Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Apparently nothing you are capable of understanding. But that's not a surprise.

“Over the past 35 years, China has embraced capitalism not just in the economy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments has more than a dozen Chinese translations; the book has won the heart and mind of premier Wen Jiabao. The message of Adam Smith resonates strongly with the Chinese, not least because of its striking affinity with the traditional Chinese thinking on economy and society. A surprising outcome of China’s transition to capitalism is that China has found a way back to its own cultural roots.

But today, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the economic forces that were really transforming the Chinese economy in the first decade of reform were private farming, township and village enterprises, private business in cities, and the Special Economic Zones. None of them was initiated from Beijing. They were marginal players operating outside the boundary of socialism".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Your a fucking moron: who gives a shit?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
1kiki you provide nothing but suggestions based on falsehoods and ignorance. You spin facts to imply they mean something else which is a trait you share with someone else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
G

Your argument is limited. Saying 'that's how it works!' doesn't take into account the past where things didn't work this way, the present where there are places they don't work this way, or the future where people will do things differently.

Try thinking about this society - I dunno - AS IF IT WAS A SCIENCE FICTION STORY you weren't enmeshed in and vested in - and considering how it might change.

---

...G

OMG - major logic gap, all caps for your understanding: IT'S NOT A SCIENCE FICTION STORY - IT'S REAL LIFE. That's why Signym's wizbang theories don't hold water. They are fanciful what-ifs only. You don't see that?
Let's all play: I think everyone should be able to never work again, full insurance, full college education for their kids, wheeeeeee - done! I solved the world!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Your a fucking moron: who gives a shit?



si shen

---

Quote:

---

Why do you care so much about the wealthy unless you covet their wealth?

---

Quote:

---

I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth.

---

Quote:

---

I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth. I've mentioned it before several times. The reason is a wealth tax would be fought tooth and nail by the wealthy and we'd probably have to wait for many generations before we had a solution and the economy was running again.

---

Quote:

---

It also feels like punishment, and I don't think the very wealthy have ipso facto done anything wealthy. The idea that they have seems more like something the angry masses are going viral on, like they have an excuse to hate.

---

Quote:

---

Who gets to decides these amounts? Who gets to enforce them? What if my country objects?

---

Quote:

---

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), on which the United States serves as a participating member, developed international regulatory capital standards through a number of capital accords and related publications, which have collectively been in effect since 1988.... In October 2013, the Federal Reserve Board proposed rules to implement the Liquidity Coverage Ratio in the United States, which would strengthen the liquidity positions of large financial institutions. The proposal would create for the first time a standardized minimum liquidity requirements for large and internationally active banking organizations and systemically important, non-bank financial companies designed by the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

---

Quote:

---

Who decides if there is a disparity between the sexes?

---

Quote:

---

Who decides what a Fair election is?

---

Quote:

---

That's never going to happen

---

Quote:

---

- this is where you loose me completely because your ideas are so fanciful - they are what paper intellects like to wrestle with because it's fun! I have fixed the world! That's just not how it works when you add in humans and all of their self interest.

---

Quote:

---

That's your perfect world - completely unobtainable, looks real pretty on paper, and of course it doesn't take into consideration what other people want. That's always so tricky!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth.

---

Too funny. You made me spit out my morning coffee.

---

Starbucks coffee? Are you another bitching hypocrite? Or just another dullard? Or do you agree?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.

---

You can accomplish the same thing by ending corporate welfare and expanding the tax base once again.

si shen

---

Quote:

---

Your a fucking moron: who gives a shit? - T

Ahhhh, the actual point of this thread. - CHRIS

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.

---

You can accomplish the same thing by ending corporate welfare and expanding the tax base once again.

si shen

---

Yeah, you can accomplish it in a number of ways, but having control over natural resources and being able to reap the profit from natural resources as a people is a good idea.

