Wealth Distribution of US

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

croddie
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:52 pm

Post by croddie » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:51 pm

cAPSLOCK wrote:Sorry, there is no way you could know this but while I am located in Switzerland (and nearly have a swiss passport), I am from quite an international background: my mother's mother was born in Indonesia, but from dutch parents; my mother's father is dutch; my father's mother is scottish; my father's father is english; both my parents were born in South Africa, and I was born in the Netherlands. Some of the problems I mentioned happened during colonisation, and if colonisation never happened, decolonisation wouldn't have happened either.
Ah, sorry for presuming!
If you go down the route criticizing a historical development you have to look at what would have happened otherwise. How might things have turned out in Africa and South America without colonization at all? Better than they have?
At any rate what has happened is a combination of meddling (colonization) and non-meddling (decolonization). Decolonization was not a part of the idea and ideal of colonialism! (The sun will never set etc.) What would have happened without colonization, and what would have happened without decolonization? Interesting questions.
Back to the main debate: I think it wouldn't be all that bad to put a hard cap on salaries: if a company spends less money on it's executive's salaries it will spend it elsewhere: hopefully in expanding it's operations and thus creating more jobs for normal people.
But a companies expenditure is not a fixed quantity, is it? The expenditure will be adjusted to maximize value for shareholders. Less spent on executives ->expanded operations is a strange conclusion indeed.

jaganath
Posts: 5085
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Location: UK

Post by jaganath » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:05 pm

Back to the main debate: I think it wouldn't be all that bad to put a hard cap on salaries: if a company spends less money on it's executive's salaries it will spend it elsewhere: hopefully in expanding it's operations and thus creating more jobs for normal people.

But a companies expenditure is not a fixed quantity, is it? The expenditure will be adjusted to maximize value for shareholders. Less spent on executives ->expanded operations is a strange conclusion indeed.
You're missing the main arguments against wage caps, which are that A) the government should interfere with the workings of the market as little as possible and B) it will cause a "brain drain" to countries where there are no wage caps.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:03 am

croddie wrote:My comment was entirely empirical; I didn't make any comment about highest goods. By benefit I meant what each person wants economically not what is actually good. I should have made that clear. It may be better for some people to be poorer in which case efficiency is not a criterion of what is good.
I mainly wanted to point out that the poor will become poorer under such a policy, ceteris paribus.
Apology

I wasn't fussing at you :P I was expelling my rage on the ideology. I had just gotten back from the eye doctor (see myopia thread if interested but not worthwhile really) and was mad I couldn't drive due to the dilation (I decided that myself since I pulled out too far with my car).

It's also generally how I feel about the ideology too, but I was probably too harsh.

Point

My point was that I don't think the poor would necessarily become worse off under such a policy. Was the US to pay less to star CEOs, sure it would lose them to other nations or perhaps to other occupations. However, it might be better for the US to retain those loyal to the her. A CEO who is willing to go overseas for a few more million has his priorities confused. After a certain level of wealth, money is no longer what drives people. 2m a year might be too low for optimal standards of living, but perhaps some reasonable level could be achieved that took into account retirement etc. and provided some nonmonetary reward like honor and respect. It sounds communist I know :P

As an Alternative

I'm not advocating a maximum wage, but it's an alternative that ought to be kept in mind as a solution to the problems with capitalism. Rapid change, centralisation, and technological advancement have created power and wealth in the past, but I'm not a believer that more is better absolutely. It could very well get out of hand. That said, distributionist alternatives bound in tradition are probably too extreme in the other direction (I still haven't studied it closely...)

Private property

However, there's something to be said for private property at the same time. The best argument against a maximum wage is that those who make more earned more. If they wish to help others or to spend, keep, or reinvest it; it's their choice. I disagree with the "greed is good" and individualist philosophy but not with private property.

Government regulation

There's no way a CEO can be expected to pursue both what is best for the US and for his stock holders though he'd probably have a few choices between promoting globalisation and promoting US interests here and there without clear benefits either way. The best way to ensure his actions are good is to pass laws that make it beneficial to do what is best for the US (e.g. border adjusted VAT, environmental regulations, and enforcement of laws against hiring illegals).

I have a dream.

