Poor poor USA

[TG Moses VI]

Also, this is NOT income. It is completely unrelated to income. Also i disagree with sales taxes. It’s another “double tax” that is arbitrary and pointless and just another cash cow for gov’ts. Get rid of it, increase spending and productivity. Then people’s incomes will grow - which is being taxed anyway . . . etc.

I have to agree with CC on this one to a point. Like he said, a person’s fortune after death is NOT income. But as for sales tax, it’s necessary that it should be kept simple because the government needs the revenue, and that fact that it is a relatively “painless” tax.

[Guest]

@cystic:

i can see this getting confusing quickly . . . .

looks like that, my fault…. and sorry for that, i will try to keep myself under control better…

@F_alk:

You took societies as nations it seems.

whatever - nations, societies. You can apply what i said to either. As for corporations - their influences are either accepted or not by a society. If a society refuses to eat at macdonald’s - it perishes there. If they refuse to listen to Britany Spears - likewise. …

Well, i am sure you know that this untrue.

still unrelated as to how i am being victimized by not being given money i did nothing to earn. And if this is a british stealing money away from the native thread - start a different post.

I have to unravel the negations is your first sentence first….
And well, it contradicts my position.
I don’t say that you are victimized when you don’t get the money (heritage) that you did nothing to earn.

whatever.
this was a discussion of why someone should have a say over my personal autonomy when you started with this “citizen of the world” b.s. I could take that to impose my will on anyone for any trumped up reason i wanted to. Yes, it is important to care about other people, but not at the risk of other people’s autonomy.

I think i don’t understand the last line: IMO We don’t care about other people’s autonomy. We care about our own autonomy.

again - you keep reducing this to “property”. To fashion the “slippery slope” that you enjoy using - what comes next? Once i lose autonomy over my property, then what other freedoms are expendable? The Nazi’s demonstrated this principle all too easily vs. the Jews way back when.

Well, it is a bit unfair to claim i “again … keep reducing this to property” when i show one of the rare attempts to stay on topic (which was about heritage, which is handing down property in the generations). You cannot first blame me for one thing and then for exact opposite.

For the example you give: The right for property was about the last they lost. The Jews lost many freedoms first, like the freedom to leave the country, use the same busses as “aryans”, employ “aryans” etc. In the beginning it was more like the blacks were treated in the US in the 60s. Destruction of property is what happened, and later the “aryanisation” of productive means in possession by jews, their private property was left untouched for some more time. So, i don’t see it fits.

… “paying workers slightly above what they might otherwise be making goes against my ethics therefore you must pay 5 times the standard wage in that country”.

This aims at the sweatshops i assume. How much autonomy do they win by working for Nike? How much autonomy do they lose?
How much autonomy would they get if their village would work on their common grounds, grew what they needed, and we just f*ck off? Have a look at the Zapatista for an example of that, they are a great example of regaining autonomy (and a economy professor from the states who visited them said “this won’t work. It’s unefficient.” Asked what he would do “build a nice clean euphemism for sweatshop and they would profit”. … He didn’t even care about their autonomy on the sense of freedom of choice). I bet each and every worker in a sweatshop would prefer to have a small strip of land and grow him/herself what is needed for his/her own…

… And why tax it just after i died - again? What sense does that make? … Also, this is NOT income. It is completely unrelated to income. Also i disagree with sales taxes. It’s another “double tax” that is arbitrary and pointless and just another cash cow for gov’ts. Get rid of it, increase spending and productivity. Then people’s incomes will grow - which is being taxed anyway . . . etc.

You firmly believe in neo-liberalism as it seems. Let me just tell you: it is income. And for your neo-liberal chant of “everything will become better”, well, seems like the majority of the worlds population is not with you there (as they are the ones who suffer for us rich to become richer).

[cystic crypt]

@F_alk:

You took societies as nations it seems.

whatever - nations, societies. You can apply what i said to either. As for corporations - their influences are either accepted or not by a society. If a society refuses to eat at macdonald’s - it perishes there. If they refuse to listen to Britany Spears - likewise. …

Well, i am sure you know that this untrue.
It absolutely is true. If the Finns recognized McDonald’s to be an evil corporation serving up swill and none of them ate there, how much profit would be had? McDonald’s would lose money hand over fist, and the Koch’s would say “screw Finland”. At the same time, as Germany embraces American crap/pop culture, more money goes towards the recording/mtv/etc. industries allowing for greater ability to export crap.

whatever.
this was a discussion of why someone should have a say over my personal autonomy when you started with this “citizen of the world” b.s. I could take that to impose my will on anyone for any trumped up reason i wanted to. Yes, it is important to care about other people, but not at the risk of other people’s autonomy.

