things began to take a turn for the strange, despite shakran's best efforts to head it off at the pass: now the topic is being inverted wholesale.

if you post rightwing libertarian/militia group tax revolt fantasies and/or the usual extremeright arguments about the magical properties of guns in providing orientation for political action....

and you do not recognize that it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread....

then it is clear you haven't read the thread. or maybe you read it and didnt understand it. either way, start another one that has something to do with your premises and maybe---maybe----folk will come to play there too.

it's not hard: arguments that are logically connected to a thread are ok there. arguments that aren't logically connected to a thread belong in a different thread.

There is no earthly substitute for brains and determination.
No government intervention can reallocate them, either.
One’s life begins when it begins.
From then on it’s all about a person’s upbringing and environs and how he/she responds to them.
The best we can do as a society is strive to give every person a chance to succeed. I think the USA does that pretty well.
But again, there is no earthly substitute for brains and determination.
It is also not the government’s responsibility to provide everything for everyone (immigrants included) and ensure what many define as “fairness”.

I laugh when I hear/read how the upper classes need to do more for the lower ones.
Sorry, it simply doesn’t work that way.
Life isn’t a Panglossian Utopia.
Go read our world history. Past is indeed prologue.
There is no substitute for brains and determination. None.

Income inequality is a characteristic, not a problem.
And it isn’t a characteristic of something bad.
The key is to have a society structured so that everyone can make the most of what they’ve been given.
We should recognize that life is a meritocracy, and we haven’t all been given the same abilities - intelligence, innovativeness, energy, and leadership skills are as unevenly divided as physical attributes like height and hair color (and have a lot more to do with earning potential).

I think someone’s reaction to income inequality says a lot about where they fall on the political spectrum.

True Story: A friend of mine works for a software company in the human resources department. He says his company has a hard time finding competent Americans who want to make nearly $90K/year in a semi-rural area developing software. They don’t require a college degree, but they do expect candidates to be able to code. He remarked that there has never before been a profession so accessible to almost anyone with smarts and determination. With a used computer for $100 and a $15/month DSL connection, one can learn enough to catapult oneself into the upper middle class in a few years. Sure, the first job one might take might only pay $10/hour, but it’s not too hard to move up quickly when you’re competent.

--

The gini coefficient (Income Inequality, worldwide) is measured on a scale of 0 (complete equality) to 1 (complete inequality—one individual receiving all income), ie. lower numbers mean more equality:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_legend_2.png

powerclown, welcome back !

Whether we realize it, or not, we are all involved in the struggle of our lives, and it has been ongoing since at least the beginning of the industrial revolution. Since that time, and probably earlier, most of us and our ancestors have been involved in a life or death competition with those who control the bulk of the wealth, and hence, the political power.

These elite are very serious about this competition, but the question is, are we?

Here's where "we" were....here's what they are doing to take and keep a larger portion of the "pie". The main ingredients of the "pie" are the assets of the country, and the the amount of political influence each side can summon to legislate/regulate or achieve via executive decree, what it perceives to be in it's own best interests.

In 2005, the Gini coefficient in US households<a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f04.html">reached .44</a>, from a low of .349 when Lyndon Johnson left office in 1969.

"We" are losing this struggle, and the "losses" can be measured. I don't think that it matters whether a 90 percent "top tax rate" was "fair", or whether 50 percent inheritance taxes levied against millionaire dollar plus estates, was "fair".

Here is what the richest are doing to compete....to change the status quo that is already moving in their direction at a disturbingly impressive rate:
Until recently, capital gains taxes were at least as large, as a percentage, as income taxes levied on earned income. Each of these changes, shifts some of the tax burden away from the richest few, and onto the rest of us. The changes are symptomatic of increasing political influence of the rich, and diminishing political influence of the rest of us.

The result is a significant shift in who possesses what percentage of the "pie", and as the OP article stated, the quality (i.e. liquidity, appreciation, maintenance costs, risks.....) of the assets controlled by each of the two competing groups.

This discussion is not about entitlement expectations from government. It is about the lack of reaction to the very real erosion of the bulk of the US population's wealth and it's political influence on the agenda of it's federal government. The government should be acting in the best interests of the most people, while protecting the rights and property of the least of us.

It is not doing that.....it hasn't since sometime during Nixon's administration. The result is that a Moroccan, for example, who achieves citizenship in France can rest assured that his savings and property will not be wiped out by an unplanned illness (are there planned illnesses ?), if he becomes unemployed or is unable to work, he is eligible for government benefits, and the government will provide medical treatment to deal with his illness.

In contrast, in the US, thanks to the campaigns in 1993 by insurance and medical industry opponents of Clinton admin. health care reform, a relatively small PR investment <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_and_Louise">(Harry & Louise ads)</a> resulted in the destruction of the agenda to provide a safety net of government managed medical care that our Moroccan in Paris example can rely on.

The bankruptcy "reform" bill was passed last year and signed into law by president Bush. Passage of that legislation was long a goal of the banking and credit card company lobbies. When it was passed by the house and senate towards the end of the Clinton administration, the president refused to sign it. and the house and senate did not have the votes to override his veto.

The two senators and all of the republican house delegation from Georgia voted for the "reform" bill, and voted against all amendments proposed by democrats that would have exempted households filing for bankruptcy that could prove illness as the cause of insolvency. Even though the effect of the new "reform" law was that everyone contemplating filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed in record numbers before the new "reform" law went into effect last October 17, here was today's headline:
Has the bankruptcy "reform" lowered the rate of interest or the terms of any of your credit card or consumer loans? The rates levied were high enough before the "reform", to cushion the small level of default protected by former chapter 11 bankruptcy law. The "reform" was simply a windfall profit, bought by a small, in proportion to the gain, lobbying effort by large money center banks who own politicians like Sen. Joseph Biden D-MBNA, who voted for the "reform", despite it's impact on his won Delaware constituents and despite the refusal of republicans to be influenced by a Harvard study which found that 50 percent of household bankruptcy filings were caused by illness, ironically, mostly in households that enjoyed private medical insurance benefits.

If you've read Russ Winter's article linked in the OP, consider one of his conclusions because it supports my point that in this "struggle" the rich hold and allegiance only to themselves and their own profits, not to a country:
My genes are "weary" from the moves that the last five generations have been forced to make to chase opportunities to sell their labor to the highest holder of capital, and as Russ Winter commented, they've moved many of the former US job opportunities to China, to further enhance their profits.

I am not a violent person, but I am an observant one. I think that is counterproductive to renounce it as an option in this competition. At least four of my ancestors fought under Washington in the continental army in the American revolution....Begin, Rabin, and Shamir certainly never renounced violence to achieve the founding of their state of Israel

I once had a quote from Ghandi as my "sig" here at TFP. Ghandi preached non-violence, and he was killed by an assassin. Nelson Mandela and his ANC would probably never have achieved liberation from white supremacy in South Africa if they had renounced violence.

Martin Luther King Jr. preached non-violence and like Ghandi, he too was assassinated. Here's a sample of what is now happening to his "dream":
I'm all for organizing and participating in non-violent protests and in civil disobedience, but my experience is that you don't get taken seriously by the opposition when you do only that, and I predict that it will be the heavy handed responses of the "authority" controlled by the rich who will react first with violence against those engaged in non-violent protests.

The competition in this class warfare to stop the ever rising Gini number and the incessant reduction of our portion of the pie....a war to get our government out of their hands and back into ours, must begin with discussions like....this one. The reaction, so far, seems to indicate that many are not inclined to do that. I ask what the harm is in an exercise like this one. And.....if we refuse to discuss it now.....when will it be appropriate to do so. The Gini number in Japan is about .25, in Canada and in Europe, it is much lower than in the US. Mexico is Gini .54 and violence is the predicted reaction when it reaches .60.

Why would anyone defend the politics and the economic system that the US currently operates in, when it appears to be taking our living and our social conditions in a direction that is closer to the circumstances experienced in Mexico, than in Japan, Italy, or in Canada?

Consider the steps that our opposition has already taken, how much they have achieved in tax reduction, in bankruptcy protection laws, and in eroding our rights to privacy, due process, and 4th amendment protection. They created DHS, and we are on the verge of needing permission from that agency to leave the country, unless we walk or swim away.

They've got control of the pentagon, and they've even created their own mercenary armies:
I recognize that it is a challenge and even a threat to be exposed to the ideas that the rich are not your friends, that their agenda runs counter to that of yours and your family's, and that you have more in common with the poor folks of New Orleans, stranded in the Superdome during the hurricane Katrina and subsequent levy failure disaster in September, 2005, than you do with George Bush or his friend Erik Prince and his private Blackwater "army" that Bush authorized, paid, and set loose in the flooded New Orleans streets.

That appears to be the case, though, and you should be able to mull it over, discuss it, accept that the developments are accelerating away from a direction that even preserves, let alone enhances, your civil rights, personal wealth, physical or economic security, political influence, or employment opportunity. IMO, this is a real description of what is happening, and I conclude that our competitors expect us to attempt to counter their agenda, that they are taking steps to make it easier to observe us and listen in on our communications, and to arrest us, hold us indefinitely, or to lock us down, en masse. They are not ruling out force as a tool to blunt our competition, and their focus on capital investment is not related to American endeavors.

But some of you say that we should either not discuss this, or if we do, renounce violence as a tool to compete with our rich opponents, or launch violent attacks against them right now.....in a "put up or shutup" fashion.....is that the jist of some of your posts?

As roachboy has posted, some of the reaction to this thread is predictable but incoherent. Why not, instead, if you disagree, show us where we have it wrong in our assessments of the direction, velocity, and probable outcome of the political and financial agenda of the rich?

If we are currently locked in a life or death struggle, where are the deaths? I see life all around me. True, I do see high taxes. I live in New York State where we have it worse than most. But I do not see millions and millions of people starving to death in the streets.

Some of you are asking a population to revolt against the rich. A population which spends more time watching the antics of Paris Hilton than reading a news paper.