This (money no longer becomes the primary driving force after a point) has led me to dream of what the US would be like if it had not pursued free trade and mass immigration; the standard of living would theoretically be higher than any the world has seen. Additionally, more could afford the quality of life in which intellectual pursuits flourish, and demands for wealth redistribution would all but fade away - the 16'th Amendment might even be repealed. Meh, well it didn't happen, and another result would be that US power would be so great that it would have less reason not to go to war.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

I Bid Y'all Adieu

Post by Trip » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:19 am

Sometimes I think when it comes to economics I'm like Mussolini. I say 20 different completely contradictory statements and pretend to have a stance. Not... that I'm fascist, a word that means little other than militaristic and I'm not that.

The truth is I used to be more of a believer in the free market, and now I just don't know what I believe in. I want to do what's best for the US, to ensure it lasts forever, to defend it from attack, to allow for a rich regional and local diversity and self governance, to prevent genetic engineering, and to allow for what liberty is not at the expense of morality (e.g. no prostitution or drugs).

How to achieve all of that exactly is beyond me. And that's probably all I have to say that's of any value :P I can huff and puff that some policy might not achieve what I want, but it's just not going to be worth anyone's time if I haven't come up with a worthy alternative that doesn't create more problems than it resolves.

Feel free to carry the discussion further, but I'm getting frustrated with my own ignorance. I doubt I'll respond further, but it's been a pleasure.

croddie
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:52 pm

Post by croddie » Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:41 pm

I was thinking mainly of the tax revenue which is used for the poor (education, health, benefits etc.).
Say someone earning 1m pays 200k in tax and it's a 30% tax after that. Then someone earning 2m will pay 500k in tax. But if you cap income at 1m or put in a 100% tax after that he will earn only 1m and pay 200k in tax, which makes 300k less for benefits for poor people.* Or he will go abroad and the country in question loses out completely in tax revenue.
I think you would expect most of these rich people to earn their 1m with a bit of work and play golf the rest of the time. Effects on the ceconomy would depend on the people affected. It can be said that there will be inefficiency in the rest of the economy which is effectively restricted from trading with these rich people.

It would be interesting to look at other aims beyond prosperity and what policies they would result in. You can obviously take the free market and add taxes and subsidy but that would only be the solution if the differences between the values in question and the values of the people in the economy are of a similar form.

*Unless he particularly enjoys working for the government. There is another possibility if he can earn more than 1m and choose to use the rest for charitable purposes. Effectively enforced charitable giving after a certain point. This would be an interesting idea. Many very rich people esp in the US give away most of their money anyway.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:52 pm

Offering the option to give excess earnings to a charity is a much better idea than giving it to the government.

Bleh, the US gov can afford to lose some tax revenue, though any lost tax revenue I'd like to have spent or invested in the US.

I'd prefer to redistribute wealth indirectly in the form of increased demand for labour rather than directly in the form of benefits though states prob ought to offer public education. Just restating that point :P

GamingGod
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002 9:52 pm
Location: United States, Mobile, AL

Post by GamingGod » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:44 pm

*&^# the government. They try to cover up what they do with the tax money they get now. They have enormous amounts of income but always go overbudget. Put in a maximum wage, or a tax that increases with income, and redistribute it to the workers in the form of higher minimum wages. Just even stuff out a little bit more. There are people dying because they cant afford health care ect. while they are working their #@@'s off while some ceo who plays golf all day is buying $30. bottled waters, its BS and everyone knows it. The people on the bottom are the ones doing the work, the people on the top are just spending money and trying to look busy.

Also professional athletes should get paid 30,000 a year, they are playing a friggin game for a living. If they enjoy it then they will be happy having just enough to live on.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:12 am

I like the idea of capping income better than a progressive tax. People don't need to be given money; they just need to earn what they produce. It's not fair to artificially lower wages by importing foreign workers and outsourcing.

Many in the top 20% are workaholics and must work much harder just to achieve a slightly better standard of living. I come from a family of doctors who do little but work, easily 70hrs a week on average for the general surgeons. Not everyone has it easy like LA plastic surgeons. OBGYNs can't break even in some states.

A good solution to our current problems is the border adjusted VAT. It doesn't cap income though.

Improving transparency for pork and wasteful government contracts would help a great deal. That is where some of the easiest money is. I recall reading of a defence contractor who had a $10m bat mitzvah for his daughter after making so much from selling faulty body armour to the US government. It's probably one of the worst examples though. I believe this is it (how many $10m bat mitzvahs could there be?)

