Losing Our Way

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Vendor

So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home.

They have oil. We can use that in our SUV's. Just don't say it too loud, don't want the people of Rwanda know why we can help and oil country and not them.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

UnderseaLcpl, last i checked this is the United States, not F'ing China or India. You've used that part in the bold before, and what it seems to me your really saying is, "Your not living in huts, so STFU". What you are arguing for, IS a redesitribution of wealth, in and of itself. Your arguing that it is ok to redistribute American wealth, across the globe, because we aren't living in huts.

That's not what I'm saying at all, Deuce, sorry if I gave you that impression. I don't know if you read the rest of the post (can't blame you if you didn't) but what I'm arguing for is limitation of government because government is so counterproductive. It inadvertently ends up sedning our jobs overseas or destroying them entirely or making it so that nobody creates them in the first place.

I don't much care for the current world distribution of wealth, but I'm not out to fix it. Actually, if we adopted my consistent stance that we should restrict government and lower corporate and capital gains taxes to a fraction of what they are now, or better yet, to zero, we'd end up making a lot of the world poorer as firms (and especially financial firms) flocked to the US.

In order to ensure that, and to preserve the American way of life, we need to look after our own people.. You know.. looking out for your own? Didn't they teach you that in the Marine Corp?

And that's precisely what I'm doing, as best I know how. Granted, my preferred method is not going to save the family farm or the old mill. In fact, a lot of jobs like that would be lost for lack of subsidies. However, there would be so many new and better jobs created that we come out out. Even the little guy wins because employers will be forced to pay more and provide training just to attract workers because there won't be enough to go around. The wealth generated by such a business environment would also provide jobs in other countries since we buy everything from everybody else. Everybody wins in the end.

[Ducimus]

I don't know if you read the rest of the post (can't blame you if you didn't)

Your right i didn't. With posts that touch on one of the few topics I actually give a rats ass about, the post itself becomes a persuasive argument i scrutinize with a furrowed brow. It's much akin to that old TV game show The instant i see something that I strongly disagree with, the stop button gets hit, and the whammy comes out. At that point, i stop reading.


On the bright side of things, at least were wanting the same thing. We aren't quite on the same page as to how to achieve that same thing, but at least we seem to want the same thing. Honestly, reading your posts (i dont always respond) half the time, i think you love your personal finances more then you love the your country. (edit: For clairification that means, half the time, i think you'd outsource everyones job/livelyhood if it meant for you to getting ahead, just like those big time CEO's with the golden parachutes that screw everyone over)

I'm not making that accusation, its just the impression i get as much as you go on about your love of globalization and unrestricted capitalism, with so little mention of anything else. I pick up on that, because I have very strong sense of nationalism, and i'm probably one of the few people around who will still use the word "Countryman". (look up the synonyms for that if the word is fuzzy to you. )

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

They have oil. We can use that in our SUV's. Just don't say it too loud, don't want the people of Rwanda know why we can help and oil country and not them.

Glad I do not drive a gas-guzzling car, but sometimes I drive fast then easily come up in 1.4 liters miles 1 mile (10 kilometer)

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Your right i didn't. With posts that touch on one of the few topics I actually give a rats ass about, the post itself becomes a persuasive argument i scrutinize with a furrowed brow. It's much akin to that old TV game show The instant i see something that I strongly disagree with, the stop button gets hit, and the whammy comes out. At that point, i stop reading.

I figured it would be because my posts are always so damn long. Sometimes I look back at what I wrote and I don't even want to read it.

On the bright side of things, at least were wanting the same thing. We aren't quite on the same page as to how to achieve that same thing, but at least we seem to want the same thing. Honestly, reading your posts (i dont always respond) half the time, i think you love your personal finances more then you love the your country. (edit: For clairification that means, half the time, i think you'd outsource everyones job/livelyhood if it meant for you to getting ahead, just like those big time CEO's with the golden parachutes that screw everyone over)

Nah, I'm not like that. If I could be accused of being so heartless it would be in the sense that I want to outsource other nations' jobs to us, along with most of their liquid capital. I want to make sure the dollar is always the world's reserve currency. I want every business that can do so to be based in the US so we own everything anyway, no matter where it's made or mined. Easiest way to do that is to get our public debt and defecit under control. Cut the most wasteful programs and subsidies. Simplify the regs. And then pull the rug out from the rest of the world's feet by suddenly dropping corporate and investment taxes to zero. Companies will be tripping over each other to source work here and invest in US businesses.

It's a dirty trick but if we could ever implement it we'd be sitting pretty for a long time.

I'm not making that accusation, its just the impression i get as much as you go on about your love of globalization and unrestricted capitalism, with so little mention of anything else. I pick up on that, because I have very strong sense of nationalism, and i'm probably one of the few people around who will still use the word "Countryman". (look up the synonyms for that if the word is fuzzy to you. )

Well that's mostly because I value freedom so much. Particularly the freedom of this nation. But to be free you need to (a) not be beholden to the state and (b)be wealthy enough to make free choices and not forced ones out of necessity. Until you get those out of the way there really isn't much point in discussing what we could or should be doing because it isn't really our choice, anyway.

My sense of nationalism is just as strong as yours. I just want to make sure that it indeed remains "our" sense of nationalism and not one used to goad us into supporting political agendas or supporting some half-coked state plan and then forgiving them for frakking it up because it's "patriotic". I hope that helps you see where I'm coming from, countryman

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

UnderseaLcpl, last i checked this is the United States, not F'ing China or India. You've used that part in the bold before, and what it seems to me your really saying is, "Your not living in huts, so STFU". What you are arguing for, IS a redesitribution of wealth, in and of itself. Your arguing that it is ok to redistribute American wealth, across the globe, because we aren't living in huts.

