2012 by Magonsdaughter

Happy New Year, y'all.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 3:57 PM

America loves a winner!

Yep. Black eyed peas and collard greens tomorrow... Happy New Year !

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - Someone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 5:57 PM

Rap,

William J. H. Boetcker I see,

Curiously, every google match except for Wikipedia tells me Abraham Lincoln, but wiki has an excellent explanation of why that is not the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetcker

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
* And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

He also had a list of Seven National Crimes

* I don’t think.
* I don’t know.
* I don’t care.
* I am too busy.
* I leave well enough alone.
* I have no time to read and find out.
* I am not interested.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 7:19 PM

Happy New Year 2012!

Don't worry, Mayan apocalypse isn't 'til the end of the year.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 7:40 PM

America loves a winner!

DT -

The quote Reagan gave was inaccurate, in its origin. However, I strongly believe in its message. I know, because I've lived it. And it also is the history of our American nation.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - Someone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 8:37 PM

Auraptor,

I concur. I actually think the whole list, both lists, are very true. I think the second also derives from the first: These sins will abound in those who do not listen to the ten don'ts. If you burrow yourself into debt, you will find that you do not have the time, etc.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2012 7:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Interestingly, I'm sure you both mean what you said as a diss on the left (I KNOW Rap did), but I think it's both innacurate to do so, and the quotes don't apply to the "left":

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
I wasn't aware anyone was "discoraging thrift"

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
I wasn't aware anyone wanted to "weaken the strong"--I thought it was about; I thought it was more about "eliminating (or at least minimizing) the corruption of those with too much power".

* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
I'm not even sure what that means. Being rich doesn't make one "big", and nobody wants to "tear them down" anyway.

* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
Again, nobody wants to pull down the "wage payer" that I'm aware of. I thought it was about getting DECENT wages for the earners...so it's not, as it is now, that "50% of Americans are poor or low-wage earners"

Quote:
Census data: Half of U.S. poor or low income: Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-p
oor-or-low-income/

* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
Someone wants to destroy them? Wow, that's news to me!

* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
I think we, as a country, learned that, and are dealing with the results today. Americans were sold the idea of borrowing money (credit cards, etc.) long ago, and not by the left alone.

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
Class hatred is at LEAST as big, if not bigger, on the right than on the left. As the saying goes, "it's only class warfare when WE say it".

* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
Oh, okay, it was only the Democrats who did that?

* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
Again, I wasn't aware anyone wanted to do that. I don't think the idea is to destroy initiative and independence, more to bring down the overwhelming power/wealth of those who make money off making money, or got it by not doing any real "work".

* And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
Again, I wasn't aware anyone wanted to do that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2012 11:39 AM

Happy New Year.

Let's hope it ain't our last. ;)

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2012 11:48 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

* You cannot bring about prosperity by thrift alone. You can be a really thrifty housecleaner and never be a millionaire. Get some reality.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by strengthening the strong. The strong are, by and large, only interested in strengthening themselves and actually rely upon the weak to maintain their position of power.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. Well at least that is what the big men would have you believe. Actually in a capitalist society, 'tearing each other down' 'bringing down the opposition' 'reaping the rewards from others failures' are mantras for succuss.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. [Translation - do not make the wage payer pay decent wages, it will eat into his bottom line and that will make him cranky]
* You can help the poor by ensuring that not all opportunities to succeed are the sole domain of the rich.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money, except if you are a bank or a financial insitution and that is how you make sqillions.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man in a society where huge economic divisions exist and create class hatred
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn, but you can spend other peoples money quite easily.
* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's chance to succeed because of a system that is stacked in favour of the wealthy and against the poor.
* And you cannot help men permanently by exploiting their labour and their resources.

He also had a list of Seven National Crimes

* Corporate greed
* Sucking up to the rich and powerful
* Blaming the most disadvantaged in society for society's ills
* Putting wealth creation ahead of personal well being
* Believing opinion and infotainment to be the same thing as news
* Being obsessed with being 'Number 1 in the world'
* Hubris

Fixed.

