Appeals Court says 'Under God' not a prayer

[Vicotnik]

No more food for you, Fayd. Go read some Chomsky.

[NeilBlanchard]

If the market is perfect, then why does the market crash?

[Fayd]

If the market is perfect, then why does the market crash?

ups and downs are the nature of markets... investments are made as a calculated risk. sometimes that risk fails. oh noes.

if you think somehow that that invalidates capitalism as a system, then you're a retard.

i've read chomsky, and his views on politics (and economics) lie pretty much exactly counter to what i believe.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hey Fayd,

Cool down -- I'm certainly not a retard! And if I was a more sensitive guy, I might take offense. As it is, I just think you're squirming...

If you think that the market is all okay on it's own, obviously you don't know anybody who lived through the Great Depression. And you don't know anybody who invested with Bernie Madoff.

Short term profits are very different than long term growth. And have you ever heard of enlightened self-interest? Some people don't seem to realize that the long term success of *everybody* will help each individual much more than the short term profits of a few people...

[judge56988]

Capitalism is dying.
It needs constant new markets and access to cheap raw materials and or labour.
These have traditionally been provided by war (destruction requires rebuilding i.e. a new market) and colonial expansion (i.e. exploitation of resources, initially humans as in the slave trade, latterly metals, coal and oil.)
What other reason for the British Empire? Nobody actually wanted to live in those disease ridden, hot dusty countries!

People now will not tolerate either of these things any more.
Thanks to the media in the modern age, people can see what the results of war are and third world countries will no longer tolerate rule by imperial powers and the consequent exploitation of their resources.

I don't believe that socialism is the answer, it's failed already in so many countries as it does not provide any incentive for hard work, only a haven for the lazy; as shown so clearly in '70's Britain.

A new system of government is needed.

[NeilBlanchard]

I think a true democracy would probably be fine. What we have here in the USA at the moment, is not a democracy by and for the people. It has been taken over, in large part, by big money interests.

[Fayd]

Hey Fayd,

Cool down -- I'm certainly not a retard! And if I was a more sensitive guy, I might take offense. As it is, I just think you're squirming...

If you think that the market is all okay on it's own, obviously you don't know anybody who lived through the Great Depression. And you don't know anybody who invested with Bernie Madoff.

Short term profits are very different than long term growth. And have you ever heard of enlightened self-interest? Some people don't seem to realize that the long term success of *everybody* will help each individual much more than the short term profits of a few people...

actually i do know people who lived through the great depression.

regarding madoff, what he did was illegal. he was prosecuted. I dont know what else you want.

people will only accept deals that are pareto efficient to them. that means they wont be made any worse off by the deal. (in terms of investments, they use their calculated expected benefits instead of the deal.) i already said that in the long term, companies demanding labor from a given low income labor pool will cause the income of that labor pool to rise... you just refuse to see it.

judge56988, the british empire didnt practice capitalism. they practiced mercantilism. and capitalism isnt a system of government, it's an economic system.

neilblanchard: a true democracy is a horrible idea. 300 million americans dont have the time or inclination to vote on every fucking thing. that's WHY we elect representatives. besides, people in general are stupid. they're cattle to heed the whims of whoever's flavor of the month, and reactionary to whatever the news media feeds them.

[NeilBlanchard]

I want Madoff to have never gotten started doing what he did. If the market/profit motive is so great, how did he get away with it for as long as he did? Or, are you conceding that we need the government to make and enforce laws and regulations?

I think that John Adams and the other framers of the Constitution kinda' knew what they were doing! Part of living under the Constitution is accepting political outcomes that you don't agree with. We certainly have endured a lot of that! It's the balance and counterbalance and process leading to a more-perfect union that has gotten us this far!

I like Churchill's quote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

People would vote, if they knew that it actually mattered -- I think they know that the people with money are controlling things... Sure, there are a lot of stupid and belligerent and bigoted and mean-spirited and greedy and selfish people out there -- but what other form of government would be better than a true democracy?

[moderator's hat] Please refrain from name calling and foul language. Let's keep it civil, shall we? [/moderator's hat]

[Fayd]

I want Madoff to have never gotten started doing what he did. If the market/profit motive is so great, how did he get away with it for as long as he did? Or, are you conceding that we need the government to make and enforce laws and regulations?

I think that John Adams and the other framers of the Constitution kinda' knew what they were doing! Part of living under the Constitution is accepting political outcomes that you don't agree with. We certainly have endured a lot of that! It's the balance and counterbalance and process leading to a more-perfect union that has gotten us this far!

I like Churchill's quote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

People would vote, if they knew that it actually mattered -- I think they know that the people with money are controlling things... Sure, there are a lot of stupid and belligerent and bigoted and mean-spirited and greedy and selfish people out there -- but what other form of government would be better than a true democracy?

[moderator's hat] Please refrain from name calling and foul language. Let's keep it civil, shall we? [/moderator's hat]

the government exists to enforce property rights and consumer protection laws.

what form would be better than a true democracy?

the one we have. a representative democracy.