Most of us are happy, even though over taxed and over worked. People in this country have an inherent hope and optimism for many reasons. Some real, some imagined.

If wealth should be more redistributed than start the process. Some of you probably have money in the bank your not using. Share it.

Is your "happiness" enhanced by what your website link in your profile indicates.....offering a deadly, addictive product for sale, "tax free", to those unlucky enough to crave it? Isn't that addiction, for those folks, a "life or death" situation, if they continue to consume the product you offer at such a compelling price?

How do you think that you acquired the ability to profit from avoiding paying NY state taxes on tobacco that afford you an opportunity to undercut the price of the product that you sell on the internet, vs, the price that mom and pop convenience store owners all over NY state are required to charge?
You mock and twist my premise here. The holders of capital have kept my family "on the move" for the last 5 generations, they've taken over the government, "of the people" that my revolutionary ancestors fought and sacrificed, to establish, and now they are honing in on the remnants of the bill of rights that we specifically reserved for ourselves, not the government that they've bought away from us.

You sell your tax free cigarettes because western NY state native Americans fought a long, sometimes violent fight for your right to do so.

....and for the masses in the US, it has historically been a "life or death" struggle that has won worker protections by government, that Bush's intentional destruction of the NLRB is intended to reverse:
Far from eliminating government, I am calling for competing against the rich who have taken it over, and getting it to work for the rest of us, as I see that it does in Canada, Italy, France, and in Germany.

Is it only coincidental that the owners of the corporations who contributed to Bush's campaigns and paid lobbyists to actually draft the legislation that was taken up in the congress in the last six years, gain from taking over this regulatory agency that enforced the rights of workers?:

Violence will hurt a cause. Most people tend to view violence as a desperate act, something that crazed, unstable people resort too.....and it makes them back off and turn away. The common man....the middle class, will have to try to regain the power the same way it was lost, bill by bill, vote by vote, slowly...hard work....There is no quick cure. This thread is a good effort! Spread the word...talk/vote about it.....turn the tide.....:thumbsup:

Please lets not make this personal. A family member of mine has a business and I choose to help him out by posting his link in my profile and you somehow equate me to forcing people to smoke cigarettes?

I'm sorry you feel victimized by the rich that have kept your family on the move for five generations searching for a better life.

Perhaps cro magnons felt victimized by the mastadons that kept them on the move in search of a plentiful food supply.

Look around you. You seem to imply that most Americans are just too ignorant to realize how angry they should be. Or maybe, how angry they would feel if they were just as educated and intelligent as yourself.

You are clearly a very smart person Host. But so are many of us, and quite a few of us are happy.

Yeah, I do know that. The question was about what people SHOULD do, not what they WILL do.

Absolutely. They can easily kill 1000 for every 1 of them the people get. More if they decide to use the big bombs. Look how quickly the military rolled through Iraq in both wars, and they were up against people with much better weapons than we can get.


That, I agree with. As the gap between the rich and the poor widens into a yawning chasm, the violence is already getting worse. Murders, fights, "road rage," "air rage," all of that crap that's escalating is, in my opinion, a reaction to the anger people feel at the fact that they have so comparatively little while a tiny minority has most of the country's wealth. Such a thing cannot continue, and the longer it takes to stop, the more violent and bloody will be the stopping process.

A coherent critique? Such as "they have nothing to say" or "that is idiotic"? Coherent, I guess...but not much content to it.

I'm still most struck by the idea that 90% is a reasonable marginal tax rate. Simple as it was, EaseUp's first post in this thread seems very appropriate.

Republican Eisenhower was president when the top rate was <a href="http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php">91 percent</a> (on annual income above $400,000), when new college graduates often worked for less than $4000 per year....and the <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f04.html">Gini coefficient was 35.1</a>....it's 44 now.

I think that Shakran (post #3) summed up best, where you are probably coming from:
Recognize that the rich have bought the potential of your government to control their endeavors. They are taking for themselves, the rights, the political influence, and the wealth that common folks stood up for in the past, and were bloodied or killed by the thugs that the rich hired to discourage them from doing so. These accomplishments and controls....NLRB, OSHA, SEC, FCC, are being intentionally compromised as we watch. But you don't seem as concerned about that as you do about the top tax rate paid during a republican administration, 50 years ago.

My question is, why are you more concerned about what the tax rate on income above a level of more than 100 times average income of a worker just out of college was, 50 years ago, than you seem to be about what has happened since, about the trend, and the current status quo, and the inroads that the rich have made, using the political and the propaganda clout that they've bought with their increasing wealth, that now enables them to carve out a chunk of the "pie" for themselves. that is nearly 1/3 greater than 50 years ago. That leaves the rest of us....the other 90 plus percent, with 56 percent, instead of the 65.9 percent that we controlled in 1956.

What do you suppose the trend will be, with the stacking of the SCOTUS with Roberts and Alito, and the stacking of the NLRB entirely with 5 pro-management republican members, and the softening of inheritance tax rates for at least the next 3 fiscal years, and the doubling of the defense budget, and then some, in just the last 6 fiscal years, in the guise of fighting a GWOT that has rendered us less secure, with fewer allies, enemies with many more grievances against us, and with new US treasury debt of nearly $5 trillion, by the end of next year.

Your concerns seem misplaced, IMO.


Confining it's subject matter to examining why Kansans overwhelmingly vote republican, the 2004 book "What's the Matter With Kansas?", pondered the question of how and why "have nots", support candidates financed by wealthy conservatives and corporations:
The U.S. has experienced political shifts, beginning with the the "great depression" in the 1932 elections, that transferred the presidency to a democrat.......and democrats dominated in the executive and legislative branches, with the exception of the 8 year Eisenhower presidency, for the next 36 years. Compared to later republican presidents, Eisenhower could be described as a "centrist".

Today on a webpage at the Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation site, (Milton was the late younger brother of republican president Dwight Eisenhower,) the following is displayed:

Because it jumped out at me. It was a clear highlighting of an alleged problem area amongst many vague and/or complex problems. I don't necessarily have a problem with a statistic such as 90% holding 56% - what are these 90% doing with their resources? What value are they providing? How do I know that there's any injustice in that figure at all? A 90% marginal tax rate, on the other hand, is clearly absurd. There's really no way that the government's services for the rich - no matter how disproportionately rendered - make up for that 90% confiscation of income.

Point to an instance of corporate welfare or other such redistribution to the wealthy and I'll condemn it. But reducing the tax burden to a figure still proportionally higher than what anyone else pays - that doesn't cut it.

FoolThemAll, even with the income tax instituted in 1913....at first, solely a tax on the wealthiest few, and likewise, an inheritance tax begun in 1916, the richest have continued to grow richer in wealth, power, and influence. The political and financial agenda of the rich have been out in "full force" since Jan. 20, 2001. This is their mess....a more moderate, more populist president and senate majority handed these bastards a balanced budget, a trend towards reduced federal government employment and military spending in line with the actual international threat level, which, except for the message of fear pushed so forcefully by the folks who took the reigns that day, really didn't change, if not for the mess in the middle east and the deterioration in foreign relations, that they created, via their over reaction. If the 9/11 attacks had been treated as what they actually were.....crimes....matters for law enforcement to respond to, with of course, help from the DIA and the CIA, where might this country find itself today, compared to the "watch out for the domestic sleeper cell/islamo fascists are bent on destroying our way of life because they hate us for our freedom" that the "new political order" heaped on us, instead.

Now, politically, the will is there to make the wealthy who mostly backed the disaster of total republican party control, pay reparations, and, they're ambition and greed has caused so much damage to the formerly balanced budget vs. revenue scheme in place in Jan. 2001, and to foreign relations and middle east security, that I doubt, even if we taxed them at a 100% capital gains and income rate, the damage that they've sponsored could be undone to Jan. 2001, levels.....

Given the history of federal taxation of the past 90 years, and the disaster brought on us by the elite since Jan., 2001, my sentiments are much more conventional than you, with your firm, "tax the rich fairly" stance, have recognized, up till now. I maintain that when you are rich enough to buy the government and steer it in directions that you see fit....to lower your own taxes, to even entertain the elimination of inheritance taxes, and to fund the possibility, and then continue to sponsor a "collection" like the Bush white house and the Tom "the hammer" Delay congress, and their political agenda, you are rich enough to pay dramatically increased taxes, and you deserve to pay them. "K Street" was a creature of the rich, as well.

When I attempted to update the Milton Eisenhower link in the last quote box in my last post, I visited the page where I got the quote in that box, and I read more. It appears that the ideas I've expressed in this thread parallel the work and the conclusions of the Milton Eisenhower Foundation:


"We the people" are waking up to a "class war" that the richest have never ceased to wage. Polls show that working class Americans want their government to pursue a social agenda that is much closer to the one existing today in non-British Europe and in Canada.

You seem to be advocating indirect forced reparations paid by wealthy people whose lobbying choices brought about a less than ideal political situation. Do I have that right?

If so, I just don't agree. The idea strikes me as a dangerous club just as easily wielded by the right when they hold control. I really dislike the idea of punishing people with the force of government for how they choose to influence the political process. To put it bluntly, I'd rather not sink to their level (assuming even that they, the wealthy, are uniformly guilty of such abuses). This whole idea strikes me as too much of an eye for an eye mentality, and a broad, careless version at that.

The American people want a socialist economic system? Not hardly, I think that most would just like to have the thousands of nickel and dime regulations that are limitations to financial prosperity removed. In other word, a free market.

They do....this is a forward thinking discussion...they want it...they've been ripped off and abused to the point that there will be an extreme, if delayed reaction.....they want a socialistic economic system....if wanting similar "balance" to what exists in Canada and continental Europe is socialistic....

Americans are an aging, increasingly ailing and poorer population....soon to be foreclosed on in unprecedented numbers as the housing bubble pops....it's just beginning to unwind now, and they already poll this way:
Another year has gone by since the following article was written and nothing has been accomplished....is it any wonder why the party that controlled both house of congress, and the presidency during the past four years, polled so poorly?