I think i don’t understand the last line: IMO We don’t care about other people’s autonomy. We care about our own autonomy.

That’s not entirely true either. There are many mechanisms in place to protect other people’s autonomy. They are called “police”, “lawyers”, “lawsuits”, “torts”, “courts”, “legislative authorities”, “human rights legislation”, etc.

again - you keep reducing this to “property”. To fashion the “slippery slope” that you enjoy using - what comes next? Once i lose autonomy over my property, then what other freedoms are expendable? The Nazi’s demonstrated this principle all too easily vs. the Jews way back when.

Well, it is a bit unfair to claim i “again … keep reducing this to property” when i show one of the rare attempts to stay on topic (which was about heritage, which is handing down property in the generations). You cannot first blame me for one thing and then for exact opposite.

For the example you give: The right for property was about the last they lost. The Jews lost many freedoms first, like the freedom to leave the country, use the same busses as “aryans”, employ “aryans” etc. In the beginning it was more like the blacks were treated in the US in the 60s. Destruction of property is what happened, and later the “aryanisation” of productive means in possession by jews, their private property was left untouched for some more time. So, i don’t see it fits.

missing the point again. go back. read the post you replied to before i wrote this earlier bit. I think that you are missing that for many of us, what we have is a part of us. Our property is something we’ve invested in and should be ours to do what we want with - even to destroy - as long as we do not hurt others. I don’t care about some kid’s inheritance or work ethic - i care about his dad’s ability to do what he wants with his property.

… “paying workers slightly above what they might otherwise be making goes against my ethics therefore you must pay 5 times the standard wage in that country”.

This aims at the sweatshops i assume. How much autonomy do they win by working for Nike? How much autonomy do they lose?
How much autonomy would they get if their village would work on their common grounds, grew what they needed, and we just f*ck off? Have a look at the Zapatista for an example of that, they are a great example of regaining autonomy (and a economy professor from the states who visited them said “this won’t work. It’s unefficient.” Asked what he would do “build a nice clean euphemism for sweatshop and they would profit”. … He didn’t even care about their autonomy on the sense of freedom of choice). I bet each and every worker in a sweatshop would prefer to have a small strip of land and grow him/herself what is needed for his/her own…
right
well - that is up to each worker and their gov’t, isn’t it then. I’ll agree - America insinuates itself into places it doesn’t belong and royally screws up life for that country’s people (Chile is in my mind right now . . . ). Still - these countries should be allowed to avail themselves of the “sweatshops” if they are offered, or to tell them to go away.

… And why tax it just after i died - again? What sense does that make? … Also, this is NOT income. It is completely unrelated to income. Also i disagree with sales taxes. It’s another “double tax” that is arbitrary and pointless and just another cash cow for gov’ts. Get rid of it, increase spending and productivity. Then people’s incomes will grow - which is being taxed anyway . . . etc.

You firmly believe in neo-liberalism as it seems. Let me just tell you: it is income. And for your neo-liberal chant of “everything will become better”, well, seems like the majority of the worlds population is not with you there (as they are the ones who suffer for us rich to become richer).

Oh brother. Nice pigeon-holing job. Where to start . . . . Oh yeah. It’s all crap. Neo-liberalism? Really - i don’t get this. I missed the part where i was chanting. The fact is we keep dumping money into the system, it doesn’t work. I’ve yet to see a working example of communism (aside from Hutterite colonies and Kibbutz’. As for income - let me try this out. I’ve grown up in a house, with a certain lifestyle, my parents die leaving it to me. This is not income. No more than my genetics, my ambition (or lack), my abilities etc. This is my terrible fortune - losing my parents. This is maintanance of my lifestyle (as long as i’m not an idiot) but this is not income. I mean really - You sociallists would bleed a stone if you had an ounce less sense.