[NeilBlanchard]

Sure, then it matters who the government represents, then doesn't it? My point is, the government needs to get of the money go-round; and it should represent the people. That's what I meant by an actual true democracy.

Because at the national level, we have a democracy in name only -- the real control is lobbyists with lots of money to throw around. The government is failing because it is being used to support profits for the few.

[Fayd]

Sure, then it matters who the government represents, then doesn't it? My point is, the government needs to get of the money go-round; and it should represent the people. That's what I meant by an actual true democracy.

Because at the national level, we have a democracy in name only -- the real control is lobbyists with lots of money to throw around. The government is failing because it is being used to support profits for the few.

we dont have a democracy in name or in practice. we have a republic. please learn the difference. a republic is a representative democracy, where representatives are elected to enact the "will of the people". as opposed to a true democracy, where people vote directly on everything.

the government represents the voting public. lobbyists only have as much control as they're given... and you act as though those the lobby represents have views directly counter to yours. that's not always the case.

for example. I believe in the goals of the NRA (National Rifle Association). i send a donation to the NRA-ILA... they use it for lobbying purposes. those lobbying purposes keep legislation from being passed that would negatively affect my way of life.

there are lobby organizations who's goals are in line with your own. you're probably not donating to them, so your goal is to be a free rider on their accomplishments. if they lose, then you hold sour grapes because your way of life is affected.

while i'm no fan of the lobbying system, i really can't think of a better way to do it. people vote with their dollars in addition to their votes. it gives a gauge of how much people want some specific legislation passed or something.

imo, the bigger trampler of will of people is logrolling.

i'm rambling.. i stop now.

[judge56988]

while i'm no fan of the lobbying system, i really can't think of a better way to do it. people vote with their dollars in addition to their votes. it gives a gauge of how much people want some specific legislation passed or something.

Which serves to illustrate the point being made in this and other threads; people without money have less voice.
That is essentially undemocratic whether that be a true democracy or a representative democracy.

While I agree with you that a true democracy is unworkable and would lead to a form of mob rule; the system in operation at the moment is undemocratic in that those with more money have a louder voice.

[NeilBlanchard]

I think the thing we need to do to improve our democratic republic, is to remove money's influence in our government.

The two ways to do this are to overturn the Supreme Court's decision that says money = free speech; and to lower the cost of campaigning to a point where small donations are all that are needed.

Voting is protected free speech, as is public speaking, published writings, etc. These things apply to everyone equally -- which is the test that all good laws must pass! Giving money to someone else is not protected free speech -- it is an action; a deed. So, this lets the Congress decide on the election laws, and it has to be set to protect the poor from the tyranny of the rich. It is not a violation of protected free speech to put limits on campaign contributions. Again, any law that is unequally applied, does not pass the test.

Rights must be equally applied to all people. Unlimited campaign contributions are by definition unequal; and they have a huge unbalancing affect on our country.

Lowering the cost of campaigns is mostly to do with paying for broadcast access. Here's the deal: the public *owns* the airwaves; and we lease it to companies (through our government). As part of the lease agreement should be to carry a minimum of broadcast time for campaigns. This is a critical thing -- in order to have legitimate and long term success as a democratic republic; we must be able to use the resources that we own.

Both of these things will have many effects: if political parties are going to stay relevant, they have to actually produce results, rather than use their incumbency as a way to maintain their power. They can spend far more time doing the work they are elected to do, rather than doing so much to get reelected. Other political parties will have a chance to gain some part in governing and this too will keep thing more real and honest.

There are smaller things that would help: Justice Scalia has said in his opinions that he based his decision on fighting what the other Justices do -- he must base his decisions in the law. He has written opinions where he admits to basing his decision simply to be against some of the other Justices; and I think he should be impeached for this.

I think all the so-called originalists need to say if the original Constitution is perfect, then why did we need to have the Articles to end slavery, and give the vote to women and to people who are not white (or not land owners, for that matter)?

The absolute core principle of our Constitution is the way it balances and rebalances (i.e. changes) the powers of various parts of the government, or time. You see, new situations come up: each president and justice and congressperson are different, and if someone starts to dominate and gain too much power, which will hurt the overall structure -- the Constitution was *designed* to be changed, to rebalance things to try and stay stable over a longer time.

I think the so-called originalists are conveniently ignoring this core principle, and they need to be called out.

[Fayd]

while i'm no fan of the lobbying system, i really can't think of a better way to do it. people vote with their dollars in addition to their votes. it gives a gauge of how much people want some specific legislation passed or something.

Which serves to illustrate the point being made in this and other threads; people without money have less voice.
That is essentially undemocratic whether that be a true democracy or a representative democracy.

While I agree with you that a true democracy is unworkable and would lead to a form of mob rule; the system in operation at the moment is undemocratic in that those with more money have a louder voice.

they also have more to gain or lose depending on the outcome of legislation. it works both ways.