Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Unfortunately, our system is the consequence of bearing the vast majority of research and development costs for pharmaceuticals and therapies, just so you and everyone outside of the US can basically hold a gun to the head of big pharma and say, if you don't give us the drugs at pennies on the dollar, we'll break patent, formulate it over here, and you and your company can go suck eggs. So, I'm glad that cost-shifting it onto backs of Americans allows you to enjoy both free healthcare (at whatever interval your government allows you) and your moral indignation that the brutish American society recognizes that, yes, there is actually a price that can be placed on human life: the price that that human is willing and able, from his or her own means, to pay.

Stop kidding yourself. The EU does more than enough to assist Big Pharma when it comes to protecting revenue streams. 20 years is the de facto standard in both United states and Europe; heck, in ways EU even goes further as companies (under particular circumstances) can apply for a 5 year extension.

----------

'Big government' is a separate discussion to that of decent working conditions and work/life balance.

Indeed.
 
You do realize that pure capitalist interests will never consider the long game right. Obama is quite middle-of-the-road. No body is perfect - not in theis day and age but I'd much rather vote for someone that wants fuel efficient vehicles and energy independence. Someone who cares about the other 47%. Mind you, I'm moving to Sweden for a job opportunity next year and am NOT excited about paying the high taxes. Unless of course, I happen to get sick or my wife has a baby or something.

Welcome! Also, the taxes aren't as bad as one might think. Well, in reality it all depends on how you frame it, but if your annual salary is $48k your yearly tax would be something in the range of $10-11k. That said, taxes become more progressive at higher income levels with various state taxes kicking in.

But like stated, there are different ways of framing it. For example, the standard VAT is 25%. Also, hidden from plain view in the wage statement is the "employers fee". Due to its origin, these fees are essentially "renounced wages".

So, if we redo the same calculation, a visible annual salary of $48k means that the total cost of employment (from the employers perspective) is something like $63k. So, what you get after taxes is (given these numbers) something like 60% of what the employeer actually pays.

To complicate, 70% of the employers fees go more or less directly towards financing your various social insurances (unemployment, retirement etc.), while 30% are essentially plain taxes.



That said: its not as bad as one might think.

----------

I hate this entitlement mentality. You get paid for your work, period. It's your job to decide if you want to bring/buy water/refreshments/food. When you work for someone that doesn't mean that they provide for your every d*mn want and need. If Apple was refusing to provide lunch breaks, that would be a whole different story.

Your reasoning is flawed. Yes, you get paid for your work. But who decides what is an acceptable pay? Hardly just one party. That said, the worker making demands for X isn't acting anymore entitled than the employeer trying to cut back on Y. And no, refusing to provide lunch breaks would - law aside - be the exact same thing. Part from the fact that people need nutrition to function properly (making lunch breaks in the interest of the employer), a proper lunch break was too considered an "entitlement" in its day. Just like the 8h workday, the 5 day week and what not*.

* yes, i am aware of the fact that France has moved beyond the 8h workday.

----------

I've taken the time to write this out clearly an impersonally, so please make an honest effort to understand this:

You have things completely backwards. It is the efforts of businesses that afford the society its wealth and prosperity. Society (government) did not create the iPhone. Apple created the iPhone. Government did not create roads and utilities from nothing. They were built using wealth that businesses created at their own risk.

Your socialist way of thinking is also outright wrong in assuming that we are in a zero-sum situation. There is an infinite of wealth and prosperity that can be created. One person's success does not mean another's failure. On the contrary, every success creates new opportunities that can in turn become new successes.

Socialism has been tried many times, and it has always failed without exception. The only reason we are even able to have this conversation is because thousands of people across hundreds of companies were incentivized to take risks in exchange for earning greater wealth in a capitalist system. Look around you, at all the technologies and resources that would have been completely unimaginable just a century or two ago. It all came from capitalism. The right to take risks. The right to earn. The right to personal property. The right to succeed. The right to fail. Without these, we would have come no further in the previous two centuries than we had in the two millennia prior. That is not to say that capitalism should exist without regulation - some regulations must be put into place in order to prevent situations like monopolies or price fixing. The reason is that those situations undermine one of the main concepts of capitalism, which is the creation of better products through competition. Properly maintained, capitalism can eventually provide for every material need of man. Again, look at the unbelievable improvement in the quality of life it has brought us in just a few generations.

Where would Apple be without the internet? Without public education? Without infrastructure? Where would your capitalists be without enforced property rights? Legitimacy? Your analysis is extremely superficial, bordering on ignorant.

