Samnmax221 Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Which will inevitably drive some out of business. They're all working against each other, not for the greater good. If you can't compete then you should go out of business, you can't reward people for being incompetent. They have profit on their minds, not humanity. The government is the one concerned about the later, and as such, will take measures to accomplish that over a profit (such as practically giving goods away), which the individual companies will not. Why not, if you're not going to get any profit out of your efforts then why in the hell should you try? If they don't work, they don't get paid. There's no reason the government shouldn't fire people if they're not doing their jobs. That simply doesn't happen. State controlled business has always had a pass to run amok with taxpayer money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Sam's attitude would be morally acceptable in a true capitalist state. Of course, our states are not truly capitalist, but state-capitalist at best. The state interferes in business to ensure the flow of cash back towards the existing elite. This means that merit does not equal cash. In an ideally capitalist state, merit and hard work would equal cash. Therefore, those who had skill and/or put in the hours would extract the medical care they "deserved" from society. But we don't live in such a society. Furthermore, Sam's attitude does not take into account the fact that luck is a factor in determining financial success. A man can work hard all his life, and suddenly lose his job, his pension and his house, through no fault of his own. Therefore in the real world (and in our current societies), the best option is to have a publically funded healthcare system, and a publically funded welfare system as well. This means that if one is unlucky enough to fall on hard times, one is supported by the state both financially and medically. In turn, when one is successful, one's taxes are put back into the state systems, which perpetuates the welfare system. Now these welfare systems are of course open to abuse... People faking poverty, etcetera... but they're still broadly effective as long as the abuse is kept at a minimal level. However for Sam's idea of a healthcare-meritocracy to be effective AT ALL (and moral)... we would have to be living in an IDEAL capitalist state. Which will be very very hard to attain. Therefore the currently most moral option- taking into account human nature- is the welfare state. However I would be all for a true meritocracy. It'd be great. I just doubt that it's attainable. As for the assertions that the current US welfare system is dying horribly... there are differing opinions. Many people believe that the corporate elite is putting the word about that the system is already failing, just so they'll have an excuse to scrap it. Many non-establishment economists think that the system isn't in danger of keeling over just yet. But I'm not qualified to comment in any more detail than that on the welfare system of a foreign nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 If you can't compete then you should go out of business, you can't reward people for being incompetent. Competence is not as black and white an issue as some capitalists make it out to be. Simply because someone is driven out of business does not mean they are unskilled. There are various degrees of competence, after all - one person doesn't have to be the most well-known expert in his field to be better at it than most people. Expecting some people to remain in business when competing against a superior opponent is not reasonable to expect. Why not, if you're not going to get any profit out of your efforts then why in the hell should you try? The researchers can still be paid. The government is the most wealthy organization in the country, after all. If they'll be paid for results and fired for laziness, that seems like enough incentive to me. That simply doesn't happen. State controlled business has always had a pass to run amok with taxpayer money. That has nothing to do with being able to fire people for incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 As for the assertions that the current US welfare system is dying horribly... there are differing opinions. Many people believe that the corporate elite is putting the word about that the system is already failing, just so they'll have an excuse to scrap it. Many non-establishment economists think that the system isn't in danger of keeling over just yet. But I'm not qualified to comment in any more detail than that on the welfare system of a foreign nation. Medicare (medical care for those 65 and up or are disabled) seems to be working OK from both a patient and doctor point of view--patients get good care, docs get reasonable reimbursement. The problem will be when the bulk of the baby-boomers are in the over-65 category, because it'll cause significant strain on the entire system. I expect reimbursement to docs will drop tremendously and benefits will get cut. Medicaid--the program run by each state for those at/below the poverty line, is perpetually underfunded (by both the states and the feds). The reimbursement for seeing medicaid patients is awful, and the program goes bankrupt in some states (Illinois' medicaid program owed 10 million to doctors and hospitals at the end of last year, and couldn't pay it until the new fiscal year started). The care is generally adequate but there are limits. For example, docs have to choose off of a certain formulary of medicines, and if those don't happen to work for you, you have to jump through a million hoops to get something that's not on the list, if you can get it at all. There are not as many docs accepting medicaid patients (because in some cases it actually costs you money to see them--the reimbursement is ridiculously low and the labor costs to fill out all the crazy paperwork to get that reimbursement costs more than what one gets back). Medicaid patients typically have to wait longer to get appointments with providers as a result. In terms of finances, Medicare is doing fine, but the state-run medicaid programs are usually in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Which will inevitably drive some out of business. They're all working against each other, not for the greater good. Ah, but perhaps all of this competition brings out the greater