You can whine about every thing that the government does wrong, but the only difference between the government, and a private monopoly (or trust) set up by the government, is that the private monopoly or trust is every bit as as bad as the government, plus it is opaque, unaccountable, and some already-rich people keep all the money, instead of at least some of it going to "support the troops" or occasionally even pay a high school teacher's salary.
Haven't checked out Wikileaks lately, have we?
The only difference between the corrupt government and the corrupt corporations is that the corrupt government can legally use guns to make you do what it wants you to do. The corrupt corporations enlist the corrupt government to do that for them.
Well, I consider myself to be libertarian, but you may be right.
I'm a big believer in individualism as well as the free market and property rights. Of course, when I say free market, I mean one with minimal government intervention, which also means no corporations since they are defined and created by government. I'm still debating as to whether or not I believe in the government being involved in contract law other than prosecuting someone criminally for theft by deception or whatever denial of liberty charge fits if they violate an agreement.
As we've already discussed, I believe in a social safety net, but that's also supported by general libertarian philosophy. I believe that government has a role, but that is primarily limited to protecting our individual rights from each other and direct foreign threats (Iraq definitely doesn't count).
I generally detest labels anyway because they usually reduce perception to preconceived biases and lead to more misunderstanding than clarity. My philosophy is one of pragmatism. And, to me, large organizations, whether public or private, are to be distrusted. Concentrations of power tend to lead to concentrations of corruption. That's why I believe in individualism. As to what term accurately sums that all up, I'm not sure. I know that the only US political party that has even a remote chance of winning an election that also generally agrees with that position is the Libertarian party. So, that's what I tend to identify with. But, maybe there is a better term for what I believe that I should use.
I don't think the moral hazard of providing a basic safety net is as big a problem as some make it out to be. Most people want to contribute. They want some status. They want to have standing in their community. They don't want to be seen as helpless, hopeless leaches.
I'm with you there. Unfortunately, we've got 2 sides that seem to either leave everyone to their own devices or take care of virtually everyone. I think we need to focus all of our efforts on minimizing the number of people that can't make do on their own. We need individualized counseling and training to help people gain the knowledge and skills necessary to survive as well as deal with the immense psychological issues that typically result from being in poverty. I think we should spend much more on those in poverty than we do and nothing on those that don't need it. We need a system that is held accountable for lifting people out of the mess and not just given the standard 5% budget increases without demonstrating any effectiveness. We need a system based on humanity and not on bureaucracy. People shouldn't feel like a loser for getting help. They should feel like they are taking the first step to becoming a productive, independent individual that can thrive in society. Unfortunately, the despots on both sides seem to have trouble shutting down their propaganda machines to actually solve problems. They just want their solution to win, whether or not it actually solves the problem (which they have vaguely defined to begin with).
Enough ranting, though. I've been a libertarian for long enough to not get too frustrated about any common sense being ignored.
So, I keep hearing all this news about them running low... What happens when we run out?
-Taylor
NAT
NAT only helps client computers. It does nothing to help bring new servers online, that need a unique IP address.
Correct... if they need a unique IP address. But, you can route based on ports, protocols, client address, etc. So, NAT with more complicated routing can be used to get new servers online.
The average American is making less real money, working more jobs and/or longer hours, than they did fifty years ago. They have more debt, on average, and less savings. More are on unemployment, or have given up looking for work.
I don't have any statistics about the amount of money being made. So, I can't speak to that directly. But, it does seem to me that the standard of living is higher for the average American than it was 50 years ago. The amount of technology and convenience available to the average is greater than what was available to even the richest people 50 years ago. I can't speak to the difference between the richest and poorest today vs 50 years ago, either. But, any relative comparison of rich to poor is going to look bad regardless of how well the lowest are doing. And, unless we want to force complete equality of material resources, I believe the rate of improvement in the common standard of living is a better thing to focus on than relative differences between contemporary disparate wealth classes.
The debt and savings problems are the real poverty issues. But, once again, looking at the standard of living, less and less of people's income as a percentage goes to basic necessities. Most of the poverty there is of a materialistic mindset. We've made material wealth into a virtue and encouraged people to consume more than necessary in a world that doesn't place artificial value on things based on how shiny and new they are. Don't get me wrong. Real poverty does exist. I just believe the vast majority of complaints originate from the natural consequence of a materialistic value system, which is to compare what one has to what others possess. So, debt becomes the tool to live at a higher material level and savings is not valued in the way that it should be.
Given that the unemployment rate is higher than it has been for decades, it's not surprising more would be unemployed. I think the unfortunate thing is that we don't train and encourage people to become self-employed. The fact that most people have to rely on corporations and other businesses for their livelihood is a negative thing in my opinion. But, our system is setup to give advantages to larger businesses and corporations and creates disincentives for the average person to become their own boss. I consider that a major violation of an individuals right to make their own livelihood.