Perhaps most Americans understand the political divergence that exists in the country and are sick and tired of the extremists at both ends, as expressed here, and just want their political leaders to act with principled compromises that serve the greater good rather than any one special interest or ideology.

Perhaps, dc_dux, but consider how great the excesses have been....first, in the direction that the recently industrialized economy went in during the Rockefeller, Jay Gould robber baron era, countered first by the 1913 income tax and the 1916 inheritance tax, and.....after the crash of the DJIA from 393 in Sept. 1929 to 41 in July, 1932, and the rash of bank failures that followed....and 25 percent unemployment, came the "New Deal"....SSI and unemployment insurance, and the confiscation of gold.

The backlash reached it's height with the 91% top income tax bracket in the early 1960's, and....even with that, there was a 30 percent poverty rate when Eisenhower left office in Jan. 1961. The backlash was Johnson's "war on poverty", and the phenomena, even it was primarily coincidental....who knows.....of the poverty rate being cut in half by the mid 1970's.

Beginning with the "Reagan revolution", interrupted only by the Clinton 1993 rollback of the 12 years of Reagan/Bush '41 tax "reform", and the remarkable, one year end of steadying accumulating US treasury debt in 2000, the excesses have moved "full tilt" in the other direction.

These bastards have intentionally attempted to destroy the fiscal integrity of the federal treasury, via deep preferential tax cuts for their wealthy patrons and needless, wasted expenditures on military/intelligence, a sham pharma gift to that industry with the medicare prescription fiasco, no-bid contracts in Iraq and in Katrina relief, and record pork barrel spending....only time will tell if they've succeeded in destroying the currency itself....because they saw it as the only way to dismantle the "New Deal" entitlement obligations that they believe is the main justification for progressive income tax and for an inheritance tax.

This mugging of the budget and the soundness of the treasury, is all the more extreme and easy to notice, because the budget was, for the first time in 30 years, acutally "in balance" when they renewed their assault, beginning with the 2001 tax cuts and the mailing of checks to every taxpayer.

No....dc_dux, if history is any guide, the backlash will be at least as extreme as the mugging by the rich and their republican pol puppets has been. The loss of the only equity most Americans have gained in the last 15 years....via the implosion of real estate valuations, along with the steady drop off in the numbers who can afford private health insurance premiums, aggravated by the tough provisions of bankruptcy "reform", will come together to inflict enough pain and militancy among the sheeple to push the backlash much further in the direction of a French or Italian type of entitlement society, and the taxes on the rich that come with it, than most will predict.

...and they brought it on themselves, IMO.

This is too black and white. Americans don't want pure socialism any more than they want pure capitalism. We need to find a healthy mix, and right now we're skewed too heavily in the direction of capitalism.

The trouble is that when you socialize something - healthcare is a good example of something that desperately needs socialization - taxes go up, and people immediately panic. Oh shit! My taxes will go up! I'll be broke!

They fail to realize (and those opposed to socializing a given system are only too happy to keep them in the dark) that while taxes will increase a bit, they will not increase to the point where the tax increase is more than the money the average person will save on healthcare. If I could drop insurance, not have any copays for my meds, not have to pay outright for my kid's braces, etc etc etc, I'd more than make up for the tax increase, because the burden of healthcare would be shared across the entire country.

Sure Europeans have markedly higher tax rates than we here in the States do, but they also get free healthcare. Period. No bullshitting about whether this or that cancer treatment is "medically necessary." If they need it, they get it, and that's the end of that.

On the other hand, pure socialism would suck. Say goodbye to your sportscars, your SUV's (well. . maybe that part wouldn't suck ;) ), your conversion vans, whatever. We'd all drive cars that we needed, but nothing more. I like capitalism here. I don't wanna give up my sports car ;)

Interestingly enough we already have a socialized system in some areas. Eldercare is partially socialized. That's what social security is. We all pay, old people get to eat. Works pretty nice, despite the scare tactics employed by Bush and his cronies when they were trying to convert it to capitalism because it doesn't directly benefit his rich friends.

Back to healthcare, I think it's absolutely pathetic that in the richest country on the planet, the most advanced country on the planet, we have people having to decide whether to buy medicine that they need to live, or to buy food that they also need to live. It's pathetic that people needlessly die from curable diseases because their insurance company won't pay for the treatment and they can't afford it on their own.

Frankly, if you argue against socializing medicine, you are arguing for letting people die from conditions that could be cured.

We should socialize the necessities for life. The rest should be bought with your own money and at your discretion.

Frankly, that's false. It's not an argument against people receiving such treatments, it's an argument against forcing other people to pay for it. You can disagree with this central aspect of the position - I wouldn't call the disagreement unreasonable either - but to ignore it is dishonest.

the idea that in a socialized health system "other people pay" is one that really encapsulates the effects of years and years of rightwing political/ideological domination and which demonstrates the claim that controlling how issues are framed is fundamental.

if for example you could argue that access to basic health care should be a fundamental human right--you know "life liberty pursuit of happiness" the inspirational memes dont really amount to much of anything if your health is not maintained: then the question could be whether we, as a society, as a social system able to generate very considerable wealth, find it morally and politically desirable to extend the benefits of that system to all in the form of basic health care. you could argue that such an extension of benefits to all would bring this society at the level of content into line with what it claims to be at the level of form. you could argue that such an extension would increase social solidarity, that it would benefit businesses, that it would benefit everyone except perhaps for the existing structures of student loan debt profiteering, the ama and the boards of privately run hospitals, and the shareholders of pharmceutical corporations. across the arguments that would be generated around what amounts to different conceptions of an ethical social order, the political issue of what kind of society do we want to be, do we want to live in, could be fought out.
conservative ideology in america is a fundamental obstacle to even posing these matters coherently
(1) because it effectively negates the idea that we--all of us--live in a society. following that tired old dysfunctional thatcherite logic, it replaces the notion of society with that of a bunch of individuals.
(2) it has persuaded folk that the state is some alien formation that persecutes, that obstructs the (fictional) well-functioning order of accumulated invdividuals. one effect of this ideological distortion is to remove the daily operation of the state from any association with democratic process. state policies are political policies: the redirecting of resources by the state is an effort to match that distribution with the "will of the people" as it expresses itself through electoral and interest group politics. the state can be seen as a mechanism whereby social decisions concerning the character of a desirable society are implemented.

conservative ideology is geared primarily around preventing coherent state action except in those areas that benefit directly the corporate interests that fund the conservative show (defense spending for example, which is n absurd squandering of social resources)....one of its central claims is that the state is already incoherent. the "demonstrations" of this claim rely on the false claim that society is just a bunch of individuals: you see this "logic" repeated over and over and over--in the setting up of fake symmteries (reverse discrimination for example, or questions of abstract "fairness" of tax rates)--these premises are important because if you buy them, conservative conclusions follow--that taxation is unfair because it requires more from those who benefit more from the existing social arrangement than it does from those who do not---when the same problem can be made to disappear from another angle: of course those who benefit SHOULD contribute more to the maintenance of the system that enables them to benefit BECAUSE they benefit from it. wealth is a SOCIAL fact, it presupposes the existence of a SOCIAL ORDER--it does not follow from abstract individual gumption, it is not a question of moral superiority--it is a function of particular distributions of SOCIAL ADVANTAGES and CONDITIONS.

3. the main issue then that conservative ideology as a whole eliminates from coherent discussion is the central fact of capitalism or any other socio-economic order: that it is a social system. that questions about capitalism are questions about the social system upon which it rests and which its logic produces and reproduces. that success owes its existence to a combination of social factors--educational advantages, capital access, networking, developing a business plan, etc etc etc--that individual actions are social actions, that a business is a social undertaking, that the relation of firms to consumers and other stakeholders are social relations.

it obscures the fact that questions concerning what kind of social order is desirable are fundamental questions. it tries to push back onto some abstract, ridiculous notion of morality what is in fact a matter of politics. and it is not like the corporate powers that pay for rightwing ideology in its present forms are not aware of how political these matters are: if they were unaware of this link, there would be no conservative ideology because no=-one would have funded its development, funded its systematization, funded the creation of a media appartus to disseminate it, funded its endless repetition.

within this ideological framework, it is extremely difficult to have a coherent public debate about fundamental questions: what kind of communities do we want to live in? are we to simply sit by and allow a system of highly centralized global production to redefine how we live where we live as if that redefinition was a natural fact? are we to have no say concerning what kind of communities we live in, whether they are to be functional or not? are we to be spectators of our own lives?
why should there not be universal health care?

why should all education not be free to all? if you care ANYTHING about the idea of meritocracy, it should follow DIRECTLY that all levels of education should be freely available to all and that wealth SHOULD NOT determine what kind of educational opportunities you have access to. in the united states, the central determinant of quality of education is class position. that is wrong. that is dysfunctional. that is the furthest possible remove from any illusion of democracy at the level of content.

why should kids have to acquire tens of thousands of dollars in debt to go to university? what are they paying for? why is 60-70% of the teaching labor pools within universities part time/adjunct? where the fuck is all the money going? why do university presidents have to make the salaries that they do? why are universities administrations as bloated as they are? universities should be seen as a public good. they should be free. funding should come from the public coffers. funding should be flat across localities at the elementary and secondary levels. the notion that the smartest get access to the best education should mean something. right now, it doesnt. i have spent many many years inside ivy league schools, and let me tell you that it is WEALTH not ability that determines the presence of the vast majority of the students in these schools. it is WEALTH not ability that determines the profiles of a significant majority of faculties. to claim otherwise is to smply not know what you are talking about, to look at the wrong things: this does not mean that this is 100% determinate in 100% of the cases, but in an overwhelming majority of the cases, it is--who has the social autonomy to deal with the financial pressures of graduate school, really? who has the financial resources to be able to deal with the 60-70% part time faculty hire rate? if you do not possess independent means, in such a context, very frequently you are fucked. why is there such an excessive production of phds? they are cheap labor. and 60-70% of them stay cheap labor. it is an unbelievable, idiotic squandering of resources and lives. why is that?
because in the united states, against everything the system claims to stand for, wealth enables access to better educational resources and these resources enable a better education and the profile of this obscene, ridiculous system repeats itself all the way through, repeating again in the internal labor markets that universities create and maintain for themselves, and again in the types of intellectual production faculties carry out. and there is NO REASON FOR IT, it stands in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of everything the united states claims it stands for as a society.