good in the long run. As opposed to having an incompetent government working for the greater good. They have profit on their minds, not humanity. The government is the one concerned about the later, and as such, will take measures to accomplish that over a profit (such as practically giving goods away), which the individual companies will not. Really? You really think that? You honestly think that the government has humanity in mind in their dealings? Ultimately, the government is just like a for-profit business, except that it's a state-run monopoly that can throw its "customers" in jail for not paying their bills - not just cut off their electricity, cable, phone, whatever. You see, the government is in the business of making money just like a private company. But a good company needs financial feedback in order to be successful. The government gets its money no matter if they're doing a good job or a ****ty one. If a company is losing money, they fix their mistakes and fire those responsible. If a company is making a profit, then they know they're doing the right things. When it comes right down to it, very little in the world is done simply for humanitarian purposes. Government is certainly not for humanitarian purposes. It's for profit like a business, but is not forced to compete to stay in power. Just because a company is simply in it for the money isn't a BAD thing. Money and competition can bring about good things. The problem with government is that it's not forced to do well - the money just keeps on coming. So they have no way to know what works and what doesn't, who to fire and who to promote. Anyway, I'm tired and that's enough rambling about government incompetence for tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu Chi Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Ah, but perhaps all of this competition brings out the greater good in the long run. As opposed to having an incompetent government working for the greater good. Really? You really think that? You honestly think that the government has humanity in mind in their dealings? Ultimately, the government is just like a for-profit business, except that it's a state-run monopoly that can throw its "customers" in jail for not paying their bills - not just cut off their electricity, cable, phone, whatever. You see, the government is in the business of making money just like a private company. But a good company needs financial feedback in order to be successful. The government gets its money no matter if they're doing a good job or a ****ty one. If a company is losing money, they fix their mistakes and fire those responsible. If a company is making a profit, then they know they're doing the right things. When it comes right down to it, very little in the world is done simply for humanitarian purposes. Government is certainly not for humanitarian purposes. It's for profit like a business, but is not forced to compete to stay in power. Just because a company is simply in it for the money isn't a BAD thing. Money and competition can bring about good things. The problem with government is that it's not forced to do well - the money just keeps on coming. So they have no way to know what works and what doesn't, who to fire and who to promote. Anyway, I'm tired and that's enough rambling about government incompetence for tonight. I agree with TK here. The government don't give a damn about none of us unless some of us are useful to the goverment; scientists, mathematicians and engineers...etc. If the useless of some of us happen to become really sick and don't have enough paper to deny death of it's prize, then luck will only save our asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 As opposed to having an incompetent government working for the greater good. Are you implying that governments are incompetent based on the simple fact that they are governments? Don't be absurd. Really? You really think that? You honestly think that the government has humanity in mind in their dealings? Would you like proof? I'd be happy to oblige you. Ultimately, the government is just like a for-profit business, except that it's a state-run monopoly that can throw its "customers" in jail for not paying their bills - not just cut off their electricity, cable, phone, whatever. Given how those people used the police, the public education system, public roads, public courts and all that other free public stuff, I think they have an obligation to give back. You truly can't expect to use what society provides for you without providing anything back... such an attitude is nothing but looting, really. The government gets its money no matter if they're doing a good job or a ****ty one. That fails to explain why governments suffer and prosper as their countries do. It's a universal principle - governments can't expense to get a profit if what they govern is incapable of producing one. Government is certainly not for humanitarian purposes. If such a thing were true, they would promptly 'nationalize' all private businesses and exact tribute from its citizens on a daily basis... they do possess the guns with which to do it, after all. Just because a company is simply in it for the money isn't a BAD thing. Entirely incorrect. It's profitable for companies to pay their workers barely enough to survive, dump their waste across the country rather than dispose of it properly, blackmail its workers into working overtime, making use of child labor, drive companies that could benefit the people at cost to themselves out of business (hybrid cars), refuse to hire women, since they might decide to have children, sell violent video games to small children, I could go on for hours... The simple fact is, capitalism and money-seeking is built entirely off of greed, really... there's truly nothing humane, let alone good, about that. Money and competition can bring about good things. A surefire way in capitalism to help ruin your competitor is to reduce your own expenses, the most efficient of such methods being entirely unethical. the money just keeps on coming. Come come now, TK. Humanitarian efforts are fare easier to achieve if you don't have to worry about earning the money with which to do them. So they have no way to know what works and what doesn't, who to fire and who to promote. A common misconception about the government... you truly would not want the incompetent in such high positions of authority, supposing they