As for health care, I guess the average American has some sort of health insurance. But our insurance is, on average, terrible, with huge deductibles and many loopholes. Insurance companies act as "death panels" denying coverage any time they think they can get away with it. So, perhaps it is more accurate to say, we have terrible substandard health insurance: while paying twice as much (as a percentage of GDP) as the next most expensive health care system in the world, our health care outcomes rank about 33rd.
We're in total agreement about insurance. To me, it's the main problem of the whole system. Unfortunately, it seems the solution is to put insurance (either publicly or privately controlled) in charge of the whole system.
Why do we need insurance? It's because insurance runs the entire system. So, there's a lot of extra people in the chain that have to be paid that have nothing to do with actually taking care of someone. Instead of just a patient and a doctor, they're joined by the doctor's administrative staff that has to handle the billing and working with the insurance companies' people, the insurance companies' accountants, doctors, lawyers, etc and all the technology and physical infrastructure that is required to support it all. So, it's no wonder that the average person can't access the system without insurance and we're paying so much more than the rest of the world.
Our insurance isn't really insurance. It's a health payment plan, at least the way we use it. If we mandated insurance not cover things like maintenance care
I think you misinterpreted what Justice Alito said - he *wanted* to hear the case; that sentence comes from his dissent. He would prefer to reexamine the laws which were written before a new medium was available (or at least widely available).
Come on. Alito was appointed by Bush. Obviously, anything he does is going to be for the evil corporations.
Never underestimate how much inherent bias obscures basic facts. Both sides like to dismiss anyone related to the other without even bothering to listen. We're in an environment dominated by political fundamentalism on both sides.
Fundamentalist = someone that has stopped listening
Does the average individual in America today have more power to control his destiny than his counterparts in other first world nations? To me, it seems the average individual in America is struggling just to get by, has no health care, is poorly educated compared to the rest of the world, has fewer real functional rights, and less opportunity to succeed.
My gut reaction is that I disagree and agree with some of your statement. But, that's easy when it's put in such general terms. And, it's equally easy to start jumping on the parts I disagree with in a general and unthoughtful manner.
But, I'd rather clarify and understand why you feel the way that you do first.
What reasons do you have to believe that the "average" American is struggling to just get by? I'm not saying there aren't those in need. There certainly are. But, other than anecdotes, I've seen little to indicate that the "average" American is struggling.
What reasons do you have to believe that the "average" American has no healthcare? Even during the long healthcare debate, the highest numbers I saw for numbers of "uninsured" Americans were ~30 million. Taking that as true, that means less than 10% don't have health insurance. And, given that you can get care even without insurance, it doesn't seem like the "average" has "no" health care. We can agree that access is inhibited by costs, but even someone without a dime to their name or any insurance that is injured badly in a car accident is going to receive emergency care.
You'll get no argument from me on the education comment. The American system is atrocious. I'd love to blame the government, and I do, but it's as much a cultural problem, where education, knowledge and thoughtfulness are not valued, as it is a problem with execution.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fewer real functional rights." I suspect I agree with you on some of the details, but that's a very broad statement that could be interpreted many ways.
I agree that we have "less opportunity to succeed" than we should. I'm not sure if I agree that it is less than those in other first world nations. It completely depends on how we define "success." Of course, if we had more clarity with that, maybe a lot of the other issues wouldn't exist.
No. It is the belief that the US is better than other countries. Not perfect, just better.
The problem is that 'better' is a function of behaviour.
'We can do bad things because we're good people' is not a coherent argument, because you're only good people to the extent that you don't do bad things.
The problem with "better" is that it means closer to perfect. So, while the GP was trying to say that it wasn't that arrogant of a statement because it wasn't an objective one (the US is perfect), he was effectively saying it was arrogant for being a relative one (the US is closer to perfect than anyone else).
The fact you cannot discuss my very valid problems with your arguments for reparations is typical, and I might point out that your attitude in general leads to violence. I would really like to know why I should be made to pay for wrongs that I had nothing to do with. Just ignoring me is the hallmark of someone who does not have an argument.
I live in southern California where gambling is illegal, unless you live on an Indian reservation. This is a gigantic boon to Indians and they make tens of millions of dollars thru their special treatment though the law. Can you explain to me how this fits with "All men are created equal". Why is it that the government has said in so many situations that "All men are created equal unless you are in this group then we need to prop you up by stealing money from other people.". Why the hell do you think you or anyone else gets to decide how much of my hard earned money goes to repay someone who has never been wronged in their life? Explain why if I was born with certain color skin in one part of California I can open a Casino, while with another color skin I cannot. I just don't think they inherently deserve money I have earned because of the color of their skin. If you can show me how the government has harmed an individual you may have an argument, but people who have never suffered deserve no reparation.