universal health care is tied to the costs of education: one major obstacle to implementing universal health care is the amount of debt people accumulate who go into med school. paying this debt back has an enormously coercive function in that it locks the perspectives of many who graduate from these schools into the existing income structure. but the practice of medicine does not presuppose access to great wealth, and nothing about its quality is guaranteed by the accumulation of great wealth.

the last ditch claim the right can make against this is "well, yer talking about socialism"---which is horseshit--we are talking about a coherent social system--this is not a coherent social system. two of the most fundamental aspects of that system----social reproduction and health maintenance---are organized in ways that have nothing to do with any of the principles this places claims as central. and the conservative response? run away. take the money and run, boys, things are getting hectic.

it is obscene.
it could change.
if it doesnt, it'll burn.
and it wont require some abstract "revolution" to burn it: it burn on its own, it will burn itself down as a social system.
of course, those who adequate exploit the system now wll get to watch it on tv from within their gated communities protected with private militias.
and it will all be blamed on those who are burning.
that's how it goes in conservativeland.

then pray tell, who pays for socialized health care?

Place this blame where it actually belongs.....the health insurance industry.

any social system that legislates, regulates, and (en)forces the populace at large to contribute their own money to all services, whether they object or not, is nothing short of socialism/communism. No matter how you try to spin it, a spade is a spade, and socialism is socialism. The end result you'll be facing is the exact same thing you're all bitching about right now.....seperated classes by economics.

rb....they "get it"....but their solution is to move all of their production investments, first to Mexico and Malaysia, and now....to China. "They" wouldn't live in those places themselves, their interest there is the same as it has evolved to, everywhere....exploit the opportunities....mine the labor, the natural resources....utilities roads and infrastructure paid for by others to "lure them" there.....pollute the water, soil, and air....and then move the fuck on......now....from coastal China to inland....where costs are even lower.

But, they themselves, have to live somewhere, and Mr. Prince creates Blackwater....to secure the "perimeter" for him and his friends in the CNP....so
they live in a global "Green Zone", where they're imprisoned in the world that they've made, and the rest of us can step over the bodies of the sick and starved, "have nots", until a few of us "move up", and the rest of us fall in the heap on the hospital steps.....

They refuse to come to grips, from where we are at Gini .44, that this is what Gini .50 can bring:
They won't give an inch, until they create the conditions that result in the
emergence of a Hugo Chavez or...... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva">Lula di Silva</a> .....under the best of circumstances......
...and they'll keep doing it, until they can't, until the backlash stops their arrogance....
The preceding article says so much about the direction that the US is heading in. One of the largest insurance companies has abandoned it's commitments to the community that it originated and is headquartered in. The winning bidder of an 11,200 unit, plain vanilla, 60 year old apartment complex, built cooperatively with public and private financing, and the former corporate benefactor, both opted out of even discussing the deal with NY city officials or with the long time tenants of the residential complex.

The mayor, a multi-billionaire who lives in an upper east side penthouse, but who rides the subway to appear to have something in common, with the common man.....decides "not to get involved".

The winning bidder pays $500,000 average per apartment for 11,200 60 year old units that will need major rehab and upgrades, and currently collects less than an average $30,000 per year rent per unit.

That is the America we live in, a land where wealthy conservatives make a smaller world for themselves, at the expense of the rest of us. It's none of our business.....it's their money. The folks in Brazil and in Venezuela woke up recently to realize that they were rich in one way....they had the votes, if they voted in unison, in their own best interests......

I love how so many people in this post seem to believe that the only rich people in America are ultra conservatives. I don't think Bill and Hillary Clinton ever had a problem selling out their $20,000 a plate fund raising dinners.

sorry about the accidental repost

dk:

i dont think you understand the center of the arguments i am making. it makes no sense to think that the world in which you live is made up of an accumulation of separate individuals whose interests pertain only to themselves. you live in a social system. you are of a system. and the people who make up that system have the power to decide what kind of system they want to live in and to institute measures that will tend to bring that system into being. they simply have to take that power. (i have more to say about this, but i'll defer it as this post went another direction and i am having fun writing it...)

you live within capitalism. i posted this before, but i took it down: one of the defining features of capitalism, still (though the distinction is more complex now than it was 150 years ago) is the division between those who control capital--who control the conditions that enable production--and those who sell their labor power for a wage--those who actually do the production. so long as that basic logic is in place, the system itself produces class divisions in terms of income and following from that everything else, at one level or another. redistributon of wealth minimizes these distinctions--reduces them--but does not eliminate them.

your idea of no redistribution wealth, if enacted within this context, would collapse this order almost immediately.
your idea would result in the maximum possible distinctions between the classes.
the only reason that is not clear to you is because you do not seem to have any working sense of capitalism as it actually exists and prefer to dream of some hayek-fantasy of free markets populated by nice small producers who hover together in relations of happyface equilibrium. this is what we call make-believe. fantasy land. capitalism does not and has not EVER worked like this. not in this construct we live in, the one that gets designated reality, so as to avoid complications (complications like the political in the old sense of the term).

you like to talk about tax revolt and so i imagine fancy yourself a kind of potential minuteman and that 2007 is somehow still 1774 and that the america economic system now and some jeffersonian utopia of yeomen farmers still have anything to do with each other.

i can see it's appeal: it lets you like the fact that you dont like taxes and imagine that there is something politically coherent and even radical in liking the fact that you dont like taxes and even more if you dont like taxes a whole lot. i mean, sure, why not?...if you like not liking taxes that much, you can make it the center of anything, really. and if liking not liking taxes is really what politics is about for you--well that and liking that you like guns---then i suppose that fitting what you talk about into anything like a description of capitalism as it actually exists is secondary--hey why bother, you got all the fun stuff without it, you get to like not liking taxes and like liking guns.

but that doesnt mean that what you say about contemporary capitalism is accurate or compelling, simply because you dont seem to take making what you say about capitalism accurate or compelling seriously.
so you dont.

i just hope that folk who think as you do never get anywhere near power.
and ideologically, the only thing that really separates your position from that of any run-o-the-mill american conservative is that you like not liking taxes more than they do.
o they dont like taxes, but they really dont like not liking them as much as you do.

same thing with your positions about socialism.
so far as i can tell, all socialism really means to you is Something Very Bad, and its only coherent content goes back to the same thing---again---this affection for your lack of affection for taxes.

you got to move outside your pet issues and the way they frame everything for you to see other kinds of arguments, dk.

i mean, i think that most right libertarians are reasonable folk who sense real problems but route them through a kind of crazy argumentative framework and land in very strange places because of the frame they use: but i have at least arrived at that conclusion by reading what they have to say and thinking about it.
also, for fun, i used to listen to alot of the far right libertarian movement's
fine radio broadcasts--like that guy saxon, i cant remember his first name, who used to have a survivalist call in shw on world wide christian radio shortwave before it decided, after oklahoma city, to stop broadcasting quite so much of that sort of thing--you know, brought to you by viking international, buy your gold now before paper money starts to collapse. i was quite fond of that station for a while: everyone was so entirely earnest and so wholly insane in what they said, and the station was very powerful wattage-wise so it seemed like these folk were EVERYWHERE--it was like watching a scary movie, particularly as i was in upstate new york and from what i could tell, once if left ithaca these folk WERE everywhere.

anyway, that is a little anecdote and i enjoyed telling it.
i notice that i am starting to use caps again.
strange.

Strange times have bred stranger things, roachboy.

With you're ideas in mind, however, I am left with that ever-present question of how the general populace would ever have such a revelation. Even in a pile of their own denial it seems far-fetched. Are we going to just cycle along?

roachboy, i see you've completely avoided the inevitable results of 'wealth redistribution' by merely stating that it will reduce the contrast between the classes, while at the same time trying to spin your way around what capitalism is by saying that I define capitalism by todays marketplace. Nowhere have I said that todays republican/conservative model of the marketplace is capitalism, in fact, it's closer to the socialist/communist/fascist side of socio-economic principles because of the numerous barriers placed in the way of any entreprenuer in the form of licenses, permits, and insurance.

the version of wealth redistribution that you wish to implement upon this country will warp and inhibit any, and nearly all, economic growth because it will take away any incentive for people to make advances in any market. Why should I, as a potential company starter, wish to work as hard as I can to make it successful when the people that I'm making a product for are going to have the government abscond even more of my profit margin for the people that DID NOT want to work as hard as I did?

Why do you equate fascism with socialism?

You're going to have to explain to me how universal access to healthcare and education will take away any incentive for people to make advances in any market, because i don't see it.

Is this in regards to insects and reptiles, or human beings?

Sheep, actually.

The question was asked 'how will socialized healthcare be paid for', and hasn't been answered yet, but I will give you my opinion on the answer, since you've asked. Education is already socialized and we can see how that's turned out, right? Healthcare will be much the same way and this is why.