The only thing worse than a capitalist as a naive capitalist.

----------

Marx wrote what he wanted to. Can you give any example anywhere of a society where property (money, real estate, companies, items, intellectual property) was taken from those who had owned it before and given to the state to divvy part of it up for the benefit of the people, other than at the point of a gun? Oh, maybe not a literal physical gun point at the prior owner, laws passed/decreed and enforced by police/army who will use guns if you say no, that is my property not yours and you can't have it.

Can you give an example of a capitalist society, where private property was upheld by anything other the very same gun? And given the context of the thread, i will end this post by quoting Rosseau:

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. ”

— Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754​


----------

Macchiato2009,

Quit your damn whining. Bring your own lunch and water and shut up. If you hate your job so much, QUIT.

There's no gun pointed to your head and say go work.

Europeans have the highest paid salaries in the world (average worker) and they still goddam strike. Especially the french.\

I wonder how many 3rd world educated citizens would jump at the opportunity to work in a apple store.

It is BECAUSE we "still goddam strike" that we still have the highest paid salaries in the world. Think first, whine later.

----------

The European Socialist model is on its way out. People are waking up. Government itself is the initiation of force to get us to obey laws. Taxes are the first example. Government can do to others, without punishment, what we could never do to our neighbors. They can lie, murder, and steal. They create enemies and use fear to control. They put people on their payroll to turn against those who question their power. Once we recognize this, we can finally recognize the chains and the boundaries of our cages.

As George Carlin once said, "It's a big ***** club, and you're not in it."

There is a reason the US became the most advanced and wealthy country in the world in 200 years. The lack of regulation, small size of government, and protection of our feedoms. Our central bank didn't even come into being until 1913, the same year the income tax was created.

Think about the technology we have. Televisions, cell phones, computers, semiconductors... they are not directly regulated by our government. They are cheap and everyone has them. The Internet remains vastly unregulated and continues to evolve at an exponential rate, driven by competition and innovation.

Unfortunately that time is coming to an end as we have turned our back on our founding principles. Now those at the very top are slowly transferring our great wealth away from the middle class and they are powerless to prevent it. In fact they cheer it. Most people do as their liberties are slowly stripped away. Once they do realize it is too late.

First, the technology you have (and listed) are directly regulated by your government. Second, the internet would perhaps not be if it hadn't been for state sponsored research (e.g., ARPA and CERN).

Also, if anything i would actually rather say that the european socialist model is on its way back in.

----------

That's not how fractional reserve banking works. Banks don't lend out the money they already have. Rather, they create it with loans (debt). The loan is a promise to pay the actual money (fiat) in the future, which they never do. 95% of the money in the economy is bank credit with no currency backing it.

The result of all this lending is a constant expansion of money supply, which dilutes the value of existing currency. The bank credit then has to keep growing, otherwise there won't be enough money for people to earn to pay back the principal + interest. The amount of money that must exist in the future to pay back the principal plus interest therefore continues ballooning, which is why we have national debts in the trillions and no end in sight.

It's a giant ponzi scheme. ;)

I owe you 100. Debt increases by 1 per day. Total amount of money in system is 100. Can i ever repay the debt? Yes. Hint: money can circulate. Point? The "zeitgeist"-reasoning is somewhat flawed. That said, i would happily own a bank!

----------

LOL, the reason why the European states can spend more money on their internal services is because the good old USA has its military might and back protecting western Europe (NATO). Talk about leeches, how much do you think Germany / Scandinavia / Western Europe spends on its military. Probably a tiny drop.

In addition, healthcare is not FREE, its TAXED. The Danish income tax maxes at 69 PERCENT with a VAT of 25%. Cars are taxed at I believe 100%+. LOL, talk about getting ****ed over. I rather pay for my own insurance than pay tens of thousands more taxes every year.

No thanks.

Imagine we we pulled out all our troops, little Denmark and Sweden will come begging for daddy after Russia says **** it screws them over. Russia already has europe by the balls with its natural gas.

Please pull all your troops. I'd rather be occupied by Russia for a lifetime than face ignorant American comments all day on the interwebs!

----------

Why do you think Greece is bankrupt? In the long run this socialist model doesn't work. Sounds great, but doesn't work long term.

Yeah, lets just ignore Scandinavia/Nordic countries and cherry-pick Greece. While we are at it, lets ignore how Greece problems came to be, and focus on them being "socialist" instead. Why look for real explanations, really?

P.S.

America's debt is larger than Greece'. So much for capitalism, right?