Unfortunately, we always try to right wrongs by making over-compensations in the opposite direction to balance out the mistreatment rather than just stop doing wrong. I'm all for righting wrongs, but at a certain level of scope, the problems have been too large and general to even the aggregate "score." But, we still have to "try"... even if that means creating new injustices.
If the memory of you is passed on through generations, you do live forever.
Uh, sorry, but no, you don't. The memory lives on, not the person. If that is important to those who live on is another matter. But please do not confuse the two.
What is "the person"?
I think you're focusing on the word live instead of what is the real meaning of being a person. Is it the body? If so, does that mean the person in a permanent coma or virtually brain dead is alive?
To me, it's a question of identity. Do you identify with the hardware (the body) or the software (spirit, essence, humanity, name your own term)?
Personally, I identify with the software. What "I" am is not a physical manifestation. "I" exist within a physical entity, but that is not "me."
Memories of people are essentially small copies of that essence that are stored in other pieces of hardware. So, for me, you do continue to live through memory.
It may not be the totality of what "you" are. But, the imprints we leave on each other have a lasting impact on our behaviour. And by understanding that, we have the opportunity to achieve a type of immortality if we can effect the right influences in our physical lifetimes. Think of people like Mother Theresa and you can see that one can have a positive effect even after physical death due to the resonance of humanity affirming actions within life.
But, this is a completely philosophical question we're dealing with. So, your answer is as good as mine. But, for me, I find that taking the longer view of what it means to be alive leads to a more positive direction with respect to mankind in my physical journey through the universe.
It's marketing, backed up with often exceptional products.
If it were just marketing, anyone could do it. If the products were junk people wouldn't buy them again and again. They do. If the products were junk then the rest of the tech industry wouldn't be falling all over themselves trying to get their own "me too" products into the market.
Or are you saying that no other company in the world has a marketing department?
I'm getting really tired of hearing otherwise educated people tell me that Apple's success is "just" due to marketing.
Actually, it is just marketing. And, that's exactly what you said.
Despite the common misconception, marketing is not just advertising. Marketing is comprised of "the 4 p's" - product, place, price and promotion. Promotion is the one that is what most people think of when they hear marketing, but it's the last part.
The first is the product itself and all of it's features and design. Place is the products place in the market (high-end/low-end, loss leader, status symbol, etc) and where it will be sold (Walmart/Bloomingdales/brand specific stores/etc). Price is the decision as to what the product can be made and sold for in the chosen market. Then, you decide how to promote the whole package.
So, while you're absolutely correct when addressing the GP's statement, in reality, Apples success is entirely about marketing. And, that marketing starts with a great product that a mass market would want.
Meanwhile, somewhere at an ATM in Oakland, California, a man is hit on the head with an aluminum baseball bat and two young men walk away with his money, ID, and cell phone. The man later dies of complications due to skull fracture. Where was the U.S. government?
And in case you have not heard, US tech workers were laid off by the hundreds of thousands in 2009. Practically every major tech employer laid off thousands of US workers. And the USA is suffering it's worse unemployment since the great depression.
And from the level of talent I see that still is employed, they need to keep the lay-offs going.
Too many people came into IT for the money and don't put in the effort required to be masters of their craft. It does sound callous, but if the vast numbers of clueless people I've seen stay employed in IT over the last couple of years still have a job, I don't think it says much for those that can't seem to find one unless there's some geographical issues involved.
During the last 2 recessions, as everyone was screaming doom and gloom, I not only was able to keep the job I had, but also get new jobs during both that came with 30+% pay increases. If I were more arrogant, I'd say it was because I was that good. But, since I'm not, I blame the competition for being weak.
People can whine and complain about other people taking their jobs all they want. If you want to not be one of those people, keep growing, learning and perfecting your skills. And, for my basement dwelling brethren, that doesn't always mean technical skills. Most employers will hire a rounded, well spoken American for more than they would pay for someone that at best can communicate with very broken English. Don't discount actually understanding business as a huge plus, either.
Sure, there are plenty of exceptions. But, as far as I can tell, there really is a talent shortage. But, I also don't see the visa candidates offering a better level either. They just know how to keep their mouths shut and do what their told.
So what? We were talking about the relationship between tax and economic strength. What does culture have to do with that?
If everyone is in general agreement about what needs to be accomplished in society, it's feasable for the government to be involved in those functions and not be inefficient.
In the US, there is no general agreement because of the vast cultural heterogeneity. Thus, anything that government does is a series of bad compromises to placate all factions, which results in a sub-optimal system.
Economic strength comes from how well social organizations (government, business or non-profit) meet the needs and wants of that society. A culturally heterogenous society can have a government that plays a larger role and still be efficient. It doesn't work as well for a much larger population that is culturally diverse.