There are two main reasons, currently, why someone enters the medical profession. That is chiefly from a desire to help people, but a secondary purpose is, or used to be, for a substantial amount of personal income/wealth. Let's face it, becoming a doctor is hard work. Practicing medicine is even harder, and thats without all of the state government meddling from beginning to end. An individual should expect to be financially rewarded for hardwork and personal contributions to society. By socializing, or universifying, healthcare, you will have to institute a government plan so that everyone gets access to healthcare, but it is going to have to be paid for. How is it going to be paid for? Through the government, obviously, and that means a tax......for everyone. So you will end up paying for someone elses medical care, just like I will, and everyone else. With the income for the entire medical field now coming from one single source (government), what's going to happen? costs are going to be fixed. No longer will you be hearing people saying they want the best doctor/surgeon for their wife or child because money is no object. You will see a 3 to 6 month scheduling issue for nearly every non-immediate critical impending death issue. With fixed costs, there is no incentive to be the 'best' doctor, since being the best will not place you in a higher income bracket, thus no incentive. The only ones you will see remaining in the medical field are the ones who are there because they WANT to be there. What will then follow is a serious shortage of doctors, nurses, surgeons, etc. To deal with this, standards will be lessened, medical care will then become substandard. Why should it be any different? Government does not run anything well. This is historical fact.

Now, split your question apart. I didn't say that ONLY universal healthcare would limit ALL markets. I said that 'socialism' would limit all markets, BUT, universal healthcare WILL affect all medical related markets like equipment manufacturers, suppliers, pharmas, and it will trickle down to educational facilities as well. Without the incentive to be financially successful, you will retard the entire field and all related markets with it. Again, one need only to look at the public education system to see the results that socialism will bring about.

they are equated by structure alone. Call it a group thing. With socialism, the 'pact' is supported by forcing the populace to support it. With Fascism, you are forcing the business' to support it.

You know, nowhere in your post did you actually debunk the idea that "other people pay". You provided a possible rationale for making other people pay - that they benefit from the society they're in - but they're still paying. And like I said to shakran, the position that they should be forced to pay could be completely reasonable. I just preferred a more honest description of the opposition's position.

For my part, I don't buy your argument because it strikes me as too one-sided: wealth isn't just possible because of the society of individuals, wealth also requires individuals in the society. It's not like society itself is an autonomous being capable of making choices. The choices are all ultimately made by individuals. And sure, some (much?) of the wealth is rooted in theft - eminent domain immediately comes to mind as a contemporary example, though there's probably much better ones - and we should work to eliminate such thefts when we spot them.

But wealth can also come about honestly in a capitalist society, through hard work, investment, and gifts (most notably inheritance). There's nothing inherently wrong about any of these modes of property acquisition. They certainly would owe the government for services rendered - particularly legal protections - but the credit for the wealth itself belongs to an individual, not the society.

Although our society does exist in socialism in one form or another (all modern systems do). If you completely remove capitalism from the equation and the possibility of great wealth with it you surely knee cap many efforts for progress.

Would people work long hours to make a new an innovative product just for the sake of everyone else if there was no monetary reward in it? Since we have spoken so much of health care, if medical doctors were forced to concede some of the wealth they accumulate from thier specialized skills would we still get the best and brightest people going into the fields? While I'm sure almost all of them do do it partially for the satisfaction they get from helping others I would bet the money doesn't hurt either.

Actually it was, by me, just above.

You contradict yourself later when you dramatically predict a shortage of doctors because they aren't getting paid enough.


Great. Where are my millions? I work hard too bub. In fact, while doctors work a lot harder than me in med school and their residency, once they're out on their own, I work harder than them. They go home at about the same time every night, they spend the holidays with their families, etc. I don't, because I'm off doing news stories. By your logic, I should be a multimillionaire at this point.


Once again we see the Haves complaining about having to help the Have Nots. If you institute an income-scaled tax to pay for medicine,then the overall wealth distribution picture won't change. You'll still be richer than the guy down the street, and you'll still get to buy more stuff than him.

You mean they'll no longer charge $500 a day for hospital food? No more $5,000 charges for one Xray that doesn't cost anything NEAR that to perform? Wow, that's. . .awful?

Good. I'm tired of the poor and middle class having to settle for crap because they can't afford decent doctors.

You obviously read half of an article on European health care. What you fail to realized is that they DO have private hospitals over there. If you're willing to pay, you can bypass the wait.

Here's the contradiction. I thought the primary reason for becoming a doctor was to help people - logically you'd want to be the best at it. If you're in a field that you love, the incentive is there even if the money is not. I know a photographer who has 7 emmys and still only makes $40,000 a year. The cash isn't an incentive there - the desire to be the best at the field he loves is.

Good! Why in hell do you want some asshole that's only in it for the money, and who doesn't give a crap about his patients! That's why we have so many lousy doctors in this country. It's a lucrative career that you don't have to work very hard at if you don't want to once you get through with school.

There's already a shortage of nurses because hospitals work them to death while refusing to pay them even halfway decent wages because the wage budget is monopolized by the doctor-elite.

That's crap. No one's gonna lower the standards. They might, however, make some changes for the better. The residency system, for example. Do YOU want to be treated by some doctor who's been awake for 30 hours? I don't.


No, this is conservative crap. Government runs plenty of things well, especially if we keep idiots like Bush out of the picture. Or haven't you noticed that you can cross the entire country at no less than 55mph on long stretches of pavement called federal interstates?



Why the hell are you worried about equipment manufacturers? Hell they'll probably do better under the government. Haven't you heard of the $500 hammer?

Congratulations. You just insulted everyone who works in a job that doesn't make them rich. Obviously they must be idiotic incompetents, or they'd be in a job that paid them more. I'm sure our resident teachers and LEOs would have a few choice words for you at this point.

You're right. That's just absolutely horrifying. The idea! Low-income people being able to educate their kids. I can see where you might think this is a problem. I think we see very plainly where you're coming from at this point. Some of us have more of a social conscience than that, and aren't willing to let low income unfortunates die in the gutters just so we can have one more luxury.

Then, by your 'answer', roachboy is doing nothing more than trying to hide the fact that all of the people would pay for socialized medicine by declaring that it's a red herring perpetrated by conservatives, would you agree?

There is absolutely no contradiction in my statement. I love the IT field, but I'm not going to design, engineer, manufacture, and maintain an enterprise network for the same pay that I'd get working at a fast food restaraunt, just like a neuro surgeon is not going to work hard to be the best when he's going to get paid the same as a general health practitioner.

Have you asked for that kind of pay? Would you get it if you did? I'm guessing that you'd be laughed out of the building by asking for it and expecting to recieve it....why? Because your choice of profession is not worth that much to the world market. Don't like that answer? Add something to your chosen profession to make it more valuable or choose a different profession. It's all about how you AND the market place value the job and performance, but socializing a field removes any incentive to change that.


If you're calling me one of 'the haves', guess again. I'm a 'have not', but having had a family member that was a doctor, owned her own medical practice, and related dozens of stories about how the medical industry is ruled over by the insurance industry through government regulatory boards, i've learned enough to know that no matter how you decide to scale taxes or redistribute wealth to 'equalize' society, you'll screw it up.


I'm not surprised that you can say all of this with, what I assume to be, a straight face and be willfully ignorant of just how substandard the medical care is going to be for all of the people that have to participate in this. It's that or you KNOW that it's going to be substandard and don't care about it.


You know of ONE person like that, yet you expect all of humanity to be like that? Talk about deluded. I want to be the best network engineer out there, but I expect to get paid well for the work that I do, otherwise there is no incentive for me to be the best. I love what I do, but i'm not going to do it for free and I suspect that YOU would'nt either.


What is it about personal accountability that you're not getting? If a doctor sucks ass and hurts or kills a patient, why bail his ass out with a malpractice settlement? Make the sorry assed individual pay for his mistake with his OWN personal pocketbook. If you do THAT, you'll end up with people who TRULY care about their patients and won't be making medical decisions based on the insurance industries bottom line. As for your not having to work very hard line, I suggest you become a doctor before you belittle the efforts of one.



So what you're really saying is that you feel the system is unfair because the lower salary people work harder, but get paid less, right? Instead of ruining the field by 'socializing' it, deregulate it. Remove the bureaucracy and watch it flourish. Also, nobody is making these people work as a nurse, just like nobody is making me work as an IT pro, or you as a journalist. If you're not making the money you think you should, change the way you do your job, or change your job.

nobody is going to lower the standards? that would be funny if you weren't serious about it. you need to pull your head out of the sand and see the truth of how the government will fulfill it's 'obligations'. To get more doctors, they will lessen the standards, they will not raise salaries, unless they raise everyones taxes to pay for it. The 'residency' system could use some changes, I agree, but how are you going to do that without more bodies? As an example of how this works, look at the technical support industry. They pay crap, lose good people because they won't raise pay rates, so they lower the standards and hire bodies just to answer the phones and give standard answers from FAQ databases. Lower standards.


you are much smarter than this. WHY was the interstate program made? To facilitate faster and more direct distribution for products and services and allow for easier evacuations for civil defense and military usage in the event of nuclear wars or attacks. How well does this work? I see traffic jams every single day here in dallas and fort worth and thats without national emergencies. Look at the hurricane rita evacuations. Government does not run ANYTHING well, never has, never will. It's not 'conservative' crap, it's reality.


yet you expect the government to pay LESS for more expensive equipment?

how the hell did you get that impression from what i've said? ridiculous. you're not comprehending well. Teachers work in a SOCIALIZED field, public education, and their pay is crap, why? LEO's work in a government payed position, yet you fail to understand that i've been telling you the GOVERNMENT will not run things well, hence low pay for LEOs, but you can rest assured that those council members, mayors, city managers, state reps and senators, governers, US reps and senators, judges, and other high level positions are getting paid well.

you see for crap and are too blinded in your desire for social equality to see the reality of how it's never going to be obtained by government enforcement. You read that i'm denigrating education for low income kids instead of what i'm really saying, which is the government run public education system sucks ass. Next you'll be telling me that all we need to do is fund it better, right? You better look up the financial numbers of public education first though.

As far as socialized medicine. I have Canadian relatives who routinely have to wait months at a time for relatively basic medical procedures.

Health care does need to change but putting everything in the hands of the government is not the answer. I do not know the answer either.

I'm not commenting on what roachboy wrote. I'm commenting on what YOU wrote. Quit trying to distract people from that.