[Guest]

@cystic:

It absolutely is true. If the Finns recognized McDonald’s to be an evil corporation serving up swill and none of them ate there, how much profit would be had? …

See that your thinking is pretty much taking 1st world standards to everzwhere. Look at the basic needs first (which is water, energy, food/seeds for their farming), and at african (esp. south africa does a “good job” there) and south american countries.
How much chance does the farmer, people in townships etc etc. have to ‘buy’ ‘their’ water/seeds from a free competitor?
CC, all your examples were poised onto our way of (and riches in) living.

… I think that you are missing that for many of us, what we have is a part of us. Our property is something we’ve invested in and should be ours to do what we want with - even to destroy - as long as we do not hurt others. … i care about his dad’s ability to do what he wants with his property.

(1)And again, you implicitly say that property is always well earned and it seems like it can not achieved by un-ethical behavior. Your notion of “not hurting others” is aimed at the existing property, not at the way you achieve it….
(2)BTW, i care for people who have no (or close to no) property and just want to live with dignity.
(3) You still are hammering on the principle here, while i in the first post mentioned some “compromise”.
Do you really think that any person can earn honestly, by hard work and luck, but without any frauds, cheating others, ‘stealing’ or other un-ethical behavior, more than 100 US$ a year? … While in some other nations the mean income is about 150 US$ a year??
I don’t think so. And i want that money to go to those who deserve it more. And as i won’t be able to take it from his life hands, i will take it from his cold ones.

This aims at the sweatshops i assume….

right
well - that is up to each worker and their gov’t, isn’t it then.

It is not up to the gov’t. It is not up to the workers if you “prepare” the ground, which we have over the last 130+ years.
Which choice has the gov’t?

….Still - these countries should be allowed to avail themselves of the “sweatshops” if they are offered, or to tell them to go away.

Telling them to go away will lead to the coorp pull the nation before court for zillions of $. So, the option of telling them to “go away” does not really work anymore. You over-estimate the power of third world nations.
Remember, of the 100 “most producing” entities in the world, it’s only 49 states, and 51 coorps already. How much chance does a third world country have against a decently strong coorp?
The world has changed a lot in the last 13 years

Oh brother. Nice pigeon-holing job. Where to start . . . . Oh yeah. It’s all crap. Neo-liberalism? Really - i don’t get this. I missed the part where i was chanting. The fact is we keep dumping money into the system, it doesn’t work. I’ve yet to see a working example of communism (aside from Hutterite colonies and Kibbutz’. … I mean really - You sociallists would bleed a stone if you had an ounce less sense.

Ok, last chance to stop this name calling. Thanks.
Second: “We keep dumping money into the system”? … Well, obviously we talk about different things:
We keep f*cking over the poorer people/nations in the name of reducing world poverty … and it doesn’t help reducing that, but making (some of) us richer and richer.
The system of the trickle-down effect has failed, it’s more a flood-up effect. …still our leaders keep preaching that free-trade will make it all good.
For the examples of communism, add the Paris Commune… and then suddenly we have three working examples. And you don’t accept them, as it seems?

[cystic crypt]

@F_alk:

See that your thinking is pretty much taking 1st world standards to everzwhere. Look at the basic needs first (which is water, energy, food/seeds for their farming), and at african (esp. south africa does a “good job” there) and south american countries.
How much chance does the farmer, people in townships etc etc. have to ‘buy’ ‘their’ water/seeds from a free competitor?
CC, all your examples were poised onto our way of (and riches in) living.

i don’t even know what to do with this. you’ve lost the original thread, i think.

(1)And again, you implicitly say that property is always well earned and it seems like it can not achieved by un-ethical behavior. Your notion of “not hurting others” is aimed at the existing property, not at the way you achieve it….
(2)BTW, i care for people who have no (or close to no) property and just want to live with dignity.
(3) You still are hammering on the principle here, while i in the first post mentioned some “compromise”.
Do you really think that any person can earn honestly, by hard work and luck, but without any frauds, cheating others, ‘stealing’ or other un-ethical behavior, more than 100 US$ a year? … While in some other nations the mean income is about 150 US$ a year??
I don’t think so. And i want that money to go to those who deserve it more. And as i won’t be able to take it from his life hands, i will take it from his cold ones.