The gap is always there and is just the difference in the amount of money/assets each holds. There wouldn't be "rich" and "poor" without such a gap. The problem is that it is growing--the rich are continuing to get richer, and the not-rich are not. The middle class certainly benefits from technological advances as you wrote previously, and some genuinely poor people do too but to a lesser extent.
The system we have now, the one I sketched out in my original post, tends to further concentrate wealth around those who already have it. And since wealth usually confers power unto its holder, the rich also tend to have more political clout, which they can use to further ensure they keep getting more money, assets, and power. That might sound like it's out of scope here, but I don't think it is.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. The gap exists and always will. It's not the problem, at least in this particular context. It seems to me that the problem is that we have a political system that is not agnostic with respect to wealth. Thus, the gap creates a disadvantage to those without the resources to equally participate in the political process. And, the situation is self-reinforcing due to political involvement in the economic process.
"Rich" today usually means you're at the helm of or very high up in a large corporation. In my working definitions, a millionaire, while certainly richer than I am, isn't part of the class to which I am referring. We'll call him "wealthy." "Rich" ought to be reserved for hundreds of millions of dollars and up.
Unfortunately, you nor I get to set the definition. I like yours and would be happy for that to be the working definition. However, it seems that for the vast majority, "rich" means someone that has more than I think I could attain. Therefore, there's no common ground to relate with. Thus, "rich" becomes an abstract entity that can be easily demonized because without common ground, we deny the humanity of others.
The problem, as I see it, is that more of the middle class is doing little better than living paycheck to paycheck and paying down accrued debt. Those who actually have some savings may not realize it, but saving money in this country is a net loss--inflation outstrips the meager interest small money earns. You have to invest to make your money work for you, but it takes more initial money to be able to do that safely.
How much of that accrued debt is due to necessary living expenses and how much is due to our society's deranged obsession with material wealth? I agree with you about what is happening. I just wonder if it was something that occurred out of necessity or our collective social dysfunction of materialism.
Most of this could happen anyway, and while I don't like it it doesn't strike me as inherently unfair. What does is what I originally posted about--the fact that new money, more valuable the earlier you get it, always goes to the rich first. By the time it gets to the average person, it's lagged behind the inflation it's caused and merely puts him about where he was before, as in "Thank God I got that raise! Now I can keep up with the bills and go out for a nice dinner now and then again." That same money, when first introduced, let some rich guy purchase, oh I don't know, oil futures. That new money bought the futures at the market price at a time when the market was not aware of new money. As the money filters in, the market learns that more money's around and raises its prices accordingly. Now the rich guy can sell the oil futures at the new equilibrium, having made money by the virtue of being first in line to borrow it when it was introduced.
So, maybe the problem is the creation of money from nothing? I'm definitely with you there. Inflation is just a hidden tax that is terribly regressive (which is what I understand your original point to be). An
Back in like 1905, corporations paid 50% of all Federal taxes, meaning individuals weren't taking the hit. Now corporations are paying like 5% of the federal taxes. I'd say rebalance the taxes onto corporations.
Back in like 1905, the federal budget was 6.89% of GDP, meaning government was smaller. Now the federal budget is 43.85% of GDP. I'd say there isn't enough corporate money to rebalance that situation.
While I have no problem with rich people and clearly see how they benefit society, I do take issue with the growth of the gap between rich and poor that appears to be inherent in our system of money.
What is the "gap between rich and poor" and why is it a problem?
I apologize if my questions might sound simplistic or naive, but I'm curious as to what your take is. I'm not contending that there is no issue. I'm not really sure.
"The income and payroll taxes, as well as all the rules and regulations are turning the once productive societies into the third world countries, by creating huge disincentives for people to produce, by moving capital out because societies with gigantic tax rates and so called 'social obligations' have produced entirely unsustainable parasitic governments of enormous size that are strangling the host economy."
The Scandinavian economies are the strongest in the world yet all are highly taxed and highly involved with 'social obligations'
The actual facts do not meet with your dogma, I'm afraid.
They're also culturally homogenous societies... It makes a big difference when everyone has the same general perspective on issues. That's why the US was intended to be a federal system.
Slashdot Mirror
You can whine about every thing that the government does wrong, but the only difference between the government, and a private monopoly (or trust) set up by the government, is that the private monopoly or trust is every bit as as bad as the government, plus it is opaque, unaccountable, and some already-rich people keep all the money, instead of at least some of it going to "support the troops" or occasionally even pay a high school teacher's salary.
Haven't checked out Wikileaks lately, have we?
The only difference between the corrupt government and the corrupt corporations is that the corrupt government can legally use guns to make you do what it wants you to do. The corrupt corporations enlist the corrupt government to do that for them.