are even able to reach them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Are you implying that governments are incompetent based on the simple fact that they are governments? Don't be absurd. Well, not ALL governments are incompetent. Most are. Our current one is, for damn sure. Would you like proof? I'd be happy to oblige you. Sure. I'm curious. Given how those people used the police, the public education system, public roads, public courts and all that other free public stuff, I think they have an obligation to give back. The police are corrupt, the schools are a joke, the roads are ****ty and crowded, the courts are unjust, and nothing is free. You truly can't expect to use what society provides for you without providing anything back... such an attitude is nothing but looting, really. I'd much rather pay a private company to provide me with my services than an incompetent government that gives me ****ty stuff. That fails to explain why governments suffer and prosper as their countries do. It's a universal principle - governments can't expense to get a profit if what they govern is incapable of producing one. A lot of the time, a population suffers because of poor decisions by the government. The people aren't the problem... it's the system in place to govern them. If such a thing were true, they would promptly 'nationalize' all private businesses and exact tribute from its citizens on a daily basis... they do possess the guns with which to do it, after all. That's basically what we have right now. Capitalism has died in America. We now have state-run crony capitalism, if not out-right corporatism. Entirely incorrect. It's profitable for companies to pay their workers barely enough to survive, dump their waste across the country rather than dispose of it properly, blackmail its workers into working overtime, making use of child labor, drive companies that could benefit the people at cost to themselves out of business (hybrid cars), refuse to hire women, since they might decide to have children, sell violent video games to small children, I could go on for hours... I don't know where the **** you have been working, but my job isn't anything like that. You need to quit your job and go work elsewhere if that's what you're going through, dude. Not all companies treat employees like that. The simple fact is, capitalism and money-seeking is built entirely off of greed, really... there's truly nothing humane, let alone good, about that. Marx would be proud. A surefire way in capitalism to help ruin your competitor is to reduce your own expenses, the most efficient of such methods being entirely unethical. What the hell is wrong with that? You reduce your expenses, that means you can sell things cheaper to consumers. Ultimately the company would get MORE money in the long run than overcharging their customers. Come come now, TK. Humanitarian efforts are fare easier to achieve if you don't have to worry about earning the money with which to do them. Right... until you run out of money. A common misconception about the government... you truly would not want the incompetent in such high positions of authority, supposing they are even able to reach them. George W. Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Well, not ALL governments are incompetent. Most are. Our current one is, for damn sure. That's better. Now, most are incompetent? That some are is indisputable, though I would be hesitant to put any merit in that statement... Provided you can't prove it. Sure. I'm curious. In the 20th century alone: Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal Antitrust laws The 17th Amendment The Federal Reserve Act The Clayton Antitrust Act The Adamson Act Entering WWI The opposition to the Treaty of Versailles The Young Plan The New Deal Actions during WWII The Marshall Plan The stabilization of Lebanon The War on Poverty Medicare Food Stamps Great Society The toppling of Mozambique and Angola's dictatorships The World Bank The Gulf War The police are corrupt, the schools are a joke, the roads are ****ty and crowded, the courts are unjust, and nothing is free. A heavily biased oversimplification at best. I'd much rather pay a private company to provide me with my services than an incompetent government that gives me ****ty stuff. And what, pray tell, would stop those private companies from getting together, raising all their prices, lowering them now and then, and then repeating the cycle? I don't know about you, but I'd hate to pay through the nose for basic necessities like what the government provides. Besides, how would you pay these private companies? Pay a toll every few miles? Get sent a yearly bill on your use of the roads? It would be far too difficult to manage. A lot of the time, a population suffers because of poor decisions by the government. The people aren't the problem... it's the system in place to govern them. The situation in the Middle East disproves that. That's basically what we have right now. Capitalism has died in America. We now have state-run crony capitalism, if not out-right corporatism. A bit surprising you can still start your own business, no? I don't know where the **** you have been working, but my job isn't anything like that. You need to quit your job and go work elsewhere if that's what you're going through, dude. Not all companies treat employees like that. I have not and will not work for a company that treats its employees in such a way. However, my point still stands. Marx would be proud. Probably. What the hell is wrong with that? Don't be silly. Many methods that can reduce expenses are entirely unethical, as I showed earlier. Right... until you run out of money. Irrelevant. That can happen regardless of how you collect it. George W. Bush. Not the best President, but not the worst either. However, the means with which he reached his post were not entirely true to the system. Thank goodness for the 2-term limit, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 1. Governments are not as a rule incompetent, and our governments (US/UK) are not exceptions. Our governments are extremely competent at performing the task they are set up to perform: Keeping the higher echelons of the corporate community happy. Our governments are subsidised, elected and formed by heads of business. Those with economic clout indirectly control our societies via the vast influence they exert upon the political sphere. Essentially all