Unless he genuinely WANTS to be a neurosurgeon. Besides, in the current system unless you're rich it doesn't matter how good the best neurosurgeon is. You can't afford him anyway, so it doesn't have any effect on you. I'd rather have GOOD medical care that I can actually use rather than GREAT medical care that I can't possibly afford.


No. I'm not an idiot.

Nope.

Pretty much, yep.

And yet, I do it anyway because I love the work. Thanks for proving my point for me.


You'll pardon me if I have trouble believing that, since a "have not" with any brains will want to have access to medical care.

Gee that's not a biased source at all is it! And if you talk to the farmers they'll complain about only clearing $80,000 before subsidies kick in. Cry me a river.

Well if you think having 5% of the country controlling 95% of the wealth while a much larger percentage of the country can't get drugs to cure their deadly diseases is better than the socialized medicine alternative, you need to relearn a few things.


Yeah, because Canadians are just dying in droves. DROVES I tell ya! because their medical care system is so bad. (so you don't have to assume, this was said with a sarcastic face)


I gave you ONE example of many and you assume I only know ONE? Who's deluded? Actually go take a look at everyone in the TV profession. With the exception of some anchors, a few reporters, and the general managers/news directors/salespeople, they're ALL making crap money. Every one of them.

Of course not. I have to eat and pay rent. But there are LOTS of jobs out there that I'm very qualified for that I could instantly triple (or more) my salary while getting all holidays and weekends off, guaranteed, and double my current vacation (at least). But I don't take them because I love what I do now. Money is not the only motivating factor.

Oh and BTW if you are a network engineer, and you're not incompetent at it, and you weren't stupid in the salary negotiation process, you are definitely NOT a "have not."


Do you have any idea how hard it is to collect anything on a malpractice suit? Despite what Bush brainwashes you with, doctors have the advantage as far as malpractice goes.

wow that's great. Doctor cuts off the wrong leg but he transfers his assets to his kid's trust fund before the lawsuit. I walk away with a few thousand and no legs for the rest of my life. Great plan.

No, you'll get the few who are crazy enough to risk personal financial ruin in order to be a doctor.

Like hell you will. Malpractice insurance and health insurance are two different things. Read up on them, then get back to me.

I'm not belittling the efforts of any specific doctors. But there are doctors who frankly do not work very hard. Period.

No I'm saying we already have a healthcare shortage despite this wonderful system of capitalistic medicine that you so love.

Yeah, that worked just GREAT for the airlines didn't it. Or haven't you been reading about the bankruptcies? And that's not even counting the maintenance issues. I know it sounds like fun to deregulate medicine. Mexico did that too, and you'll notice that we don't exactly hold their medical profession in high esteem. Deregulate it and the nurses will still be paid like crap, but they'll probably work even more than they do now.

Again with the money-as-prime-motivator theory. Some people are willing to sacrifice money in order to do what they love. I know you don't understand that since you're lucky enough that what you love also involves lots of money, but it is a fact.

What standards are you suggesting they will lower? You're acting like they'll let a mechanic become a doctor overnight because he's good with his hands. I'm interested to see what you really think here.

Socialize healthcare. Then poor people won't HAVE to go to the ER for basic medical care, it'll ease the burden on the public hospitals, and they can redistribute their residents.

Gee, that's not socialized or bureaucratically regulated. According to your previous arguments it should be absolutely thriving by now!


Pretty damn well overall. Go drive around Africa some time to see a public road system that's truly broken.

That's not government, that's idiot people who won't take public transportation. Go to D.C. Traffic might be a nightmare, but the metro system lets you get anywhere in the city very quickly. And btw, the metro is in fact run by the government.

Well hell, let's just get rid of it. Anarchy for all!

No, it isn't. It's you twisting facts to suit your own desires, which is to further enrich yourself by not paying as many taxes.

No I don't. But we can fund socialized medicine without even raising taxes much if at all. Quit getting involved in bullshit little expensive wars (ahem, Iraq), and we'll have PLENTY of money to pay for it.



Teachers in the NON SOCIALIZED field (private schools) get paid a lot worse than teachers in the public schools. Why?

You fail to comprehend your own post. You said:

Whether the field is socialized or not, if there's no incentive to be financially successful YOU claim you retard the entire field. I pointed out that there are plenty of people who work in professions where they don't get paid very much money (whether socialized or not) who might take umbrage at your remark.

Well, lemme just put it this way. Healthcare in this country is broken. Badly. It's far too expensive, and that's under your treasured system of enriching the rich. Your way doesn't work.

Canada does it my way, and they're doing just fine.

Which of us is seeing for crap?

Um, are you not a product of the public education system? Are you saying you're an uneducated ignoramus? Because that's what you seem to think the public education system is turning out.

No, we need to fund it smarter. Quit spending craploads of money on football and start spending it on academics.

FWIW the numbers for public schools are generally generated by the community the school is in. Public schools are for the most part state-run, not federally run.

I'm advocating a FEDERAL medical system.


Oh and as far as canadians having to wait months for basic medical care, I'm going to the eye doctor tomorrow for a prescription change. I made the appointment in October. This was the earliest available. We have to wait here too. That's a basic reality no matter what system you use.

dk:

1. the question "who pays?" in isolation is meaningless. if you abstract the mechanism of redistribution from its functions, you can't think coherently about redistribution.

2. i see no possible argument that would lead to a conclusion that universal health care and access to education would have negative effects on anything. these seem entirely worthwhile tasks for the public to decide are worth paying for as a public. period.

3. the idea that the present system is somehow not capitalism is one that seems to me out to lunch. i am not going to persue this one any further, in the interest of staying within the style of a nice persona.

Sheep in fact have quite a regimented and hierarchical social order.

There's no mystery in how socialized healthcare would be paid for.

Tell me how education has turned out and how it's socialized contributes to that situation, otherwise, i can't answer questions by making assumptions about your assumptions.

I've known a couple of pre-med students and none of them were materialistic people. This makes sense in light of the fact that there are other, perhaps easier, degrees that let you make money like a doctor. Frankly, i'd prefer my doctor wasn't in it for the money because i'm not a doctor; i'm not an expert. Doctors are like auto mechanics for the human body. Would you rather have a mechanic who is only interested in making money, or one who genuinely wants to help people?

Besides, if the quality of healthcare in socialized systems is so bad compared to market systems, how come the u.s. lags behind the rest of the developed world (including many socialized systems) in many indicators like infant mortality rate? Why are cubans, in general, more healthy than americans?

So we won't be able to pay the fair market price of $50 for an aspirin? Dern!!

I don't think doctors compete with each other as much as you think they do. All hospitals, once you're checked in, are essentially mini-monopolies; that's how they can get away with charging such ridiculous prices.

I don't know what your qualms are with the public education system(it certainly isn't perfect), but i have a hard time understanding how you think socialism is to blame.

I'm disregarding most of your reply post because it's nothing more than refutations based upon your own rose colored glasses, but I did want to respond to the below because they are at least points we can agree upon.

Private school classes are not as populated as public school classes. Less students means less workload AND it also means that you actually get better education instead of a factory line education system.

Yes, I unfortunately am, but I also had the fortune of finding out just how shoddy it is and enabled myself to rise above it by researching and learning a great multitude of subjects on my own. It also helps that I'm of a personality where when I want to know something, I want to know all of it. Thats beside the point though. Lots of others in urban communities are left deficient in education because of the way the system is run.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

and yet they still can't get it right. whether federal or state, there should be as little input as possible in to the education system. If you are going to have a public education system, make it as local as possible with only a FEW guidelines and standards by a central government. You'll end up with better educated students.

they might, but i'm not to blame for that. they need to lay the blame where it lies....big business and government regulations.


First, I agree that the system is broken....beyond broken. What you're failing to understand is that it's not broken because doctors got together and said 'lets monopolize health care'. It's broken because insurance industries believed that they could make money off of healthy people by making them subsidize for sick people and then screwing the sick people by limiting the amount they would pay for adequate healthcare. That made it expensive...what broke it was getting the states governments to buy in to it and regulate it to the point where a doctor HAS to utilize the health insurance medical doctrine instead of applying his/her own. It's not MY way of health care, it's the republican big business way as well as the democrat/liberal socialized way of health care. the only difference between the two is republicans want to keep it at the state level and democrats want to move it to federal. either way, it's still going to remain broken.

not according to desals relatives, who are residing IN canada.

and yet you want to make it MORE beaurucratic by moving it to a federal level? keep it small, keep it simple, keep it working.

why? because admitting that everyone would have to pay ruins the illusion that nobody would have to pay any extra? or that only the wealthy would have to pay extra?

because you refuse to see anything BUT that public good result.

what we have today is not capitalism. what we have today is a system based on fascism. What we might have tomorrow could be based on socialism which will mean that everyones rights and property are subject to majority whim. Neither of those are capitalism.

dk: you do not know wha the words fascism or socialism mean. you talk about "strucuture" but you do not know what that term means in this context. so it is hard to take you seriously.

you also misconstrued--again--what i said about the means-end relationship relative to taxation.

it is hard to stay interested in this, which is a shame because the thread is more interesting that what it is presently turning into.

The following is the definition of facsism. Is that really what you feel we live in?

Fascism
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control"

Especially notice the part about stringent socioeconomic controls. Isn't that what some of you are arguing in favor of?

I am well aware of what those terms mean and I certainly know the context of structure. Are you sure that you're not losing interest because you're losing the debate? I encourage you to stay in it, for once i'm interested in something on here that doesn't relate to guns or the second amendment and it would be a shame to see you drop from it.