If the government simply ran it, at least there would be more accountability and transparency to the users of the system.
Only if they don't succeed in shutting down Wikileaks... Otherwise, there's plenty of evidence of the fairytale nature of that statement.
Well, I consider myself to be libertarian, but you may be right.
I'm a big believer in individualism as well as the free market and property rights. Of course, when I say free market, I mean one with minimal government intervention, which also means no corporations since they are defined and created by government. I'm still debating as to whether or not I believe in the government being involved in contract law other than prosecuting someone criminally for theft by deception or whatever denial of liberty charge fits if they violate an agreement.
As we've already discussed, I believe in a social safety net, but that's also supported by general libertarian philosophy. I believe that government has a role, but that is primarily limited to protecting our individual rights from each other and direct foreign threats (Iraq definitely doesn't count).
I generally detest labels anyway because they usually reduce perception to preconceived biases and lead to more misunderstanding than clarity. My philosophy is one of pragmatism. And, to me, large organizations, whether public or private, are to be distrusted. Concentrations of power tend to lead to concentrations of corruption. That's why I believe in individualism. As to what term accurately sums that all up, I'm not sure. I know that the only US political party that has even a remote chance of winning an election that also generally agrees with that position is the Libertarian party. So, that's what I tend to identify with. But, maybe there is a better term for what I believe that I should use.
I don't think the moral hazard of providing a basic safety net is as big a problem as some make it out to be. Most people want to contribute. They want some status. They want to have standing in their community. They don't want to be seen as helpless, hopeless leaches.
I'm with you there. Unfortunately, we've got 2 sides that seem to either leave everyone to their own devices or take care of virtually everyone. I think we need to focus all of our efforts on minimizing the number of people that can't make do on their own. We need individualized counseling and training to help people gain the knowledge and skills necessary to survive as well as deal with the immense psychological issues that typically result from being in poverty. I think we should spend much more on those in poverty than we do and nothing on those that don't need it. We need a system that is held accountable for lifting people out of the mess and not just given the standard 5% budget increases without demonstrating any effectiveness. We need a system based on humanity and not on bureaucracy. People shouldn't feel like a loser for getting help. They should feel like they are taking the first step to becoming a productive, independent individual that can thrive in society. Unfortunately, the despots on both sides seem to have trouble shutting down their propaganda machines to actually solve problems. They just want their solution to win, whether or not it actually solves the problem (which they have vaguely defined to begin with).
Enough ranting, though. I've been a libertarian for long enough to not get too frustrated about any common sense being ignored.
So, I keep hearing all this news about them running low... What happens when we run out? -Taylor
NAT
NAT only helps client computers. It does nothing to help bring new servers online, that need a unique IP address.
Correct... if they need a unique IP address. But, you can route based on ports, protocols, client address, etc. So, NAT with more complicated routing can be used to get new servers online.
I'd still rather see ipv6 rolled out, though...
The average American is making less real money, working more jobs and/or longer hours, than they did fifty years ago. They have more debt, on average, and less savings. More are on unemployment, or have given up looking for work.
I don't have any statistics about the amount of money being made. So, I can't speak to that directly. But, it does seem to me that the standard of living is higher for the average American than it was 50 years ago. The amount of technology and convenience available to the average is greater than what was available to even the richest people 50 years ago. I can't speak to the difference between the richest and poorest today vs 50 years ago, either. But, any relative comparison of rich to poor is going to look bad regardless of how well the lowest are doing. And, unless we want to force complete equality of material resources, I believe the rate of improvement in the common standard of living is a better thing to focus on than relative differences between contemporary disparate wealth classes.
The debt and savings problems are the real poverty issues. But, once again, looking at the standard of living, less and less of people's income as a percentage goes to basic necessities. Most of the poverty there is of a materialistic mindset. We've made material wealth into a virtue and encouraged people to consume more than necessary in a world that doesn't place artificial value on things based on how shiny and new they are. Don't get me wrong. Real poverty does exist. I just believe the vast majority of complaints originate from the natural consequence of a materialistic value system, which is to compare what one has to what others possess. So, debt becomes the tool to live at a higher material level and savings is not valued in the way that it should be.
Given that the unemployment rate is higher than it has been for decades, it's not surprising more would be unemployed. I think the unfortunate thing is that we don't train and encourage people to become self-employed. The fact that most people have to rely on corporations and other businesses for their livelihood is a negative thing in my opinion. But, our system is setup to give advantages to larger businesses and corporations and creates disincentives for the average person to become their own boss. I consider that a major violation of an individuals right to make their own livelihood.