1. This goes back to another thread. I suppose ultimately all property is stolen if you go far back enough - even the stuff that we work for could all be considered stolen from some culture/civilization - alive or dead. I’ve emerged from my past (and that of my grandparents - if i hadn’t, i would be the ultimate hypocrit as they were quite wealthy and had everything including their parents stolen from them).
   2)I do too. As a Mennonite and "citizen of this planet (really what a B.S. term) i fully support NGO’s like MCC. When i made money - i gave some of it to them. I even hope to practice medicine in places of need (unless i have an opportunity to teach - in which case i’ll really be torn).
   3)Yes, i believe that. Simply because i’ve seen it sooooo many times. As for nations that have an average earning power of 150$/year - admittedly they have a lower standard of living, but here our “cost” of living is also much higher.
   As for your prying money out of someone’s cold dead hands to save the world - give me a break. I’ll tell you right now that all the money in the world will not fix the problems in the developing world. Maybe the “Iraquization” of many of these nations might be the first step to curing their problems (debride the necrosis, and the wound will heal), but money will solve nothing. All you will be doing is stealing what is not yours from someone to give it to some dictator. Well done.

Telling them to go away will lead to the coorp pull the nation before court for zillions of $. So, the option of telling them to “go away” does not really work anymore. You over-estimate the power of third world nations.
Remember, of the 100 “most producing” entities in the world, it’s only 49 states, and 51 coorps already. How much chance does a third world country have against a decently strong coorp?
The world has changed a lot in the last 13 years

very simplistic (almost as simplistic as my forgetting about the agreements made between many of these nations and corp’s, as well as American/Canadian corps in light of NAFTA).
These 51 corps are not simply a bunch of black holes where you put something in and something is magically produced. Just as i have invested in my country, so i have invested in many of these corps either through mutual funds, or other equity-held vehicals. The shareholders in all but the few “private companies” (i think Hoffman-LaRoche is one of the few very large ones of these) could well amount to several nations, as well as the workers who produce these goods, and the people who use them. Given this is it any surprise that there are laws protecting them?

We keep f*cking over the poorer people/nations in the name of reducing world poverty … and it doesn’t help reducing that, but making (some of) us richer and richer.
The system of the trickle-down effect has failed, it’s more a flood-up effect. …still our leaders keep preaching that free-trade will make it all good.
For the examples of communism, add the Paris Commune… and then suddenly we have three working examples. And you don’t accept them, as it seems?

well, i don’t see often examples of the first. I don’t even know where this came from, really. Are you talking about sweatshops, or what???
As for trickle down - economics dictates that it can work - but of course so would communism-is-a-utopia-theorists. Also there has been no “world free trade”. It wouldn’t work yet anyway. It works with limited success within NAFTA (i think both nations have benefitted from it although i am waiting for US healthcare deliverers to sue Canada for its healthcare system . . . ).
As for the communism examples - these communes tend to be quite small and limited, held together by people who buy into the “ideal”. It would not work for those forced into it who tend to feel that capitalism can work well too - if you’re willing to work within it.

[Guest]

@cystic:

i don’t even know what to do with this. you’ve lost the original thread, i think.

very broad grin …blame GI, and blame you for following GIs first deviation from the thread… ;)

1. … I suppose ultimately all property is stolen if you go far back enough - …

Well, I guess there is a difference wether (when you go back really far) the destroyed culture has been replaced by your emerging culture (as then it will have been absorbed into yours, or you could call yours a development of the other). Then i don’t think the above can be called true.

3)Yes, i believe that. Simply because i’ve seen it sooooo many times. As for nations that have an average earning power of 150$/year - admittedly they have a lower standard of living, but here our “cost” of living is also much higher.

Having seen something happening often doesn’t make it “right”. Just compare to “usual crimes”, they happen a lot, does that make them fair and just and “right”?
And the good ol’ “costs of living” argument… Well, i don’t think that you can explain …say 10 million $ a year by costs of living… otherwise about 95% of the population would be starving to death already… I admit it is lower in the poorer countries, but it is not enough to explain a ratio of 10^6 to 1 or something.

I’ll tell you right now that all the money in the world will not fix the problems in the developing world. …l you will be doing is stealing what is not yours from someone to give it to some dictator. Well done.

