Politics in a Nutshell
-
Saw this one coming a mile away... Ignoring for a moment that my original post was meant as a humorous jab at all of the various parties... Big government = Government screws some people, helps others. Small government = Rich people screw poor people, help themselves. Without the government keeping a grip on things, what's to stop the rich from screwing the poor?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Without the government keeping a grip on things, what's to stop the rich from screwing the poor?
Stock answers: 'Their fellow man.' 'The free market.' 'I don't care.' 'If they don't have money, they really aren't people now are they?' I will note, I've caught all of these(with the forth being a paraphrasing of a lot of philosophical/economic theory masturbation someone tossed at me once) from small government supporters.
-
I think it goes even further back in history. The original political party that was elected in Germany with Adolf as it's leader was known as the National Socialist Party. It probably goes even further back than that, though. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
It does to some extent, back in the late teens/early 20s anarchists where that evil boogyman attempting to destroy America. And I'm fairly sure there was something before them, and oddly enough they all have the same vague anti-American sentiment ascribed to them by people who most likely can't define the words they use to describe them. If you go over the history of stupid hysterics of the US the modern conception of 'Those evil socialists' starts to make sense, particularly the "Those pussy hippies are going to kill us all, take our Jesusism and give other people my health care" angle, which seems to be more or less the same rhetoric as they used at least back to the early 1900s only with the new claims piled on top.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Without the government keeping a grip on things, what's to stop the rich from screwing the poor?
Stock answers: 'Their fellow man.' 'The free market.' 'I don't care.' 'If they don't have money, they really aren't people now are they?' I will note, I've caught all of these(with the forth being a paraphrasing of a lot of philosophical/economic theory masturbation someone tossed at me once) from small government supporters.
Hold on, I'm really interested in hearing what Josh has to say on this topic. I may not agree with many of his viewpoints, but he's not a troll like CSS and FB.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Hold on, I'm really interested in hearing what Josh has to say on this topic. I may not agree with many of his viewpoints, but he's not a troll like CSS and FB.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Oh he's surprised me before, but I figured I'd toss out the common responses I've received to see just what his would be as I've run into some remarkably obnoxious(and almost always over privileged) examples in the past. The only real thread I've come across between the lot of them is the complete inability to take a joke about their political views without formulating a political response.
-
Saw this one coming a mile away... Ignoring for a moment that my original post was meant as a humorous jab at all of the various parties... Big government = Government screws some people, helps others. Small government = Rich people screw poor people, help themselves. Without the government keeping a grip on things, what's to stop the rich from screwing the poor?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)OK OK I know it's a joke... yeah I know lol BUT! I had to say it. (I mean, you did see it coming...) SO! You say to me that without government, the rich would screw the poor. Well, why are people more poor now under "big government" (I know, it's a cliche, but indeed the truth) than under small government, two hundred years ago in the United States? Why were people more poor in the USSR under big government? Why are people wanting to leave China and Cuba, but they can't (aren't allowed?) In Cuba, just recently, BARBER SHOPS WERE FINALLY SET FREE IN THE MARKET. Freaking BARBER SHOPS!!! Are you serious?! People, I just want to remind you all that there is only one reason why revolutions occur in history. It is because governments just get too big and think that they know everything; tiny freaking elites trying to destroy people's rights, whether economic or social. In the beginning of the republic, liberty reigned, not government. People think that there's a difference between economic and social liberty. There isn't... only property rights. Either you own yourself, or the government does. ANYWAY! Back to the subject. One must honestly read history to figure this one out. Big government always helps only one class, and that is the rich. Social security, as one may be able to see if they take their blinders off, is broke. Why? Two reasons: It's an inherent Ponzi scheme, where only the first to receive money benefit while eventually the scheme collapses (for example, my grandmother benefited more than my mother will), and people steal from that pool anyway to pay other programs. (Oh, by the way, we are not minding the fact that this program is unconstitutional.) The money being contributed into this program is actually NOT PAID BY THE RICH AT ALL, because they don't need it! It's a big monetary waste to the middle class, destroying the workers and making them poorer. (I can feel us becoming the USSR... and nonexistent.) Plus, I have to talk about the minimum wage. This destroys jobs, or will push higher prices onto the products that companies produce. If you think about it, if a company needs to produce a certain amount to stay afloat (and we're talking about small companies), then either they need to produce more (and hire more people, thus becoming eventually a corporation, which liberals and libertarians will usually both despise) or they need to pay workers less, or raise prices. If they hire people, they stay afloat, but get more removed from their employees. If they
-
Really? That's ironic, considering that a dictatorship is the polar opposite of socialism... Then again, North Korea is actually the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (DPRK)...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Sorry, but that's not true. Government is government. Do you know what Nazi stands for? Hitler was a dictator, though "democratically elected". I know what I will hear... "Oh my lord! You said Nazi! You said Hitler!" Yes. Read history.