As for health care, I guess the average American has some sort of health insurance. But our insurance is, on average, terrible, with huge deductibles and many loopholes. Insurance companies act as "death panels" denying coverage any time they think they can get away with it. So, perhaps it is more accurate to say, we have terrible substandard health insurance: while paying twice as much (as a percentage of GDP) as the next most expensive health care system in the world, our health care outcomes rank about 33rd.
We're in total agreement about insurance. To me, it's the main problem of the whole system. Unfortunately, it seems the solution is to put insurance (either publicly or privately controlled) in charge of the whole system.
Why do we need insurance? It's because insurance runs the entire system. So, there's a lot of extra people in the chain that have to be paid that have nothing to do with actually taking care of someone. Instead of just a patient and a doctor, they're joined by the doctor's administrative staff that has to handle the billing and working with the insurance companies' people, the insurance companies' accountants, doctors, lawyers, etc and all the technology and physical infrastructure that is required to support it all. So, it's no wonder that the average person can't access the system without insurance and we're paying so much more than the rest of the world.
Our insurance isn't really insurance. It's a health payment plan, at least the way we use it. If we mandated insurance not cover things like maintenance care
So, I keep hearing all this news about them running low... What happens when we run out? -Taylor
NAT
I think you misinterpreted what Justice Alito said - he *wanted* to hear the case; that sentence comes from his dissent. He would prefer to reexamine the laws which were written before a new medium was available (or at least widely available).
Come on. Alito was appointed by Bush. Obviously, anything he does is going to be for the evil corporations.
Never underestimate how much inherent bias obscures basic facts. Both sides like to dismiss anyone related to the other without even bothering to listen. We're in an environment dominated by political fundamentalism on both sides.
Fundamentalist = someone that has stopped listening
"From the story: "He also said he thinks Google will be shocked to see Microsoft's momentum into the enterprise cloud sector." "
I think we ALL would be surprised to see Microsoft have momentum into the enterprise cloud sector, or any other server related sector...
Momentum can be positive or negative...
He's a man with a conscience.
While I support what Wikileaks has been doing, I think that might be assuming a bit too much.
Does the average individual in America today have more power to control his destiny than his counterparts in other first world nations? To me, it seems the average individual in America is struggling just to get by, has no health care, is poorly educated compared to the rest of the world, has fewer real functional rights, and less opportunity to succeed.
My gut reaction is that I disagree and agree with some of your statement. But, that's easy when it's put in such general terms. And, it's equally easy to start jumping on the parts I disagree with in a general and unthoughtful manner.
But, I'd rather clarify and understand why you feel the way that you do first.
What reasons do you have to believe that the "average" American is struggling to just get by? I'm not saying there aren't those in need. There certainly are. But, other than anecdotes, I've seen little to indicate that the "average" American is struggling.
What reasons do you have to believe that the "average" American has no healthcare? Even during the long healthcare debate, the highest numbers I saw for numbers of "uninsured" Americans were ~30 million. Taking that as true, that means less than 10% don't have health insurance. And, given that you can get care even without insurance, it doesn't seem like the "average" has "no" health care. We can agree that access is inhibited by costs, but even someone without a dime to their name or any insurance that is injured badly in a car accident is going to receive emergency care.
You'll get no argument from me on the education comment. The American system is atrocious. I'd love to blame the government, and I do, but it's as much a cultural problem, where education, knowledge and thoughtfulness are not valued, as it is a problem with execution.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fewer real functional rights." I suspect I agree with you on some of the details, but that's a very broad statement that could be interpreted many ways.
I agree that we have "less opportunity to succeed" than we should. I'm not sure if I agree that it is less than those in other first world nations. It completely depends on how we define "success." Of course, if we had more clarity with that, maybe a lot of the other issues wouldn't exist.
No. It is the belief that the US is better than other countries. Not perfect, just better.
The problem is that 'better' is a function of behaviour.
'We can do bad things because we're good people' is not a coherent argument, because you're only good people to the extent that you don't do bad things.
The problem with "better" is that it means closer to perfect. So, while the GP was trying to say that it wasn't that arrogant of a statement because it wasn't an objective one (the US is perfect), he was effectively saying it was arrogant for being a relative one (the US is closer to perfect than anyone else).
The fact you cannot discuss my very valid problems with your arguments for reparations is typical, and I might point out that your attitude in general leads to violence. I would really like to know why I should be made to pay for wrongs that I had nothing to do with. Just ignoring me is the hallmark of someone who does not have an argument.
I live in southern California where gambling is illegal, unless you live on an Indian reservation. This is a gigantic boon to Indians and they make tens of millions of dollars thru their special treatment though the law. Can you explain to me how this fits with "All men are created equal". Why is it that the government has said in so many situations that "All men are created equal unless you are in this group then we need to prop you up by stealing money from other people.". Why the hell do you think you or anyone else gets to decide how much of my hard earned money goes to repay someone who has never been wronged in their life? Explain why if I was born with certain color skin in one part of California I can open a Casino, while with another color skin I cannot. I just don't think they inherently deserve money I have earned because of the color of their skin. If you can show me how the government has harmed an individual you may have an argument, but people who have never suffered deserve no reparation.