the major political parties are merely one arm of a huge mercantile consortium. Any honest economist or political analyst will confirm this. 2. The fact that our governments aren't running the countries in our (the public's) interest is not an indication that they are incompetent. It is an indication that they are running the country in someone ELSE'S interest. Namely, that of the corporate elite. The wealthy, in other words. So Devon is technically correct in his assertion that government is not incompetent. However, government in our countries is not and has never been "for the people". It is and always has been "for the wealthy". Originally posted by Emperor Devon: A bit surprising you can still start your own business, no? TK is correct here. Our states are NOT capitalist in nature, but state-capitalist at best. This is not capitalism. It is a state in which government directly interferes with business and the economy ostensibly in order to filter more cash back into the pockets of the already wealthy corporate elite. The fact that you can "start your own business" in a country does not mean that the country is pure capitalist. Pure capitalism would be far more beneficial to ordinary people than our current systems would be. So would pure communism. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: In the 20th century alone: Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal Antitrust laws The 17th Amendment The Federal Reserve Act The Clayton Antitrust Act The Adamson Act Entering WWI The opposition to the Treaty of Versailles The Young Plan The New Deal Actions during WWII The Marshall Plan The stabilization of Lebanon The War on Poverty Medicare Food Stamps Great Society The toppling of Mozambique and Angola's dictatorships The World Bank The Gulf War Your list was intended to be a list proving that governments can have altruistic motives in mind when performing actions. But frankly, as a whole your list does not show this, and I'm appalled that you've deluded yourself about so many of these list items. World War II? Altruistic motives? What? Gulf War... Altruistic motives? Eh? Are you actually aware of the historical record in these matters? Not the usual neo-con kindergarten propaganda mind you, like "the US entered the war to save the world from Nazism", but the actual facts of the matters in question? If you were, I highly doubt that you would regard most of these as shining examples of humanitarianism. And as for the few genuinely beneficial social reforms you could list, almost without exception they were brought into being by popular activism, and governments were forced by popular pressure to adopt them. I'm sure there must be examples of truly beneficial, humanitarian policies that some governments have spontaneously adopted in the past out of pure concern for the public... but I don't really know of any. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: Not the best President, but not the worst either. However, the means with which he reached his post were not entirely true to the system. Thank goodness for the 2-term limit, though. Again this irrelevant focus on a substanceless figurehead. It's highly unlikely that presidents affect US policy in any meaningful way. A good president is a president who can read an autocue and sound vaguely "everyman" while doing so. From this point of view, I suppose GW is an OK president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Our governments are subsidised, elected and formed by heads of business. A black and white view of it, indeed. Various figures in our governments are rather partial to big business, though your statement is far from the absolute truth. Those with economic clout indirectly control our societies via the vast influence they exert upon the political sphere. Essentially all the major political parties are merely one arm of a huge mercantile consortium. You'd think major corporations would run rampant that way. So Devon is technically correct in his assertion that government is not incompetent. On general principle, no... Though they could all definitely use some improvement. However, government in our countries is not and has never been "for the people". It is and always has been "for the wealthy". Can you verify this? It's elementary school history that the beginnings of the U.S. government decided to revolt against Britain rather than join them in the plundering. (The early years of the U.S. were not very good for the rich. Hardly a country for those interested in wealth to want to be involved with) TK is correct here. Our states are NOT capitalist in nature, Of course he is. Pure, raw, capitalism is only compatible without a government. Pure capitalism would be far more beneficial to ordinary people than our current systems would be. Entirely incorrect, Spider... Capitalism favors those who can make the most money, to put it simply. So would pure communism. That's Communism, darn it! Show some respect! Your list was intended to be a list proving that governments can have altruistic motives in mind when performing actions. Those were hardly examples of way to "filter more cash back into the pockets of the already wealthy corporate elite." But frankly, as a whole your list does not show this, and I'm appalled that you've deluded yourself about so many of these list items. Spider, in many of your posts, I have seen you describe those who disagree with you in similar manners. Try and remember that the fact that an opinion differs from yours doesn't automatically make it incorrect. World War II? Altruistic motives? Toppling the Nazi regime was a nice thing to do. Heck, even the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaskai wasn't too bad. (In retrospect and compared to the alternatives, that is - killing civilians usually isn't the nicest thing to do) But, my opinion on WWII is quite biased. Gulf War... Altruistic motives? The U.S.' interestes were tied with Kuwait's, of course, but repelling an evil regime from taking over another country was far from unethical. Are you actually aware of the historical record in these matters? I've been interested and studied a good deal of them for years. I'd advise you to look that list over again... There's hardly any room for debate on a good deal of them. "the US entered the war to save the world from Nazism", An oversimplification at best. If you were, {snip} If you'd like to discuss them, at least start with a