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects. -
harold aptroot wrote:
By the way, why do many (most?) Americans think socialism is a Bad Thing?
Cold war relic. It used to be Capitalism vs. Communism, and most people don't understand that the "Communism" practiced by the USSR was really just an authoritarian regime disguised as a communist state. So the general public thinks that "socialism" = "Communism" = USSR = Evil, when in reality, a certain amount of socialism nicely complements a capitalist economy. The real question should be how much socialism is needed (More than we have now, less than we have now, etc).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Still disagreed. What we have now is not socialism or communism... it's fascism. This is where the corruption lies... it's in the hands of the government and corporations. I suppose your question should really be, how much pandering to politicians should we have? How many bailouts? How much QE should we have? How immoral do we get, and how much looting of the population do we do? The real questions should be, "Why is gold and silver mentioned in the Constitution? Why is gold and silver on the rise? Why did the founders actually want a limited government? What morals did the founders see, and why were we once a rich country for it?" Socialism hatred is not a cold war relic. It was one coming from the founding of our country. How invasive was Britain to our rights and property?
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects. -
OK OK I know it's a joke... yeah I know lol BUT! I had to say it. (I mean, you did see it coming...) SO! You say to me that without government, the rich would screw the poor. Well, why are people more poor now under "big government" (I know, it's a cliche, but indeed the truth) than under small government, two hundred years ago in the United States? Why were people more poor in the USSR under big government? Why are people wanting to leave China and Cuba, but they can't (aren't allowed?) In Cuba, just recently, BARBER SHOPS WERE FINALLY SET FREE IN THE MARKET. Freaking BARBER SHOPS!!! Are you serious?! People, I just want to remind you all that there is only one reason why revolutions occur in history. It is because governments just get too big and think that they know everything; tiny freaking elites trying to destroy people's rights, whether economic or social. In the beginning of the republic, liberty reigned, not government. People think that there's a difference between economic and social liberty. There isn't... only property rights. Either you own yourself, or the government does. ANYWAY! Back to the subject. One must honestly read history to figure this one out. Big government always helps only one class, and that is the rich. Social security, as one may be able to see if they take their blinders off, is broke. Why? Two reasons: It's an inherent Ponzi scheme, where only the first to receive money benefit while eventually the scheme collapses (for example, my grandmother benefited more than my mother will), and people steal from that pool anyway to pay other programs. (Oh, by the way, we are not minding the fact that this program is unconstitutional.) The money being contributed into this program is actually NOT PAID BY THE RICH AT ALL, because they don't need it! It's a big monetary waste to the middle class, destroying the workers and making them poorer. (I can feel us becoming the USSR... and nonexistent.) Plus, I have to talk about the minimum wage. This destroys jobs, or will push higher prices onto the products that companies produce. If you think about it, if a company needs to produce a certain amount to stay afloat (and we're talking about small companies), then either they need to produce more (and hire more people, thus becoming eventually a corporation, which liberals and libertarians will usually both despise) or they need to pay workers less, or raise prices. If they hire people, they stay afloat, but get more removed from their employees. If they
-
OK OK I know it's a joke... yeah I know lol BUT! I had to say it. (I mean, you did see it coming...) SO! You say to me that without government, the rich would screw the poor. Well, why are people more poor now under "big government" (I know, it's a cliche, but indeed the truth) than under small government, two hundred years ago in the United States? Why were people more poor in the USSR under big government? Why are people wanting to leave China and Cuba, but they can't (aren't allowed?) In Cuba, just recently, BARBER SHOPS WERE FINALLY SET FREE IN THE MARKET. Freaking BARBER SHOPS!!! Are you serious?! People, I just want to remind you all that there is only one reason why revolutions occur in history. It is because governments just get too big and think that they know everything; tiny freaking elites trying to destroy people's rights, whether economic or social. In the beginning of the republic, liberty reigned, not government. People think that there's a difference between economic and social liberty. There isn't... only property