Unfortunately, we always try to right wrongs by making over-compensations in the opposite direction to balance out the mistreatment rather than just stop doing wrong. I'm all for righting wrongs, but at a certain level of scope, the problems have been too large and general to even the aggregate "score." But, we still have to "try"... even if that means creating new injustices.
Uh, sorry, but no, you don't. The memory lives on, not the person. If that is important to those who live on is another matter. But please do not confuse the two.
What is "the person"?
I think you're focusing on the word live instead of what is the real meaning of being a person. Is it the body? If so, does that mean the person in a permanent coma or virtually brain dead is alive?
To me, it's a question of identity. Do you identify with the hardware (the body) or the software (spirit, essence, humanity, name your own term)?
Personally, I identify with the software. What "I" am is not a physical manifestation. "I" exist within a physical entity, but that is not "me."
Memories of people are essentially small copies of that essence that are stored in other pieces of hardware. So, for me, you do continue to live through memory.
It may not be the totality of what "you" are. But, the imprints we leave on each other have a lasting impact on our behaviour. And by understanding that, we have the opportunity to achieve a type of immortality if we can effect the right influences in our physical lifetimes. Think of people like Mother Theresa and you can see that one can have a positive effect even after physical death due to the resonance of humanity affirming actions within life.
But, this is a completely philosophical question we're dealing with. So, your answer is as good as mine. But, for me, I find that taking the longer view of what it means to be alive leads to a more positive direction with respect to mankind in my physical journey through the universe.
It's marketing, backed up with often exceptional products.
If it were just marketing, anyone could do it. If the products were junk people wouldn't buy them again and again. They do. If the products were junk then the rest of the tech industry wouldn't be falling all over themselves trying to get their own "me too" products into the market.
Or are you saying that no other company in the world has a marketing department?
I'm getting really tired of hearing otherwise educated people tell me that Apple's success is "just" due to marketing.
Actually, it is just marketing. And, that's exactly what you said.
Despite the common misconception, marketing is not just advertising. Marketing is comprised of "the 4 p's" - product, place, price and promotion. Promotion is the one that is what most people think of when they hear marketing, but it's the last part.
The first is the product itself and all of it's features and design. Place is the products place in the market (high-end/low-end, loss leader, status symbol, etc) and where it will be sold (Walmart/Bloomingdales/brand specific stores/etc). Price is the decision as to what the product can be made and sold for in the chosen market. Then, you decide how to promote the whole package.
So, while you're absolutely correct when addressing the GP's statement, in reality, Apples success is entirely about marketing. And, that marketing starts with a great product that a mass market would want.
</nitpick>
Meanwhile, somewhere at an ATM in Oakland, California, a man is hit on the head with an aluminum baseball bat and two young men walk away with his money, ID, and cell phone. The man later dies of complications due to skull fracture. Where was the U.S. government?
Busting MM farmers...
Cheap seems to be the focus of corporate America.
Cheap seems to be the focus of the American consumer.
And in case you have not heard, US tech workers were laid off by the hundreds of thousands in 2009. Practically every major tech employer laid off thousands of US workers. And the USA is suffering it's worse unemployment since the great depression.
And from the level of talent I see that still is employed, they need to keep the lay-offs going.
Too many people came into IT for the money and don't put in the effort required to be masters of their craft. It does sound callous, but if the vast numbers of clueless people I've seen stay employed in IT over the last couple of years still have a job, I don't think it says much for those that can't seem to find one unless there's some geographical issues involved.
During the last 2 recessions, as everyone was screaming doom and gloom, I not only was able to keep the job I had, but also get new jobs during both that came with 30+% pay increases. If I were more arrogant, I'd say it was because I was that good. But, since I'm not, I blame the competition for being weak.
People can whine and complain about other people taking their jobs all they want. If you want to not be one of those people, keep growing, learning and perfecting your skills. And, for my basement dwelling brethren, that doesn't always mean technical skills. Most employers will hire a rounded, well spoken American for more than they would pay for someone that at best can communicate with very broken English. Don't discount actually understanding business as a huge plus, either.
Sure, there are plenty of exceptions. But, as far as I can tell, there really is a talent shortage. But, I also don't see the visa candidates offering a better level either. They just know how to keep their mouths shut and do what their told.
So what? We were talking about the relationship between tax and economic strength. What does culture have to do with that?
If everyone is in general agreement about what needs to be accomplished in society, it's feasable for the government to be involved in those functions and not be inefficient.
