Politics in a Nutshell
-
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.
-
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:
Dictatorship is a government form. Socialism is an economic form.
Fair enough. I should have said Communism, not Socialism. With that substitution, my point stands. In essence, communism is a complete lack of government, because the power is evenly distributed amongst the people instead of left in the hands of rulers or corrupt officials. Yes, in reality, this never works for very long on any sort of large scale (Though it can work on a small scale - There are plenty of communes all over the US, and I assume elsewhere too). But I'm talking about the principles themselves, not their effects when applied in real-life.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
We need something besides global warming and conspiracy theories in here... How about some bad comedy? (Warning: US-centric)
Democrats want to help the poor by screwing the rich. Republicans want to help the rich by screwing the poor. Greens want to help the Earth by screwing the human race. Socialists want to help and screw everyone equally. Libertarians want to stand aside and let the rich screw the poor directly. Teabaggers want to screw everyone, while pretending to help the white folks. Pirates are too busy downloading to help or screw anyone. The Marijuana Party wants to help themselves to some pop tarts. That's all I can think of right now... It's still early...Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Or the English Liberals: Want to help the poor then decide to join up with the tories an think "Ahh f*&k the poor".
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
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.josda1000 wrote:
Come on, you can say it... "Empire". Yes, I'll agree with you here.
No question about it.
josda1000 wrote:
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I'm dodging the issue. I clearly laid out how they are related.
When you start saying "No, the question you SHOULD be asking is...", that's dodging the issue. It's a clever way of saying, "I can't/don't want to answer your question, so I'll make up a new one and answer it."
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:
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-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And what I'm trying to show you is that your ideal world ALSO can't exist.
That is a bunch of propaganda. Yes, I used the word, scary crap. Firstly, if you're talking about my ideal world of anarchy, look at the history of Ireland, look at California before it was California. Look at Kansas before it was Kansas. Look at the history of Plymouth, Massachusetts. There are plenty of examples of communism and/or anarcho-capitalism. It actually HAS existed. Secondly, if you're talking about a minarchy, that most obviously has existed, and I will not press this point, I've made my point clear here.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The trick is that these local businesses BECOME the large corporations, and people just go right on supporting them.
That is only true as of now (See, you're talking about NOW lol). What I maintain is that the large corporations are only really in existence because of government subsidies and plain corruption. Corporations at face value are not a problem... it's when they lose touch with their employee that is the problem. The only way that can really truly happen is if government gets in the way... and it does. The reason why I say this is because small companies fail to compete with these larger businesses, and we will both agree here. Again, I must repeat, that small companies do not have a chance. Minimum wage law Income tax law Sales tax law (price inflation) Monetary inflation (dollar devaluation) Corporations can adjust with these changes. Small businesses can't. BUT if small businesses didn't have these burdens, people would be able to decide which product is better, society will be able to run fine. This is why people will continue to support corporations... honest corporations. I will note that I still see people buying from BP here in Lowell and Peabody. Why? Because they're one of the few gas companies out there. If small businesses weren't burdened so much and were at liberty to do as they will without so much tax and law, then we'd have much more competition, and much more fairness, and fewer "corporations" as it were.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Larger companies have more buying power, so can negotiate better prices, and thus have a financial advantage over the local businesses.
Agreed, however, it's a bit more complicated than a one sentence cliche.
-
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.josda1000 wrote:
This is the very problem you have with taxation. Ireland does well because they tax less and spend less.
Are you talking for this country which has debt of about $500 000 per capita?!
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
josda1000 wrote:
This is the very problem you have with taxation. Ireland does well because they tax less and spend less.
Are you talking for this country which has debt of about $500 000 per capita?!
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Apparently not! lol Look I can't talk for Europe, and I must expand my knowledge into that territory. For personal reasons, I must especially look at Poland. But question, is that debt recent? Is that debt becoming smaller with each passing year? Can you expand on that?
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects. -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And what I'm trying to show you is that your ideal world ALSO can't exist.