Happy New Year.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2012 2:58 PM

He might be right wing and religious, but Boetcker has a point, and I think it's worth listening to before mocking. Our society's ills do persist on our apathy and our constant blaming of one another.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 6:31 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well done, Magons. Far better than my effort. DT...surely you are joking?

Quote:
Our society's ills do persist on our constant blaming of one another.

You mean that's NOT what he's doing??? His entire list is focused on "rich are good, don't touch them" and "poor just want handouts they don't deserve", etc. It's PURE, word for word, blaming the poor and defending the rich. So how are our replies pointed out to be "blaming"?

MY point was that his list is not what's happening, OR what the vast majority of people WANT to happen; what's wanted is moderation--not equality, you can never get that, but a lessening of the GIGANTIC gap between rich and poor, and some safety nets that protect the weakest segment of society. His entire list is made up of simplistic lecturing of "don't touch the rich, they're the good guys". How does that mean anythign?

In other words, if it were phrased differently, if it wasn't all one-sided, he wouldn't have SET US UP to blame one another--the list itself is nothing but blame, transparently blaming any effort to moderate things such as what's going on right now. To respond as if WE started the blaming is silly...well, in this case I'd probably be more accurate in thinking it's...what...deliberate blindness? Because if you say it the way YOUR response is worded, you are 100% wrong, IMHO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 7:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'll make another effort:

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot strengthen society as a whole by weakening the already weak.

* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
That one's pure fallacy, because it depends on the words "big" and "little". Big men who achieve "bigness" by unfair practices, abusing their strength and cronyism, aren't truly big. Big and little are determinant on the quality of the PERSON, not how much power/wealth/etc. they possess.

* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot lift the wage payer by pulling down the wage earner. In other words, if the wage earns a decent wage, they will create demand which lifts the wage payer (and again, all of society).

* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot help the rich by destroying the poor. Society is weakened if you only help the rich by concentrating the wealth and taking more and more from the poor.

* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
That I agree with 100%, it's a very valid point. But the way this whole list is phrased, it doesn't take into account that numerous segments of society have been encouraged to borrow for a very long time, and all segments of government have happily borrowed. How about "you cannot establish sound security by just borrowing money to throw at military might", in part?

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
Again I agree 100%. But there's my initial argument, that class hatred has been practiced for a LONG time by the rich against the poor and middle class, so it goes both ways.

* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
Absolutely true.

* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying people's opportunity to have initiative and independence. Again, given the wording of the list, it comes across as "helping the less advantaged destroys..." There are many in society who are unable to utilize their initiative because they can only struggle to survive day by day.

* And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
You cannot help society by allowing men to do only for themselves with no thought to how that affects society. We could go back and forth as to what percentage of those receiving financial safety nets (since again, that seems to be what this whole thing is about) who CHOOSE to let others do for them and those who utilize those safety nets to get to a point where they CAN do for themselves and utilize their initiative. Despite propaganda and mental blinders to the opposite, I think there are more of the latter than of the former.

As to seven national crimes, I would start with
1. I got mine, screw you.
2. I got mine, screw you.
3. I got mine, screw you.
4. I got mine, screw you.
5. I got mine, screw you.
6. I got mine, screw you.
7. I got mine, screw you.

But to address the list provided:
1. I don't think about anything but myself.
2. I don't know why I shouldn't get everything I can by whatever means I can.
3. I don't care about anyone but myself.
4. I'm too busy making money to pay attention to anything else.
5. I leave well enough alone because it benefits me to keep it that way.
6. I have no time making money to see the big picture.
7. I'm not interested in the safety/health/welfare/rights of those who increase my profits.

and I would add
8. If I can afford to buy those in power and buy power for myself, it will give me whatever I want.
9. I don't care if I can enhance my own power and wealth through means which are morally wrong and "destroy" the health of society.

