The government can be replaced or you can move to select a new one. So far it seems to be working fairly well compared to other examples.
A) This means people starve during that time. I am not ok with that.
B)That would be determined by need, I would assume. Folks living in the street? Guess we need more assistance. I am not sure how that is a complicated thing. Tax money is used for this, tax payers pay it. Seems simple to this tax payer.
C) Yes, those people need to grow up. I don't support wars, but I pay for it and STFU. I don't see a problem for the religious, other than their mythology. They can pretend their money is all spend on those wars and I can pretend mine all goes to charities. They will probably be better at pretending than me though.
Either way you never addressed my issue. In totally free market economies some people suffer far more and others win more. For instance, employers in places with nothing like OSHA benefit while their employees are put in danger. Many folks have to take whatever they get for wages for various reasons including general unemployment. So they cannot go find another employer.
The general trend? Free markets as in so limitedly regulated as you suggest tend towards monopolies and very few people capturing all of the surplus. Many fail from simple lack of opportunity as well. Many will never make enough to be able to invest. Add in tax rates that favor the investor over the worker and the problem exaggerates itself.
The rich also create foundations to avoid taxes and support their own aims. The Gates foundation has been accused of requiring nations/people who take their aid of signing IP agreements that would prevent them from making their own drugs, thus boosting its own investments.
A) This would be a problem with even private charity B) It should be, if not increase it C) see A D) grow up Also of note, without public service there is nothing do say that private charity will actually cover all those in need.
Voluntary mutual exchange is very rarely totally voluntary or totally mutual beneficial. For instance, I cannot get a good price on computers without windows. So instead I am almost always forced to subsidize a private company I do not want to have anything to do with. Anything I need to live is also not voluntary and can be not very mutually beneficial since I am at such a disadvantage. This means I must pay whatever they charge no matter the cost, healthcare being such a thing. It would be great if reality worked that way, and all transactions were on equal footing but that is not the way it is.
I disagree with you claim of slavery, one cannot leave slavery one may leave a state with a ideology one disagrees with.
Actually it is the availability of credit that does that, not the subsidy. As a good example look at the cost of in state tuition, where the tax payer foots part of the bill vs out of state at the public university.
It was just easier to find information before web2.0. I can't even count the times I have had to use the google cache without images to get the information I needed that was hidden behind all kinds of web2.0 gibberish.
I like this future a lot, I hate what it did to the informative parts of the web.
It would indeed be more effective for some folks to do that. How would we fund such equal education? How would we help those who fail even though they tried very hard but simply had poor luck? For example those who investing in Enron based on its fraudulent documents?
I am not suggesting other philosophies do not give the same end result. Nor do I argue that corruption is a huge issue.
I think a tightly regulated market economy is best for everyone. See USA, Europe, etc.
I think if anything the latest info shows the IRS was targeting all political groups. The EPA needs to step up and enforce the clean air act, no matter who is doing the polluting.
I never said that. America is not a totally free market country. Thankfully we have lots of nice life improving regulations. It gets me a decent wage, clean water, clean air and advances like the internet.
I do not live in one of the places I was talking about.
Your whole point is not reading what was written then spouting off your preconceived notions.
I am almost certain it is poorly, as we add more shiny and BS we reduce usability for a lot of folks. Well we actually reduce usability for everyone, but for some people usability goes to zero.
That is totally off topic. I am talking about market manipulation to drive down the price of labor. Like we see with H1-bs, they can come here to compete with Americans but we can't go compete with them.
Pretty much that. What no one thinks about is the for an outside source to provide you with something they have to charge what that costs and profit. Now if you need a single trinket that works, but if you need lots of work done hiring directly can be substantially cheaper. For this kind of thing I would think some direct hire and some contract workers would be best.
Shopping it out has to be the most expensive way to do it.
The race to the bottom only benefits the select few on top. With your idea we would all be working for $1/day while the rich get even richer.
If you want a good example of this see hong kong or another place that allows those kinds of income inequalities. I would rather most americans be able to afford homes and food instead of most living in squalor so a select few can be super rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly my comment had nothing to do with this country. Good job not reading.
Says someone who has never seen hong kong. Go look up the people living in cages. Go look at what happens to the maids on sunday.
The government can be replaced or you can move to select a new one. So far it seems to be working fairly well compared to other examples.
A) This means people starve during that time. I am not ok with that.
B)That would be determined by need, I would assume. Folks living in the street? Guess we need more assistance. I am not sure how that is a complicated thing. Tax money is used for this, tax payers pay it. Seems simple to this tax payer.
C) Yes, those people need to grow up. I don't support wars, but I pay for it and STFU. I don't see a problem for the religious, other than their mythology. They can pretend their money is all spend on those wars and I can pretend mine all goes to charities. They will probably be better at pretending than me though.