----------

I don't support US military policing. I want us out of there. Let you guys deal with your own problems. I could care less. My taxes should be to defend America, not have bases around the world.

No offense, if Russia sent its army, little Denmark would be run over in less than week. Let's be realistic. Your army is less than 26,000 men. And most of those are not active duty. Russia has over 1,000,000 active duty alone. This is all theoretical of course, but still Russia is more likely to **** with you guys if America just left. They already own your ass in Natural gas / resources.

Dude I remember paying $6 USD one way on a bus to Copenhagen. Beers were $10. Crappiest food was $8-10. Restaurant meals run over $30. I mean you are talking about a real expensive cost of living there. I spent way too much money in Europe when I studied there.

So you make $60k a year wich translates to $38400 actual cash... factor in your high rent, then your 25% sales tax (LOL). Add up your taxes and you can see your stuff is not "FREE", you pay more than what I paid for my health insurance / tuition. (or your parents did).

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

----------



US a 3rd world country. LOL. At least we care about immigration instead of letting them get run over by illegals who DONT SHARE A BORDER WITH YOU. How does France have so many non-french now these days.

French citizens have their apartments due to the HISTORY with their families. In italy, guys don't leave their house until they get MARRIED. Talk about lack of independence.

1) Denmark isn't dependent on Russian gas.
2) Russia has few incentives to invade Denmark; peace is more profitable than war.
3) French has had "so many non-french" for hundreds of years. Why do America have so many blacks?
4) In many respects, America is a "3rd world country". I like your roads, though. Beer too, for that matter.
 
When you consider that February only has 28 days, and companies will never pay you for extra days,

365 / 28 = 13 r 1

This means that we are actually working for 13 months every year, but paid for 12. And even for those paid a 13th month wage, they are still underpaid by 1 day! :eek:
 
Last time i checked, Americas healthcare system had a very poor care-to-money ratio. That anything public is inherently flawed is nothing but a myth.Just take (the American) nobel laureate O.E. Williamson's work on transaction costs for example. That "far-left" ideas can work on a national scale is also more than evident by looking at the nordic countries. How can a country like Sweden, for example, be such a strong force with a population that has yet to exceed that of NYC? Certainly, the answer is not right-wing politics.

That said, Obama is anything but far left by european standards. More like middle-right.

Spoken like a true theorist. Name one government organization that runs more efficiently and profitably than a privately run counterpart. Yes, for now the Nordic countries are a shining example of socialist success. How about Greece and Spain and Portugal etc. If fact what about all of Europe except for maybe Germany. Sweden has traded freedom for security, but as of late the dream is becoming a nightmare with the burgeoning influx of Muslims draining down the system from the inside. I'll take Freedom over security any day. Ask Trotsky the theorist about what happens in the real world. Stalin is the real world, not Trotsky.
 
Last edited:
When you consider that February only has 28 days, and companies will never pay you for extra days,

365 / 28 = 13 r 1

This means that we are actually working for 13 months every year, but paid for 12. And even for those paid a 13th month wage, they are still underpaid by 1 day! :eek:


A lot of places in the US pay biweekly. That's 26 times a year. Not very many places pay monthly.
 
Spoken like a true theorist. Name one government organization that runs more efficiently and profitably than a privately run counterpart. Yes, for now the Nordic countries are a shining example of socialist success. How about Greece and Spain and Portugal etc. If fact what about all of Europe except for maybe Germany. Sweden has traded security for freedom, but as of late the dream is becoming a nightmare with the burgeoning influx of Muslims draining down the system from the inside. I'll take Freedom over security any day. Ask Trotsky the theorist about what happens in the real world. Stalin is the real world, not Trotsky.

Spoken like a true theorist? Not quite: you just miss the point. Simply put bureaucracies performs differently because it is supposed to perform differently; many of the things bureaucracies are heckled for are what gives them legitimacy as organizational forms (that said, bureaucracies are certainly not without problems!).

To build further, what matters is not so much who owns an organization as how that organization is structured - including the mechanisms that makes it tick. In this sense, private ownership is not a guarantee for anything; after all, most private companies fail. Picking success stories to prove the "capitalist point" is, in fact, nothing but cherry picking: naturally, capitalism needs to be held accountable not only for its successes, but also its failures. Similarly, given the same mechanisms, publicly owned organizations would be inseparable from the market at large.

