Would you vote for Jon Stewart?

[Demetrick]

If we quit curing once life threatening diseases... it would be a start toward a negative growth rate.

[Gafgarionn]

and I even toured with a band for 6 months (Angie Aparo, if anyone's heard the song "Cry" that Faith Hill sold bukoo bucks on, he's the dude that wrote it).

Funny, I used to be best friends with his nephew.

[Gregorio]

........

oh, and Gregorio, you totally sound like a Republican, I feel sorry for you.

"Of course the job is going to be outsourced, I sure as hell don't want to pay a premium on my products to protect the people in the world that won't at least goto a tech school and learn a trade"

I fucking will, at least it stays in the US.....

Someone else already got it right, it's more of a libertarian standpoint. You're starting to sound like a socialist, which is much worse than a republican. And it doesn't take a libertarian point of view to see that making it harder for companies to operate by raising the minimum wage will be bad for unskilled workers.

While you may pay more money for a product because it's made in the US, you're in the minority, and business owners know this. When companies have to pay workers more, that money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from those companies downsizing and raising prices. Or the company can simply pack up and ship overseas or down to Mexico where they can operate much cheaper and have less rigorous environmental standards to follow.

People have brought up that lots of companies have already gone overseas to operate cheaper, and it's true. Do you think things will get better if we make it more expensive here for them to operate? I don't see why saying this makes you think I'm a republican. Anyone with a basic understanding of business or economics can realize this.

[Quicklet]

Jon Stewart is so overrated.

People have brought up that lots of companies have already gone overseas to operate cheaper, and it's true. Do you think things will get better if we make it more expensive here for them to operate? I don't see why saying this makes you think I'm a republican. Anyone with a basic understanding of business or economics can realize this.

By the way, just as a footnote to this, to the person who originally brought this up since I really don't need to read 7 pages about Jon Stewart, outsourcing is a two-way street. Companies like Toyota have built factories in the U.S., so if everyone decided to do the whole "rah-rah nationalism" thing, you'd end up with a lower standard of living across the board since you would lose as many jobs as you gained, if not more.

Anyone who wants to present a cogent argument involving economics needs to read some good Austrian economics, particularly Murray Rothbard who's written both a very good general economics book as well as some great historical literature about the United States as well as its banking system. True capitalism, allowing people to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't violate another person's right to property or life, is the best way to improve the economic (not necessarily material though) quality of life for everybody, and the results of capitalism boil down to two things: the gap between the poorest and the richest people widens, but at the same time the poorest people still receive the benefits of a higher standard of living. That is why even most of the poor people in capitalistic societies are much better off than in areas that are constantly under the control of totalitarianism or socialism.

[Shaede]

I'd question the philosophy of anyone who claims that capitalism is superior to socialism or totalitarianism. Each has their own pros and cons, the people benefit in certain aspects over others, and neither is truly better or worse than the next. The claim that capitalism is superior mostly stems, I believe, from the fact that our lives focus on those particular areas that we give the most attention to in our law (which is natural if you're raised in that setting). Many of the other benefits of the other forms of government (health care for example) aren't a dominate aspect of our lives, so we value them less in comparison to the ones we've taken advantage of and focused on in our own society. Thus, it's often difficult to understand how well another person is living if we don't understand what it is they value most in life.

[Eternus]

My only problem with socialism is that it is idealistic. I know people who don't carry their own weight in the workforce, and they shouldn't be paid as much as someone who does more work or work that is more valuable to the corporation. Also as someone who works with small businesses I think capitalism is wonderful. As much as a small business can fall on its face and fail, it can also succeed and flourish. It is all depending on a good idea, business plan and hard work. Thinking that everyone will work hard when you pay everyone the same is fucking stupid.

[Gregorio]

I'd question the philosophy of anyone who claims that capitalism is superior to socialism or totalitarianism. Each has their own pros and cons, the people benefit in certain aspects over others, and neither is truly better or worse than the next. The claim that capitalism is superior mostly stems, I believe, from the fact that our lives focus on those particular areas that we give the most attention to in our law (which is natural if you're raised in that setting). Many of the other benefits of the other forms of government (health care for example) aren't a dominate aspect of our lives, so we value them less in comparison to the ones we've taken advantage of and focused on in our own society. Thus, it's often difficult to understand how well another person is living if we don't understand what it is they value most in life.

I'd question the philosophy of anyone who truely believes they have a right to what I've worked hard for simply because they are alive.