Either way you never addressed my issue. In totally free market economies some people suffer far more and others win more. For instance, employers in places with nothing like OSHA benefit while their employees are put in danger. Many folks have to take whatever they get for wages for various reasons including general unemployment. So they cannot go find another employer.
Yeah, I agree.
I was just being disagreeable for the hell of it.
The general trend?
Free markets as in so limitedly regulated as you suggest tend towards monopolies and very few people capturing all of the surplus. Many fail from simple lack of opportunity as well. Many will never make enough to be able to invest. Add in tax rates that favor the investor over the worker and the problem exaggerates itself.
The rich also create foundations to avoid taxes and support their own aims. The Gates foundation has been accused of requiring nations/people who take their aid of signing IP agreements that would prevent them from making their own drugs, thus boosting its own investments.
A) This would be a problem with even private charity
B) It should be, if not increase it
C) see A
D) grow up
Also of note, without public service there is nothing do say that private charity will actually cover all those in need.
Voluntary mutual exchange is very rarely totally voluntary or totally mutual beneficial. For instance, I cannot get a good price on computers without windows. So instead I am almost always forced to subsidize a private company I do not want to have anything to do with. Anything I need to live is also not voluntary and can be not very mutually beneficial since I am at such a disadvantage. This means I must pay whatever they charge no matter the cost, healthcare being such a thing. It would be great if reality worked that way, and all transactions were on equal footing but that is not the way it is.
I disagree with you claim of slavery, one cannot leave slavery one may leave a state with a ideology one disagrees with.
So how much are they paying for posts these days?
I figure it must be down from the glory days of slashdot.
I meant completely.
Actually it is the availability of credit that does that, not the subsidy. As a good example look at the cost of in state tuition, where the tax payer foots part of the bill vs out of state at the public university.
That is a compelling argument for subsidized post secondary education.
The next step is to kill it off since no one was using it, because they hid it.
I guess then I just tell you to get off my lawn?
It was just easier to find information before web2.0. I can't even count the times I have had to use the google cache without images to get the information I needed that was hidden behind all kinds of web2.0 gibberish.
I like this future a lot, I hate what it did to the informative parts of the web.
Nice theory, please explain scams then.
It would indeed be more effective for some folks to do that. How would we fund such equal education? How would we help those who fail even though they tried very hard but simply had poor luck? For example those who investing in Enron based on its fraudulent documents?
I am not suggesting other philosophies do not give the same end result. Nor do I argue that corruption is a huge issue.
I think a tightly regulated market economy is best for everyone. See USA, Europe, etc.
I think if anything the latest info shows the IRS was targeting all political groups. The EPA needs to step up and enforce the clean air act, no matter who is doing the polluting.
I never said that. America is not a totally free market country. Thankfully we have lots of nice life improving regulations. It gets me a decent wage, clean water, clean air and advances like the internet.
I do not live in one of the places I was talking about.
Your whole point is not reading what was written then spouting off your preconceived notions.
I guess, for stupid people maybe you are correct.
Where are you?
There is no first world nation that is totally free market.
I was being a bit extreme. What I really meant was they have lots of income disparity.
Probably, but I wish they would not have too.
This web2.0 stuff sucks. I want something to keep an all text web around.
I turn it off all the time.
I am sure 99.9% of folks don't even know what javascript is, why should I care?
So explain why all of these free market places end up with a few rich and everyone else living in squalor.
Where as the more regulated first world nations don't have that.
Try to stick to the real world too, none of this theory BS.
How well do screen readers deal with javascript?
I am almost certain it is poorly, as we add more shiny and BS we reduce usability for a lot of folks. Well we actually reduce usability for everyone, but for some people usability goes to zero.
Why is this a thing?
Why must we dumb down everything?
That is totally off topic. I am talking about market manipulation to drive down the price of labor. Like we see with H1-bs, they can come here to compete with Americans but we can't go compete with them.
Awesome false dichotomy you got there.
The middle class shrinking is fine?
All the gains of the recovery going to the top percent is ok?
Pretty much that.
What no one thinks about is the for an outside source to provide you with something they have to charge what that costs and profit. Now if you need a single trinket that works, but if you need lots of work done hiring directly can be substantially cheaper. For this kind of thing I would think some direct hire and some contract workers would be best.
Shopping it out has to be the most expensive way to do it.
The race to the bottom only benefits the select few on top. With your idea we would all be working for $1/day while the rich get even richer.
If you want a good example of this see hong kong or another place that allows those kinds of income inequalities. I would rather most americans be able to afford homes and food instead of most living in squalor so a select few can be super rich.