The only valid critique is the one directed towards state monopolies, but even there its not as clear cut as capitalists would have us believe. In fact, unsuccessful* deregulations are anything but uncommon: we have seen it happen in everything from railways and electricity to operating pharmacies. Worth mentioning** is also that the increased influence of private sector practices within public organizations (e.g., New Public Management) has also been somewhat of a disaster at large.

Now, to answer your question we have to make something clear first. Are you asking for publicly owned companies operating on a more or less free market, or publicly owned companies operating with more or less of a monopoly standing. I can give you examples of both, but please be more specific. Also, please make explicit your stance on companies that have gone from national monopolies to competing internationally.

Last but not least, freedom in America? Wake up and smell the coffee, your alarm clock is 10 years over due.

* Unsuccessful in the sense that the customer does not get more for less, so to speak.
** Relevant through the indirect insights it offers to why some markets "underperform" once deregulated.
 
Last edited:
His father was the president (not CEO) of American Motors after Mitt was born. Mitt Romney attended public elementary school. I'd say he was in a fairly wealthy family, but not "filthy rich".

Needless to say, it's not like he became personally super-rich overnight, and his business career is separate from American Motors. He was a successful businessman. Nothing to be ashamed of there... there.

He might have started in a public school, but he did attend a private prep school later.

And I'm not sure what going to a public school has to do with wealth. Plenty of well off families send their children to public schools. There are many public schools that are quite good, though they tend to be in wealthy communities.

And again, if your father was CEO of a major corporation and then Governor of a state, I'd put your family in that 1% bracket. And CEO and President of a company typically means the same thing. Unless AMC had a structure where there were multiple presidents, he would have been CEO. But I find that unlikely. Chairman, however, is a different position.

Of course, what the definition of filthy rich is is open to debate. But I'd say his father was up there. Maybe not Ford family rich, but 1% sounds right.

And yes, Romney did make money on his own. But believe it or not, it really does help to start from where he did. It's a lot easier to score a run in baseball when you are starting from 3rd base.
 
Last edited:
Spoken like a true theorist? Not quite: you just miss the point. Simply put bureaucracies performs differently because it is supposed to perform differently; many of the things bureaucracies are heckled for are what gives them legitimacy as organizational forms (that said, bureaucracies are certainly not without problems!).

To build further, what matters is not so much who owns an organization as how that organization is structured - including the mechanisms that makes it tick. In this sense, private ownership is not a guarantee for anything; after all, most private companies fail. Picking success stories to prove the "capitalist point" is, in fact, nothing but cherry picking: naturally, capitalism needs to be held accountable not only for its successes, but also its failures. Similarly, given the same mechanisms, publicly owned organizations would be inseparable from the market at large.

The only valid critique is the one directed towards state monopolies, but even there its not as clear cut as capitalists would have us believe. In fact, unsuccessful* deregulations are anything but uncommon: we have seen it happen in everything from railways and electricity to operating pharmacies. Worth mentioning** is also that the increased influence of private sector practices within public organizations (e.g., New Public Management) has also been somewhat of a disaster at large.

Now, to answer your question we have to make something clear first. Are you asking for publicly owned companies operating on a more or less free market, or publicly owned companies operating with more or less of a monopoly standing. I can give you examples of both, but please be more specific. Also, please make explicit your stance on companies that have gone from national monopolies to competing internationally.

Last but not least, freedom in America? Wake up and smell the coffee, your alarm clock is 10 years over due.

* Unsuccessful in the sense that the customer does not get more for less, so to speak.
** Relevant through the indirect insights it offers to why some markets "underperform" once deregulated.

I see...So large government bureaucracies are supposed to perform badly because that's the way they are designed to run? Yes, what matters is how the organization is structured to run. In the private world if they don't run well, they are doomed to the grave yard. That's the way it should be. It's called "natural selection". Government run bureaucracies never fail, they just get more and more of the peoples money in higher and higher taxes ad infinitum. They are almost impossible to reform and are an ongoing drain on the general society. The US Postal service comes to mind. UPS, FEDEX run circles around them and always make a good profit. My so called "alarm clock" has been ringing for the last 15 years. Nobody is listening it seems, but me. Socialism always sounds nice on paper. After a while you realize you're individual freedoms have been stolen by "Big Brother" but then it's too late.
 