rights. Either you own yourself, or the government does. ANYWAY! Back to the subject. One must honestly read history to figure this one out. Big government always helps only one class, and that is the rich. Social security, as one may be able to see if they take their blinders off, is broke. Why? Two reasons: It's an inherent Ponzi scheme, where only the first to receive money benefit while eventually the scheme collapses (for example, my grandmother benefited more than my mother will), and people steal from that pool anyway to pay other programs. (Oh, by the way, we are not minding the fact that this program is unconstitutional.) The money being contributed into this program is actually NOT PAID BY THE RICH AT ALL, because they don't need it! It's a big monetary waste to the middle class, destroying the workers and making them poorer. (I can feel us becoming the USSR... and nonexistent.) Plus, I have to talk about the minimum wage. This destroys jobs, or will push higher prices onto the products that companies produce. If you think about it, if a company needs to produce a certain amount to stay afloat (and we're talking about small companies), then either they need to produce more (and hire more people, thus becoming eventually a corporation, which liberals and libertarians will usually both despise) or they need to pay workers less, or raise prices. If they hire people, they stay afloat, but get more removed from their employees. If they
josda1000 wrote:
SO! You say to me that without government, the rich would screw the poor. Well, why are people more poor now under "big government" (I know, it's a cliche, but indeed the truth) than under small government, two hundred years ago in the United States?
Two hundred years ago, our "poor" consisted of slaves and indentured servants who were owned by businessmen and rich landowners, and were bought and sold as commodities. In other words, the poor were being screwed by the rich.
josda1000 wrote:
Why were people more poor in the USSR under big government? Why are people wanting to leave China and Cuba, but they can't (aren't allowed?) In Cuba, just recently, BARBER SHOPS WERE FINALLY SET FREE IN THE MARKET. Freaking BARBER SHOPS!!! Are you serious?! People, I just want to remind you all that there is only one reason why revolutions occur in history. It is because governments just get too big and think that they know everything; tiny freaking elites trying to destroy people's rights, whether economic or social. In the beginning of the republic, liberty reigned, not government. People think that there's a difference between economic and social liberty. There isn't... only property rights. Either you own yourself, or the government does.
Off-topic. The question was what would stop the rich from screwing the poor without government controls. I'm not advocating an authoritarian regime.
josda1000 wrote:
ANYWAY! Back to the subject. One must honestly read history to figure this one out. Big government always helps only one class, and that is the rich. Social security, as one may...
Again, the question was what would stop the rich from screwing the poor without government controls. You're just arguing about which class is getting screwed NOW.
josda1000 wrote:
Plus, I have to talk about the minimum wage. This destroys...
Again you're talking about what government is doing now. See previous statement.
josda1000 wrote:
I hope that this clears up a few things, because liberals truly do not understand how the market really works. Liberals, out of fear, go along with the politicians, whom they forget are RICH. Republicans are rich... SO ARE DEMOCRATS. Politicians pander to money... corporations win because of this.
-
No Problem. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/files/Prosperity.gif[^] http://www.brusselsjournal.com/files/TaxBurden.gif[^] http://www.brusselsjournal.com/files/PublicSpending.gif[^] But I know that you'll shun this info. Basically, as you raise taxes, you take money away from the businesses that can reinvest the capital, or pay workers better, or hire more workers. This is the very problem you have with taxation. Ireland does well because they tax less and spend less. (Holy crap... spending less making sense?!)
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects. -
Still disagreed. What we have now is not socialism or communism... it's fascism. This is where the corruption lies... it's in the hands of the government and corporations. I suppose your question should really be, how much pandering to politicians should we have? How many bailouts? How much QE should we have? How immoral do we get, and how much looting of the population do we do? The real questions should be, "Why is gold and silver mentioned in the Constitution? Why is gold and silver on the rise? Why did the founders actually want a limited government? What morals did the founders see, and why were we once a rich country for it?" Socialism hatred is not a cold war relic. It was one coming from the founding of our country. How invasive was Britain to our rights and property?