The claim that capitalism is superior is because in every area of every industry, a free market (or privately owned) system's product is superior to a non free market one. Health care, education, military, you name it, there are privately owned companies that are far better than government owned.

[Shaede]

I'd question the philosophy of anyone who truely believes they have a right to what I've worked hard for simply because they are alive.

The claim that capitalism is superior is because in every area of every industry, a free market (or privately owned) system's product is superior to a non free market one. Health care, education, military, you name it, there are privately owned companies that are far better than government owned.

It works both ways, there are capitalist companies that are also far worse for us than socialist counterparts, such as Walmart or McDonalds.

Again, notice how intertwined your own philosophy in life is with the brand of society you were brought up in (or choose to live in). "I want to benefit from my labor." What if you didn't have this concept of I, but instead, you blurred the lines between your own personal gain and the gain of people as a whole. "We want to benefit from our labor." Is that not, in theory, a more noble goal? And if it is, then what makes it so that we prefer to focus on ourselves?

Is capitalism superior? I can't say. Is a ruthless dictator any worse than a careless democratic populace that does not keep those in power under a close eye? Is a society of moral and intelligent people who hold elections truly superior to a single benevolent ruler with all the power? It really depends more on your perception of it and how you would like to fit in with it rather than whether it's "better" or "worse".

[Eaglestrike]

More noble? Sure. Are humans noble? No.

[Gregorio]

I'd question the philosophy of anyone who truely believes they have a right to what I've worked hard for simply because they are alive.

The claim that capitalism is superior is because in every area of every industry, a free market (or privately owned) system's product is superior to a non free market one. Health care, education, military, you name it, there are privately owned companies that are far better than government owned.

It works both ways, there are capitalist companies that are also far worse for us than socialist counterparts, such as Walmart or McDonalds.

Again, notice how intertwined your own philosophy in life is with the brand of society you were brought up in (or choose to live in). "I want to benefit from my labor." What if you didn't have this concept of I, but instead, you blurred the lines between your own personal gain and the gain of people as a whole. "We want to benefit from our labor." Is that not, in theory, a more noble goal? And if it is, then what makes it so that we prefer to focus on ourselves?

Is capitalism superior? I can't say. Is a ruthless dictator any worse than a careless democratic populace that does not keep those in power under a close eye? Is a society of moral and intelligent people who hold elections truly superior to a single benevolent ruler with all the power? It really depends more on your perception of it and how you would like to fit in with it rather than whether it's "better" or "worse".

Socialist counterparts in McDonalds and Walmart? Better for who? The workers or the consumers? If you're talking workers rights, then nobody forced anyone into working at McDonalds or Walmart. And if you mean better for consumers that's not the case either. In a socialist Walmart I'd be paying for their stuff even if I don't shop there. That doesn't seem too consumer friendly to me.

And my own philosophy is called a natural right. What I work for I keep. My natural right does not impose on anyone else. Your philosophy and your "noble goal" certainly does and you sound like you'd fit in well in the former USSR.

And of course I want to benefit from my labor, thats why I work so hard in the first place. If I want to work my ass off so I can get a big screen TV, and after I've done all the work the government steps in and says "Well we know you saved up all this money and all...but wouldn't it be nicer if instead of you getting a big screen we get you and all your neighbors a couple 16 inch TVs instead?" And my hard work not only benefits me, it benefits the economy as well. People benefit all around from the work I've done, and when I buy that big screen even more people benefit.

You don't know which one is superior? Let me ask you this...would you rather live in Cuba or China than in the US, Canada, or any other non-communist nation?

[edgarfigaro]

I'd question the philosophy of anyone who truely believes they have a right to what I've worked hard for simply because they are alive.

The claim that capitalism is superior is because in every area of every industry, a free market (or privately owned) system's product is superior to a non free market one. Health care, education, military, you name it, there are privately owned companies that are far better than government owned.

It works both ways, there are capitalist companies that are also far worse for us than socialist counterparts, such as Walmart or McDonalds.
.

umm, no.

Governments are terrible, terrible businesses. Always. They are inefficient, they have 10x's the infrustructure necessary to do business, and they are extremely slow to adapt to anything. Oh, and the worst part? They're run by politicians and their appointees.

What is so bad about Walmart and McDonalds? They provide employment to alot of people (and Walmart really isn't evil incarnate like Hilary Clinton would want you to believe, it actually pays a higher wage than most of its competition) and provide cheap goods for the general populace. Yeah, it's unfortunate that some people can't provide for themselves and their family on a walmart wage...better than even more people not having jobs and sitting around with government hand outs.