Despite my dislike of McCain (and most every politician), his Pork-Barrel Reduction Act was spot on. It will never pass though.

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 is good too, though it's on "secret hold."

Mar.
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:58 pm

Post by Mar. » Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:57 am

GamingGod wrote: Also professional athletes should get paid 30,000 a year, they are playing a friggin game for a living. If they enjoy it then they will be happy having just enough to live on.
Part of professional athletes' high salaries is due to the fact that athletes have a shorter period of their life in which they can do the job than people with white-collar jobs. The problem is perception; the athletes people see being interviewed on television make insane amounts of money. However, this is not true of all of them... Many make at or near the league minimum, and the way most professional sports are structured they usually cannot reasonably supplement their income with a day job.

What you're talking about is paying athletes $30K a year to do a job that they'll be lucky to keep all the way through their thirties... What happens when they're forty-something, suddenly jobless, have no work experience outside of sports, and have no savings because you've seen fit to pay them thousands below the national average salary? This is assuming they don't get cut halfway through they're career, or disabled... What if they all of a sudden can't work? Who should be left with the burden of keeping them fed - U.S. taxpayers, or the fans that keep them playing sports in the first place?

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:58 am

You guys are acting like the truly wealthy actually get paid. Are you insane!? No one gets paid the money that 95% of wealthy people acquire. They attain wealth by the purchase and sale of real estate (which is a financial transaction, not a paycheck) and by owning companies that start small and grow to be large. What are you going to do, ban anyone from owning real estate? Ok, give all real estate to the government and let people rent from the government. How did that work for the Soviets? And businesses - you want to ban people from starting their own companies, or from owning shares in corporations? Ok, again, how well did that work out for the Soviets?

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:48 pm

As I mentioned the income cap could be applied to personal use... or income could be confiscated or made to be given away after a certain level as well. We do have an income tax, and this would work fine when considering taxes due at the end of the year. This was merely a possibility considered on my part; I'm not ready to consider this until the US itself is on at least an equal footing with its trading partners.

The US is practically the ONLY major state without border adjusted VAT. How can the US compete against foreign goods that are 15 to 20% cheaper due to taxes? In foreign states, we pay their VAT in addition to taxes already paid in this country, and in this country the foreign VAT doesn't generally apply on their goods. There is no excuse for this! The rest of America might be dumb, but I can recognise a wealth redistribution when I see one. Sure lower US taxes would help as would lowering US wages in principle, but the problem is their taxes being applied to our goods.

In addition we import millions of workers, many illegal. They lower wages and the unskilled ones actually take more than they give back to the economy in the first generation! Not to mention they create crowding and new minority groups that lead to further unnatural divisions (immigrants ought to melt into the pot or join regional divisions that are loyal to the US. They do this in small migrations.) On a related issue, Mexicans do not do jobs Americans won't do. This is BS like everything else we're brainwashed with since Mexicans don't make up more than 25% of labour in any industry.

Regarding immigrants who do actually boost the US economy, I say 1. they are needed in their own states and ought to be loyal to their own homelands - do we really want dollar chasers? 2. forget the economy for a second and put Americans first. To maximise profits by artificially lowering wages is to have one's priorities confused. American workers can do anything if given a chance.

Regarding athletes, it is rather absurd how much celebrity status can bring a person (yes, I know talent is often required to achieve that - but not always). It might be that the best possible world allows them to make what they can get, but it does irk me all the same.

Tibors
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 2674
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:07 am
Location: Houten, The Netherlands, Europe

Post by Tibors » Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:21 pm

Trip wrote:Sure lower US taxes would help as would lowering US wages in principle, but the problem is their taxes being applied to our goods.
Nope, the problem is not our taxes applied to your goods. The problem is that you have already taxed your goods and made them with too expensive labour, before we tax them.

Why is my way of saying that better? You have a problem, we don't. So you must solve it. Pointing to the other party isn't solving.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:30 pm

We're to blame. We ought to adapt as others pass protective laws.

I'm furious at my government, not the rest of the world. US multinationals have made millions off this by bypassing US workers. Those who refused to do or couldn't do the same were at a severe disadvantage.

At the same time, I'm not a believer in free trade either. I'm not calling for the WTO to outlaw indirect border adjusted taxes as they did direct taxes (tariffs).