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
What do I think of as intelligent, the opposite of stupid? I think it means being able to look at a wide range of information and to examine it in its own right - without reference to our own fears and wishes - to reach an understanding of what it is. So for example, not looking on solar eclipses as portents from gods regarding our human fortunes, but as celestial mechanisms running in their own way. In that regard, capitalism is extremely stupid. It looks at the entire universe of data and asks only one human-related question - can it make a profit? That makes it incredibly stupid.

And what do I think of a wise, the opposite of foolish? It means looking at the range of information we've gotten through our intelligence, and understanding what does it mean for us. In that regard, capitalism is extremely foolish, because having looked at only one question - can it make a profit? - it automatically concludes it should be done. That makes it incredibly foolish.

So why do we trust our lives to this stupid and foolish human system?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Clearly, "T", you don't have a clue what communism is. But if that's YOUR definition of communism, then you just made communism sound pretty attractive, compare to the current alternative! Keep up the good work!

And hey, thanks for the thread bump!

---

You live in a fantasy signym. So what you perceive to be, is inconsequential in the real world. This applies to what you think about what I say as well.




si shen

Quote:

---

You say such unbelievably naive things like, "we'll simply take the money from the wealthy..." It's hard to take you seriously. I don't give a shit about the wealthy, they are just fine. I want their money redistributed as well, but trying to take only satisfies your desire to get even, it's petty and small.

---

Quote:

---

They didn't get wealthy by letting people control them, they will make you think you got even, took your pound of flesh when you will have not accomplished your end goal.

---

Quote:

---

Like the history of all of philanthropy maybe? So a couple trillion examples. How much did the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donate just this year?

---

Quote:

---

So who the hell are they? Now we're trusting the US Gov?

---

Quote:

---

Do you know who these observers are?

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Russia and China are ahead of us and you think this country will want to emulate them? Good luck with that.

---

Quote:

---

Right - "we'll just run our boats up on the beach and drive to Hitler's and tell him he's out of work - it''ll be easy." If they are so easy why haven't you done any of them?

---

Quote:

---

And I sure as hell don't want a revolution or destroy our entire system to satisfy your desire to "Gee, Let's give it a try!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Nice pictures, T!

---

Quote:

---

No problem - she's and endless nonsense and denial machine. No wonder her husband agrees with her... *shudder*

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:


No it's not. It's called communism.

si shen

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:


No it's not. It's called communism.

si shen

---

Ah, I see where your philosophy lies.

Actually there are many places in the world where governments own or highly tax resources and utilities and they are not necessarily communist. Singapore springs to mind as a very uncommunist country, but where government largely owns all utilities.

30 years ago, in this country, most utilities were government owned, and most then were sold off. The status of government owning or not owning utilities made no difference to our system of government which is a democratic one. It did however affect the price of electricity and gas, and also how well the infrastructure was maintained.

It's very easy to panic about ideas which feel outside the norm for your ideology and to catastrophise such ideas. The world is a much more nuanced place than 'Mericans, Commies and Jihadists'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Actually there are many places in the world where governments own or highly tax resources and utilities and they are not necessarily communist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:



I would love to see a higher gas tax. It represents a higher fee for those who use our highway system the most and hits those who own gas guzzling air polluting vehicles where it hurts. In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.

I am not panicked, many of the answers are at our fingertips and we should try to achieve them first before throwing the baby out with the bath water

si shen

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:



I would love to see a higher gas tax. It represents a higher fee for those who use our highway system the most and hits those who own gas guzzling air polluting vehicles where it hurts. In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.

I am not panicked, many of the answers are at our fingertips and we should try to achieve them first before throwing the baby out with the bath water

si shen

---

So what was with the crack about communism? You probably are not even sure of my views, so why assume that I want to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.?

---

Quote:

---

So I ask you, what are the alternatives?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:



Giving or returning government control over any business is certainly not a first step that would be recommended by anyone who believes in capitalism. That suggests you believe in an alternative. So I ask you, what are the alternatives?

si shen

---

Quote:

---

In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.