Most of this list talks about individuals, but takes little into account as to the effects on society as a whole, or the long-term results of ignoring the less advantaged and focusing exclusively on the more advantaged, many of whom got there via corruption and the purchasing of power, or by inheritance of others. There are SO many examples of how the wealthy and powerful are given special treatment while the poor and those with NO power are allowed less and less, not to mention that NONE of those with wealth and power got there truly on their own. Society contributes to the achieving of power and wealth in many, many ways, so the wealthy and powerful shold take society into account, rather than focusing exclusively on what benefits only them, and only in the short term.

That's how I view it. That there is no black and what, there are only relative shades of grey, and to deny that by saying the rich and powerful are the "good guys" and that to touch them in any way is to "destroy", "weaken", "tear down", "pull down", etc., is a fallacy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 8:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
He might be right wing and religious, but Boetcker has a point, and I think it's worth listening to before mocking. Our society's ills do persist on our apathy and our constant blaming of one another.

Boetcker is laying blame, though... and YOU certainly seem to be going along with it. You see, you're not above laying blame yourself. It's just that when it's laid in certain directions, that's OK with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 10:13 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Happy New Year All!

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 10:32 AM

Sig

The only blame therein is towards debt.

What I was remarking upon was that other people rather than taking something at face value and nitpicking it were immediately replacing with their own. That's an output system.

Be a valley.

Here's another thing to consider. Has it ever bother you that I am so poor and have these economically conservative values that aid people much richer than themselves? Logically, I could say "because I want to be richer" on the theory what logic makes the rich also would make me richer, which is true, but rather I don't care. I see it as a misdirected effort. Someone else is doing well. It doesn't hurt me. The only time it hurts me is when one of them comes and demands what I have. Only one of them ever does that, and that's the govt.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 10:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The only time it hurts me is when one of them comes and demands what I have. Only one of them ever does that, and that's the govt.

Which is, or course, why you love fracking. It's not "government" taking away your livable environment, it's business... meeting a demand, reducing its expenses, and shifting the cost on to you and your family.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
His entire list is focused on "rich are good, don't touch them" and "poor just want handouts they don't deserve", etc. It's PURE, word for word, blaming the poor and defending the rich.

I don't see that at all. I don't agree with everything he said, necessarily. But I don't see what he said as blaming the poor and defending the rich. Your interpretation is certainly not "word for word."

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

Thrift is good for prosperity. Borrowing money is unsound. Overspending doesn't end well. Surely this is not controversial?

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

Destroying the rich doesn't help the poor.

There is no blame here for the poor. There is no defense of the rich. It is simply his opinion that destruction of one doesn't help the other. Maybe you disagree. But misconstruing these statements as "blame the poor" is a strawman.

Destroy the rich if you want. But do it for other reasons than that it is helping the poor.

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

Class hatred is divisive. Maybe he is blaming class haters, but he is still not blaming the poor.

* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.

Destroying initiative discourages character building. I think this applies to both the rich AND the poor.

* And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

Teach a man to fish, and all....

None of these statements are especially untrue or offensive. I think what is going on here is a mental association between strong = rich, initiative = rich, independence = rich, borrowers = poor, overspenders = poor, class hatred = poor, people who don't do for themselves = poor, etc. These inferences may be understandable, but I don't believe they are justified.

There is a lot of reading between the lines and jumping to conclusions through partisan lenses.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 7:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Destroy the rich if you want. But do it for other reasons than that it is helping the poor.

But what the rich CREATE poverty? Then it would make sense to destroy the rich, wouldn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The only time it hurts me is when one of them comes and demands what I have. Only one of them ever does that, and that's the govt.
Which is, or course, why you love fracking. It's not "government" taking away your livable environment, it's business... meeting a demand, reducing its expenses, and shifting the cost on to you and your family.

Sig,

Who do you think is responsible for fracking?