That is a bunch of propaganda. Yes, I used the word, scary crap. Firstly, if you're talking about my ideal world of anarchy, look at the history of Ireland, look at California before it was California. Look at Kansas before it was Kansas. Look at the history of Plymouth, Massachusetts. There are plenty of examples of communism and/or anarcho-capitalism. It actually HAS existed. Secondly, if you're talking about a minarchy, that most obviously has existed, and I will not press this point, I've made my point clear here.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The trick is that these local businesses BECOME the large corporations, and people just go right on supporting them.
That is only true as of now (See, you're talking about NOW lol). What I maintain is that the large corporations are only really in existence because of government subsidies and plain corruption. Corporations at face value are not a problem... it's when they lose touch with their employee that is the problem. The only way that can really truly happen is if government gets in the way... and it does. The reason why I say this is because small companies fail to compete with these larger businesses, and we will both agree here. Again, I must repeat, that small companies do not have a chance. Minimum wage law Income tax law Sales tax law (price inflation) Monetary inflation (dollar devaluation) Corporations can adjust with these changes. Small businesses can't. BUT if small businesses didn't have these burdens, people would be able to decide which product is better, society will be able to run fine. This is why people will continue to support corporations... honest corporations. I will note that I still see people buying from BP here in Lowell and Peabody. Why? Because they're one of the few gas companies out there. If small businesses weren't burdened so much and were at liberty to do as they will without so much tax and law, then we'd have much more competition, and much more fairness, and fewer "corporations" as it were.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Larger companies have more buying power, so can negotiate better prices, and thus have a financial advantage over the local businesses.
Agreed, however, it's a bit more complicated than a one sentence cliche.
josda1000 wrote:
Firstly, if you're talking about my ideal world of anarchy, look at the history of Ireland, look at California before it was California. Look at Kansas before it was Kansas. Look at the history of Plymouth, Massachusetts. There are plenty of examples of communism and/or anarcho-capitalism. It actually HAS existed.
Right, back when all you needed was a little bit of land to grow food, and a local blacksmith and carpenter to build stuff. Times have changed.
josda1000 wrote:
That is only true as of now (See, you're talking about NOW lol). What I maintain is that the large corporations are only really in existence because of government subsidies and plain corruption. Corporations at face value are not a problem... it's when they lose touch with their employee that is the problem. The only way that can really truly happen is if government gets in the way... and it does. The reason why I say this is because small companies fail to compete with these larger businesses, and we will both agree here. Again, I must repeat, that small companies do not have a chance. Minimum wage law Income tax law Sales tax law (price inflation) Monetary inflation (dollar devaluation)
Large corporations exist because of the economy of scale. As a company grows larger, its overhead costs (Human resources, infrastructure, support, etc) grow more slowly than its manufacturing capacity, and hence become a smaller slice of the overall pie. Therefore, the company either makes higher profits or can charge its customers less for the same amount of profit. If you're sending a shipment across the country, it's MUCH more economical to shove a few hundred products in a semi truck than to send one product in the back of someone's car. The laws you listed may play a part, but even if they're removed, this fundamental principle remains.
josda1000 wrote:
I will note that I still see people buying from BP here in Lowell and Peabody. Why? Because they're one of the few gas companies out there. If small businesses weren't burdened so much and were at liberty to do as they will without so much tax and law, then we'd have much more competition, and much more fairness, and fewer "corporations" as it were.
Would we? Could any local business afford the necessary infrastructure to compete with BP, even without "so much tax and law?" You need the drilling opera
-
josda1000 wrote:
Dictatorship is a government form. Socialism is an economic form.
Fair enough. I should have said Communism, not Socialism. With that substitution, my point stands. In essence, communism is a complete lack of government, because the power is evenly distributed amongst the people instead of left in the hands of rulers or corrupt officials. Yes, in reality, this never works for very long on any sort of large scale (Though it can work on a small scale - There are plenty of communes all over the US, and I assume elsewhere too). But I'm talking about the principles themselves, not their effects when applied in real-life.
