Posted by Giga2 on April 16, 2011, 7:52 pm
What if they are not kind to them, just let them die?
However it is true we all have to rely on experts to some extent, including
Unfortunately the free market often rewards people for destroying things
rather than making them.
You seem to think socialism is the same as communism. It isn't.
Well I don't know, and it doesn't seem you are too sure.
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.
It is certainly very difficult to get the right balance between helping
people to get back onto their feet and making them dependent.
The US's debt level is much higher AFAIK. The only thing that has stopped
complete collapese of the dollar is that it is the reserve currency.
I do, but it seems to be more of an extreme type of socialism to me, more
I am a free-market supporter but not to the extremes you seem to support. I
think there needs to be a balance between regulation and freedom.
Posted by Bill Ward on April 17, 2011, 2:05 am
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 20:52:37 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
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?
Fine, but you do that at your own risk. I decide when I understand
something, I don't try to pass the responsibility on to "experts". I'm
sure you've seen how well that worked out in the AGW scam.
What differences do you see? Was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
So check it out. Maybe I'm wrong.
When has a government ever been successful at that? Churches and private
charities are much more effective.
I know. 2012 is a tipping point. Either we buckle down and work our way
out of this, or the economy collapses.
I have no doubt of your good intentions, but it's never worked. People
thrive when they can run their own lives governed by agreed-upon laws
enforced by a limited government. I don't think you give the average
person enough credit.
Posted by Giga2 on April 17, 2011, 5:53 am
I see you haven't answered so can only assume you would say "let them die".
The recent banking scandals show that, arms dealers, drug dealers
(pharmaceuticals included), poison food, GM food etc etc.
They tried to be as far as is possible. They were much more extreme than the
Here is something, half of HKers live in public housing:
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.
Hong Kong social department:
They acheive a lot but I think social programmes have acheived a *lot* more.
IMO that is exactly what the vast majority of people *do* even here in the
USSK : )
Posted by Bill Ward on April 17, 2011, 7:00 am
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 06:53:07 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
That also assumes you would. Is that true? I don't think so.
How do you figure the free market "rewarded them"? Are they still in
business? If they broke laws and escaped justice, isn't that a failure
of the government to perform its most important function - enforcing the
You said you think socialism is not the same as communism. You didn't
mention what differences you see.
Do you think their (USSR) concept was valid, but they just didn't do it
Well, they do seem to be pretty efficient at it. Here's the taxrate
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?
Why do you think that? Is there any hard evidence, or 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.
I hope it continues to work for you, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Posted by Giga2 on April 17, 2011, 9:52 am
Of course not.>>
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
Or not having adequate regulation in place at all.
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.
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
Income tax, 50% over quite a high ceiling ($0k?pa). For many there is
almost no income tax.
The NHS is one of the largest employers in Europe, it is a gigantic
enterprise which dwarfs any charitable health care instituion AFAIK.
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.>>
I hope and I'm sure the US will move further in the direction of greater