I see...So large government bureaucracies are supposed to perform badly because that's the way they are designed to run? Yes, what matters is how the organization is structured to run. In the private world if they don't run well, they are doomed to the grave yard. That's the way it should be. It's called "natural selection". Government run bureaucracies never fail, they just get more and more of the peoples money in higher and higher taxes ad infinitum. They are almost impossible to reform and are an ongoing drain on the general society. The US Postal service comes to mind. UPS, FEDEX run circles around them and always make a good profit. My so called "alarm clock" has been ringing for the last 15 years. Nobody is listening it seems, but me. Socialism always sounds nice on paper. After a while you realize you're individual freedoms have been stolen by "Big Brother" but then it's too late.

No, bureaucracies perform well given what bureaucracies are intended for. A lawn mover being a ****** car does not make a car a great lawn mover. My, and Williamsons, point is that it makes very little sense to judge the efficiency of X by the standards of Y: to continue with the previous analogy, judging the lawn mover by standards of a car (say HP) makes little sense; we should mow lawns with lawn movers and use cars on the street.

This also invalidates your second claim: yes, just like a car makes a crappy job mowing your lawn, a bureaucratic organization will have non-optimal performance given typical market rules - it is not tuned towards that end. Conversely however, and this is just as important, the "private organization" will have a non-optimal performance given other rules - it too is tuned toward a specific end.

Thus, we have to judge each form in its own right. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that the forms are in anyway interchangeable, but that goes both ways.

Third, natural selection does not imply that private organizations are better than public organizations. Simply put, the reasoning behind that conclusion is severely flawed. What you are essentially arguing for is competition. This, however, is not an argument against public owned companies* as public or private monopolies. These are not equivalent, and certainly shouldnt be treated as such.

Last (if you ignore the asterisk below), to me the nordic countries look for more attractive in terms of big brother risks than both the U.S. and the UK. Further, the increased privatization of public spaces constitute key threats to democracy itself. In essence, the state is what grants you your basic rights - across the world we now find more and more spaces where you as a human have little if any rights at all. In a capitalist society even our basic rights are at sale. No right to meet, no right to protest, no right to express your points. All in the name of capitalism. I am sorry, but i have a hard time viewing that as progress for the human enterprise at large.

* the valid critique of apolitical ownership is essentially this: why should governments own companies - to which the answer is simple: for the same reason that anyone else invests - its potentially profitable. Others would then object: but is this the role of the state? Maybe not. But that is not an argument about EFFICIENCY but about ROLE. That is, apolitical ownership is not by and of itself inherently flawed or inefficient. In fact, apolitical - profit driven - publicly owned companies are no different from apolitical - profit driven - privately owned companies: they operate by the same mechanisms and succeed and fail through the same markets.

P.S., i noticed that i failed to address your comment about black hole bureaucracies. Here, we are in agreement. Two problems come to mind: first, we have cases where lawn movers are used to traffic the roads. Why this is stupid have been addressed above. Second, we have limitations within the bureaucratic form of organization. Two limitations are of particular relevance: complexity and overload. So far, bureaucracies have been found to do a poor job managing both. Hopefully, technology will be able to remedy this situation in the future. What needs to be remembered however is that bureaucracies serve a key purpose: the equal treatment of all. To me, the alternative price is one i would rather not pay - i want rights based on me being a citizen rather than my rights being dictated by the size of my wallet.
 
seems like every time I visit Paris the bus/metro drivers are striking, maybe its a hobby for them.

Shoe on the other foot... one day you might understand why people have fight for living wages and other things you currently (and for now) take for granted.

----------

Protesting "working conditions?" No drinking fountain? No meal vouchers? No free month's pay? Really? They work in an Apple Store, not a sweatshop. Wow. Just wow. :rolleyes:

If people stop fighting and bend over backwards and accept less and take the responsibility for others' mistakes (e.g. being sold a defective product and then being treated as if you, the customer, are at fault for it not working right), then it won't be long before developed countries become sweatshops.

After all, a month ago I saw the evening news and the newscaster had to report on the US being the only developed nation with no national vacation time (other countries have 5 weeks, etc...) She basically said how those countries do things, and was not just ignorant on so many issues, she may as well have renamed herself to "Airhead"... the weak really do enslave themselves, and Americans seem to bash the Europeans for having a successful system they envy. Americans do love to trash the successful, because they're too lazy to defend what they have while supporting those who want to take anything they have left away from them...

----------

And yes, Romney did make money on his own. But believe it or not, it really does help to start from where he did. It's a lot easier to score a run in baseball when you are starting from 3rd base.