specific one. I don't have time to give a lengthy explanation on the effects of every single one to you in one sitting. Again this irrelevant focus on a substanceless figurehead. A common label given to Bush these days. It's highly unlikely that presidents affect US policy in any meaningful way. I'd study some more about the U.S. government if I were you. The role of our Presidents is far different from your Kings and Queens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Entirely incorrect, Spider... Capitalism favors those who can make the most money, to put it simply. You act as if being rewarded for hard work is a bad thing. Work hard = get money. Don't work = be broke. It's really that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Work hard = get money. Don't work = be broke. It's really that simple. Haha. No. Ever heard of the expression "it's who you know, not what you know". Many of the richest people in America don't work and never have worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I see you have ignored everything I typed up in response to your arguments... Oh well. It's really that simple. No, it truly isn't. There are people who are geniuses at developing products, but complete idiots at marketing or dealing with them. My dad knew one person who wrote up a program that worked wonderfully, but he had no "people skills" and ended up being unable to sell it to his clients because he made such a bad impression on them. He eventually sold it to a company for a fairly small sum of money, and they ended up making far more off it than he was paid. Things are rarely so black and white. Hard work does not always equal lots of money. There's also what jmac mentioned, which is unfortunately quite commonplace nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 No, it truly isn't. There are people who are geniuses at developing products, but complete idiots at marketing or dealing with them. My dad knew one person who wrote up a program that worked wonderfully, but he had no "people skills" and ended up being unable to sell it to his clients because he made such a bad impression on them. He eventually sold it to a company for a fairly small sum of money, and they ended up making far more off it than he was paid. In a sense, though, his hard work would have had far more returns if he had put more effort into improving his weakness-in this case, his people skills- and finding someone who could market his product to various companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 There's also what jmac mentioned, which is unfortunately quite commonplace nowadays. The system you love oh so much only encourages behavior like that, even more so than in crony capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 The system you love oh so much only encourages behavior like that, even more so than in crony capitalism. The supposed versions have. In a sense, though, his hard work would have had far more returns if he had put more effort into improving his weakness-in this case, his people skills- and finding someone who could market his product to various companies. In this case, however, his actual skill in developing the product was irrelevant. Quite the contrary to the capitalist ideal of "Work = $$$." It wouldn't seem fair to most people that he had ability and suffered for it, but capitalism is hardly a fair system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 In this case, however, his actual skill in developing the product was irrelevant. Quite the contrary to the capitalist ideal of "Work = $$$." Ability and skill do not equal work. You can be the greatest programmer and you would still earn zero money if you never made a creation. Work would be putting effort into your project and also making sure it can sell as well as it can. Capitalism isn't simply putting a product on the market and assuming it'll sell on its merits; you have to also get it to your customers. The company he sold his product to had put in effort to market his own creation, and therefore earned more. It wouldn't seem fair to most people that he had ability and suffered for it, but capitalism is hardly a fair system. That isn't a criticism that any other economical system could have fixed- mercantilism would've kept it still unnoticed, except maybe if a competitor program had been artificially kept out. Socialistic communism certainly wouldn't have worked, as he would not have designed the product in the first place if he couldn't get any money for it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Originally posted by Emperor Devon: A black and white view of it, indeed. Various figures in our governments are rather partial to big business, though your statement is far from the absolute truth. You're wrong. My statement "Our governments are subsidised, elected and formed by heads of business" was effectively correct. Let's take the US as an example: In presidential elections, campaigns are expensive. Massively expensive. And it's a general rule that the best funded candidate will win. One single instance: many people (myself included) accurately predicted the result of the last US presidential election based solely on the fact that the Republican advertising budget was larger than that of the Democrats. This requirement necessitates (directly or indirectly) corporate financial backing. Until 2002, corporate backing of candidates ran rampant, with so-called "soft money" (indirect, single use) donations easily circumventing upper limits on amounts of corporate backing. And as of 2003, despite legislation the year before to combat abuse, parties were still accepting soft money contributions at a local level even if they were not accepting them at a national level. You may have forgotten the fact that in 1999, the presidential primaries were called by some analysts the "wealth primary" because of the huge amounts of cash that were raised by both front-runners. The Bush campaign had raised $37 million in hard-money private donations alone. Without money, your candidacy cannot be advertised. It cannot be publicised. Your opponent cannot be as effectively defamed. Money is the defining factor in the contest to see which clique gains candidacy, and the defining factor in which candidate gains the presidency. End of story. It is therefore axiomatic that those with money to spend will DIRECTLY exert a greater influence on the path of politics than the bulk of the