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:
But I'm talking about the principles themselves, not their effects when applied in real-life.
The reason why it doesn't work long term is because you're violating a very very basic principle: Theft is wrong. It's immoral. Look, you wouldn't steal an ice cream from a kid. Why? Because he'll scream? No... it's much more than that. It's because it's his! You wouldn't want to steal my computer would you? (Or would you... lol) No really, you wouldn't. Why? Because it's mine. My life is on that thing. My information, my games... Not yours! Now what makes it right for you to distribute a man's money, his own lifeblood, the stuff he was paid for doing business? You're talking about taking money from the rich, the poor, AND the middle class, and then redistributing it... and the problem really is that we don't know where the money goes! We know where we WANT it to go... but think about the Treasury Secretary... the President of the United States... Goldman Sachs... they take the money! It's not the poor that gets it. Socialism doesn't work, because the people that get elected are already RICH. It turns to fascism. Why is the United States of America corrupt? It's because people don't put this simple fact to the forefront of their minds. This is why government doesn't work, no matter the form of government. I'd agree that communism (anarcho-communism, not this fake communist China crap) and capitalism (anarcho-capitalism, not this fake United States crap) would work much better. But if you want to talk principles, think about how government CONTINUALLY violates principles. It is the utter use of force and violence. War. Tax. Eminent Domain. It is theft and destruction.
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects. -
Apparently not! lol Look I can't talk for Europe, and I must expand my knowledge into that territory. For personal reasons, I must especially look at Poland. But question, is that debt recent? Is that debt becoming smaller with each passing year? Can you expand on that?
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects.Not getting into this debate, but here's a link with some details: http://www.ntma.ie/NationalDebt/levelOfDebt.php[^]
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:
But I'm talking about the principles themselves, not their effects when applied in real-life.
The reason why it doesn't work long term is because you're violating a very very basic principle: Theft is wrong. It's immoral. Look, you wouldn't steal an ice cream from a kid. Why? Because he'll scream? No... it's much more than that. It's because it's his! You wouldn't want to steal my computer would you? (Or would you... lol) No really, you wouldn't. Why? Because it's mine. My life is on that thing. My information, my games... Not yours! Now what makes it right for you to distribute a man's money, his own lifeblood, the stuff he was paid for doing business? You're talking about taking money from the rich, the poor, AND the middle class, and then redistributing it... and the problem really is that we don't know where the money goes! We know where we WANT it to go... but think about the Treasury Secretary... the President of the United States... Goldman Sachs... they take the money! It's not the poor that gets it. Socialism doesn't work, because the people that get elected are already RICH. It turns to fascism. Why is the United States of America corrupt? It's because people don't put this simple fact to the forefront of their minds. This is why government doesn't work, no matter the form of government. I'd agree that communism (anarcho-communism, not this fake communist China crap) and capitalism (anarcho-capitalism, not this fake United States crap) would work much better. But if you want to talk principles, think about how government CONTINUALLY violates principles. It is the utter use of force and violence. War. Tax. Eminent Domain. It is theft and destruction.
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects.josda1000 wrote:
The reason why it doesn't work long term is because you're violating a very very basic principle: Theft is wrong. It's immoral.
In a truly communist society (Not the sham that was the USSR), people don't work for money. They work because the work needs to be done, and they know that no matter what happens, they'll be provided for just like everyone else. Kind of like Star Trek, where they don't use money at all. Obviously, and I think we both agree on this, this doesn't work in real life at all, because it goes completely against human nature. But IN PRINCIPLE, it's not theft. It's everyone working together for the common good.
josda1000 wrote:
Socialism doesn't work, because the people that get elected are already RICH.
When you have true, 100% socialism, there's no such thing as "rich" or "poor."
josda1000 wrote:
I'd agree that communism (anarcho-communism, not this fake communist China crap) and capitalism (anarcho-capitalism, not this fake United States crap) would work much better.