I think the US simply ought to act in its best interests (within a limit). This was my original meaning as well.

Fix the major problem of foreign competition for US jobs; then look inward to consider a fair solution for the dangers of capitalism.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:21 pm

Trip wrote:Education is vital for upward mobility in our system, so perhaps online schools will continue to improve and weaken this barrier.
I think the H1-B program ended this situation. You're already seeing more articles how more people will probably never earn back the money they have spent on higher education. It's not a matter of that number being small or large, it's a matter that the number is growing.

H1-Billary is pro H1-B. Bring back normal supply and demand, outlaw the H1-B system and its routinely ignored rules. If I could I would send her back to Arkansas.
I'm furious at my government
It's not your government, it's the lobbyists government.
Last edited by aristide1 on Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:39 pm

The truth is I used to be more of a believer in the free market, and now I just don't know what I believe in
I think any existing system would work better if crime ceased. I hear libertarians argue their system is best, but they pretend there is no crime. Then what if they jail all those criminals? They claim that the prisoners would have to work off the debt of imprisonement. Sure, go try collecting back funds from a gang sometime.

OK, no more of that.

An example of problems with our current system of not doing things:

Under our current system I would like to know how many people work in Medicare fraud. OK, now how much do they save annually? Is it more than their salary? I'll bet it's a lot more. So in essence, and by the numbers, these people are actually profitable. Do we hire more of them? No, they cost too much. Huh?

We continue to pay farmers not to grow crops, yet we need all the corn we can get for ethanol/methanol/whatever. Huh? Can they spell smaller trade deficit? Less foreign dependance? National Security? And lower taxes through fewer stupid subsidies?

But who knows what Cheney agreed to in the national/undisclosed energy policy? $140 billion energy bill with over 100 billion going to exploration, to the companies earning the highest profit. Huh?

I need something that will make me feel a lot less cynical than I do right now, that's why I'm going home to watch "House". :shock: :shock: :shock:

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:45 pm

Like you say, it's not our government anymore :) It not only serves the transnational elite, but is also simply not loyal to America.

It's very unlikely that you've read much on elite theory (it's simple just not popular as far as I know), but I'm beginning to like the idea that it's not merely lobbyists who are the problem but the managerial elite as a whole. A chapter in an extremely unPC (racist) book was recommended to me by a brilliant author. While the rest of the book wasn't to my taste, this single chapter answered several of my questions about the managerial elite. I'm hoping like the author that if I can understand them, I can understand how to battle them. However, my goals are different from the author's of course. I'm interested in ensuring a future for my loved ones, helping the entire American nation, and allowing for my own definition of freedom which differs considerably from the ACLU's. It seems to me that Americans can melt into our pot if mass immigration is halted and that our civilisation could continue just fine afterwards.

I'll post some about the elite theory in a bit though I haven't had time to learn it all perfectly yet.

The world isn't as hopeless as I oddly make it out to be though. Americans will react eventually to the antiamerican policies of their government, fear of terrorism and failure with interventionalism might lead to more prudent isolationist policies, the wealth gap could lead to increased demands for protectionist trade albeit combined with greater wealth redistribution, peak oil could lead to greater decentralisation as travel becomes increasingly expensive, etc.

Though I don't mean this as a motivational speech to you personally ;) the American people just need to stand up and support leaders who serve their interests. The country has gone bad because those who should have stood up to become the nation's patriotic elite haven't. Also, the mass media has played a role in controlling the people, but the internet seems to have undermined their power considerably. Whether the internet will remain free I suppose is uncertain.

What I like about elite theory is that people do not simply act in their best interests, they do so largely unconsciously. The very ideologies they truly believe in also serve their interests. So unwittingly the elite acts in its best interests. What I also was pleasantly surprised to read was that though there are many different elites, they have a great deal in common and act in many ways as a single elite. What is also interesting is how transnationals are more likely to become successful in our centralised managerial society because they have no roots and that having no roots they, unlike previous elites, aren't as interested in passing on their wealth to their progeny. To them, they serve all of humanity (or all of humanity serves them) not simply their loved ones.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:09 pm