---

Quote:

---

NORWAY'S Prime Minister has spruiked the benefits of his country's oil and gas industry tax while in Perth today amid suggesting Australia's controversial mining tax should not necessarily follow suit.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, in Perth to officially open the world’s largest offshore marine simulator - Norwegian company Farstad Shipping’s $20 million offshore simulation centre (FSOSC) located at Bibra Lake - provided an overview of his nation’s successful system which taxes oil revenue at a world-leading 78 per cent.

Treasury has predicted that the controversial minerals resource rent tax (MRRT) will raise $11 billion in its first three years after lobbing a 30 per cent tax on iron ore and coal mining companies’ profits.

Mr Stoltenberg described how Norway’s “special system for the oil and gas industry” worked well because of its equitable benefits for the nation’s economy and industry.

“They (oil and gas companies) have quite high tax rates,” Mr Stoltenberg told PerthNow.

“But, on the other hand, the industry is allowed to deduct all their expenses against the higher tax rates so, in a way, the industry pay higher taxes but they also deduct the costs against the tax rate so, in that, it’s not so heavy a tax burden.”

Mr Stoltenberg said the 78 per cent tax has not negatively affected local foreign investment in the lucrative sector.

“That works well,” he added.

“They can deduct 78 per cent of their costs, so you have to see both sides of the coin.”

Importantly, Mr Stoltenberg clarified how his country was investing the revenues generated by the oil tax into a national pension fund, akin to a future fund or sovereign wealth fund, securing Norway’s economic future on the back of the massive oil and gas industry.

“We established a pension fund: the idea is to save the revenue from the oil and gas sector,” he explained.

“All the state revenues are going directly into the pension fund and then we spend only the return, the real return, which is estimated to be 4 per cent.

“So we will never, in anyway, spend the instalment or use the instalment, we will only spend the return on the instalment.

“And the instalment for the time being is equal to around 100 per cent of GDP, more than $US500 billion.”

The MRRT does not include any form of sovereign wealth fund, in fact, Prime Minister Julia Gillard in August said that Australia does not need a sovereign wealth fund

“I believe that superannuation is already our trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund – but with market benefits,” Ms Gillard told a Financial Services Council breakfast in Sydney.

“That’s because it’s privately managed by thousands of trustees instead of a sovereign wealth fund managed centrally by a Canberra-appointed manager.

“Or alternatively, you could say that Australia has eight million sovereign wealth funds – the superannuation accounts of Australians across the country.

“These are the very same superannuation accounts we want to make massive injections into.

“But we can’t do it without an important piece of policy architecture, and that is the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:



Giving or returning government control over any business is certainly not a first step that would be recommended by anyone who believes in capitalism. That suggests you believe in an alternative. So I ask you, what are the alternatives?

si shen

---

Sorry I must be confused? Didn't you just write this

Quote:

---

In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.

---

I don't believe in unfettered capitalism, it needs checks and balances the same as governments do. The problem with the US, one of the problems, is that your corporations, unelected and largely unregulated are far more powerful than government. Government becomes just another pawn in a corporatist society. I dont know how you solve the problems of the US and dont even begin to try.

However, I dont live in the US and i do believe we can learn through your mistakes, not that we aren't suject to economic pressures as a result of decisions made in your country. I supported a superprofits mining tax, similar to what happens in Norway. I think companies shouldn't solely profit from what should be a national resource.

I think there is a place for publically owned housing and banking, and to not sell off any more utitlities.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Just my opinions of course. But they are sound.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

I don't even have the time to explain all that is so very very wrong with your 'opinions'. But I'll point out one smidge wrong with your logic. You seem to think that all those countries that have those unAmerican systems were some how created with them. But yanno, in real life, unlike in your fantasy land, until those countries adopted their systems, they weren't 'their' systems, either. And then, they were.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Best I do not preach to [sic] extensively and suggest we emulate them as too many here are fond of doing.

---