Essentially how do the rich keep on getting richer whilst the poor keep on getting poorer. Surely in a civilised society the rich should sacrifice a few of their fast cars and big houses so that the people who slave 12 hours a day in their sweat shops can eat.
well, there are some people who are in the middle of rich and poor. not everyone who is poor gets poorer if time passes. sure, if you do nothing you can not earn money, but what is rich and poor? even if you have not much money you can be rich and even if you have many money you can be poor.
Finding ways to give money to the middle class artificially creates a higher demand, which will result in rising prices. It results in inflation.
I can see how that could happen, but I fail to see how the alternative has any progress at all.
A capitalist believes in a free-market. Taxing the rich so that the government can stimulate the economy is not a free-market. That's corporatism.
Care to cite a source of this definition of capitalist? I can't seem to find anything indicating that the belief in a free market is a requirement. There do seem to be certain type of capitalists who emphasize that the government doesn't control the market, but this seem to be just one in a spectrum.
So, why would we need the free-market to exist in a taxless society? There's no other way in which people can obtain their own needs and wants. Every other system requires taxation to work.
You said a to there but you didn't seem to cover how that is so. You seemed to just state that the free market does this.
Since the topic of the free market keeps coming up I would like to know something. How would it combat the problems greed and corruption bring? Right now we have large corporations with the government practically in their back pocket, creating regulations that make it difficult for new business to develop and for the ones that have already made to to continue on.
Without any regulation as the free market would suggest, there is nothing stopping a large corporation from using methods to crush competition before it get's off the ground. Just because a smaller business might have the better product doesn't guarantee that they will succeed over the competition. A free market would seem to also allow what would amount to cons to flourish. We already see something of this with our current system with the government turning a blind eye to it, but I fail to see how that issue would be corrected with a free market.
Right now we have large corporations with the government practically in their back pocket
I would say more than just in their back pocket. The most powerful people in government in the UK are literally business men and women. They have trading names and so does our country, our police and our parties i.e. The Labour party etc.
Well I think we are in the middle of rich and poor.
You should be more specific I am talking about the whole world when I say rich and poor and for clarity I would say when I meant a specific country etc
There is no way I want to go back to the barter system. Its not the idea of money that I dislike. My problem is with the way it is enforced which causes people to want it rather than want what it can achieve. I also dont believe humans have infinite wants either but many have been manipulated into thinking this. Do you know Edward Bernays? He was an absolute god at convincing the masses of what they want. What people really want is not to worry about living the next day.
Other people explain it better:
The economic problem is most simply explained by the question "how do we satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources?" The premise of the economic problem model is that human wants are constant and infinite due to constantly changing demands (often closely related to changing demographics of the population). However, resources in the world to satisfy human wants are always limited to the amount of natural or human resources available. The economic problem, and methods to curb it, revolve around the idea of choice in prioritizing which wants can be fulfilled.. and how do we know what to produce for economy.
Think about it. You have a Nokkia. Sooner or later, you'll want a better phone, an Iphone. And sooner or later it grows obsolete and you get a better Iphone. And so on and so forth. That's what it means when economists state that humans have ''infinite wants''. You don't need ads to cause such shifts.
Instead our leaders play war games and word games while they make money. Its hard not to feel Misanthropic really (I had to look that one up).
You have to play war games if you want to help some countries. Look at Libya.
And no, it's an utterly unfair comment to claim that leaders just ''lay games''. If they did, your country would be in shambles. Also, politicians really do earn peanuts; most grow rich by their family businesses. The highest paid leader in the world comes from my island nation, and even he earns roughly 3.7m Singapore dollars.
Think about it. You have a Nokkia. Sooner or later, you'll want a better phone, an Iphone. And sooner or later it grows obsolete and you get a better Iphone. And so on and so forth. That's what it means when economists state that humans have ''infinite wants''. You don't need ads to cause such shifts.
Perhaps we dont need the ads to cause such shifts but they are, without doubt, the central driving force behind such shifts.
And if they made our tech properly we wouldnt need to get a new iphone every 2 years to keep up with current trends. Also this badly made tech is there because of the current money system. Its cheaper to throw away and make new than it is to recycle. This is not helping the world and continues to cause waste on an extreme level. To see such waste is sickening to those who dont have.
And no, it's an utterly unfair comment to claim that leaders just ''lay games''.