population. Hence, the wealthy, the higher corporate echelons etcetera, will control the political fate of the nation, through their ability to promote the election of candidates whose policies match their wishes. Heads of business don't have to phone say... Bush's handlers up every day and tell them what they want done. All they have to do is elect people who already want to appease them, and then the system is pretty much self-perpetuating. - Now let's move on to indirect financial manipulation. This is far more insidious, and possibly more effective too. In state-capitalist systems, a "trickle-down" economic model is present. This is a model in which the wealthy are meant to subsidise the society. If the wealthy are happy in a country, they spend more in that country. This means that workers receieve higher wages, and this money then trickles down to the lowest levels, the service industries, entertainment, retailers etcetera. The taxes of the wealthy are also meant to be put back into the system in order to subsidise it. To the uneducated eye, this model can sound good on paper. But in reality, the wealthy don't like to spend their money, they like to accrue more. So instead of spending lots of money on paying out wages, employing services and dutifully paying their taxes, they hire cheaper and cheaper workers and labourers, and demand huge tax breaks. And if they don't get these tax breaks? They move to some tax-haven somewhere, or ship a lot of their money out of the country, or whatever. This means that their money is no longer sloshing around in the national economy. In order to avoid losing the business of the wealthy, governments are forced to hand out the tax breaks and other concessions that the wealthy demand. (The UK is particularly bad for this.) Which means that less money "trickles down" to the ordinary member of the public. So in the end we have a model in which a homeless person looks at a man riding past in the back of a limo, and is meant to say to himself "If I make that guy happy, my situation might improve". Ha. So again, the economic policy of the government and therefore indirectly the whole society revolves around the wishes of the wealthy. A great deal of effort goes into keeping business happy. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: You'd think major corporations would run rampant that way. "Rampant"? No, only a silly person would think so. Major corporations don't have to "run rampant" when the system is quite literally set up in their favour. They just have to keep chugging along innocuously, happily, while money automatically filters into the pockets of the already wealthy. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: Can you verify this? It's elementary school history that the beginnings of the U.S. government decided to revolt against Britain rather than join them in the plundering. Ha! Like most elementary school history, the idea that the US was founded as a shining beacon of democracy and equality is pure propaganda. The fathers of the republic of the US were extremely opposed to pure democracy... or even true equality. They wanted a system in which the existing elite could be perpetuated, an oligarchy, plutocracy... whatever you want to call it. They were often quite open about this. For instance, James Madison (fourth President, known as the "Father of the Constitution" and "Father of the Bill of Rights") famously stated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, that "the primary function of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority." In other words, to protect the rich, from the poor. He said lots of other lovely things. And if the history was taught honestly, it would be noted that a pathological fear of democracy ran right through the founding of the US, leading to the eventual decision taken to become a republic, rather than a true democracy. Ref: http://memory.loc.gov/ Originally posted by Emperor Devon: Of course he is. Pure, raw, capitalism is only compatible without a government. I can make no sense of this statement, so I'm not sure how to respond to it. Perhaps you should rephrase and/or elaborate. If you're saying that pure capitalism cannot function when we have a system of government the like of which we have now, you're correct. But I can't think what else you could be saying. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: Entirely incorrect, Spider... Capitalism favors those who can make the most money, to put it simply. On the contrary, I was entirely correct. Pure capitalism would be effectively a meritocracy. Those who work hardest and/or are most intelligent and innovative would receive compensation according to their efforts and skills. In contrast, our current state-capitalist system favours those who already have money whether by inheritance or by some hard work in the past which they don't care to repeat... and government deliberately supports them, limiting the compensation of consistently hard-working people who by rights should reap greater benefits under a pure capitalist system. This amoral limiting effect is what our state systems were designed to accomplish. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: Those were hardly examples of way to "filter more cash back into the pockets of the already wealthy corporate elite." Your examples didn't support your assertion that the motives of government are "for the people". Originally posted by Emperor Devon: Spider, in many of your posts, I have seen you describe those who disagree with you in similar manners. Try and remember that the fact that an opinion differs from yours doesn't automatically make it incorrect. Oh, spare me the standard cop-out, please. Not all opinions are equally valid. That's a PC nonsense designed to supply those who hold delusional beliefs with an easy get-out clause. An opinion is valid when it is based on logic and evidence, and the reasoning behind it is sound. Of course there are right opinions and wrong opinions. I hold the opinions I hold because I have come to the conclusion that they are right. So of course I view other, opposing opinions as "wrong". So if you wish to challenge the validity of my evidence, the presence of my logic or the soundness of my reasoning, feel free. But don't wheel out the squeaky old "It's an opinion, you can't argue with opinions!!11" fallacy, because it won't wash. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: Toppling the Nazi regime was a nice thing to do. Heck, even the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaskai wasn't too bad. (In retrospect and compared to the alternatives, that is - killing civilians usually isn't the nicest thing to do) But, my opinion on WWII is quite biased. I agree... your opinion on WWII is quite biased. If the reason the US entered the war was to "topple the Nazis", it would have entered it before one of its offshore bases was attacked by the Japanese. So US motives for entering the war were not altruistic. As for the Hiroshima bombings, it's a debate that has been buried a thousand times. The bombings were many things, but they were not moral, nor altruistic, nor were they performed as a last resort. I refer you to this earlier post I typed up specifically on the issue of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: The U.S.' interestes were tied with Kuwait's, of course, but repelling an evil regime from taking over another country was far from unethical. The US didn't "repel an evil regime" from another country, the US invited the "evil" regime into the other country before blasting them. U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie met Saddam on July 25, 1990. Saddam asked, "We will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. What is the United States' opinion on this?" Glaspie replied: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." On July 31 1990, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq." Three days later, after being assured by the US government both directly and indirectly that they would not interfere if Iraq invaded Kuwait... Iraq invaded Kuwait. The rest is history. These things are a matter of public record, and to call US entry into a conflict they effectively helped to start at all "altruistic" is quite nonsensical. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: I've been interested and studied a good deal of them for years. Well so far it would appear that your sources have been biased. Perhaps you should read some dissident literature and then go and fact-check the statements therein for yourself. It's easy to be hoodwinked by the mess of propagandistic nonsense that pervades the mainstream media. A focussed eye is necessary to pierce through to the truth. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: If you'd like to discuss them, at least start with a specific one. I don't have time to give a lengthy explanation on the effects of every single one to you in one sitting. I've already started with two specific examples. We'll move on to the rest shortly. As for the "effects" of your examples, the "effects" are not strictly relevant to the original question of whether the motives behind their enactment were purely altruistic/humanitarian. Nice try though. In brief, a selection of responses to several other examples you gave: Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal: Essentially a policy of mollifying those who were campaigning against the burgeoning dominance of proto-corporations, without truly fulfilling their desires. These policies effectively locked business and government into a stable and symbiotic relationship of the type I described in my first paragraphs. Therefore, hardly "for the people". If there were any positive aspects intended in this, the sizeable public pressure can account for them. Antitrust laws: Antitrust laws are not anti-wealth, they're pro-system. They are a weighted substitute for a truly free market. As long as the system chugs along as it currently does, the existing elite will have their positions maintained, by and large. So the financial elite as a whole have no interest in corruption or other unfair practices. In fact, when a single member of the elite steps out of line, it's the elite who have the most interest in curbing their activities. Great Society: Once again, there was great public pressure in the sixties. The US was undergoing social upheaval at the time. Some of the civil rights / welfare reforms enacted during this period are indicative that popular movements CAN pressure government into abiding by their wishes, at least partially. It does not show that government VOLUNTARILY performs actions purely for the good of the people, as you initially opined. Add to this the fact that successive governments in both the US and the UK have been doing their level best to destroy whatever reforms public pressure forced into being half a century ago... and it adds up to a confirmation of my opinion on the nature of governments. Not "by the people, for the people", but "by the wealthy, for the wealthy". Originally posted by Emperor Devon: A common label given to Bush these days. What, "a substanceless figurehead"? The concept of US/UK political "leaders" as substanceless figureheads is not common, I've only ever heard it used within dissident circles. If it's breaking through to the mainstream somewhere, I'm ecstatic. However, it's undeniable that most people are still deluded into thinking that the public facade of politics is of any importance when compared to the inner workings. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: I'd study some more about the U.S. government if I were you. The role of our Presidents is far different from your Kings and Queens. Hah! On the contrary, I think you should study more about the US government, if you genuinely believe that doctrine or policy changes in any meaningful way when parties in office switch over, let ALONE when presidents within the same party switch over. GW's regime is enacting the same policy that Clinton's regime enacted before them, that Bush Sr.'s regime enacted before, that Reagan's regime enacted before that. Take Iraq as an example. Reaganite policy as regards Iraq was enacted by Bush Sr.'s regime, Iraq happened to become a target thereafter, and later Clinton's lot put regime-change in Iraq on the agenda, and finally GW's handlers (who in the main were Reagan's/Bush Sr.'s handlers) eventually enacted that "Clintonite" policy. What changed there between Democrats and Republicans? Nothing of note. Georgie Bush is notable because he and his regime are so outspoken about their neoconservatism, but they're effectively no more authoritarian than previous US governments. Originally posted by Emperor Devon: Things are rarely so black and white. Hard work does not always equal lots of money. Not in state-capitalist systems, but in a pure capitalist