Maybe if he lets all Americans start where he had, he'll win the election... then get him to follow through on his promises... we've had more pragmatic promises fall through, so why not believe in the utterly outlandish and delusional now... especially when offshoring, which leads to fewer jobs AND less income for government that leads to revenue shortfalls and gives the false perception we spend too much, helped cause the banks to fail, along with companies since - golly gee-whiz - no customers are left to spend... I could go on forever, but this is not a political forum... but, in any system, when those who make it blame those who live in it, there are real problems...
 
No, bureaucracies perform well given what bureaucracies are intended for. A lawn mover being a ****** car does not make a car a great lawn mover. My, and Williamsons, point is that it makes very little sense to judge the efficiency of X by the standards of Y: to continue with the previous analogy, judging the lawn mover by standards of a car (say HP) makes little sense; we should mow lawns with lawn movers and use cars on the street.

This also invalidates your second claim: yes, just like a car makes a crappy job mowing your lawn, a bureaucratic organization will have non-optimal performance given typical market rules - it is not tuned towards that end. Conversely however, and this is just as important, the "private organization" will have a non-optimal performance given other rules - it too is tuned toward a specific end.

Thus, we have to judge each form in its own right. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that the forms are in anyway interchangeable, but that goes both ways.

Third, natural selection does not imply that private organizations are better than public organizations. Simply put, the reasoning behind that conclusion is severely flawed. What you are essentially arguing for is competition. This, however, is not an argument against public owned companies* as public or private monopolies. These are not equivalent, and certainly shouldnt be treated as such.

Last (if you ignore the asterisk below), to me the nordic countries look for more attractive in terms of big brother risks than both the U.S. and the UK. Further, the increased privatization of public spaces constitute key threats to democracy itself. In essence, the state is what grants you your basic rights - across the world we now find more and more spaces where you as a human have little if any rights at all. In a capitalist society even our basic rights are at sale. No right to meet, no right to protest, no right to express your points. All in the name of capitalism. I am sorry, but i have a hard time viewing that as progress for the human enterprise at large.

* the valid critique of apolitical ownership is essentially this: why should governments own companies - to which the answer is simple: for the same reason that anyone else invests - its potentially profitable. Others would then object: but is this the role of the state? Maybe not. But that is not an argument about EFFICIENCY but about ROLE. That is, apolitical ownership is not by and of itself inherently flawed or inefficient. In fact, apolitical - profit driven - publicly owned companies are no different from apolitical - profit driven - privately owned companies: they operate by the same mechanisms and succeed and fail through the same markets.

P.S., i noticed that i failed to address your comment about black hole bureaucracies. Here, we are in agreement. Two problems come to mind: first, we have cases where lawn movers are used to traffic the roads. Why this is stupid have been addressed above. Second, we have limitations within the bureaucratic form of organization. Two limitations are of particular relevance: complexity and overload. So far, bureaucracies have been found to do a poor job managing both. Hopefully, technology will be able to remedy this situation in the future. What needs to be remembered however is that bureaucracies serve a key purpose: the equal treatment of all. To me, the alternative price is one i would rather not pay - i want rights based on me being a citizen rather than my rights being dictated by the size of my wallet.

Yes, you have some valid points. The type of Government and the role it plays in peoples lives is a very complex thing. Firstly, government would be what the people want, and would serve them all with equanimity. Unfortunately, this will never be a practicable reality. Each person is unique and has different wants and desires. I prefer less political correctness and more individual strength of character. You apparently prefer security over individual freedom. I know very well the U.S. is no longer free. It won't be long until we are fully socialistic.

Most of what you have written, is in my opinion theoretical in nature. Some of it quite distorted. You are an academic type of person. You are also ( I'm guessing) under the age of 50. You believe in Evolution and natural selection, and yet you fight against them in every way, because they aren't "fair". Life is not fair, never has been, and never will be. In a dog eat dog world you would be eaten very quickly. There is no government in the world that works well for everyone. The world will eventually become a worldwide socialist state. I'll be dead long before this comes to pass. Depending on your age you may still be alive. I hope you enjoy it. You may not like the reality of what you wished for in theory. I admit I could be wrong. This is something you will never admit. Theorists always try to prove they are right regardless of real world contradiction. If you reply to this, I will not respond, but please reply if that is your desire. For me our conversation has ended. Over the years I've heard your thoughts many times before, and yes, the future is yours, but not for very long.
 
Spoken like a true theorist. Name one government organization that runs more efficiently and profitably than a privately run counterpart. Yes, for now the Nordic countries are a shining example of socialist success. How about Greece and Spain and Portugal etc. If fact what about all of Europe except for maybe Germany. Sweden has traded freedom for security, but as of late the dream is becoming a nightmare with the burgeoning influx of Muslims draining down the system from the inside. I'll take Freedom over security any day. Ask Trotsky the theorist about what happens in the real world. Stalin is the real world, not Trotsky.