As if i had sai that the dictator deserves it, right?
Of course it was pretty metaphorical. (To connect to ozone thread, you as native english speaker should have seen that ;) ).
But, what if we used that money and started to repay the debts of these countries? Then they would not need such a lot of more fresh money, and thus not need to stick to the orders of the IMF and world bank, but could try to set up a working, national economy which can supply them with their basic needs and thues increase their autonomy.

well, i don’t see often examples of the first. I don’t even know where this came from, really. Are you talking about sweatshops, or what???

Just take a look at any countries income development, and a look at the international income comparisons. You will see that the gap between rich and poor is not closing, but widening, and if you look closer, you will even see that the speed of the widening increases.

As for trickle down - economics dictates that it can work - but of course so would communism-is-a-utopia-theorists.

And you didn’t even say it will work, but it can work, which is interesting as it follows a “dictate”. Dictating something can happen is just probability. It is also dictated that you can win the lotterie ;)

Also there has been no “world free trade”. It wouldn’t work yet anyway. It works with limited success within NAFTA (i think both nations have benefitted from it although i am waiting for US healthcare deliverers to sue Canada for its healthcare system . . . ).

very broad grin NAFTA…… Canada profits. USA profits… i believe you that. But, isn’t there a third “major member” of NAFTA? Has that one profited?
For the no free trade: In some parts there has been and is free trade. And you can see who profits from that and who doesn’t.

As for the communism examples - these communes tend to be quite small and limited, held together by people who buy into the “ideal”. It would not work for those forced into it who tend to feel that capitalism can work well too - if you’re willing to work within it.

I think it can, unless these capitalists are some kind of “cut throat capitalists”.
The point is just that
the economy has to work for the people.
The human being/race has to be the ultimate concern, it’s benefit the ultimate goal. If a dozen shareholder profit and the back of two dozen other human beings, then something is going wrong.
If economy does not serve the majority of mankind, then something is going into the wrong direction, and severely!

For the communes: true. Maybe we see a good model for the future civil society there, some kind of “back to the roots”.
Nations have lost their power, why should this power not be claimed by the comunes then, instead of handing it without thought to something else that is too big to influence and by definition totally undemocratic.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

very broad grin …blame GI, and blame you for following GIs first deviation from the thread…

Uh-oh, they’re on to me… :o

[DeviantScripter]

Then they would not need such a lot of more fresh money, and thus not need to stick to the orders of the IMF and world bank, but could try to set up a working, national economy which can supply them with their basic needs and thues increase their autonomy.

Yea, but would they? Doubtful. :roll:

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Then they would not need such a lot of more fresh money, and thus not need to stick to the orders of the IMF and world bank, but could try to set up a working, national economy which can supply them with their basic needs and thues increase their autonomy.

Yea, but would they? Doubtful. :roll:

I looked for the original quote here , but couldn’t find it. Anyway, I thought the IMF just prepared loans and grants for the “underdeveloped” countries, and didn’t order them to spend it in any specific way.

[Janus1]

(off topic again)

back to the whole inheritance thing (sorry, but i gotta say it)

even if you think the government shouldnt get the money when the guy dies (i understand your point on this), and even if you think its not our business what someone does with their money after they are dead (it really isnt), you still have to agree (well, IMO) that its shortsighted to think this way. true, it really isnt our business in that sense, but in a broader sense, it very much is. these people who would get a free ride from inheritance money are bad people to have in a society. you need to have rich and poor of course, but that doesnt mean the rich should be people who have never worked in their life, these kind of people contribute nothing to society. often, they are set for life, yet since they understand nothing about the value of the dollar, they blow it all and end up with nothing. no less than they deserve, but the whole thing could be avoided.

[cystic crypt]

many things can be avoided.
This is how i will make my money - be telling people how to avoid things, and fixing them/pronouncing them dead when they do not avoid these things.
As for people who inherit a ton of money, have no sense for how to deal with it, waste it away, well, there are many wastes of space out there who deal in both financial, genetic, connected, and many other types of inheritances. The world is not perfect, and this is the least of the things i believe important to correct.

[Guest]

@cystic:

The world is not perfect, and this is the least of the things i believe important to correct.

I guess that last point is where we differ massively :)