Hoarding money is an act of selfishness.
When you're heading to retirement it's called neccessity and/or paranoia. It's also called inflation and COLA adjustments are for crap, if you get any.
This is a very naive viewpoint
This is the main theory, other pros and cons go with it.
Libertarians and "anarchocapitalists" also assume we're individuals when we're not, as do many others on the left. We're members of families, communities, nations, religions, etc. We will act for others when we love others. This is one problem I have with the transient nature of modern societies: people move too quickly and communities change too quickly for attachments to be made and kept. I don't buy into the notion that many will come to love the world and all of humanity equally as a whole. We love particulars. That, to me, seems to be the essence of the left-right divide. Well that and that we're not equal individuals either but members of differing groups. I'm also open to a society of classes if there is mobility among them, though I don't understand classes well.
Nicely done, you just described why drug use and prostitution is not a victimless crime, as Libertarians would have you believe. To me that's naive.
Machiavelli stated that luxury leads to factions and self interest if I remember correctly. Pareto added that only the elite matters, it must remain strong and uncorrupted.
?? When was it ever not corrupt ??
The planet Earth can take all we can throw at it and then some
This is based on what scientific measurement? Have you ever seen how much energy and pollution is created from the manufacture of a single car and it's components? Not even addressing what the car creates afterwards. I have yet to see a scientist back up this conclusion with evidence. You are aware that air pollution is measured in tons, yes? Millions of tons.
people should not be allowed to have 7,8 or even 9 children;
When you live in Africa with a 90%+ mortality rate for your kids, disease, starvation, AIDS, etc, you need to have ten kids to have odds one will survive. I don't agree with that, but I do understand it.
There is no population problem.
Again, where is the scientific proof of that statement? From the vast reserves of resources we continue to have? Or should one ask how bad must it get before it becomes a problem? Is mainland China's government imagining things?
Russia leads the way in population decline in spite of economic decline at the same time.
Yes, but declining through fleeing and alcoholism.
Not to mention that once you have a considerable amount of money, you can "make money with money" and sit on your ass all day. Now just think: in the capitalist society, money is power, and these are the types of people that have it.... *
And that's why the rich get richer and the poor that never set anything aside stay really poor.
I don't know about you, but I don't like it when I see people living in the street eating my rubbish, I don't like it when I see desperately poor people turn to religious extremism, I don't like to hear that every day x people in africa die because they don't even have drinkable water and I don't like violence and crime.
A long quote just to say "yes, me too".
I believe that natural selection will take care (as in get rid of) of the human race, unless the human race learns to take care (as in look after) of itself.
Didn't modern medicine remove 98% of all natural selection?
capitalism is most certainly short sighted.
No, short term profits at the expense of long term profits do that. What I have called for years the Detroit Effect (GM & Ford).
But you say these people worked hard, and they are smarter than the poor folks.
Most likely better educated but certainly not smarter. Does Paris Hilton really strike anyone as smart? How about sober?
Anyway, I highly recommend pursuing accounting. It's not all that fun, but there are jobs atm. Nursing is also good; the health care growth in the US lately has been the economic growth (as well as the growth in government). The rest of the private sector has shrunken slightly.
Add to that list attorneys specializing in Internet Law, forensic accounting, and cybercrime specialists.
I think Jefferson recommended that only college educated men should be allowed to vote,
Why would I want the CEO of Enron or a lobbyist to vote?
Also professional athletes should get paid 30,000 a year, they are playing a friggin game for a living
Well besides the fact that the team and stadium owners make way too much it's addressed below:
What happens when they're forty-something, suddenly jobless, have no work experience outside of sports, and have no savings because you've seen fit to pay them thousands below the national average salary? This is assuming they don't get cut halfway through they're career, or disabled... What if they all of a sudden can't work?"
They can work, sports newscaster, books, coaches, really bad Olympic commentary. Endless Nike commercials. But from day 1 they can become cripples.
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 is good too, though it's on "secret hold."
So you're saying they put it in the undisclosed location?

qviri
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by qviri » Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:19 pm

aristide1 wrote:
The planet Earth can take all we can throw at it and then some
This is based on what scientific measurement? Have you ever seen how much energy and pollution is created from the manufacture of a single car and it's components? Not even addressing what the car creates afterwards. I have yet to see a scientist back up this conclusion with evidence. You are aware that air pollution is measured in tons, yes? Millions of tons.
The statement as quoted is true. How to Destroy the Earth is a fascinating read. Of course, it is much easier to make it inhabitable, and easier still to kill 80% of the population.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:38 pm

aristide1 wrote:Yes, but [Russian population is] declining through fleeing and alcoholism.
And a low birth rate.
aristide1 wrote:?? When was it ever not corrupt ??
It's a matter of degree. This is why morality is encouraged, power decentralised and balanced, and rule by law in my little ideal.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:35 pm

. Of course, it is much easier to make it inhabitable,
Well if one meant that the Earth will survive even all our nukes the answer is yes, and fully recover. But why even address this perspective? To whom could such a perspective have any value?

