Warhippy Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Obfuscation, LOL The rise of corporations to dominate the global market was purely government induced. In the USA alone, before these FTA's shifted capital to the rich and shifted menial labour overseas, there were plenty of decent paying unskilled jobs. Now that these brilliant government FTA's are at work, the US has seen itself compete with wages in China, wages the Chinese government purposely keeps low and prevents from rising in order to keep their currency value low and perpetuate their monetary policy. All government caused here. Can't wait to read more of this leftist utopian government-is-the-solution-to-the-world's-problems garbage while ignoring the problems government has caused -- the US is a prototype example. All government caused? And then you go on to whine about leftists again. Hmmm....So. Just so we are clear, corporations are NOT at fault at all? Wealthy individuals amassing ever more wealth and hiding it in offshore tax havens are not at fault? It is ALL the government. But only left wing governments correct? I only ask because I want to source out your issue. And seeing as how a Right Wing government was in charge in the decade leading up to and including the 2008 financial crash. Seeing as how a right wing government is in charge in canada, yet it was "left wing" legislation that saved canada (since the right wanted to de-regulate and amalgamate with American banking policies); and is spending Canada into the toilet. And even the vaunted right wing Alberta policies have failed so miserably they cannot even afford to keep schools open in one of the most prosperous areas of the world.... Just kidna wondering what your angle is For the record not sure ANYONE has stated that left wing utopian governments are the answer but hey, invent things and make stuff up to suit your argument, or at least the serious lack of any argument you have. And yes, obfuscation deflection. Exactly what you have done in the last two comments you've left in regards to the entire conversation in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 All government caused? And then you go on to whine about leftists again. Hmmm....So. Just so we are clear, corporations are NOT at fault at all? Wealthy individuals amassing ever more wealth and hiding it in offshore tax havens are not at fault? It is ALL the government. But only left wing governments correct? I only ask because I want to source out your issue. And seeing as how a Right Wing government was in charge in the decade leading up to and including the 2008 financial crash. Seeing as how a right wing government is in charge in canada, yet it was "left wing" legislation that saved canada (since the right wanted to de-regulate and amalgamate with American banking policies); and is spending Canada into the toilet. And even the vaunted right wing Alberta policies have failed so miserably they cannot even afford to keep schools open in one of the most prosperous areas of the world.... Just kidna wondering what your angle is For the record not sure ANYONE has stated that left wing utopian governments are the answer but hey, invent things and make stuff up to suit your argument, or at least the serious lack of any argument you have. And yes, obfuscation deflection. Exactly what you have done in the last two comments you've left in regards to the entire conversation in this thread. Don't bother. He wants to turn it into an argument that allows him to address his personal bugaboos rather than addressing the issue in the OP. Obfuscation, LOL The rise of corporations to dominate the global market was purely government induced. In the USA alone, before these FTA's shifted capital to the rich and shifted menial labour overseas, there were plenty of decent paying unskilled jobs. Now that these brilliant government FTA's are at work, the US has seen itself compete with wages in China, wages the Chinese government purposely keeps low and prevents from rising in order to keep their currency value low and perpetuate their monetary policy. All government caused here. Can't wait to read more of this leftist utopian government-is-the-solution-to-the-world's-problems garbage while ignoring the problems government has caused -- the US is a prototype example. Everything you say suggests you only see the world in ideological black and white rather than identifying what system works best to tackle what problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Don't bother. He wants to turn it into an argument that allows him to address his personal bugaboos rather than addressing the issue in the OP. Everything you say suggests you only see the world in ideological black and white rather than identifying what system works best to tackle what problem. When I spoke earlier of people being ignorant and fear mongering in regards to a two party thought process and system....His posts are exactly what i was speaking of. indicative of both the ignorance and stupidity of the average person who is to blind to see farther than what Fox and CNN tells them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Everything you say suggests you only see the world in ideological black and white rather than identifying what system works best to tackle what problem. Says the guy who suggests we should hand the money of wealthy people to everyone else. That sure sounds like a rational solution, mr. "ideological black and white". Recall that you're talking about how great socialism is in a topic about the conspiracy nut theory of Rothschilds owning nearly a quadrillion dollars and controlling the world. Capitalism is the best solution we've seen thus far. While tiny fragments of regulation is good, people confuse regulation for government-induced capital shift (re: FTA's), which is corporatism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The