Well, yeah, it's true, we don't live in huts, but this is the United States of America. Places like China or Inida is there, and this is here, and HERE is what matters. Here we have and should have higher standards, and you should expect no less for your home country! In order to ensure that, and to preserve the American way of life, we need to look after our own people.. You know.. looking out for your own? Didn't they teach you that in the Marine Corp?

Easy, there. Debate the message, don't attack the messenger.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Easy, there. Debate the message, don't attack the messenger.

I don't mind. I've come close to crossing that line myself more than enough. I try not to take things personally. I like everyone on this site, even Tribesman. Hence the stolen sig.

Your site, your rules, of course.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Vendor

Not invite him to some temptation now

saw this...couldn't help but think of this thread

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

But mostly, I hate it because it's almost always part of an argument that is indicative of a desire to force a redistribution of wealth, which in turn requires government intervention.

Why is it acceptable then to have that top 1% take unfair advantage of a rigged political system that allows the wealth to be redistributed upwards?

The solution isn't to say "ok we're taking X% of your wealth and giving it to the poor people." That's only treating the symptom. The cure is to treat the system that allows for such a concentration of wealth to occur.

You the consumer are paying $4 and $5 a gallon for gas. Meanwhile, oil speculators at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley drive the price per barrel up more and more. Traders at AIG make ridiculously stupid bets on the derivatives and credit default markets. When they blow up, who makes them whole? You the taxpayer. You pay for it with overcrowded schools because of slashed education budgets. You pay for it with 10% unemployment. You pay for it with reduced social services. All because the titans of capitalism are "too big to fail." Makes me sick.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

saw this...couldn't help but think of this thread

Well,you are enough "old" to understand what was meant

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Why is it acceptable then to have that top 1% take unfair advantage of a rigged political system that allows the wealth to be redistributed upwards?

It's not. That's why I'm always whining about dismantling the government as much as possible. If it had stricter limitaions on passing legislation, creating agencies, interpreting the constitution, and a well-written budget amendment that mandated profitability and restricted tax levels, there would be no political system to rig. Nobody is going to lobby an impotent government.

The solution isn't to say "ok we're taking X% of your wealth and giving it to the poor people." That's only treating the symptom. The cure is to treat the system that allows for such a concentration of wealth to occur.

We're agreed on the first point. Half-agreed at least on the second. Concentration of wealth is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the system it operates in is alowed to continually generate more wealth. The distribution remains quite unequal (though I don't think the disparity would be as drastic as it is now), but the important thing is that everyone keeps moving up.

Perhaps more importantly, distribution of wealth seems to hover at around the top 10% having more than the bottom 90%, no matter what society you are in. In societies where that wealth is allowed to buy the inherently unethical mandate of force that only states have, that disparity gets even worse, and then it gets cemented in.

That's my view, anyway. If you have some other system I'm listening.

You the consumer are paying $4 and $5 a gallon for gas. Meanwhile, oil speculators at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley drive the price per barrel up more and more. Traders at AIG make ridiculously stupid bets on the derivatives and credit default markets. When they blow up, who makes them whole? You the taxpayer. You pay for it with overcrowded schools because of slashed education budgets. You pay for it with 10% unemployment. You pay for it with reduced social services. All because the titans of capitalism are "too big to fail." Makes me sick.

Is this all directed at me because I'm starting to wonder if you read the whole post, either. The reason I said the part in bold is because of just how harmful government intervention is. Goldman-Sachs and Morgan Stanley are only too big to fail because the government was captured by business, just as it always is in the end. The bailout money was stolen from the citizenry by the government. If the government wasn't in education in the first place there would be no more overcrowding of schools than there is overcrowding of supermarkets or gas stations. There would probably still be a high unemployment rate in the event of bank failures, but it takes state favoritism and iron grip to make it last more than a couple of years.

It makes me sick, too. Which is why I say we need to take that power away.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Is this all directed at me

Nope, just a rant using the collective "you"

[Gerald]

A very "neutral" statement I must say

[tater]

Wealth redistributed upwards. LOL.

Redistribution means taking money (with threat of force/jail) from one party, and giving it to another. You can argue that rich interests benefit from government spending. I'll grant it for the sake of argument.

OK, so we have the rich, political class writing government checks to themselves (gov contracts, etc).

There is redistribution for you. I agree.

Upwards? Sorry, but the bottom doesn't pay in a statistically significant amount. There is no way this largesse passes upwards, since even if we grant the lower end is over taxed (due to payroll taxes, not income tax which they don't pay), the total amount collected is still a meaningless amount. Debt? Again, the gov gives money to rich interests with borrowed money. The press reports this as if it's XX,XXX dollars for every American, but only the top 20% will ever get sent the bill, so it's really a multiple of that figure for every "rich" person, and ZERO for the rest.

There is no way to redistribute meaningful amounts of money upwards, since the poor don't have meaningful net worth.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by tater

There is no way to redistribute meaningful amounts of money upwards, since the poor don't have meaningful net worth.

Exactly. Wealth redistribution has got to stop being looked at as a solution, it just ain't.

What needs to be addressed are the causes that got us here, not stopgap treatments for the symptoms. Unfortunately, that involves change, and change is uncomfortable, and people hate being uncomfortable etc. etc. All of which stems from the increasing inability of anyone to be responsible for anything.

It's as if the entire nation is collectively claiming an insanity defense because they had bad childhoods.