Neither works alone. Capitalism alone leads to exploitation of the working class. Communism alone goes against human nature, so leads to fascism. But it's not one or the other... Take a little bit of each, and you have today's society... Maybe the mixture isn't quite right, but that doesn't mean the entire formula should be scrapped.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
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.
harold aptroot wrote:
than a crap place with a nice economy (the USA comes to mind..)
To be fair, it's not all crap. I live in one of the highest taxed areas in the country, it's pretty damn nice. It's also one of the top areas to live in the country, one of the top places to get a job in the country, and weirdly enough has some of the best public schools in the country. Blast that big government! He took a fraction of my paycheck and only gave me back far more than I could have done with it myself! That said, we do have oddly competent politicians, including one that told a corporation that it would most certainly not get bailed out or supported in anyway if it went through with a drastically unpopular change to it's service structure. Surprise, surprise, they didn't do it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Firstly, if you're talking about my ideal world of anarchy, look at the history of Ireland, look at California before it was California. Look at Kansas before it was Kansas. Look at the history of Plymouth, Massachusetts. There are plenty of examples of communism and/or anarcho-capitalism. It actually HAS existed.
Right, back when all you needed was a little bit of land to grow food, and a local blacksmith and carpenter to build stuff. Times have changed.
josda1000 wrote:
That is only true as of now (See, you're talking about NOW lol). What I maintain is that the large corporations are only really in existence because of government subsidies and plain corruption. Corporations at face value are not a problem... it's when they lose touch with their employee that is the problem. The only way that can really truly happen is if government gets in the way... and it does. The reason why I say this is because small companies fail to compete with these larger businesses, and we will both agree here. Again, I must repeat, that small companies do not have a chance. Minimum wage law Income tax law Sales tax law (price inflation) Monetary inflation (dollar devaluation)
Large corporations exist because of the economy of scale. As a company grows larger, its overhead costs (Human resources, infrastructure, support, etc) grow more slowly than its manufacturing capacity, and hence become a smaller slice of the overall pie. Therefore, the company either makes higher profits or can charge its customers less for the same amount of profit. If you're sending a shipment across the country, it's MUCH more economical to shove a few hundred products in a semi truck than to send one product in the back of someone's car. The laws you listed may play a part, but even if they're removed, this fundamental principle remains.
josda1000 wrote:
I will note that I still see people buying from BP here in Lowell and Peabody. Why? Because they're one of the few gas companies out there. If small businesses weren't burdened so much and were at liberty to do as they will without so much tax and law, then we'd have much more competition, and much more fairness, and fewer "corporations" as it were.
Would we? Could any local business afford the necessary infrastructure to compete with BP, even without "so much tax and law?" You need the drilling opera
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, back when all you needed was a little bit of land to grow food, and a local blacksmith and carpenter to build stuff. Times have changed.
This is a very naive statement, and doesn't follow from what I said. Times may have changed, sure. But does that really change the principle of what I'm saying? What if there indeed was NO government. Think, how would people be "protected"? Would corporations barge into your house and say, "I want your money! Here's what I'm giving you!" No. And what you said doesn't actually mean that there can not be anarchy. Once a revolution happens, either government totally collapses or is drastically downsized. It can happen.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Large corporations exist because of the economy of scale. As a company grows larger, its overhead costs (Human resources, infrastructure, support, etc) grow more slowly than its manufacturing capacity, and hence become a smaller slice of the overall pie. Therefore, the company either makes higher profits or can charge its customers less for the same amount of profit. If you're sending a shipment across the country, it's MUCH more economical to shove a few hundred products in a semi truck than to send one product in the back of someone's car. The laws you listed may play a part, but even if they're removed, this fundamental principle remains.
