What political party do you vote with?

go me, mr left wing for a change :mickey:

basically, to sum up my point. american soveriegn is considered the 'safest' in the world - your bond market will always supply ample income.

i am am adovocate of free business because, if people invest and are activity interested in a country, the bond market will equate great country wealth, externally to that of taxes and nasty things that socialists tend to hate.

this is why i don't understand why people hate business. where do people think money comes from? central banks, yeah sure, but they can't just mint money. a country will collapse.

so, in regards to america - great investment means great government wealth, and this wealth should be spent on improving the economy, and fueling individual needs (schools, healthcare etc.). it's a simple system - a system that people criticize but it actually saves them the burden of taxation.

however, greed is a problem - and in america's case, overspending in regards to war crime.

 

You brought up the "starving children in Africa" and as I don't live in Africa I thought it only appropriate that the starving children on all continents be given recognition.
I didn't see any comment related to minimum wage, but I've worked for minimum wage, and even less. Currently I work for free, but only because I enjoy what I do and have saved enough over my working life to provide the necessities.

???

I understand that, and that's why government is an inefficient source of attending to many problems of society. Blanket solutions to generalized problems often ignore recognition of unique facts relating to individual problems which result in solving some problems, worsening some, and having no effect at all on some, resulting in much waste of both time and money and the creation of new problems.

The point is, when people look to government to provide some need and government does so, it has to acquire the money to do so by taxing or borrowing. Both methods cost all of society, not just the rich or middle class, or just those who work and earn an income, but also those who receive government assistance. Government promotes raising taxes on the basis that the rich should pay their fair share, which most people who pay little taxes find acceptable, and all people who pay no taxes gleefully accept. As a result, prices usually increase, raising the cost of living, currency devalues, reducing the value of savings, and government assistance programs have to be funded greater to provide for the needs of those who benefit from them to maintain the quality of life at a level the government decides as adequate.

Ideally, Federal government should not be in the position of spending tax money on anything other than what benefits the population as a whole. Laws should be simple and understandable to all, regardless of education level.

So we should give up our sovereignty to the UN? And I disagree that private charity barely works, it has been moved to the back of the bus by government. But with a debt of $14.3 trillion and rapidly rising, can government continue to be the primary source of charity for much longer?

 

Indie

But you’ve already contradicted yourself on that one because you’ve already said that those that are not responsible should also be blamed or rewarded for others actions.

I’ve pointed out this flaw in your ideas many times.

To take yet another example of this doublethink -

The child is not responsible for the supposed ‘mistake’ but you think it should still suffer for it, and that doesn’t fit in with the first statement.

But you have to contradict that first statement because it cuts both ways – if someone should not be blamed for the mistakes of others then people shouldn’t be rewarded for the luck or work of others.

And that is definitely the tack you take in relation to taxes going to social problems but to the question - is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged

You say yes they should receive unearned advantage.

As I say your thinking seems to be muddled and therefore flawed.

 

Indie

And there are other flaws in you arguments.

Much of it seems based on unsubstantiated opinions that you never seem able to back up or defend from criticism and also many of your ideas seem to be based on the crackpot and silly pseudo-science of Social Darwinism.

Are you saying that all disadvantaged people are in that position because they deserve to be there?

Easy, (because we’ve been through this many times) - it depends what your goals are -

My goal is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place (as you have said openly) where those that you deem as having little value to society should be left to die.

Again are you honestly saying that you think that all disadvantaged people are in that position because they deserve to be there?

Is the child responsible for the actions of the parents?

 

Indie

And we have been through this before and I’m still waiting for you to supply the evidence (you promised to give then never did) to back up your view that this has worked in the past.

And it also comes up against the same argument about the deserving and undeserving that you still seem able to address.

It is the old con of the self serving argument of the deserving and undeserving poor. The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed out at the time this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

 

Indie

But your alternative would be to let those that through no fault of there own who are disadvantaged to be exploited and then, if deemed valueless, to be left to die.

You have claimed that your views are “Spenceristic” after that great champion of Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer and here is something of his views -

Now you and people like you with similar views want to be praised for paying their taxes, when if they had their own way they wouldn’t pay and would be happy to see many of today’s recipients of welfare die when it was withdrawn.

 

Actually you have just twisted my words in a way to say what you would like them to have said.
And I still remain solid on the right to keep what is received as an inheritance, with any sharing of it solely the choice of the recipient.

In reality it is your interpretation of my thinking that is both muddled and flawed.

One short concise post at a time, or be prepared to complain that I am ignoring or avoiding you.

 

Indie

Oh you’ve said this before and I’ll reply to it in exactly the same way I have done before – explain what you think I’ve twisted – the thing is you haven’t been able to show I have twisted your words in the past, maybe this time you can.

We’ve been through this before, -

To clarify I’m not talking about inheritance from a will, such legacies can be given to anyone, a charity or even a favoured pet and may even exclude relatives.

No I’m talking about the advantages that come to someone through an accident of birth. And the point being that no one can choose to be born into such a gift, so are they justified in having it when someone else through no fault of their own is born disadvantaged.
Post 279
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=6381653&highlight=Inherit#post6381653

You didn’t seem able to answer then can you now?

 

Indie

Oh you’ve said this before and I’ll reply to it in exactly the same way I have done before – explain what is wrong with my supposed interpretation – the thing is you haven’t been able show its wrong in the past, maybe this time you can.

More evasion and the same trick you’ve used before.

If I do short you complain there is not enough explanation and don’t reply to what’s said.

If I do long you complain there is too much explanation and don’t reply to what’s said.

The outcome, as always, is that you evade addressing what’s said.

 

Balbus,

Parenting is a responsibility that a couple (male/female) assume, without requiring the approval of others. It is not a responsibility of society as a whole, but individual members of society have a right, not a responsibility, to provide charitable aid where they see fit.

Those born into wealthy families are the result of good family planning, and owe no one other than their responsible parents for their good fortune.

You seem to feel the best solution to all problems of society is to throw other peoples money at it until it goes away, or at least until all suffer equally.

Awaiting your repugnant reply.

 

many of your arguments, to me, seem to indicate that you understand the theory

but fail to apply it case by case. suffice to say, the argument is deeply flawed.

 

are you trying to be absurd?

 

That case was unique, wasn't it?

 

Indie

That doesn’t address what was said

Or for gaining any reward.

But a child cannot be responsible for been born – either to disadvantaged parents or to advantaged parents.

They didn’t earn that advantage and cannot be blamed for getting the disadvantage.

Now the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

So is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged

I’m trying to help people fulfil their potential and you seem to want to stifle that potential.

 

Indie

My goal is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

But for a fairer and better society to exist there has to be some balance, between the interests of the few and the many and between the individual and the community, it is about raising the quality of life of all.

Your goals seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place (as you have said openly) where those that you deem as having little value to society should be left to die.

 

Not at all, are you?

 

if we bare in mind an otherwise homogenous economy - then i have two words

interest rate.

 

It addresses what I wanted to be understood.

Most certainly.

I never said the child was responsible in either case, it is the parents, both the biological father and the biological mother who are responsible for the birth of each child born.

Nor should society as a whole be blamed.

Are you trying to make a case for government to regulate the birth of children?

If that is their choice, they've broken no law nor have they committed a criminal act.

Then help those you can, that's your right. Start a charitable organization to accomplish your desires, and those with the same desires can contribute freely as they wish.

 

Savings rate or loan rate?

 

they are the same thing.