problem with these types of threads is that: Those on the left claims that true socialism would work and that the socialism we have now isn't close. Then point to the so-call "free capitalism" in the US and say that's evidence of how capitalism failed. Those on the right claims that true capitalism would work and that the capitalism we have now isn't close. Then point to the so call "socialism" in Europe and say that's evidence of how socialism failed. In the end, it all comes down to the individual and their family. Spend too much, you'll pay more in interest; rely on government too much, you get taxed more; don't be financially literate, you will affected more by situations beyond your control; etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The problem with these types of threads is that: Those on the left claims that true socialism would work and that the socialism we have now isn't close. Then point to the so-call "free capitalism" in the US and say that's evidence of how capitalism failed. Those on the right claims that true capitalism would work and that the capitalism we have now isn't close. Then point to the so call "socialism" in Europe and say that's evidence of how socialism failed. In the end, it all comes down to the individual and their family. Spend too much, you'll pay more in interest; rely on government too much, you get taxed more; don't be financially literate, you will affected more by situations beyond your control; etc. The last part of your post is the benefits of living in a capitalist society -- intelligence, delayed gratification, understanding of social trends, etc. If you wonder why those of us who can manage a business look down upon these utopian socialists it's because they accomplish virtually nothing, except complain and want to take from others. When I "take" from people, it's because they're willfully giving to me, we both recognize each other's ownership of product or money, respect each other's freedom, and trade, whereas the suggestions that we simply take money from rich and give it to everyone else (re: the first page and on) exemplifies this lazy leftist movement. And of course these people use government to try and accomplish this feat -- ignoring the fact that once they give government this authority of capital redistribution, they just redistribute it to their friends and not the people these leftists wanted them to. That's reality -- look to the USA. Somehow I was called ideological. LOL. These people crack me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think it would be wrong to take money from every wealthy individual, only inheritance money should be targeted. Something like the silver spoon tax. Lets also not forget how much money certain wealthy individuals have donated. Bill gates has so far donated half of his net worth to various charitable organizations, same with Warren buffet too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think it would be wrong to take money from every wealthy individual, only inheritance money should be targeted. Something like the silver spoon tax. Lets also not forget how much money certain wealthy individuals have donated. Bill gates has so far donated half of his net worth to various charitable organizations, same with Warren buffet too. Why, exactly? Someone else earned that money, and it was subject to taxes already. I don't see the just reason to tax it again. If the concern is someone didn't pay their taxes, or was given favourable treatment by government, look to government or the voting populace to solve that problem. Simply taking money away from wealthy people for whatever ambiguous reason isn't a logical solution. People (namely the socialists whose posts permeate this topic) don't see the slippery slope of allowing government this power, all while there are real world example of it right before them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Why, exactly? Someone else earned that money, and it was subject to taxes already. I don't see the just reason to tax it again. If the concern is someone didn't pay their taxes, or was given favourable treatment by government, look to government or the voting populace to solve that problem. Simply taking money away from wealthy people for whatever ambiguous reason isn't a logical solution. People (namely the socialists whose posts permeate this topic) don't see the slippery slope of allowing government this power, all while there are real world example of it right before them. Like I said not all wealthy people should be targeted (self-made, large charitable donations), I disagree with the socialist logic, but I know that certain wealthy individuals don't necessarily deserve the money they receive because they basically sit on it after inheriting it. Now doing this would be incredibly difficult no doubt, but I think the money should be subject to further taxation if the individual who has inherited the money doesn't further contribute to the field in which the money was accumulated from i.e business, etc... I know that Paris hilton won't receive much inheritance because her family doesn't have faith in her ability to manage the funds and the fact she hasn't contributed to the Hilton brand much in a positive way. Its hard for me to explain lol, but I think the proper thing is taxation of certain individuals like an audit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Why, exactly? Someone else earned that money, and it was subject to taxes already. I don't see the just reason to tax it again. If the concern is someone didn't pay their taxes, or was given favourable treatment by government, look to government or the voting populace to solve that problem. Simply taking money away from wealthy people for whatever ambiguous reason isn't a logical solution. People (namely the socialists whose posts permeate this topic) don't see the slippery slope of allowing government this power, all while there are real world example of it right before them. Will you just STOP. Seriously you throw the word socialism around like african americans do the N word. so·cial·ism noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago Full Definition of SOCIALISM 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. Because “social control” may be interpreted in widely diverging ways, socialism ranges from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. The term was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized noncoercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all (see utopian socialism). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, seeing socialism as a transition state between capitalism and communism, appropriated what they found useful in socialist movements to develop their “scientific socialism.” In the 20th century, the Soviet Union was the principal model of strictly centralized socialism, while Sweden and Denmark were well-known for their noncommunist socialism. See also collectivism, communitarianism, social democracy. Now you know. Educate yourself. And I suggest if you're So adverse to it, leave the country. EVERY country on the planet with western ideologies is frigging socialist to some degree..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Educate yourself. And I suggest if you're So adverse to it, leave the country. EVERY country on the planet with western ideologies is frigging socialist to some degree..... I have two business degrees, one from the US and one from Canada, and I bet I've put my education to much better use. Clearly the education need is not on my part, and it's great that you've learned to use the quote and cut+paste functions (clap clap clap), but it would be kind if you'd read too. Capitalism is the best solution we've seen thus far. While tiny fragments of regulation is good, people confuse regulation for government-induced capital shift (re: FTA's), which is corporatism. I've not argued for absolutes, however, you'll find the "controlled by state" portion relevant to the oft-cited socialist policy capitalists criticize. In this socialist utopian theory of wealth redistribution, you guys often forget that once you give government this authority how they use it -- then turn around and point the finger at capitalism as to why. Shouldn't be surprised why an intelligent person would find that any less than comical. Like I said not all wealthy people should be targeted (self-made, large charitable donations), I disagree with the socialist logic, but I know that certain wealthy individuals don't necessarily deserve the money they receive because they basically sit on it after inheriting it. Now doing this would be incredibly difficult no doubt, but I think the money should be subject to further taxation if the individual who has inherited the money doesn't further contribute to the field in which the money was accumulated from i.e business, etc... I know that Paris hilton won't receive much inheritance because her family doesn't have faith in her ability to manage the funds and the fact she hasn't contributed to the Hilton brand much in a positive way. Its hard for me to explain lol, but I think the proper thing is taxation of certain individuals like an audit. I sort of see where you're coming from in part of this post, but why does it matter if they just sit on it (something that's actually a worse thing to do with that much money -- a wise person invests given how currency goes through inflation and becomes less valuable "sitting on") or blow through it or invest more? I don't quite follow the rationale used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdehaan Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Check out the Hidden Secrets of Money thread. Understanding 'money' might help gain a bit of perspective of how much 'money' there is out there and who influences its direction. Start with Episode 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgillnuck Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Well I agree with the bolded part, having said that its working smarter not harder that can often bring in wealth.. Yeah, you really missed the point of my post. You want to tell the third world villager who has zero-to-limited access to the societal supports we take for granted (education, health care, safety nets etc...), and who has to work 12 hours a day just to make enough money to put food on the table, that they just have to work smarter to get out of poverty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Yeah, you really missed the point of my post. You want to tell the third world villager who has zero-to-limited access to the societal supports we take for granted (education, health care, safety nets etc...), and who has to work 12 hours a day just to make enough money to put food on the table, that they just have to work smarter to get out of poverty? Well how else do you purpose they get out? people become immigrant/refugees because of situations you described and thats a classic example of working smart... otherwise they are trapped in the cycle and risk future generations of being in the same situation. I would say most of the time it's a combo of the two, but there are other examples of people who have worked smart rather than hard. They aren't always ethical, but it does get them out of some poverty. For example, illegal immigrants or fake asylum seekers arguly become more wealthier compared to the hard working individual living the third world country. Having said I am not saying I endorse that... Sorry for the bad grammar lol my brain is dead today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 A few things... 