Yes, you're describing how a company grows. Now I'm saying how does a company really start up? It's through capital. You need to form capital because otherwise, you're stagnant. This is why there are only a FEW corporations in the world, and not a LOT. The more you tax, the less capital (in both senses of the term) a company has, and the worse of a chance it has to grow to compete.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Could any local business afford the necessary infrastructure to compete with BP, even without "so much tax and law?" You need the drilling operation to obtain the raw product, a refinery to convert it to usable forms, and trucks and tankers to move the material in between... It's ridiculous to expect a small business to do all of that.
You're right, I agree. But don't you think it's at least a bit viable to say that you'd have at least a few more companies competing (I'm not talking about little gas stations. I'm saying that you'd have more Exxon/Mobil and BP companies). Yes, they
-
Apparently not! lol Look I can't talk for Europe, and I must expand my knowledge into that territory. For personal reasons, I must especially look at Poland. But question, is that debt recent? Is that debt becoming smaller with each passing year? Can you expand on that?
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects.AFAIK the EU expects a lot of problems from there. In fact I read recently that Ireland is following in the steps of Greece. I’m not familiar with the details, but from what I know I was just curious why you give Ireland as an example of economic stability.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
josda1000 wrote:
The reason why it doesn't work long term is because you're violating a very very basic principle: Theft is wrong. It's immoral.
In a truly communist society (Not the sham that was the USSR), people don't work for money. They work because the work needs to be done, and they know that no matter what happens, they'll be provided for just like everyone else. Kind of like Star Trek, where they don't use money at all. Obviously, and I think we both agree on this, this doesn't work in real life at all, because it goes completely against human nature. But IN PRINCIPLE, it's not theft. It's everyone working together for the common good.
josda1000 wrote:
Socialism doesn't work, because the people that get elected are already RICH.
When you have true, 100% socialism, there's no such thing as "rich" or "poor."
josda1000 wrote:
I'd agree that communism (anarcho-communism, not this fake communist China crap) and capitalism (anarcho-capitalism, not this fake United States crap) would work much better.
Neither works alone. Capitalism alone leads to exploitation of the working class. Communism alone goes against human nature, so leads to fascism. But it's not one or the other... Take a little bit of each, and you have today's society... Maybe the mixture isn't quite right, but that doesn't mean the entire formula should be scrapped.
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:
In a truly communist society (Not the sham that was the USSR), people don't work for money. They work because the work needs to be done, and they know that no matter what happens, they'll be provided for just like everyone else.
Yes, this was done with the Native Americans. But do you see the difference? They were small tribes, and everyone knew each other. You can't do that on a massive scale of 300 million people. You must allow people to make transactions for themselves... people take better care of themselves (and family) than governments do.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Kind of like Star Trek, where they don't use money at all.
You can't make this argument. The reason I say that is because food can be created on the fly with machines. I have stated before, that the only way you can get rid of money is if you can create food out of thin air... much like how money is created out of thin air right now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
When you have true, 100% socialism, there's no such thing as "rich" or "poor."
No. You'd have slavery. You're right.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Capitalism alone leads to exploitation of the working class.
I still don't agree with this, you have not convinced me of this in the least. I am advocating capitalism. You are saying that my idea will lead to corporatism, and I disagree.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Communism alone goes against human nature, so leads to fascism.
No, I disagree with this as well. Communism leads to dictatorship.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But it's not one or the other... Take a little bit of each, and you have today's society... Maybe the mixture isn't quite right, but that doesn't mean the entire formula should be scrapped.
Right now we have fascism, which will lead to revolution eventually. This is unsustainable... but I don't wish to get into that.
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects. -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, back when all you needed was a little bit of land to grow food, and a local blacksmith and carpenter to build stuff. Times have changed.
This is a very naive statement, and doesn't follow from what I said. Times may have changed, sure. But does that really change the principle of what I'm saying? What if there indeed was NO government. Think, how would people be "protected"? Would corporations barge into your house and say, "I want your money! Here's what I'm giving you!" No. And what you said doesn't actually mean that there can not be anarchy. Once a revolution happens, either government totally collapses or is drastically downsized. It can happen.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Large corporations exist because of the economy of scale. As a company grows larger, its overhead costs (Human resources, infrastructure, support, etc) grow more slowly than its manufacturing capacity, and hence become a smaller slice of the overall pie. Therefore, the company either makes higher profits or can charge its customers less for the same amount of profit. If you're sending a shipment across the country, it's MUCH more economical to shove a few hundred products in a semi truck than to send one product in the back of someone's car. The laws you listed may play a part, but even if they're removed, this fundamental principle remains.