system it would. And since that's what TK was apparently referring to, he was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu Chi Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 You're wrong. My statement "Our governments are subsidised, elected and formed by heads of business" was effectively correct. Let's take the US as an example: In presidential elections, campaigns are expensive. Massively expensive. And it's a general rule that the best funded candidate will win. One single instance: many people (myself included) accurately predicted the result of the last US presidential election based solely on the fact that the Republican advertising budget was larger than that of the Democrats. This requirement necessitates (directly or indirectly) corporate financial backing. Until 2002, corporate backing of candidates ran rampant, with so-called "soft money" (indirect, single use) donations easily circumventing upper limits on amounts of corporate backing. And as of 2003, despite legislation the year before to combat abuse, parties were still accepting soft money contributions at a local level even if they were not accepting them at a national level. You may have forgotten the fact that in 1999, the presidential primaries were called by some analysts the "wealth primary" because of the huge amounts of cash that were raised by both front-runners. The Bush campaign had raised $37 million in hard-money private donations alone. Without money, your candidacy cannot be advertised. It cannot be publicised. Your opponent cannot be as effectively defamed. Money is the defining factor in the contest to see which clique gains candidacy, and the defining factor in which candidate gains the presidency. End of story. It is therefore axiomatic that those with money to spend will DIRECTLY exert a greater influence on the path of politics than the bulk of the population. Hence, the wealthy, the higher corporate echelons etcetera, will control the political fate of the nation, through their ability to promote the election of candidates whose policies match their wishes. Heads of business don't have to phone say... Bush's handlers up every day and tell them what they want done. All they have to do is elect people who already want to appease them, and then the system is pretty much self-perpetuating. Even though Spider is one of my adversaries, I agree with him, here. It seem to be a lot of evidence that Big Business control the country(U.S.A) and the path of the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Wait, what? Big business decides who is elected and the government policies? So J Mart for example made Bush President wanted war in Iraq? Why, for what purpose? Bill Gates wants support for Israel? EA demanded the execution of Saddam Hussein? There's just one teeny little detail: there's a vote every four years that decides who is elected and the say goes to about 298 million Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Wait, what? Big business decides who is elected and the government policies? So J Mart for example made Bush President wanted war in Iraq? Why, for what purpose? Bill Gates wants support for Israel? EA demanded the execution of Saddam Hussein? There's just one teeny little detail: there's a vote every four years that decides who is elected and the say goes to about 298 million Americans. Actually, it goes to the Electoral College. The average American's vote counts for next to nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Actually, it goes to the Electoral College. The average American's vote counts for next to nothing.Quite. Add to this the fact that there's a grand choice of two pre-selected establishment-people to vote for (with any efficacy) and you have to come to the conclusion that the elections in our countries are not democratic in the proper sense of the word. "Blatantly rigged" might be a better term. Nancy's post just highlights how deeply some people can delude themselves on the subject. I mean, it's not as if the state of our electoral system is any secret. We're not talking conspiracy theory here, we're talking simple, verifiable, commonly known fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windu Chi Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Wait, what? Big business decides who is elected and the government policies? So J Mart for example made Bush President wanted war in Iraq? Why, for what purpose? Well, that seem to be the case. The documentary Farenhieght 9/11, called propaganda by the republicans, it is conspiracy theory, that Saudi Arabia have 1 Trillion dollars invested in United States. And the Iraq invasion was back by the big oil business. That seem obvious, now. I'm not sure about Saudi Arabia, though. Somebody else probably know more about that one. But who is J mart, Nancy? Bill Gates wants support for Israel? Well, hell with all the paper he got, he probably control half the planet anyway. EA demanded the execution of Saddam Hussein? There's just one teeny little detail: there's a vote every four years that decides who is elected and the say goes to about 298 million Americans. I'm not sure if that is truly accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Actually, it goes to the Electoral College. The average American's vote counts for next to nothing. Tell me about the Electoral College. Well, that seem to be the case. The documentary Farenhieght 9/11, called propaganda by the republicans, it is conspiracy theory, that Saudi Arabia have 1 Trillion dollars invested in United States. You might like to have a look at Fahrenhype, a counter docuementary by someone who had studied Moore's film and pointed out, I think it was 58 inaccuracies, manipulations and lies, such as Moore taking an opinion letter from a newspaper, twisting it around, enlarging the font and everything to make it look like a headline stating Al Gore won the election rather than Bush. But who is J mart, Nancy? Is it J Mart or Wal Mart I'm thinking of? Anyway, they're big box super superstores that on average would take up a square block. Anything and everything you can buy elsewhere is sold there cheaper. Basically when they come in it's about time for everyone else to ship out as they just cannot compete. I'm not sure if that is truly accurate. I'm not sure if the number was accurate either, the point is Americans vote in who they want to be President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.