France has an unemployment rate in double digits, a ridiculous amount, due to the fact that their socialized economy prevents companies from getting rid of dead weight. They are becoming a lesser player in the EU and world economy because they cannot compete without giving their companies flexiblity...and god forbid the French people work more than 35 hours a week >.> America competes with lower costs of labor in other countries because our productivity is one of the highest in the world...thanks to our merit based capitalist society. That is why socialism is terrible and capitialism, even with its flaws, is by far the superior system.

[Quicklet]

I'd question the philosophy of anyone who claims that capitalism is superior to socialism or totalitarianism. Each has their own pros and cons, the people benefit in certain aspects over others, and neither is truly better or worse than the next. The claim that capitalism is superior mostly stems, I believe, from the fact that our lives focus on those particular areas that we give the most attention to in our law (which is natural if you're raised in that setting). Many of the other benefits of the other forms of government (health care for example) aren't a dominate aspect of our lives, so we value them less in comparison to the ones we've taken advantage of and focused on in our own society. Thus, it's often difficult to understand how well another person is living if we don't understand what it is they value most in life.

I'm assuming this is in response to my post, but you always have pretty well-thought out reasoning so it's nice to have something worthwhile to post in response to as opposed to most of the drivel that gets spewed out on these boards.

First of all, to clarify, I wasn't trying to say that capitalism was flat out superior to other forms of economy, or that there is something inherently "wrong" from a historical standpoint if other countries are not capitalistic.

The school of economics (and the underlying philosophy and logic behind it) that I primarily follow, Austrian economics, which I do believe is more soundly reasoned than most others, still limits itself from trying to encroach upon the social sciences because it assumes that people act rationally (as in purposefully, not necessarily wisely or even very thoughtfully) and have free will, so that even if such sciences such as psychology, sociology, and biology may assume that various factors influence how people act, ultimately those sciences cannot 100% predict how people will act, and it would be futile to assume it could for economic models. If you don't believe that people act purposefully or that they ultimately don't have free will, then I suppose it would be easy to discount the logical extensions of those axioms.

Ultimately, the more you meddle with how people handle their own affairs, the more it usually results in something worse off than what would have happened. The United States is much, much less capitalistic than it used to be, and you can trace the real change back to around the time of the Civil War, where federal power essentially trumped states' rights. Hell, the first federal income tax, which was minimal compared to what it is now (and only applied to rich people), had people up in arms over it. It's something that's taken for granted now (though many people still try to avoid paying as much as they can). The real problem, though, is that the banking system was run horribly in the early 1900s, and instead of relying on a metal-backed currency, governments, including the U.S., thought they could use fiat to make up for debts and other issues that they would otherwise have to deal with in a realistic financial manner if they couldn't just print more money. The end result is The Great Depression, and FDR's legacy unfortunately was to screw up a lot of the capitalist foundation of the country. Most of what he did made the Depression longer, but because it takes twice as long to unwind all the causes and effects of central economic planning as it does to say "We're going to create jobs for you and regulate the economy so that you can survive" as if there is some abstract numerical concept of a job or a price that can be artificially manipulated without causing some disconnect with an economy, most people don't even see why FDR did so much to hurt the nation even as he was a very effective leader. His biggest legacy, Social Security, is such a horribly designed program that it is going to self-destruct when the demographics turn against it, and most of the benefits it has provided have been counteracted by the massive negatives. There is no "saving" Social Security; inevitably people will either have to pay much more into the system, or the program will have to be scaled back, and as the first is MUCH more likely to happen than the latter because of demagoguery, the consequences will be extremely noticeable.

The economic problem with socialism, communism, and totalitarianism, are that they always carry unintended consequences that are just as bad if not worse than the benefits they provide to some people. It's perfectly fine for you to believe that it is more noble for all to receive a minor benefit than for one person to receive a lot of benefit, and others to receive less and sometimes even lose because of mistakes they make. Unfortunately, if you cannot accept that realistically there will always be some people who suffer either from their inherent condition or from bad decision-making, and that it is morally wrong to take what other people have earned rightfully (i.e. without stealing, committing fraud, or in any other way forcing another person to do something), then the whole reasoning behind why capitalist societies are more prosperous and have a higher standard of living may not make much sense.