You forgot Mussolini, since he coined "corporatist" (corporate fascism). Of course, Mussolini was for it... He loved how Hitler scapegoated people and turned them into slaves before exterminating them (see "Schindler's List" and read up on WW2 for all the information you'd never ever want to become aware of...)

But what you say falls apart, because large corporations have bought government with lobbyists. So when private industry does it better, it's not - unless it's buying government to make it less efficient, while giving handouts to the lobbyists' owners in return.

And when politicians tell us to vote for them because they hate government, don't be surprised when they make your dream into a reality. "If it doesn't move, subsidize it" - ironic, as corporate welfare skyrocketed in Reagan's era too, and it's only worsened since. Never mind the politicians that vote to give or continue such welfare, while blaming workers for being "lazy" (when we know the workers aren't... all this is a redistribution of wealth from workers to... true leeches.)

But I speak only of the US in the 21st century so far...

Not sure on the hate of Muslims, since plenty who practice religion will warp it to suit their personal desires.

----------

I see...So large government bureaucracies are supposed to perform badly because that's the way they are designed to run? Yes, what matters is how the organization is structured to run. In the private world if they don't run well, they are doomed to the grave yard. That's the way it should be. It's called "natural selection". Government run bureaucracies never fail, they just get more and more of the peoples money in higher and higher taxes ad infinitum. They are almost impossible to reform and are an ongoing drain on the general society. The US Postal service comes to mind. UPS, FEDEX run circles around them and always make a good profit. My so called "alarm clock" has been ringing for the last 15 years. Nobody is listening it seems, but me. Socialism always sounds nice on paper. After a while you realize you're individual freedoms have been stolen by "Big Brother" but then it's too late.

America stopped being free the moment our taxpayer money subsidized and bailed out corporations that offshored.

You might want to think about that some time...

But nobody minds when Apple or Google have the same information... Big Brother is bad, Big Corporation is good. How strange it is that big corporation bought big brother...

Now explain corporations offshoring, being propped up by our tax money, which in turn means we have revenue problems because there are fewer left to tax... and more people losing out on skills and talents because of corporate greed... if that unethical behavior defines "success", you can have it. It's depraved, doing this sort of thing to one's fellow countrymen...

And with no oversight, your "freedom lovers" will use their freedom to exterminate yours far faster than any "socialist" society ever would... unless it's China, but more and more say they've stopped being communist thanks to the offshoring (at our taxpayer expense...)

But feel free to enjoy everything China puts out... just don't use the toothpaste, dog food, houses with drywall that cause allergies and rot electronics (but that's good since the medical industry and electronics stores can remain profitable, right? even as your ability to earn money dwindles by the same forces, which are not "free market" or "free anything"), the counterfeit military goods we bought... there's a lot you really don't want to look up and confirm since you would be surprised at how free we are not...
 
You forgot Mussolini, since he coined "corporatist" (corporate fascism). Of course, Mussolini was for it... He loved how Hitler scapegoated people and turned them into slaves before exterminating them (see "Schindler's List" and read up on WW2 for all the information you'd never ever want to become aware of...)

But what you say falls apart, because large corporations have bought government with lobbyists. So when private industry does it better, it's not - unless it's buying government to make it less efficient, while giving handouts to the lobbyists' owners in return.

And when politicians tell us to vote for them because they hate government, don't be surprised when they make your dream into a reality. "If it doesn't move, subsidize it" - ironic, as corporate welfare skyrocketed in Reagan's era too, and it's only worsened since. Never mind the politicians that vote to give or continue such welfare, while blaming workers for being "lazy" (when we know the workers aren't... all this is a redistribution of wealth from workers to... true leeches.)

But I speak only of the US in the 21st century so far...

Not sure on the hate of Muslims, since plenty who practice religion will warp it to suit their personal desires.

----------



America stopped being free the moment our taxpayer money subsidized and bailed out corporations that offshored.

You might want to think about that some time...

But nobody minds when Apple or Google have the same information... Big Brother is bad, Big Corporation is good. How strange it is that big corporation bought big brother...

Now explain corporations offshoring, being propped up by our tax money, which in turn means we have revenue problems because there are fewer left to tax... and more people losing out on skills and talents because of corporate greed... if that unethical behavior defines "success", you can have it. It's depraved, doing this sort of thing to one's fellow countrymen...