The dangerous horizontal chemical drilling technique was developed as a govt. project on govt. money and passed into law in 2005, and Halliburton was given the contract to develop it. Okay, they're a corporation, but a) just barely, they have no free market products, and b) I'm not defending corporations, I'm defending the free market.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 9:38 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fracking was passed into law? That makes as much sense as saying that growing corn was passed into law, or smelting iron was passed into law. I have no idea what that even means.

Besides, it's not Halliburton doing the fracking in your neck of the woods, is it? As far as I know, fracking is being pushed by the NYS Petroleum Council, which is Amerada Hess Corporation, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell Oil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 12:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA

A note on that...

Quote:
A 4.0 magnitude quake Saturday afternoon in McDonald, outside of Youngstown, was the 11th in a series of minor earthquakes in area, many of which have struck near the Youngstown injection well. The quake caused no serious injuries or property damage, Zehringer said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-31/northeast-ohio-ea
rthquake/52307134/1
http://www.dawn.com/2012/01/03/expert-wastewater-well-in-ohio-triggere
d-quakes.html

Startin to piss me off, it is.
Of course, don't expect that fuckhead Snyder to do anything but pick up some pom-poms and cheer for the idea here, being a typical corpie shill scumbag and part of the Walker-Koch state level coup - but at least the potential investors have chickened out when someone showed them how unviable, unprofitable and stupid it was since close examination of the contracts would have left THEM holding the legal liability.

Even the dumbest greed-blinded cretin will always seek their own interests, and turning that against dumbass crap like this is one of my specialties.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Destroy the rich if you want. But do it for other reasons than that it is helping the poor.
But what the rich CREATE poverty? Then it would make sense to destroy the rich, wouldn't it?

Do ALL rich people create poverty? Or is it just certain rich people? Is it rich and unscrupulous and evil people? What about middle class unscrupulous and evil people? What about poor unscrupulous and evil people?

Maybe unscrupulous and evil people in all classes create poverty. Target THEM and not all rich folks?

The point, of course, is associating evil with a certain economic class is as erroneous as associating evil with race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, intelligence, or any other one characteristic.

I think he was arguing against classism.

Just remember, Siggy, YOU are rich compared to 90% of the world. Are YOU evil? Did YOU create poverty? Should YOU be destroyed?

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:40 AM

Sig,

Halliburton loophole. Look it up.

Frem,

Ohio is really bad now because the NY fracking companies are shipping out because there's too much political resistance here, and they're moving to Ohio.

If we had a gov. worth half a damn he would sue the state of Ohio for contaminating NY water by fracking upstream.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 4:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Just remember, Siggy, YOU are rich compared to 90% of the world. Are YOU evil? Did YOU create poverty? Should YOU be destroyed?

A system which creates the very wealthy and the very poor is evil. Shall I detail the USA's history in South and Central America for you? The democratically-elected presidents we overthrew? The dictators we installed and trained? Surely, as a resident of Peru you must have heard about the Cochabamba water wars, where Bechtel was going to privatize (ie buy and control) the water and make even rainwater collection illegal? Isn't that evil? Since I take part in such a system... I pay taxes, half of which goes to an army with a world-wide bootprint, which robs the world of its riches and imposes capitalism on everyone... well, yes, I am evil. I'm a nice person, but I have no illusions where my relative wealth comes from. It is derived from the flesh of others. Please don't assume everyone is as comfortably blind as you.

Are you a comfortable and relatively wealthy expat using their strong currency to live well in a poorer nation? That would explain a lot about you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 4:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT-

The Halliburton loophole...
the 2005 Energy Bill exempted fracking from the Safe Water Drinking Act
www.earthworksaction.org/halliburton.cfm

In other words, what you are objecting to is that fracking is exempt from regulation. But isn't that what you want? No regulations?

It seems illogical at best to advocate getting rid of regulations generically on the one hand, and then want to impose them in a specific circumstance. How do you square one idea with the other?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 5:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

But isn't that what you want? No regulations?

Not immediately. If the govt. hadn't repealed property rights, there would be no need for environmental regulation. But they did, so there is.