Realistically, economies that are extremely socialist in nature are destined to collapse or to stagnate in horrible conditions for most, but economies that are purely capitalistic and free are so hard to keep because of how easy it is to argue the benefits of socialist aspects and how much more attention is required to offer counterpoints that show why those socialist aspects hurt everyone in the long run. The appeal of capitalism over socialism is that in a capitalism, you are still free to give your money and time to other people if that's your desire. In socialism, you're not, and because empirically people are usually worse off economically in socialist societies, there are many less people who have the luxury of helping others because they have to worry about meeting their own basic needs.

[Shaede]

Goodness, this is a lot to reply to.

And my own philosophy is called a natural right. What I work for I keep. My natural right does not impose on anyone else. Your philosophy and your "noble goal" certainly does and you sound like you'd fit in well in the former USSR.

Now hold up for a second. My philosophy? Since when? I was merely asking questions to envoke thinking. You have a lot of intelliegent points, don't start reducing them to meaningless judgements and accusations.

And of course I want to benefit from my labor, thats why I work so hard in the first place.

It's very true. Though it would be idealist to believe that we could get rid of the underclass and help the lower class, the truth is that the opporitunity generaly exists for each individual in a capitalist nation to move up (or down) the economic ladder. I could give several real world examples of people who's moved about this ladder due to their own action or inaction. That kind of freedom is a good thing, even if it's often the truth that by climbing the same ladder, you knock other people down (or off of) it unintentionally.

Let me ask you this...would you rather live in Cuba or China than in the US, Canada, or any other non-communist nation?

No, I wouldn't want to live in a communist country.

Governments are terrible, terrible businesses. Always. They are inefficient, they have 10x's the infrustructure necessary to do business, and they are extremely slow to adapt to anything. Oh, and the worst part? They're run by politicians and their appointees.

Overgeneralization. There are government run agencies that are highly effective just as there are capitalist businesses that are not. Though it is true that a failing government causes much more trouble than a failing business.

What is so bad about Walmart and McDonalds?

I'd like to answer this, but it would only result in a big ugly wall of text. Let's just say that the number of people who have benefited from said companies is dwarfed by all the people (and places) they have stepped on to bring that benefit.

France has an unemployment rate in double digits, a ridiculous amount, due to the fact that their socialized economy prevents companies from getting rid of dead weight...

I'd like to work 35 hours a week. But that's not the point. You're right. It's only one example, but it shows that sometimes socialism doesn't actually offer what it promises to, just like any other system. Worst of all; it only functions in a place where the people have the mindset for it- France not being one of those places.

Speaking of mindset, I think that's the key here. Ideally, a communist place such as Cuba should benefit everyone. But in practice, because the values of the leaders and of the people do not match those presented by the philosophy in their law, it fails. In fact, I think it's safe to say, that where you find socialist law in action, you find a failing government and a distressed people. But is this the fault of socialism, or is it the fault of no one and simply the fact that there have yet to be people and leaders who truly live with the way of thinking required to make such a civilization work? Communism spread across many areas of the world, usually very suddenly and forcefully, but sometimes peacefully. It was such an incredible change in lifestyle for the people involved. Imagine trying to change nations to follow the laws of Sparta. Sparta itself was an incredibly effective nation that was respected and feared by its neighbors, but their way of life required such a specific upbringing that when it fell, it forever fell. No one could bring ever it back. Does that make the laws of Sparta wrong or inferior to ours, or does it simply mean that they are incapatible with our current world mindset?

First of all, to clarify, I wasn't trying to say that capitalism was flat out superior to other forms of economy, or that there is something inherently "wrong" from a historical standpoint if other countries are not capitalistic.

Yeah, I wasn't so much targetting that at you as merely stating my own point. Later on, though, others joined in making that exact claim, so I continued on that train of thought.

The school of economics (and the underlying philosophy and logic behind it) that I primarily follow, Austrian economics, which I do believe is more soundly reasoned than most others, still limits itself from trying to encroach upon the social sciences because it assumes that people act rationally...ultimately those sciences cannot 100% predict how people will act, and it would be futile to assume it could for economic models.

I agree. There is no way to predict how people will act, especially in a world where social reform is in constant, rapid, motion. What is rational for one will be irrational for another.

The United States is much, much less capitalistic than it used to be, and you can trace the real change back to around the time of the Civil War...