I don't see how. You've stated which I take to mean that, in your opinion, 'other people pay' is either a lie or just a serious 'misrepresentation by the rightwing to demonize universal healthcare. You then state . Now, although we are all a PART of that society, I don't cease to exist if I seperate myself from that society. YOU don't cease to exist if you get exiled from that society. We are not 'the borg' collective. I am an individual, you are an individual. If enough of us individuals come together with a common cause, THEN we are a part of a society. Also, to bring a constitutional angle in to this, this government wasn't founded and enumerated powers to promote a societal change. It was empowered to protect individual rights....all of our rights.

you have the wrong idea of what capitalism is, yet seem unable to grasp an individual concept of what personal responsibility, personal accountability, and personal beneficiality is in regards to capitalism. Socialism removes individuality by enforcing a 'society' or common good ideology above all else. who do you then become?

Translation: "I can't think of even a semi-lucid argument to refute what you said.


I doubt you'll find any private school teacher who has less workload than a public school teacher. Additionally, putting a blanket quality statement on either system is asinine. There are fabulous public schools, and there are craptastic private schools, and vice versa.


No doubt by reading, which you learned how to do in the public school. Americans have the wrong idea of school. School should not be concentrating on just teaching you knowledge. It should be teaching you how to ACQUIRE knowledge. Sounds like your school managed to get that right. The old teach a man to fish philosophy.

No you won't. You'll end up with good schools in the wealthy communities and crap schools in the poor communities. Exactly what we have now. Sure there will be the odd exception to the rule, just as there is now, but overall that's what you'll end up with.

That analasys isn't half bad. But how are we supposed to correct that unless we stop letting insurance companies pull those shenanigans. We as private citizens certainly don't have the authority to tell them to quit. The government must do so. . . now whether you want to do that by having government take over the insurance/healthcare industry, or just having the government tell the insurance/healthcare industry exactly how much they're allowed to charge, it all amounts to the same thing. Government control of our healthcare. Either way, the insurance companies no longer get to screw the sick. Now if we go to a purely socialized medicine system it'll eliminate the ability of insurance companies to overcharge the government for care because the government will, essentially, be the insurance company.

What you suggest the doctor should be able to do is economically unfeasable. A doctor 1) doesn't have time to administer his own private insurance company It's and 2) wouldn't be able to get the numbers to survive.

I don't think you understand what socialized medicine really is. A true socialized medicine program would eliminate medical insurance as we know it and revamp access to healthcare so that everyone would have the opportunity to get at the least basic healthcare.

But don't worry, there's still plenty of room for doctors who just want to make money - - I doubt a socialized heatlhcare system would give out breast implants for free, for instance.


I addressed that at the end of my post.


Keeping it small is anathema to the socialized medicine concept. Socialized medicine means equal healthcare access for all. In order to do that you have to have a blanket supervisory body at the highest level. Obviously we'll have state-by-state run branches of the federal system, but in order to provide equal care to ALL americans it MUST be federalized.

That, btw, is why you're wrong about schools being socialized. They're not, because they're not run equally across the country.

I don't think anyone's trying to create an illusion that no one would have to pay more in taxes. We all would, but we'd all benefit from it. By your logic we should all privately build roads in our communities. If I want to get from my house to your house, I can by-god build the road. This is just a wrongheadded way to look at social programs.

As for the wealthy paying extra, they should. They benefit the most from the American economic system, they should give back the most. Contrary to popular belief, an extra couple thousand on the taxes of a multimillionaire won't exactly quash his lavish lifestyle.



You do not know what fascism means. I defined it for you but you seem to have missed that. Go take your hunger for knowledge and apply it to a book on governmental systems and what they actually are, then come back and we'll debate this part further.


Socializing medicine does not mean anything for the rest of the economy (except that it would improve)

Human beings leave their beds in the morning for 3 reasons: sex, money and power.
Social collectivism for large groups of real, live, thinking, feeling human beings ignores these basic human needs, and is therefore utter nonsense.

yeah, thats right. :rolleyes:

blanket statements work good only when you want them to? I'm shocked. If there are fabulous schools and craptastic schools (public, private, doesn't matter) why the difference?


I learned to read at the age of 3. Not in a school.
as my wife calls it, 'regurgitation education'. You are right. Schools should not just be teaching how to remember things, they should be teaching how to teach ones self AFTER school.
Not something I learned in school. It took Marine Air Traffic Control School to teach me that.

There is truth in what you say, but federal regulation over this is not going to fix it. As you said, funding it smarter.

In other discussions I've had about this, the answer is to deregulate how the insurance companies get to mandate and guideline doctors/hospitals. If an insurance company does not have the ability to tell a doctor how to do his job, then the doctor can actually prescribe the best treatment without fear of dealing with both the insurance company and the medical board.

How's the VA working out for alot of people?

I missed putting in my entire statement. My apologies for rushing and inadvertantly misleading you.
What I meant to say was that, in the current system, people with health insurance have their prices set by the insurance company, not the doctors. Now, for a very common standard test, if a patient has insurance, the test must be charged at the insurance company price (which is generated on a state average basis) but even if it could be done cheaper in a heavier populated area, the doctor is unable to deviate from that price. This is the problem with price controls. It will cheapen the price in some areas, but cost more in others, like heavily populated areas. So i'm not intimating that the doctor should run his own insurance company as well, just that the doctor should be able to set his prices for tests and procedures...not insurance companies.


Ever heard of the Department of Education? What do they do? Granted, they don't centralize power like other countries do, but even at the state levels there really isn't that much progress and benefit.


Funny thing about social programs is that some people inevitably pay more than others. How did the property for those roads get acquired? Do you truly think that 'fair market value' was gained by all? There are unintended consequences in all that we mandate through government policy. We would be wise, for once, to take exceptional pause before we federally centralize yet one more thing.

Man, i got up today so i could fix my daughter some food. I wonder what's wrong with me. You're wrong here. If sex, money and power were the sole motivators than no one would waste time with leisure.

Transportation infrastructure seems to be doing okay.

One problem with relatively simple, yet broad statements about complex issues is that they don't often accurately represent reality.

Agreed. Point and case...
Not only did you go off on some wonderfully obtuse tangent to show what I can only guess as an attempt at clever sarcasm, you continued down this road in order to sound intelligent by quoting yet another attempted quip. A quip which was not even given in the proper context to support the initially attempted, clever sarcasm. This leaves me wondering what you even meant in the first place.

If you have something meaningful to add to the discussion then, by all means, go right ahead. If not, that's alright; just don't post something for the sake of acting out a part in this thread. Usually this kind of thing would go ignored, but common man.

//end thread-jack//

I'm curious dksuddeth, would you consider the Federal Reserve a fascist entity?

. . . . . . . . . .

I'll assume you bought that food with money.

dk: look, a conversation within which it is not obvious that one of the parties--in this case yourself--hasn't the faintest idea what he is talking about on the most basic descriptive level is not any fun.
it is not fun, it is not interesting.
no conversation is possible.
it is of no particular concern to me what you imagine the state is of the bizarre-o contest that you imagine this to be.
enjoy yourself thinking whatever you think of it.
but so far as i am concerned, this is a waste of time.

Yes, though you may find it odd that i haven't worked in the last couple days and i haven't been spending my little free time pursuing money, power or sex. You're probably aware that children are an incredible resource drain; they leave little time for the pursuit of money, power and sex. In light of the fertility rate, it would seem your perspective concerning the motivations of every member of humanity is perhaps a bit off.

The real reason people get out of bed is that they want to do things that give them satisfaction. Many people find satisfaction from money and power and sex. Many people derive much more satisfaction from other things. Claiming that money, power and sex are the most significant motivators(which is apparently what you're doing) for all people doesn't reflect reality.

As for the utter nonsense of social collectivism, you might want to check out the nation of britain where healthcare is socialized and so is the education system. They seem to be doing okay for themselves.

The only nonsense in here is your attempt to distill the motivations of all of humanity down to 3 things and your attempt to claim, despite the obvious evidence in the world around you, that collectivism is never fruitful.

I couldn't care less about money, I do not go out pursuing sex everyday, and power (I'm assuming you mean "the power to control other people") is something you become trapped by yourself, if you think you've nearly attained it.


Even if those three were true, what's your point? What is the connection between those and the OP?

Government-subsidized healthcare has its problems both in Canada and England...I still think that private sector funding is the best solution for providing quality healthcare to whomever needs it, and in a timely manner. And don't get me started on public education here in the States: I cringe when I see the homework that my kids bring home, supposedly to educate them.

I maintain that fascism/socialism/communism society is closer to the realization of a nightmare than a dream. Yes, people have their distractions such as stamp collecting or whatnot, but I believe the strongest psychological forces that drive people to action are those 3.

Commendations for taking care of your kid, btw.
It's all about the kids, they say. The future.

I'm posting this, a variation on a quote in an earlier post, because not even one person commented on it. This has been floating around in my computer for so long that I can't even remember where it originated. It even contains a violent revolution. Well, sort of.
Lindy

Redistribution of Wealth!

This is a simple way to understand how redistribution of wealth in the form of a tax cut works. Read on -- it might make you think. Well, some of you.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for lunch. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their restaurant bill the way we now pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the rich guy -- would pay $59.

That's what they collectively decided to do. The ten men ate lunch in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement --until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language-- a taxcut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now lunch for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 reduction so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man (joining the first four) paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four (now joined by the fifth man) continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"Hey, I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, "But he," pointing to the tenth "got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, (who now paid nothing at all) "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair. That rich guy got seven times as much as I did!"

Right!" shouted the seventh man, "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?" "The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait just a minute here!" yelled the first four men (who still paid nothing) in unison, "Where is our share? We didn't get anything at all. This system exploits the poor!"
The nine men then turned on the tenth and beat the crap out of him.

The next day the rich guy didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, professors, "activists," liberals and conservatives, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic.

Forget it.

Powerclown, do you post on TFP for power, sex or money?

I'm sorry, weren't we talking about the rich being basically treasonus and using their power to change the rules to help themselves and rape the country at the cost of the not-so-rich? I'm sure we can create a thread elsewhere about how *some* people are only motivated by pure greed and anamilistic wants, and how other people think less of them for it?

