On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:52:00 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 06:53:07 +0100, Giga2" >>> Is that what you and
your neighbors are like? If not, why do you think
everyone else is? Most people want to help out people in need.
Few are as nasty as to just let someone die. Do you think the
government forcing people to be "charitable" has worked?
I see you haven't answered so can only assume you would say "let
them die".
That also assumes you would. Is that true? I don't think so.
Of course not.>>
The recent banking scandals show that, arms dealers, drug dealers
(pharmaceuticals included), poison food, GM food etc etc.
How do you figure the free market "rewarded them"? Are they still
in business?
Oh yes. Banks are motivated, along with many businesses, of making a
profit this year, or even this *month*, and the future is ignored to
a large extent. In a competitive system people will discount the
future effects against advantages now in relation to their
competitors sometimes. However if regulation forces all businesses
to take account of certain long-term factors like the environment,
human well being etc then those businesses that do take the sensible
route will not be disadvantaged in relation to less well run and
scrupuous business-people. This is all pretty obvious isn't it?
Only to those who think forcing businesses to do what they want is
sensible. If left to their own devices, businesses which don't take
into account relevant factors will fail on their own.
Unfortunately they can drag the rest of us down with them, i.e. banks
in this case.
Do you really think banks would take on risky loans if they knew the
government wouldn't bail them out? The banks had no way of "dragging
the rest of us down". Only the government could, and did, do that.
Instead, the government
forces businesses to take stupid actions (e.g. forcing banks to make
loans to people who can't pay them back) and then forces taxpayers to
bail them out when the bubble collapses. That leaves the banks
intact, but dependent on the government for survival. How do you
prevent that?
I'm sure there are problems with some of the regulation but other
parts are not strong enough.
After the regulations fail, it's easy to see the problems. Hindsight
is always 20/20. If a bank fails, some of its customers will lose
money. But when the government screws up, we all pay.
If they broke laws and escaped justice, isn't that a failure
of the government to perform its most important function -
enforcing the law?
Or not having adequate regulation in place at all.
Do you really think you can regulate common sense? Governments seem
to think so.
No but you can have common-sense regulation.
What common sense tells you to make loans to people you know won't be
able to repay them?
It discourages
the makers and leaves the takers dependent on the unearned
value they get from bureaucrats, which is taken from those
who earned it.
Nonsense, people have an inate need to make something of their
lives if given half a chance.
Right. Freedom inspires greatness and abundance. Socialism
reduces them to worrying about how to equally share the misery.
You seem to think socialism is the same as communism. It isn't.
What differences do you see? Was the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics communist?
They tried to be as far as is possible. They were much more
extreme than the UK yeah?!
You said you think socialism is not the same as communism. You
didn't mention what differences you see.
It's a difference of degree rather than type. Just like facism
compared to the US, you are on the way but hardly there yet, I hope.
By Fascism, I assume you mean the National Socialist movement in 1930s
Germany. For me the issue is not whether the right or left has power,
it's about how much power we allow anyone to have.
I believe our US Constitution has it about right (for us anyway), so I
think we should limit the powers to those enumerated as specified
therein. All our elected officials, military, and peace officers swear
an oath to uphold that Constitution, but some don't take it seriously
enough, IMHO.
I suppose our Constitution (and D of I) are somewhat analogous to your
concept of the Crown. It's OK to amend it by the included process, but
it's treason to try to otherwise force changes. When people assume
powers not in the Constitution, I take it seriously, and so do a whole
lot of otherwise quiet, unassuming Americans. The next few years are
pivotal. Either we defend the Constitution, or we lose it.
Do you think their (USSR) concept was valid, but they just didn't
do it right?
No, I beleive in freedom and free markets, as I have said, balanced
by regulation. For me enterprise is like the driving force (horses)
and the government is the controller of overall direction (the
wagoneer), society is the wagon. I feel like I am stating such
obvious well-understood things here...
The difference may well be cultural. US citizens will not allow
themselves to be treated as draft animals. That's what the Tea Party
movement is all about.
But they are also riding in the wagon.
We emancipated slaves over a hundred years ago. We use machines to do
the manual work now, not people. Think of a multiperson bicycle with
everyone pedaling, not of the elite riding in a wagon pulled by slaves.
That's where socialism has always ended. There no point in repeating
the experiment.
Tea partiers don't want to control anyone but themselves and in turn
will not be subservient to anyone. We never went through serfdom, and
we don't intend to now.
It is a fantasy that people love living on food stamps in a
trailer
with 17 kids.
Your fantasy, or one you've been told?
The only
group it helps is the ruling class, until they run out of
other peoples money to be "charitable" with. Mostly it's
used to assure their re- election, until elections become
irrelevant.