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects.josda1000 wrote:
Socialism hatred is not a cold war relic. It was one coming from the founding of our country. How invasive was Britain to our rights and property?
That wasn't socialism. That was a capitalistic monarchy.
josda1000 wrote:
The real questions should be, "Why is gold and silver mentioned in the Constitution? Why is gold and silver on the rise? Why did the founders actually want a limited government? What morals did the founders see, and why were we once a rich country for it?"
Dodging the issue.
josda1000 wrote:
I suppose your question should really be, how much pandering to politicians should we have? How many bailouts? How much QE should we have? How immoral do we get, and how much looting of the population do we do?
Dodging the issue.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Sorry, but that's not true. Government is government. Do you know what Nazi stands for? Hitler was a dictator, though "democratically elected". I know what I will hear... "Oh my lord! You said Nazi! You said Hitler!" Yes. Read history.
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects.What does that have to do with anything? Dictatorship = All power is in the hands of a dictator Socialism = The people collectively share the power Now, in real life, attempts at socialist societies inevitably BECOME dictatorships (See USSR) because of human greed, but in their purest forms, they are opposites.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
SO! You say to me that without government, the rich would screw the poor. Well, why are people more poor now under "big government" (I know, it's a cliche, but indeed the truth) than under small government, two hundred years ago in the United States?
Two hundred years ago, our "poor" consisted of slaves and indentured servants who were owned by businessmen and rich landowners, and were bought and sold as commodities. In other words, the poor were being screwed by the rich.
josda1000 wrote:
Why were people more poor in the USSR under big government? Why are people wanting to leave China and Cuba, but they can't (aren't allowed?) In Cuba, just recently, BARBER SHOPS WERE FINALLY SET FREE IN THE MARKET. Freaking BARBER SHOPS!!! Are you serious?! People, I just want to remind you all that there is only one reason why revolutions occur in history. It is because governments just get too big and think that they know everything; tiny freaking elites trying to destroy people's rights, whether economic or social. In the beginning of the republic, liberty reigned, not government. People think that there's a difference between economic and social liberty. There isn't... only property rights. Either you own yourself, or the government does.
Off-topic. The question was what would stop the rich from screwing the poor without government controls. I'm not advocating an authoritarian regime.
josda1000 wrote:
ANYWAY! Back to the subject. One must honestly read history to figure this one out. Big government always helps only one class, and that is the rich. Social security, as one may...
Again, the question was what would stop the rich from screwing the poor without government controls. You're just arguing about which class is getting screwed NOW.
josda1000 wrote:
Plus, I have to talk about the minimum wage. This destroys...
Again you're talking about what government is doing now. See previous statement.
josda1000 wrote:
I hope that this clears up a few things, because liberals truly do not understand how the market really works. Liberals, out of fear, go along with the politicians, whom they forget are RICH. Republicans are rich... SO ARE DEMOCRATS. Politicians pander to money... corporations win because of this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Two hundred years ago, our "poor" consisted of slaves and indentured servants who were owned by businessmen and rich landowners, and were bought and sold as commodities. In other words, the poor were being screwed by the rich.
You're right. But that doesn't mean that we'd do that now, in our more enlightened society.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Off-topic. The question was what would stop the rich from screwing the poor without government controls. I'm not advocating an authoritarian regime.
Ah, but you are. How does taxation happen in the first place? If you don't pay your taxes for a substantial amount of time, your assets are taken from your home. Sounds brutal to me.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again, the question was what would stop the rich from screwing the poor without government controls. You're just arguing about which class is getting screwed NOW.
Your original statement was that the rich screw the poor, and that the poor should be screwing the rich with government controls. But the RICH made it LOOK LIKE that the government is screwing the RICH while indeed they are SCREWING THE POOR. And yes, it is indeed based in reality, which is NOW. So what I'm saying is that NO form of government can screw the RICH, if the governmental/political class IS RICH.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again you're talking about what government is doing now. See previous statement.