Yes, you're describing how a company grows. Now I'm saying how does a company really start up? It's through capital. You need to form capital because otherwise, you're stagnant. This is why there are only a FEW corporations in the world, and not a LOT. The more you tax, the less capital (in both senses of the term) a company has, and the worse of a chance it has to grow to compete.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Could any local business afford the necessary infrastructure to compete with BP, even without "so much tax and law?" You need the drilling operation to obtain the raw product, a refinery to convert it to usable forms, and trucks and tankers to move the material in between... It's ridiculous to expect a small business to do all of that.
You're right, I agree. But don't you think it's at least a bit viable to say that you'd have at least a few more companies competing (I'm not talking about little gas stations. I'm saying that you'd have more Exxon/Mobil and BP companies). Yes, they
josda1000 wrote:
What if there indeed was NO government. Think, how would people be "protected"? Would corporations barge into your house and say, "I want your money! Here's what I'm giving you!" No.
No, if there was NO government, then whoever had the biggest guns would end up in charge. Is that what you're advocating? Because if not, we're getting seriously sidetracked.
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, you're describing how a company grows. Now I'm saying how does a company really start up? It's through capital. You need to form capital because otherwise, you're stagnant. This is why there are only a FEW corporations in the world, and not a LOT. The more you tax, the less capital (in both senses of the term) a company has, and the worse of a chance it has to grow to compete.
I never argued that tax reductions would help small businesses. What I'm saying is that it's not feasible for these startups to compete with the big multi-nationals like BP, simply because of the necessary infrastructure. How much does it cost to build an oil pipeline? How much does it cost to run a drilling platform? How much does it cost to buy an oil tanker?
josda1000 wrote:
You're right, I agree. But don't you think it's at least a bit viable to say that you'd have at least a few more companies competing (I'm not talking about little gas stations. I'm saying that you'd have more Exxon/Mobil and BP companies). Yes, they'd be corporations. But I have never heard a horror story out of Exxon/Mobil.
It's possible that one or two more could start, but more likely than not, they'd either be forced out of the market by the big guys (Remember, no government to help protect them from hostile corporate strategies - The megacorps have built a science around being legally evil) or just bought out. As for horror stories, are you including or excluding oil spills? How about illegal trade with Sudan, despite UN sanctions in 2003? How about government bribery in Kazakhstan that same year? Alleged financing of the Indonesian military? Oh, and keep in mind that ExxonMobil is actually the merger of two pieces of Standard Oil, the ultimate megacorp that was broken up by the Supreme Court in 1911.
josda1000 wrote:
I agree. And I advocate for a separation of economy and state. People must be free to choose.
Right, an
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
In a truly communist society (Not the sham that was the USSR), people don't work for money. They work because the work needs to be done, and they know that no matter what happens, they'll be provided for just like everyone else.
Yes, this was done with the Native Americans. But do you see the difference? They were small tribes, and everyone knew each other. You can't do that on a massive scale of 300 million people. You must allow people to make transactions for themselves... people take better care of themselves (and family) than governments do.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Kind of like Star Trek, where they don't use money at all.
You can't make this argument. The reason I say that is because food can be created on the fly with machines. I have stated before, that the only way you can get rid of money is if you can create food out of thin air... much like how money is created out of thin air right now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
When you have true, 100% socialism, there's no such thing as "rich" or "poor."
No. You'd have slavery. You're right.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Capitalism alone leads to exploitation of the working class.
I still don't agree with this, you have not convinced me of this in the least. I am advocating capitalism. You are saying that my idea will lead to corporatism, and I disagree.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Communism alone goes against human nature, so leads to fascism.