1) There is no way one single family could ever own that much wealth. They would need to own a substantial amount of the property on the planet for that to be true. You can look up who owns property. That is public knowledge. Anyone can see who's name is on title at any specific property by going to your land title office. Think about how much property there is in Vancouver. Add up the value of all the houses, condos, commercial properties, etc....that's one city. Even the ultra rich, individually, own a very tiny fraction of the total wealth in the world. 2) Rich people do not "hoard" wealth. They invest it. If you kept all of your money hoarded in some giant scrooge McDuck vault, inflation and expenses would eat into it very quickly. Rich people stay rich by wisely investing their money. 3) The Scandinavian countries are not a socialist paradise. Most maintain their economic position through heavy amounts of offshore oil and gas drilling. The ocean around Scandinavia is rich with massive fossil fuel deposits. Also here is a list of countries by tax rates: http://en.wikipedia....es_by_tax_rates Canada and the US are near the top. The tax rate in places like New York City far exceed those in anywhere in Scandinavia. Many countries in Scandinavia do offer things like free or even paid schooling. They, however, strictly control who gets into University. If you do not show educational aptitude by the 9th or 10th grade, you get diverted into a trade school. They also limit how many students are in each program....so basically, they aren't letting huge numbers of people major in the liberal arts, like in Canada. Most Scandinavian countries are also becoming more and more conservative. Sweden, Norway, and Finland all have conservative governments in power. Finland has one of the world’s best education systems, with no tuition fees and also giving free meals to their students. The literacy rate in Finland is 100 percent. Finland has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Like Denmark and other European countries, equality is considered one of the most important values in society. Denmark has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world. Equality is considered the most important value in Denmark. Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less In Norway, the government controls certain key aspects of the national economy, and they also have one of the best welfare systems in the world, with Norway having one of the highest standards of living in all of Europe and again equality is considered one of the most important values in society. And that's what it gets down to taxi , beyond all the facts and figures it is what a society values the most and the scandinavian countries value equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I have two business degrees, one from the US and one from Canada, and I bet I've put my education to much better use. Clearly the education need is not on my part, and it's great that you've learned to use the quote and cut+paste functions (clap clap clap), but it would be kind if you'd read too. I've not argued for absolutes, however, you'll find the "controlled by state" portion relevant to the oft-cited socialist policy capitalists criticize. In this socialist utopian theory of wealth redistribution, you guys often forget that once you give government this authority how they use it -- then turn around and point the finger at capitalism as to why. Shouldn't be surprised why an intelligent person would find that any less than comical. I sort of see where you're coming from in part of this post, but why does it matter if they just sit on it (something that's actually a worse thing to do with that much money -- a wise person invests given how currency goes through inflation and becomes less valuable "sitting on") or blow through it or invest more? I don't quite follow the rationale used. This is the second time i have seen you claim you have 2 degrees , last time they were physics degrees that was in a climate change thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The problem with these types of threads is that: Those on the left claims that true socialism would work and that the socialism we have now isn't close. Then point to the so-call "free capitalism" in the US and say that's evidence of how capitalism failed. Those on the right claims that true capitalism would work and that the capitalism we have now isn't close. Then point to the so call "socialism" in Europe and say that's evidence of how socialism failed. In the end, it all comes down to the individual and their family. Spend too much, you'll pay more in interest; rely on government too much, you get taxed more; don't be financially literate, you will affected more by situations beyond your control; etc. How about those that value equality and believe that a society is defined by how it treats its most vulnerable members , those are the things that matter to me. I hate all politicians , here in AUS we have , "the right" , " the centre right" , "the far right" , "the left" , " the centre Left" , " the far left", and thats just 2 political parties , the biggest irony of all is that the conservative party is called the liberals. It all gets down to choosing between douchebags , most of whom do not give a rats arse for the people they are supposed to represent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Check out the Hidden Secrets of Money thread. Understanding 'money' might help gain a bit of perspective of how much 'money' there is out there and who influences its direction. Start with Episode 1. Nice plug.. even though that topic is mainly you posting alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 #Illuminati #swagalicious #fabulous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdehaan Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Nice plug.. even though that topic is mainly you posting alone. Just trying to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.