What I'm trying to do is show you that you live in world that can never exist, and never has in history, for the fact that those in government are rich.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sorry, Josh, but you haven't answered the question at all. You've just sidestepped it by discussing what we have today. You're trying to argue that the Libertarian philosophy is good because the Democrats and Republicans are bad, but one doesn't imply the other.
No, I'm saying that those Democrats/Republicans in power are bad, and don't understand economics. I'm also trying to enlighten those whom are innocent (the Democrats/Republicans by name in the population). It's really quite simple. I'm not sidestepping anything.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But once again, how does trusting people protect the poor from being screwed
-
What does that have to do with anything? Dictatorship = All power is in the hands of a dictator Socialism = The people collectively share the power Now, in real life, attempts at socialist societies inevitably BECOME dictatorships (See USSR) because of human greed, but in their purest forms, they are opposites.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)No. Dictatorship is a government form. Socialism is an economic form. Republic is where people share power to elect an official to represent them in a collective power. Democracy is where people all have a vote for certain affairs. Dictatorship is where one person has all power. In real life, attempts at democratic-repubican forms of government become dictatorships. Again, I refer to the weimar republic, the USSR, Rome (especially, because we are heading in its direction)... In their purest forms, they are the same thing. Sorry. It's an illusion. Government is government. The biggest threat to liberty is your own government. That government is best which governs least. This is why we have a Constitution.
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects. -
josda1000 wrote:
Socialism hatred is not a cold war relic. It was one coming from the founding of our country. How invasive was Britain to our rights and property?
That wasn't socialism. That was a capitalistic monarchy.
josda1000 wrote:
The real questions should be, "Why is gold and silver mentioned in the Constitution? Why is gold and silver on the rise? Why did the founders actually want a limited government? What morals did the founders see, and why were we once a rich country for it?"
Dodging the issue.
josda1000 wrote:
I suppose your question should really be, how much pandering to politicians should we have? How many bailouts? How much QE should we have? How immoral do we get, and how much looting of the population do we do?
Dodging the issue.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
capitalistic monarchy.
Come on, you can say it... "Empire". Yes, I'll agree with you here.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Dodging the issue.
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I'm dodging the issue. I clearly laid out how they are related.
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects. -
No Problem. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/files/Prosperity.gif[^] http://www.brusselsjournal.com/files/TaxBurden.gif[^] http://www.brusselsjournal.com/files/PublicSpending.gif[^] But I know that you'll shun this info. Basically, as you raise taxes, you take money away from the businesses that can reinvest the capital, or pay workers better, or hire more workers. This is the very problem you have with taxation. Ireland does well because they tax less and spend less. (Holy crap... spending less making sense?!)
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects.Not shunning anything yet - but these are weird. Norway is quite rich, but conveniently ignored. Why is Belgium suddenly involved? The graphs only go to 2003, which is a looong time ago. Despite the nice graphs, the CIA fact book ranks Ireland 38th vs Belgium (20th), Sweden (22nd), Norway (23rd) and Denmark (31st) - all by nominal GDP (in 2009). (all compared to the netherlands at 16, haha pwn you all - and why aren't we invited to g20?) What is that "prosperity" graph trying to indicate?
-
Not shunning anything yet - but these are weird. Norway is quite rich, but conveniently ignored. Why is Belgium suddenly involved? The graphs only go to 2003, which is a looong time ago. Despite the nice graphs, the CIA fact book ranks Ireland 38th vs Belgium (20th), Sweden (22nd), Norway (23rd) and Denmark (31st) - all by nominal GDP (in 2009). (all compared to the netherlands at 16, haha pwn you all - and why aren't we invited to g20?) What is that "prosperity" graph trying to indicate?
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510[^] This is where the images are extracted from. "Together with Italy, these three Scandinavian countries are the worst performing economies in the entire European Union. Rather than taking them as an example, Europe’s politicians should shun the Scandinavian recipes." I think this is important... the more that government tries to do for people, and thinks that it knows everything, then the more that it impoverishes the middle class. Of course, this is only one article, and found very quickly after you asked the question.