Its unfair to say they "just" play games. Because they play business as well. The whole thing is a game of words. Have you ever watched the UK house of lords in action? Its literally a bunch of middle class school boys talking nonsense and amid this nonsense there are incredibly important decisions to be made. This worries me greatly that this bunch of disconnected toffs make decisions that affect the poorest in the world.
Also, politicians really do earn peanuts;
Politicians where? In the western countries they earn plenty along with all the "benefits" they get, but its not called benefits, no, no such dirty word for them. Its called "expenses" instead. I know not all politicians are like this but the big boys and girls who run countries really are like this. And if we are talking politicians earning peanuts then compared to who? The really rich? Compared to most people on earth, the UK politicians are minted. I interviewed a politician for my college course once, she said that earning £60,000 a year was not very much... I wanted to slap her, ignorant woman. I was earning £15k a year not long before that and boy oh boy, that was alot of money. Most people dont even earn close to what little I had.
most grow rich by their family businesses.
Which should not be allowed at all. Business and government dont mix and in my view is the main cause of corruption today. Its a politicians JOB to fight for the people, not get rich by using their status and position to sway government decisions in their favour.
And if they made our tech properly we wouldnt need to get a new iphone every 2 years to keep up with current trends. Also this badly made tech is there because of the current money system. Its cheaper to throw away and make new than it is to recycle. This is not helping the world and continues to cause waste on an extreme level. To see such waste is sickening to those who dont have.
No it's not the fault of the makers. Technology improves, and Moore's Law increasingly makes it harder for electronics manufacturers to sustain. Our computers are getting better at a phenomenal rate, and people who want to get ahead in the world need them.
And if we are talking politicians earning peanuts then compared to who? The really rich? Compared to most people on earth, the UK politicians are minted. I interviewed a politician for my college course once, she said that earning £60,000 a year was not very much... I wanted to slap her, ignorant woman. I was earning £15k a year not long before that and boy oh boy, that was alot of money. Most people dont even earn close to what little I had.
They earn peanuts compared to what they could have gotten if they went into the private sector. Many politicians hold degrees in law, or engineering, or finance, and if they didn't want to serve the public, they could have earned a hell lot more.
Also, not to disparage you, but there has to be a reason why she earned more than you, and to her, it can be justified to be little, since she obviously could have gotten a much better deal elsewhere.
Have you ever watched the UK house of lords in action? Its literally a bunch of middle class school boys talking nonsense and amid this nonsense there are incredibly important decisions to be made. This worries me greatly that this bunch of disconnected toffs make decisions that affect the poorest in the world.
As far as I know, the House of Lords has been undergoing reforms, and it has played along with it. The UK has a unique situation in the world, but many of the lords themselves are well educated Cambridge dons.
Which should not be allowed at all. Business and government dont mix and in my view is the main cause of corruption today. Its a politicians JOB to fight for the people, not get rich by using their status and position to sway government decisions in their favour.
I disagree. If Romney has a business before he went into politics, he shouldn't be disqualified from running; if not, your precious little ''democratic values'' would be junk. What I meant was politicians who have had a side income from their own family business prior to their current jobs.
Also, not to disparage you, but there has to be a reason why she earned more than you, and to her, it can be justified to be little, since she obviously could have gotten a much better deal elsewhere.
I understand. She does definitely does more work than me and I also agree that more work deserves perks. Just because she could have earned more its no excuse. Earning more is not the point. Earning enough. Thats why I thought about wage capping because its simply disgusting that certain people earn more than everyone else by an incredible magnitude.
I would really like to see some kind of credit system where everyone has a certain level of life but those that work more get the perks they deserve. I dont really have any solid ideas about how that system would be implemented tho. And to answer this...
ow and plz. come whit ideas instead of only saying what you think is bad. if it is all so bad then how would you do it?
I gotta laugh man. Just because I dont know what to do about it that doesnt stop me from pointing it out. In my experience of problem solving, when you make a problem known, there is usually someone who has an idea on how to solve it and even if that idea is wrong, more often than not it has caused the correct solution. Doing things wrong can be good because you know where to change. Its also why I say our leaders are psychopathic, we see the problems yet they continue to apply solutions that are proven not to work.
To be truthful I dont actually hate politicians, although I dont trust them either.
I disagree. If Romney has a business before he went into politics, he shouldn't be disqualified from running; if not, your precious little ''democratic values'' would be junk. What I meant was politicians who have had a side income from their own family business prior to their current jobs.