Short story. After the civil war, the industrial boom was held back by property rights. It was impossible to pollute someone's land legally without them being able to sue or have you shut down. Industry polluted. Rather than wait for industry to find a way to be cleaner, they discarded property rights. Industry went wild, and polluted everything, so Nixon came up with environmental regulations.

That's a halfway decent solution, but it's neither perfect nor robust. A lot of environmental destruction goes on under those laws. But if you don't have regulation or property rights, then you have a system like we have now, where the govt. is there protecting the mountaintop removal companies and the frackers against retribution from the property owners, but not protecting the people against the polluters. It's a completely one sided pro-corporate govt. intervention. Is that what *you* want?

ETA:

Not to butt in but I don't think poverty is created by wealth, I think it's created by liability, in most cases debt, obligation and taxes. That's systematic. It doesn't happen everywhere in the world, so you can have rich people and not have this result.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 5:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT... nobody owned the waterways, nobody owned the air. There were no property rights guaranteeing their preservation. That is why they turned into dumping grounds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 6:47 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

A system which creates the very wealthy and the very poor is evil.

There you go, tossing that word around again.

What if you're wrong ? What if your claim that the 'system' isn't the cause of the very rich and the very poor ? What if it's more a culture, or a by-product of poor individual choices ? There's far more opportunity to succeed in capitalism than any other system. Blaming it for the failures of poor individual choices, or the corruption which is inherent in humans in general, regardless of economic system, seems a bit reactionary, if not down right silly.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 7:38 AM

Quote:
Just remember, Siggy, YOU are rich compared to 90% of the world. Are YOU evil? Did YOU create poverty? Should YOU be destroyed?

>_>

I am going to get my ass handed to me for saying this, but - Yes, Americans create poverty. Maybe even in 90% of the world.

Pre global market, people were only poor relative to their local market, and most local markets people had homes and could eat. They might have had a king, with wealth greater than theirs, but that king would look poor compared kings of wealthier nations, but anyway, wealth is irrelevant when you have food and shelter.

Drought plays a big role in the big famines we see nowadays, sure, but in some 3rd world places there's no drought but still famine, and I'm pretty sure that's due to exploitation.

Also, when we talk about the weak not being helped by tearing down the strong, I can't help but think of a predator/prey relationship.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 7:47 AM

Quote:
There's far more opportunity to succeed in capitalism than any other system.

I would say that depends. I'd also say we haven't technically tried every other system/arrangement.

Putting aside the unfortunate implications of saying the problems in an economic system all boil down to culture and bad personal choice...

Quote:
Blaming it for the failures of poor individual choices, or the corruption which is inherent in humans in general, regardless of economic system, seems a bit reactionary, if not down right silly.

That is a good point. Problems are not necessarily all systematic, just as they are not all bad choice. One feeds into another, exacerbates it. Like we saw with the mortgage meltdown. Companies saw a way to make more profits by giving bad loans and selling the toxic assets (the plot of The Producers comes to mind), some people were dumb enough to buy into that, and then the floor fell out underneath everyone who was involved. The system pushed the companies into pursuing less than sound business policies, and consumers bought into it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 7:50 AM

An elaboration on The Producers plot:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheProducers

Quote:
The film/play/film-again all depict Bialystock and Bloom meeting for the first time, and they promptly fall into a scheme to massively oversell shares in a Broadway production, then deliberately produce a horrific flop that closes in one night, leaving them free to flee with the profits without the IRS investigating the books.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 8:39 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
There's far more opportunity to succeed in capitalism than any other system.

I would say that depends. I'd also say we haven't technically tried every other system/arrangement.

Not only would that be virtually impossible, I'd say the evidence is in how many try to get to OUR country, our way of life, vs going elsewhere. Were there a better system, others would have adopted it by now, and that country would be the tops on immigrants trying to get in.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 8:50 AM

Quote:
Not only would that be virtually impossible, I'd say the evidence is in how many try to get to OUR country, our way of life, vs going elsewhere. Were there a better system, others would have adopted it by now, and that country would be the tops on immigrants trying to get in.