I see people posting here for any number of reasons - social networking, porn, conversation, word on the street, file sharing, physical and emotional exhibitionism, loneliness, boredom, humor, enter/infotainment, ego trips, power trips, arrogance, addiction, despair, role playing, identity switching, journalism, venting, relationship advice, sex advice, travel advice, cooking advice, self-affirmation, self-promotion, self-indulgence, self-flagellation, philosophy. I have a love/hate relationship with this place.

Back on topic then...

ah, thanks for telling me that i have no clue whatsoever about this particular subject. Sorry to have cluttered your intellect with my ramblings of incoherent dialect.

doubleposted

dk, I think you have to explain what you mean by fascism, as you appear to be using it more broadly than the traditional definition would allow. Desal posted the definition, noting a partial similarity:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=70

This might just be a simple matter of a semantics argument, which is easily cleared up with a little effort. I'm guessing that some posters here would agree with certain elements of fascism while rejecting the other elements outright. That would take a lot of the sting out of the negative connotation of the word.

That said, the accusation that you don't know what you're talking about isn't exactly useful unless followed with an explanation - and roachboy's last few posts were lacking in that department.

I can definately agree with this as an investor. The housing bubble has already reached it's maximum tensile strengthc and is in the process of bursting from the bottom up. 82% of recent SF Bay Area loans are adjustable. As a former owner, this would have represented extreme danger every time the interest rates go up, and it's only going to get worse as more ARMs get adjusted upwards. It's going to be losses for a long time....

....luckely I've been out of of the market for 9 months.....

I respect your opinion, i just disagree.

I agree with you that the public school system can tend towards shoddiness. Me and the lady are leaning towards home-schooling. I just don't think you can blame socialism. First of all, there are plenty of public schools that do a fine job of educating their students; in minnesota they generally coincide geographically with high property taxes(that's where their funding comes from).

I think that the most ideal society is a measured combination of ideas that work towards the betterment of everyone in the society. To me it doesn't matter the ideological framework from which the ideas sprout. There are certain elements of capitalism that function well and do what they are supposed to and there are certain elements of socialism that function well and do what they are supposed to.

Thanks and right back at you.

I was going to say I disagree with this but the more I thought about it the more I realize you are right in many cases not all.

Sex.... everyone wants to have some form of appeal to others... it may not necessarily be the actual act just the idea and having someone flirt with you. Actually, I wouldn't even say sex is the right word.... more just socialization with others is a driving force.

Money.... no matter how you say it "money doesn't mean anything", "I love my job, I don't need to make big money." Money is a definate need in this society. You need money to support yourself, to eat, to satisfy other needs you have.... money whether you admit it or not, is a huge driving force. You need it to satisfy other needs both physical and mental. It's a necessary evil.

Power.... I had issues with this one, was determined to blow it out of the water, but then I realized, you're right. Power can mean all sorts of things. The power to be able to have disposable income, the power to make sure you never starve, the power to move forward, to create your own destiny, to control what you do, learn, see, hear, as an individual. Power didn't have to mean over someone else or outside influences. Power in essence can mean just making sure you have the power to move the way you choose that day.

So, I find myself agreeing that, yes, those 3 reasons are very powerful. But I wouldn't say they are the ONLY 3 reasons or that everyone uses those 3 reasons everday.



However, social collectivism doesn't mean we have to all make the same amount of money, have the same power, have the same ideas, have the same everything. I would argue that social collectivism just means society taking care of those that are weak (whether physically, mentally or spiritually). I believe that people who want to move ahead will, regardless whether or not there is a bigger physical reward for them. My belief is that people will advance themselves based on their inner drives and what they value.

Some people may value love, respect, and being charitable over finances and thus like working at a job such as a store or restaurant or taxicab because they like it. Some people may like working alone and not dealing with others so they become janitors, some people may like to teach others, or help others, or there maybe someone who wants to find the cure to cancer out there. There is no reason society should say "because you want to work this job, even though it is 40 hours a week, you don't deserve a house, or wages that you can live on."

To me that's wrong, if people work 40 hours they deserve to make enough to live on and to own a little piece of the American dream. They deserve dignity, respect and honor, regardless of the profession they have.

So in the end, I don't see "social collectivism" as this evil, nasty, limit how far one can go bs that neocons want people to believe.

I see it more as, allowing those who put the work in, regardless of what the job is, who live life to the best of their ability and who want only as much as they want, their dignity, honor, respect and the ability to make what they need and may want.

It's not limiting the top, it's making sure that everyone has the chance to succeed at what they want.

The cream will always rise, but why keep others down just because they have different values on what is important?

pan, you said it much, much better than I did. I didn't mean power over other people, I meant empowerment of self, ie., recognition and acknowledgement of peers and colleagues at work, friends, family. Maybe respect would have been a better word. Money is pretty self explanatory, and if you say you don't care about it you're either a multimillionaire or you live at home with you parents. Sex is obviously a basic physiological need not unlike sleep or hunger.

The part of collectivism that I agree with you the most is care for the sick, infirm, mentally ill, drug addicted and similar social problems. Businesses can take care of themselves - I don't see the need for excessive government interference there. Social issues are another matter. I also think entreprenuership and free trade are essential to any society.

I agree with you that no matter the profession, an honest job is an honest job, and people who contribute to society deserve their share of dignity, respect and a living wage. I think this more probable under a system of capitalism. See North Korea for the opposite effect.

Awesome post pan.
I think we agree more than disagree on the matter.

The problem with alot of people and definitions is that when they don't agree or like the sound of something, they require that issue or situation to meet ALL the requirements of that definition when it may only meet two or three of the criteria established by a dictionary. In regards to fascism, people think of the third reich or WW2 italy and how they were run by an iron fisted dictator. That need not be the case though, especially if a few of the other criteria are solidly in the playing field of the definition.

That's not a problem. It would be like you pointing at an orange and saying, "Look at that hamburger, there's an example of a hamburger that's good for you."

Obviously an orange is not a hamburger, despite the fact that they may share a few common characteristics.

that makes zero sense and is hardly a comparison to the question asked and answered.

Thank you, :) . Like I said I was ready to take what you said apart, but I couldn't, I found myself in complete agreement.

Absolutely, there must be free enterprise and a trade balance that allows countries mutual benefit not we'll bring your's in relatively cheap while you tax ours out of competition. The only way to advance society is to continually develop better ways to do things. The only truly efficient way to do this is through private enterprise. Government cannot do it, thus the private sector must and should be allowed to without government influence so stifling it hinders progress to a snail's pace.

But government should police the companies enough to make sure the products are safe, the workers make fair wages and benefits and that the surrounding environment is not permanently harmed.

A society is graded and judged by how they treat their poorest, their infirmed and their weakest. Not by the richest.

I agree, Capitalism, in it's true form is the best system we have. The problem is Capitalism eventually promotes excessive and harmful greed, much the same way Marxism and Communism eventually promotes excessive and harmful totalitarianistic governments. Socialism is a good plan for companies, and maybe some small communities but in a large arena cannot work, it hinders progress.

How we avoid the greed in Capitalism is the ultimate problem. Once, we come up with the answer, we're good to go. We need desparately to find the fair balance between labor and management. What we have been doing is allowing one side too much strength then switching over and allowing the other side too much, to where our companies can't compete globally. If we don't find the middle soon we are in serious trouble.... it maybe too late.

Anyway, I ramble.... yes I think we do agree more than disagree... but that comes from GHOUL POWER.

An orange and a hamburger have several criteria in common. I guess the problem you're having is that you're attempting to require an orange to meet ALL the requirements of the definition of a hamburger when it may only meet two or three of the criteria established by a dictionary.


In other words, there are nuances when it comes to the application of words. Just because you think that the current situation is similar to fascism doesn't mean that we live in a fascist state, or even that the similarities are significant.

Yes, even the term "capitalism" is sort of taboo because using it puts you in a conceptual space where alternatives exist.

You're coming at this from theory. I tend to agree that we need new theory more than anything right now, but sometimes i need to remind myself that people can act and even organise themselves without too much theorising. Y'know, like when workers organise the flow of work so that they don't put too much strain on the guy with the bad back. ("That is socialism!" wrote a famous Trinidadian back in the fifties.) Surely there are other examples of the New Society emerging from under our noses. Of course, those examples will need to be sought out and described and presented as The New.

It's interesting to hear my very small-time capitalist relatives call for more money for schools (workers need more/better education just to do their jobs), public transport (urban gentrification means the cheapest-to-hire workers must travel from the hinterlands), and most often, for a Canadian style health care system (They want Walmart to pay their share of social costs). I had thought that it was only the Big Guys, like GM, who wanted a national health plan, since it would spread the cost of their corporate social programmes. So there you go: conservative ideology is not even coherent from the perspective of actually existing capitalists.

You base the rates on a sliding scale based on income.

Then if it is major where the person has a severe health problem that affects employment (cancer, sever cases of diseases), you don't take everything this person has worked hard for, but instead safety net them into care that is supported by the government, but is privately owned (i.e. a contracted organization). Hopefully, the person recovers and is able to go back to work and resume paying on a sliding scale.... if not the contracted company can take no more than 15% of that patient's net worth, based on amount the patient has averaged for 5 consecutive years (this prevents having someone just give all their money to someone so they don't have to pay).

So if I work and amass a nice $250,000 house, a retirement worth $1,000,000 stocks, bonds, cds, savings, life ins. worth $750,000, making me worth $2,000,000 the most I'll pay out for my health care will be $300,000.

Conversely, if I am only worth $10,000 they only make $1,500.

But you also have to make sure everyone gets equal care, thus only the government knows who is worth what and pays the contracted company for all patients or pays a contracted amount and the patient's money goes to the government to "cover the cost".

I believe a plan like that with professionals working on it and figuring out all the bugs, it would be the perfect answer.

PS By using private contracted businesses, you increase jobs, create a new market so to speak and advance the economy by putting people to work.