In the US, there is no general agreement because of the vast cultural heterogeneity. Thus, anything that government does is a series of bad compromises to placate all factions, which results in a sub-optimal system.
Economic strength comes from how well social organizations (government, business or non-profit) meet the needs and wants of that society. A culturally heterogenous society can have a government that plays a larger role and still be efficient. It doesn't work as well for a much larger population that is culturally diverse.
The gap is always there and is just the difference in the amount of money/assets each holds. There wouldn't be "rich" and "poor" without such a gap. The problem is that it is growing--the rich are continuing to get richer, and the not-rich are not. The middle class certainly benefits from technological advances as you wrote previously, and some genuinely poor people do too but to a lesser extent.
The system we have now, the one I sketched out in my original post, tends to further concentrate wealth around those who already have it. And since wealth usually confers power unto its holder, the rich also tend to have more political clout, which they can use to further ensure they keep getting more money, assets, and power. That might sound like it's out of scope here, but I don't think it is.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. The gap exists and always will. It's not the problem, at least in this particular context. It seems to me that the problem is that we have a political system that is not agnostic with respect to wealth. Thus, the gap creates a disadvantage to those without the resources to equally participate in the political process. And, the situation is self-reinforcing due to political involvement in the economic process.
"Rich" today usually means you're at the helm of or very high up in a large corporation. In my working definitions, a millionaire, while certainly richer than I am, isn't part of the class to which I am referring. We'll call him "wealthy." "Rich" ought to be reserved for hundreds of millions of dollars and up.
Unfortunately, you nor I get to set the definition. I like yours and would be happy for that to be the working definition. However, it seems that for the vast majority, "rich" means someone that has more than I think I could attain. Therefore, there's no common ground to relate with. Thus, "rich" becomes an abstract entity that can be easily demonized because without common ground, we deny the humanity of others.
The problem, as I see it, is that more of the middle class is doing little better than living paycheck to paycheck and paying down accrued debt. Those who actually have some savings may not realize it, but saving money in this country is a net loss--inflation outstrips the meager interest small money earns. You have to invest to make your money work for you, but it takes more initial money to be able to do that safely.
How much of that accrued debt is due to necessary living expenses and how much is due to our society's deranged obsession with material wealth? I agree with you about what is happening. I just wonder if it was something that occurred out of necessity or our collective social dysfunction of materialism.
Most of this could happen anyway, and while I don't like it it doesn't strike me as inherently unfair. What does is what I originally posted about--the fact that new money, more valuable the earlier you get it, always goes to the rich first. By the time it gets to the average person, it's lagged behind the inflation it's caused and merely puts him about where he was before, as in "Thank God I got that raise! Now I can keep up with the bills and go out for a nice dinner now and then again." That same money, when first introduced, let some rich guy purchase, oh I don't know, oil futures. That new money bought the futures at the market price at a time when the market was not aware of new money. As the money filters in, the market learns that more money's around and raises its prices accordingly. Now the rich guy can sell the oil futures at the new equilibrium, having made money by the virtue of being first in line to borrow it when it was introduced.
So, maybe the problem is the creation of money from nothing? I'm definitely with you there. Inflation is just a hidden tax that is terribly regressive (which is what I understand your original point to be). An
Back in like 1905, corporations paid 50% of all Federal taxes, meaning individuals weren't taking the hit. Now corporations are paying like 5% of the federal taxes. I'd say rebalance the taxes onto corporations.
Back in like 1905, the federal budget was 6.89% of GDP, meaning government was smaller. Now the federal budget is 43.85% of GDP. I'd say there isn't enough corporate money to rebalance that situation.
Corporations and government should not be above people.
TFTFY
While I have no problem with rich people and clearly see how they benefit society, I do take issue with the growth of the gap between rich and poor that appears to be inherent in our system of money.
What is the "gap between rich and poor" and why is it a problem?
I apologize if my questions might sound simplistic or naive, but I'm curious as to what your take is. I'm not contending that there is no issue. I'm not really sure.
"The income and payroll taxes, as well as all the rules and regulations are turning the once productive societies into the third world countries, by creating huge disincentives for people to produce, by moving capital out because societies with gigantic tax rates and so called 'social obligations' have produced entirely unsustainable parasitic governments of enormous size that are strangling the host economy."
The Scandinavian economies are the strongest in the world yet all are highly taxed and highly involved with 'social obligations'
The actual facts do not meet with your dogma, I'm afraid.
They're also culturally homogenous societies... It makes a big difference when everyone has the same general perspective on issues. That's why the US was intended to be a federal system.
Imagine if corporations actually paid taxes based on where their clients reside, not where they choose to set up a tax chop-shop.
That's called a consumption tax. And, it's much harder to avoid than the income tax that people seem to be so obsessed with.