You're arguing two different things here. You first said said that CAPITALISM has the most opportunity (1), now you're arguing the specific representation of capitalism in our nation is the best ever (2). I'll grant you we get lots of immigrants, but what economic system do you think Mexico uses?

2 is true-ish, but 1 is not always true. Like I said, it depends. In the case of Mexico, but for the grace of NATO goes us. Capitalism has lots of opportunities, but it can also turn on the population in some pretty ugly ways.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 9:01 AM

America loves a winner!

My point is that it's unrealistic to think that every or even many different economic systems can be tried in the course of a nation's existence. So, to say it can't really tell because none others has been tried... while technically true, kinda misses the point. Freedom is the basis of capitalism,and being that this country offers more freedom than most, it only follows that this is where capitalism flourishes.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 9:34 AM

Quote:
My point is that it's unrealistic to think that every or even many different economic systems can be tried in the course of a nation's existence.

Sure. But there hasn't even been that many systems tried in many nations over history.

Pretty much it's been mercantilism, capitalism, feudalism, and stalinism.

Quote:
while technically true, kinda misses the point.

The current system works pretty good, right now it's a superpower (maybe "the best" right now), but there's no way to determine it will ALWAYS be the best. What's more, whether it's the best depends on if you're talking one nation out of 300 others, some of which use the same system but are nowhere near competitive with us. And there's been similar systems in the past which were corrupted, taken over by tyrants, or collapsed.

We're looking at the world the way that maybe feudalist royalty and peasants looked at it and said "this is the only system that works, there is no way that these bourgeoisie merchants could create a workable socio-economic system." Well, maybe we haven't had The Enlightenment period part 2 yet, so who's to know what we'll come up with?

All I know is that any economic system has to be competitive before it can displace existing economic systems. Maybe an economic system will be invented that outcompetes us.

Mostly I just don't want it to be China. Or Russia. And India has that whole caste system thing.

South Africa and Brazil would represent the least change from the current system. Brazil is even like us in that it uses fake money to stabilize it's economy, only in a more convoluted way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...well, yes, I am evil.

Glad to hear you admit it. So am I, by your definition of evil.

So next question: Should YOU be destroyed?

Quote:
Please don't assume everyone is as comfortably blind as you.

Please don't assume I am comfortable or blind.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:06 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
A system which creates the very wealthy and the very poor is evil. Shall I detail the USA's history in South and Central America for you?

But the U.S. is gone from South and Central America now, the Socialists have taken over, and South and Central America are adapting the Bolivarian System, so or course their income distribution is much better than the evil ole USA.

Or not, per the GINI index:

Bolivia - 60.1
Columbia - 58.6
Brazil - 58.0
Paraguay - 57.8
Chile - 57.1
Panama - 56.4
Guatemala - 55.1
Peru - 54.6
Honduras - 53.8
Argentina - 52.8
El Salvador - 52.4
Costa Rica - 49.9
Uruguay - 44.9
Venezuela - 44.1
Eucador - 43.7
Nicaragua - 43.1
Evil ole USA - 40.8

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_equ_un_gin_ind-income-equali
ty-un-gini-index

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:49 AM

Brazil isn't socialist. Neither is Chile. Or Panama. Or Uruguay.

Colombia is a corrupt constitutional two party government (three if you count the drug cartels) and a war zone. Argentina is borderline, capitalist but there's a socialist revolution going on, the existing government is getting lots of support from the US and IMF. El Salvador has been right wing but recently voted in a left-wing candidate (but not socialist, as far as I can tell), and uses the US dollar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 12:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Don't eeeeven get me started about Argentina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
Sometimes I wonder if the only reason Kissinger is still alive is cause Satan might be concerned for his job...

Anyhow, know what HAPPENS when a country tries a system other than the rapacious crony capitalism which enriches first world nations ?
It gets fed a coup, or invaded, or bombed into the fuckin stone age BY those nations.