And with no oversight, your "freedom lovers" will use their freedom to exterminate yours far faster than any "socialist" society ever would... unless it's China, but more and more say they've stopped being communist thanks to the offshoring (at our taxpayer expense...)

But feel free to enjoy everything China puts out... just don't use the toothpaste, dog food, houses with drywall that cause allergies and rot electronics (but that's good since the medical industry and electronics stores can remain profitable, right? even as your ability to earn money dwindles by the same forces, which are not "free market" or "free anything"), the counterfeit military goods we bought... there's a lot you really don't want to look up and confirm since you would be surprised at how free we are not...

It appears you are an intelligent person. Since that is the case, I do find it rather amusing that you have projected a lot of assumptions as to what I believe, based on the short replies I have given to others. I agree with you on many topics. You are young (less than 40 I would say) and have a lot of passion regarding your beliefs. This will change as you become older and wiser. Let me just say, "corporate big brother" is as bad as "government state big brother". What you are talking about is Crony Capitalism, not true free markets. I hate Chinese products for the most part and refuse to use them, although it's sometimes difficult not to. Please read my previous reply (directly above your latest post) I think it also speaks to you. That's all I have to say. Enjoy life as best you can, it is very short indeed.
 
Yes, you have some valid points. The type of Government and the role it plays in peoples lives is a very complex thing. Firstly, government would be what the people want, and would serve them all with equanimity. Unfortunately, this will never be a practicable reality. Each person is unique and has different wants and desires. I prefer less political correctness and more individual strength of character. You apparently prefer security over individual freedom. I know very well the U.S. is no longer free. It won't be long until we are fully socialistic.

Most of what you have written, is in my opinion theoretical in nature. Some of it quite distorted. You are an academic type of person. You are also ( I'm guessing) under the age of 50. You believe in Evolution and natural selection, and yet you fight against them in every way, because they aren't "fair". Life is not fair, never has been, and never will be. In a dog eat dog world you would be eaten very quickly. There is no government in the world that works well for everyone. The world will eventually become a worldwide socialist state. I'll be dead long before this comes to pass. Depending on your age you may still be alive. I hope you enjoy it. You may not like the reality of what you wished for in theory. I admit I could be wrong. This is something you will never admit. Theorists always try to prove they are right regardless of real world contradiction. If you reply to this, I will not respond, but please reply if that is your desire. For me our conversation has ended. Over the years I've heard your thoughts many times before, and yes, the future is yours, but not for very long.

I spent one hour or so writing a long response. In the end, i decided not to post it at all. Partly due to your condescending attitude and foul rhetorics, partly due to the fact that you have moved the goal posts so far away from the original debate that i do not even know why you are making the comments you are making.

Instead, i will leave you with very brief comments:

1) My life is real. My experiences are real. My knowledge is real. Every way as real as yours. Further, there is little logic within your reasoning: on the one hand, the US will soon be socialistic. On the other, i only know socialism in theory despite living my entire life in a state that is more socialist than america will ever be within your life-time (nor mine, really - i am not that young).

2) Unless blinded by the illusion of natural rights, one does not need to juxtapose security and freedom. In fact, one can even view the former as a necessary while perhaps insufficient requirement for the latter.

3) My critique towards the capitalist system does not rest solely on it being "unfair", i view "unfairness" as detrimental to the evolution of society at large. In this sense, i do not oppose natural selection - i welcome it.

4) Certainly, no government will ever fit everyone. Nor will the capitalist society. There are always winners and losers: nothing is neutral, everything is relative.

5) I have no desire living in a socialist super-state. Especially not a socialist super-state that wont even be remotely socialist to begin with. Heck, i am hardly a socialist to begin with (in the marxist sense of the word). That said, i'd surely welcome a move to the left.

To quote the brilliant American Gary Busey: Together Everyone Achieves More (TEAM - one of Garys greatest Buseyisms!)
 
Considering we had abundant natural resources + a very robust industry due the war, yes the primary cause was World War I / II.

Considering that North America's natural resources existed for hundreds of millions of years before humans walked the earth, I think it's safe to say this isn't the case.

The US became more isolationist under Roosevelt, yet our production capacity increased, despite being in the midst of the depression. Obviously WWII was a boon for manufacturing and agricultural exports, as well as employment. The devastation that followed allowed us to lend billions under the Marshall plan with very favorable terms.

But again, correlation does not imply causation. Had Hitler stopped in Czechoslovakia, or Poland, the US still would have become a superpower. The pieces were already in place.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.