No, I disagree with this as well. Communism leads to dictatorship.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But it's not one or the other... Take a little bit of each, and you have today's society... Maybe the mixture isn't quite right, but that doesn't mean the entire formula should be scrapped.
Right now we have fascism, which will lead to revolution eventually. This is unsustainable... but I don't wish to get into that.
Josh Davis
This is what plays in my head when I finish projects.josda1000 wrote:
You can't make this argument. The reason I say that is because food can be created on the fly with machines. I have stated before, that the only way you can get rid of money is if you can create food out of thin air... much like how money is created out of thin air right now.
What point are you trying to make? I'm giving a basic idea of the principles behind communism, and you're trying to argue that it won't work in real life. I've said MULTIPLE TIMES that it won't work in real life. What exactly are you trying to argue here?
josda1000 wrote:
No. You'd have slavery. You're right.
Slavery to who? If everyone is socially and economically equal, who are you a slave to?
josda1000 wrote:
I still don't agree with this, you have not convinced me of this in the least. I am advocating capitalism. You are saying that my idea will lead to corporatism, and I disagree.
We're dealing with this in the other thread, so no sense duplicating things here.
josda1000 wrote:
No, I disagree with this as well. Communism leads to dictatorship.
Dictatorship... Fascism... Call it whatever you want. It's authoritarianism, and I think we both agree that it's a Bad Thing (tm).
josda1000 wrote:
Right now we have fascism, which will lead to revolution eventually. This is unsustainable... but I don't wish to get into that.
Josh, you're starting to sound like CSS. You can make an argument that we're progressing toward fascism, or that our society has some elements of fascism, but this isn't a fascist state. The mere fact that we're able to use our real names and say these things on a public forum shows that.
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:
What if there indeed was NO government. Think, how would people be "protected"? Would corporations barge into your house and say, "I want your money! Here's what I'm giving you!" No.
No, if there was NO government, then whoever had the biggest guns would end up in charge. Is that what you're advocating? Because if not, we're getting seriously sidetracked.
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, you're describing how a company grows. Now I'm saying how does a company really start up? It's through capital. You need to form capital because otherwise, you're stagnant. This is why there are only a FEW corporations in the world, and not a LOT. The more you tax, the less capital (in both senses of the term) a company has, and the worse of a chance it has to grow to compete.
I never argued that tax reductions would help small businesses. What I'm saying is that it's not feasible for these startups to compete with the big multi-nationals like BP, simply because of the necessary infrastructure. How much does it cost to build an oil pipeline? How much does it cost to run a drilling platform? How much does it cost to buy an oil tanker?
josda1000 wrote:
You're right, I agree. But don't you think it's at least a bit viable to say that you'd have at least a few more companies competing (I'm not talking about little gas stations. I'm saying that you'd have more Exxon/Mobil and BP companies). Yes, they'd be corporations. But I have never heard a horror story out of Exxon/Mobil.
It's possible that one or two more could start, but more likely than not, they'd either be forced out of the market by the big guys (Remember, no government to help protect them from hostile corporate strategies - The megacorps have built a science around being legally evil) or just bought out. As for horror stories, are you including or excluding oil spills? How about illegal trade with Sudan, despite UN sanctions in 2003? How about government bribery in Kazakhstan that same year? Alleged financing of the Indonesian military? Oh, and keep in mind that ExxonMobil is actually the merger of two pieces of Standard Oil, the ultimate megacorp that was broken up by the Supreme Court in 1911.
josda1000 wrote:
I agree. And I advocate for a separation of economy and state. People must be free to choose.
Right, an
Ian Shlasko wrote:
No, if there was NO government, then whoever had the biggest guns would end up in charge. Is that what you're advocating? Because if not, we're getting seriously sidetracked.
That is what government is your mother fukcing pieceo of fucking shit!:mad: You god damn bitch ass need to be whipped with a belt until you squeel like a p ihb.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