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects. -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Two hundred years ago, our "poor" consisted of slaves and indentured servants who were owned by businessmen and rich landowners, and were bought and sold as commodities. In other words, the poor were being screwed by the rich.
You're right. But that doesn't mean that we'd do that now, in our more enlightened society.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Off-topic. The question was what would stop the rich from screwing the poor without government controls. I'm not advocating an authoritarian regime.
Ah, but you are. How does taxation happen in the first place? If you don't pay your taxes for a substantial amount of time, your assets are taken from your home. Sounds brutal to me.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again, the question was what would stop the rich from screwing the poor without government controls. You're just arguing about which class is getting screwed NOW.
Your original statement was that the rich screw the poor, and that the poor should be screwing the rich with government controls. But the RICH made it LOOK LIKE that the government is screwing the RICH while indeed they are SCREWING THE POOR. And yes, it is indeed based in reality, which is NOW. So what I'm saying is that NO form of government can screw the RICH, if the governmental/political class IS RICH.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again you're talking about what government is doing now. See previous statement.
What I'm trying to do is show you that you live in world that can never exist, and never has in history, for the fact that those in government are rich.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sorry, Josh, but you haven't answered the question at all. You've just sidestepped it by discussing what we have today. You're trying to argue that the Libertarian philosophy is good because the Democrats and Republicans are bad, but one doesn't imply the other.
No, I'm saying that those Democrats/Republicans in power are bad, and don't understand economics. I'm also trying to enlighten those whom are innocent (the Democrats/Republicans by name in the population). It's really quite simple. I'm not sidestepping anything.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But once again, how does trusting people protect the poor from being screwed
josda1000 wrote:
You're right. But that doesn't mean that we'd do that now, in our more enlightened society.
But it shows that unless the government prevents it, the rich find ways to screw the poor. That's human nature... Those with power exert it to gain more power. Greed.
josda1000 wrote:
Ah, but you are. How does taxation happen in the first place? If you don't pay your taxes for a substantial amount of time, your assets are taken from your home. Sounds brutal to me.
Totally off-topic. I'm not letting you dodge the question this time, Josh.
josda1000 wrote:
Your original statement was that the rich screw the poor, and that the poor should be screwing the rich with government controls. But the RICH made it LOOK LIKE that the government is screwing the RICH while indeed they are SCREWING THE POOR. And yes, it is indeed based in reality, which is NOW. So what I'm saying is that NO form of government can screw the RICH, if the governmental/political class IS RICH.
You're trying to change the topic instead of answering the question. My original question was what would stop the rich from screwing the poor, without the intervention of government? Whether we're being screwed by the government right now is off-topic.
josda1000 wrote:
What I'm trying to do is show you that you live in world that can never exist, and never has in history, for the fact that those in government are rich.
And what I'm trying to show you is that your ideal world ALSO can't exist.
josda1000 wrote:
No, I'm saying that those Democrats/Republicans in power are bad, and don't understand economics. I'm also trying to enlighten those whom are innocent (the Democrats/Republicans by name in the population). It's really quite simple. I'm not sidestepping anything.
Exactly. You're not answering the question.
josda1000 wrote:
If you help the local businesses, and not the large corporations... if you trust the people around you and not the CEOs at Bank of America or Lowe's... then that's what you have to do. That's how you change things. You can't do it through legislation. That just makes things worse.
Ok, NOW you're addressing the question. Now we can debate. I agree that the rich-
-
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510[^] This is where the images are extracted from. "Together with Italy, these three Scandinavian countries are the worst performing economies in the entire European Union. Rather than taking them as an example, Europe’s politicians should shun the Scandinavian recipes." I think this is important... the more that government tries to do for people, and thinks that it knows everything, then the more that it impoverishes the middle class. Of course, this is only one article, and found very quickly after you asked the question.
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects.Okay, well, so be it. I don't agree with them that having a big economy is the thing to aim for - I'd rather live somewhere where the quality of life is high, regardless of the economic performance, than a crap place with a nice economy (the USA comes to mind..) The Scandinavian economy also isn't failing (perhaps a bit underperforming - especially compared to Germany's) - but Greece's economy failed spectacularly with fireworks and other pyrotechnic effects.