I know what you meant and I didnt mean if he had a business before that should disqualify him. What I mean is he should have been stopped until it was proven that he could no longer earn income of any kind or benefit directly from his previous businesses success. He should not be allowed to chair ANY company boards either while in office. Anyway, the guy was still literally "in" with the businesses he once ran while running for office and still is to this day. He has interests outside of government that, if he is corrupt, he can easily use his position to sway decisions to improve conditions etc. As I said, I dont trust politicians because they have proven over and over that they are corrupt and do this exact thing. So Romney can sod off basically :P
Im also not sure if I have precious democratic values. I agree with many aspects of it but then I agree with many aspects of communism too.
When we talk about Summer Vacations, my friends talk about all these wacky and exciting vacations. And I mean ALL of my friends. However, my family can't afford those things. My friends then proceed to call me "unfortunate" and "oor" but actually I must be one of the most fortunate people on Earth. Good family, essentials, delicious food, good friends, (despite that fact) and extra things like TV, Internet, video games, etc.
Sorry for going off topic. America is actually not that much of a poor country. As of July 2011, America has 311,591,917 people. The unemployment rate is 8.1%. THOSE are the poor families. However, those are people that need. Even so, unemployed people can still make money. Our system is weird.
My friends then proceed to call me "unfortunate" and "oor" but actually I must be one of the most fortunate people on Earth.
Its important to realise what we have
America is actually not that much of a poor country.
Which is why I hate the fact that there are still people in extreme poverty in first world countries like USA. When I was young I thought that surely by the time I hit 30 the worlds problems would be well under way to being solved. Well the world has about a year to live up to my expectations (Im not holding my breath)
I would really like to see some kind of credit system where everyone has a certain level of life but those that work more get the perks they deserve. I dont really have any solid ideas about how that system would be implemented tho. And to answer this...
No, because competition is competition, and I hate to say it, but people who can get far in life don't want to be hindered. I would like to see a system that acts from bottom up, i.e it helps those from the lower rungs get a better life, but not one where the top will be constrained which you propose. I don't have any qualms with a gap so long as the ''oor'' end of the spectrum leads a comfortable life, and by comfortable, I mean climbing up Maslow's hierarchy of needs to more than just the bottom few levels. In that case, they have no basis to argue that the rich and elite are being unfair, since everyone's needs will be met, just the top of society get a much better deal, due to their own capabilities.
Anyway, the guy was still literally "in" with the businesses he once ran while running for office and still is to this day. He has interests outside of government that, if he is corrupt, he can easily use his position to sway decisions to improve conditions etc. As I said, I dont trust politicians because they have proven over and over that they are corrupt and do this exact thing. So Romney can sod off basically :P
This is tantamount to discrimination. Romney isn't on any companies' board as of now, but he has blind trusts and shares in some. Does this disqualify him? I think not. A politician's influence can only go so far before transparency agencies sweep down and restrain them. The stats speak for themselves, although the US doesn't rank too highly on the Transparency Index, it isn't in any blinking red light danger zone.
Which is why I hate the fact that there are still people in extreme poverty in first world countries like USA. When I was young I thought that surely by the time I hit 30 the worlds problems would be well under way to being solved. Well the world has about a year to live up to my expectations (Im not holding my breath)
The world isn't all rosy and rainbow unicorn-like....
I would like to see a system that acts from bottom up, i.e it helps those from the lower rungs get a better life, but not one where the top will be constrained which you propose. I don't have any qualms with a gap so long as the ''oor'' end of the spectrum leads a comfortable life, and by comfortable, I mean climbing up Maslow's hierarchy of needs to more than just the bottom few levels.
I would be happy with this situation
The world isn't all rosy and rainbow unicorn-like....
I never expected unicorns :P
This is tantamount to discrimination. Romney isn't on any companies' board as of now, but he has blind trusts and shares in some. Does this disqualify him?
Its not descrimination at all. Romney is not on any boards right now but as soon as he stops running for office he will be right back on those boards with a seat thats been kept nice and warm for him. In other words, he still has interests in helping those companies. How can this be ok. Do you trust Romney that much?
I think not. A politician's influence can only go so far before transparency agencies sweep down and restrain them.
They haven't done a very good job then considering the corruption.
The stats speak for themselves, although the US doesn't rank too highly on the Transparency Index, it isn't in any blinking red light danger zone.
For a country that runs around righting wrongs in the rest of the world I think that a lack of transparancy sounds like a red light to me.
