Posted by Bill Ward on April 17, 2011, 4:50 pm
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:52:00 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
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. 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?
Do you really think you can regulate common sense? Governments seem to
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.
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?
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...
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.
Posted by Giga2 on April 17, 2011, 8:39 pm
Unfortunately they can drag the rest of us down with them, i.e. banks in
I'm sure there are problems with some of the regulation but other parts are
not strong enough.
No but you can have common-sense regulation.
But they are also riding in the wagon.
Everyone pays tax, I was just talking about income tax.
Its far fo perfect I can assure you but it is also very good.
You seem to consider human beings to be selfish and materialistic.
Posted by Bill Ward on April 18, 2011, 12:22 am
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:39:53 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
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.
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.
What common sense tells you to make loans to people you know won't be
able to repay them?
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
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.
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
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.
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 glad you're satisfied. Perhaps the tales we hear are just propaganda.
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, unless they are forced by their betters to pay
for the government's hamhanded attempts at "charity", or "social
justice". That's never worked out, no matter how good the original
Posted by Giga2 on April 18, 2011, 7:53 pm
They do let them starve in some countries! Anyway this is way off-topic and
I don't really see us agreeing on this issue.
Posted by Bill Ward on April 18, 2011, 8:39 pm
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:53:59 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
Most people don't want others to starve. Those that are starving can't
help others, even though they may want to. Mass starvation has occurred
in nearly every prior socialist/progressive country, but seldom in free-
Correct. Thanks for a civil and informative discussion.