Yeah, there are several key moments in this shift away from capitalism in our history. After the gilded age (when the evils of capitalism were at their height) we begin to see more and more trusts breaking up due to reform. The Great Depression, as you said, was certainly many steps in a socialist direction with FDR's first 100 days in office. You can even trace some of the same famliar patterns into the days of JFK, who was assassinated, but had his legislation pass through congress not long after thanks to LBJ. Today it seems we're starting to shift again in the direction away from socialist ideologies in our government, but people still demand a few (health care being the best example). Overall, we're still very capitalist, even if no longer the most so in the world.

The appeal of capitalism over socialism is that in a capitalism, you are still free to give your money and time to other people if that's your desire. In socialism, you're not, and because empirically people are usually worse off economically in socialist societies, there are many less people who have the luxury of helping others because they have to worry about meeting their own basic needs.

A person who eats meat every day can always give some of the meat to a friend if they are hungry. A vegetarian cannot because they do not eat meat. They'll have to give their friend something else.

[Eternus]

Eh I am an omnivore so I could offer both veggies and meat haha. Look at my teeth, I have canines that are made solely for the purpose of rending flesh. That is a different subject, I digress.

I just do not see a realistic instance where full on socialism or communism would be effective enough for a country in the long term. This is mainly due to human nature. I shouldn't have to even explain the nature of humans and how they are about being lazy and work habits and why socialism isn't the answer to motivating a higher percentage of the populace to be self sufficient.

[Krylanna]

What is so bad about Walmart and McDonalds?

What's so bad about the tobacco industry?

[Eternus]

What is so bad about Walmart and McDonalds?

What's so bad about the tobacco industry?

Last I checked Walmart sold cigarettes and McDonalds didn't. McDonalds might not be the best place to work or serve the healthiest food lol, but we have a choice whether to work there or to eat there. Either way its the choice of the person that consumes unhealthy shit or just plain cancerous things like cigarettes.

[Quicklet]

Here's an addendum to the argument raised about outsourcing from a new study that just came out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060825/us_ ... ctivity_dc

[Eternus]

Here's an addendum to the argument raised about outsourcing from a new study that just came out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060825/us_ ... ctivity_dc

Of course outsourcing would make for enough room to make wages for the already working in our nation to be raised. They sure do not have to hire more US workers to do the job, so the companies that are fine with outsourcing do it to save money on their bottom line. This usually makes the whole company money, but in scale it usually benefits the CEOs and other big wigs more. GM cut 100k jobs in Detroit recently and plan on "retiring" another 300k or so in the near future. Other industries are also feeling pain from outsourcing, but not in that many jobs leaving the country to save the corporation money.

[Xiona]

while you have the illusion of choice to eat at fast food establishments, it really falls down to your real options. sure you can easily goto a grocery store and buy food to prepare, but so many children were raised on fast food instead of parents cooking and teaching them how to cook it makes for less options.

i had a friend who literally had no idea how to make a tuna fish sandwich. is this stupidity or lack of being taught the basics of food preperation.

point 2 i have is, say you have know how to make food yourself. whats cheaper a burger from a dollar menu, or 10-18 bucks for the groceries as well as 30min to 2 hours preparing and cooking. a lot of americans despite what you may think are so broke they have to make choices where they shouldnt. example would be, should i buy myself dinner or shampoo/pay phone bill/add to rent/etc.

theres plenty of times i went to mcdonalds used my dollar to buy food and walked to work because it was a choice between eatting or taking the bus.

sure we're all imbued with the potential to make choices, but when the odds are stacked against us in that process there really is no where to go. im not saying its all mcdonalds fault, but they arent making it any easier. if health experts can say you should only eat mcdonalds once every few months then why dont they suffer the same taxes that other activities have. smoking is taxed to all hell because its in the same boat. why doesnt fast food restaurants have a fat tax. we'd still have the choice to eat at these places, but that dollar menu would have a 5-6 dollar taxk on all items.

(Edit: the last paragraph was meant to try and address the issue of fast food in highly impoverished areas of america. if mcdonalds isnt the cheap alternative then more people will goto grocery stores)

[Eternus]

Sorry, but any lazy ass can read a book at their local library for free and learn how to cook enough meals to be affordable enough to forgo eating at McDonald's. Tuna fish sandwich? That is fucking stupidity imo. Hell Ramen noodles are cheaper than McDonald's.. so are alot of other insanely easy and cheap things you can make yourself. I can eat a microwave TV dinner for 3-5 bucks and it has more nourishment than what McDonald's has to offer for the same price. People just are pathetically lazy.