Of course, hand it to Chavez, crazy that the shyster bastard is, and gettin crazier by the day (which'll be it's own problem soon enough, I know), the first thing he did was play em against each other and build up enough military force to really bloody the nose of any of us so-called superpowers that tries it - and our very interference gave him a realistic external threat to unify his people against.

If I have any real hopes for 2012, it is the wish that this sociopathic, rabidly nationalistic insanity begins to fade, but I have little hope that will occur without bloodshed, and if so, better that those clamoring for violence suffer it than those they see as prey.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:24 PM

Geezer, that data is out of date, I think. One of the reasons why Occupy has caught on is that the gap has widen quickly in the US and I think we're now around .45.

Byte,

Quote:

The largest political parties are the Workers' Party (PT), Democrats (DEM), Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB-center), Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB), Progressive Party (PP), Brazilian Labor Party (PTB), Liberal Party (PL), Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB), Popular Socialist Party (PPS), Democratic Labor Party (PDT), and the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB).[168]

The socialists are currently in power and have been, as you knew I would know, given them having the world's premiere environmental problem. But politically it goes from blue to bluer to commie red. There really isn't a right wing party on the list.

Sig,

Glad to know you're confirmed evil. The commons are owned in common, but any water or air contamination according to the old rule was if it is unusable on your land one day from the year, then it is a violation of your property rights. Porperty rights were abandoned after the civil war to make way for industry.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 4:35 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer, that data is out of date, I think. One of the reasons why Occupy has caught on is that the gap has widen quickly in the US and I think we're now around .45.

Lots of variables about GINI index. your's is the CIA one and mine is the UN/World Bank one. Nevertheless, a lot of the more Socialist countries in South and Central America have at least as high or higher (sometimes much higher) GINI index than the U.S.

Unfortunately, since most of South and Central America ian't in the OECD, you can't compare changes over time like the second and third tables here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 4:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Glad to hear you admit it. So am I, by your definition of evil.So next question: Should YOU be destroyed?

If my wealth were taken away to create a liveable, sustainable world for everyone, that would be a good thing, would it not?

I'm only hanging on to whatever wealth I have because the system creates such dire poverty. I would gladly give it up for a world in which I wouldn't have to fear for my child's future because all would be cared for, even the disabled.

Greed creates fear, and fear creates greed. It is a self-imposed prison. Why do you support it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 5:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig,Glad to know you're confirmed evil.

in my book, so are you, so I guess we're even.

Quote:
The commons are owned in common, but any water or air contamination according to the old rule was if it is unusable on your land one day from the year, then it is a violation of your property rights. Porperty rights were abandoned after the civil war to make way for industry.

You are weasel-wording the definition of "property rights" to make your point... whatever it is. The best I can figure out is that you are saying that the definition of property rights has changed. In fact, has been changed by the wealthy FOR the wealthy. Gee, ya think?

There were/ are different systems of property rights, some recognize communal ownership, others recognize individual ownership, some recognize corporate ownership, some recognize national or state ownership, and some recognize all of the above, and none of the above.

It sounds like you are saying that the rights of communal owners were abrogated by the notion of private property. What are you, a communalist or something?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 5:10 PM

DT: thought we were talking economy, not which parties are currently in power. Brazil is technically capitalist, maybe to be more accurate it's a mixed economy like the US.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 5:28 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, maybe someday you'll be honest and you really WILL surprise us, but today is not that day.

One of the differences between the more leftward-leaning nations of S Amer is not just the static GINI but the trend.

While our GINI has been going up dramatically

1968- 38.6
1970- 39.4
1980- 40.3
1990- 42.8
2000- 46.2
2010- 46.8

Brazil's (for example) has been going down
1981- 57.4
1989*- 62.5
1997- 59.3
2004- 56.4

www.drclas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/935

*This was the highest recorded index, which occurred just after the military (supported by the USA) finally gave up control of the economy after driving it off a cliff.

In any case, there are some more left-leaning nations south of the border and others not so much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2012 5:38 PM