Go and see how well such a social system works in
Philippines. Many social programmes can be seen not just as
chritable enterprises but also good investments in the
society which means everyone benefits. What you propose
would lead to corruption, crime, desperation, underclass or
a police state which is even worse.
Hong Kong seemed to do pretty well with a free market.
Homg Kong was a British colony and AFAIK had quite a few
sensible social programmes like state education and
healthcare.
They had/have very low taxes and few regulations, AIUI.
Combined with the British sense of fair play, that allowed them
to flourish.
Well I don't know, and it doesn't seem you are too sure.
So check it out. Maybe I'm wrong.
Here is something, half of HKers live in public housing:
Hong Kong
Main article: Public housing in Hong Kong In Hong Kong, the
government provides public housing through flats which are rented
at a lower price than the markets, and through the Home Ownership
Scheme, which are sold at a lower price. These are built and
administered by the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Hong Kong
Housing Society. Nearly half of Hong Kong population lives in
public housing.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#Hong_Kong
Hong Kong social department:
http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/
Well, they do seem to be pretty efficient at it. Here's the
taxrate schedule:
<
http://www.guidemehongkong.com/taxation/topics/hong-kong-tax- rates>
It's 16.5% on corporations, max of 17% on individuals, with no
sales or capital gains tax. There is a 15% property tax, which
likely explains the low home ownership numbers.
If it works for them, more power to them. I hope it lasts. What's
your max tax rate?
Income tax, 50% over quite a high ceiling ($60k?pa). For many there
is almost no income tax.
In Hong Kong, the first dollar is apparently taxed at 2%, and the max
is 17%. When everyone pays tax, everyone is more careful about how
tax money is spent. If there is a privileged tax-exempt class, they
will always vote for tax increases. That seems to me a conflict of
interest. Why isn't that subject to regulation?
Everyone pays tax, I was just talking about income tax.
Right. In the US, that's the major source of money to redistribute for
political power. The others pale in comparison, and can sometimes be
viewed as user fees, such as using gas (petrol) tax to provide the
public road system. Few will complain about that.
I'm not sure what
the Chinese will do with it, but it had a long, successful
run.
Can you think of an example of a centrally planned (euphemism
for socialist) government that has been successful for more
than a few decades?
The UK and Germany and France are all fairly socialist
countries compared to the extreme ideas you seem to have
swallowed and are *very* successful.
How long do you think that will last?
Well Europe was leading the world in terms of wealth hundreds of
years before the USA was colonised, and it still is in some
ways.
Those dependent on government
handouts are already rioting in the streets. In the US,
freedom hasn't been an "extreme" idea until very recently. I
can remember being told many times as a boy, "The world doesn't
owe you a living".
Socialism turns that on its head.
It is certainly very difficult to get the right balance between
helping people to get back onto their feet and making them
dependent.
When has a government ever been successful at that? Churches and
private charities are much more effective.
They acheive a lot but I think social programmes have acheived a
*lot* more.
Why do you think that? Is there any hard evidence, or just
propaganda?
The NHS is one of the largest employers in Europe, it is a gigantic
enterprise which dwarfs any charitable health care instituion AFAIK.
Surely you're not claiming size alone is an achievement, especially
for a government program. I'm surprised it's efficient in the
absence of competition. Usually government programs result in
spiraling costs, decreasing quality, and lengthy waits. I've heard
rumors...
Its far fo perfect I can assure you but it is also very good.
I'm glad you're satisfied. Perhaps the tales we hear are just
propaganda.
In the US, the social programs have been gigantic, costly flops.
The numbers show the poor are worse off than before, and far more
dependent on government handouts. Of course, that's not a bad
thing if you're trying to get their vote.
Not sure about the US, but here I would say we have seen an ongoing
and steady improvement in the standard of living of the majority of
the population since the end of WW2. There are ups and downs, now is
a bit flat IMO, but the trend is pretty clear to me. I do not need
statistics as I see it every day.>>
IMO that is exactly what the vast majority of people *do* even
here in the USSK : )
I hope it continues to work for you, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I hope and I'm sure the US will move further in the direction of
greater social inclusion.
We'll see what happens, but increasing "entitlements" while
decreasing "social inclusion" in the tax base seems to be a path to
destruction of both. People will always vote for benefits they think
other people will pay for. If anyone pays taxes, everyone should pay
taxes.
You seem to consider human beings to be selfish and materialistic.
You have yet to show why that by itself is a bad thing, assuming laws
are followed. Are you proposing thought control?
But I'm not the one advocating strict government control over people.
I've repeatedly pointed out I think normal average people are far more
competent to manage their own affairs and far more considerate of their
fellow citizens than any government has ever been.
OTOH, above, you imply you think people are so evil as to allow the
poor to starve in the street,