People concerned with the planet are more or less thinking in term like "other species don't poo-poo where they eat or live, why do we?"
rule by law in my little ideal.
I'd be happy if they outlawed lobbying.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:37 pm

Trip wrote:
aristide1 wrote:Yes, but [Russian population is] declining through fleeing and alcoholism.
And a low birth rate.
That's ironic, everywhere else alcohol causes more births.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:15 pm

For whatever reason Russia has a low birthrate. However, unlike the West I think Russia (Putin) will attempt to do something about it. I know most Americans think Putin is Stalin reincarnate, but I kinda like the guy.

I bet high alcohol consumption does lead to more pregnancies, but as was said in the death penalty thread human society isn't a controlled experiment.
outlaw lobbying
You can start by requiring donations to come from citizens (not corporate entities), requiring that at least some percentage come from those who can actually vote for the candidate, improving campaign finance transparency, by prohibiting elected officials and their staff from lobbying for some time after retiring, and by requiring significant funders to reveal themselves in ads.

Of course then you'd only have rich people running, but at least they wouldn't be corporate dogs. You'd also have cases like Reagan: after his presidency he accepted a lot of money for a few speeches in Japan. Whether he sold out or not, the possibility exists. There's probably a lot more dirt on his fellow presidents, but he's the only recent one I'm much interested in reading about. I like Coolidge and Cleveland, as far as US presidents go, as well.

Btw, how does Cheney gain from Haliburton? I've always wondered how that worked.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:27 am

Trip wrote:For whatever reason Russia has a low birthrate. ...I bet high alcohol consumption does lead to more pregnancies
Well I was joking, though the stats would be interesting.
Trip wrote:
outlaw lobbying
.... You'd also have cases like Reagan: after his presidency he accepted a lot of money for a few speeches in Japan. Whether he sold out or not, the possibility exists.
Yes, that's a problem, and the press never addressed it. His speaking fees for 20 minutes exceeded his 8 years salary as president, didn't they? Not a payoff, right?
Trip wrote:Btw, how does Cheney gain from Haliburton? I've always wondered how that worked.
Probably like Reagan, a rehire with extra perks once his 8 years as insider/lobbyist is over. And what a hypocrite he's a draft dodger as well.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:07 am

He got 200K X 8 so 1.6M plus 50k bronze parachute.

$2mil according to NYT.

Bush gets friggin 400K / year since 2001.

Now I know why Bush is concerned about his popularity and had wanted to be a wartime president like FDR. Imagine being able to make a living reading a few speeches a year (written by someone else.) Want a new car? Make a speech.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:29 am

I know most Americans think Putin is Stalin reincarnate, but I kinda like the guy.
There's something wrong going on:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15462007/site/newsweek/
I guess WWII didn't teach them a damn thing.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:45 am

That's the first I've read of Russian hypernationalism. I recall reading absurd claims of Japanese hypernationalism the other day though. The story on Japan I've decided was mostly fabricated.

I know that Putin is willing to crack down on oligarchs and Muslims but am surprised about Georgians. I wonder if this is not a simple crack down on illegal immigration mixed with a healthy dose of Western propaganda... The Russian Georgians sound like American Mexicans.

Anyway, the reason I thought American leaders don't like Russia is that it isn't as subserviant as the rest of the world. When France balked at American imperialism, freedom fries were served and wine purchased elsewhere.

Even if Russia does become fascist (which is similar to regular socialism IMO) how will it affect us? China is extremely nationalistic as well, but both China and Russia have room to expand their populations and power without war.

It's interesting the article includes a quote that Putin is playing xenophobic games. This is very like how Southern politicians got elected: proclaim to be racist until civil rights is popular then proclaim to be anti-racist. It is said that poverty leads to group pride... Perhaps Russia has become nationalistic then and Putin saying what he can to maintain popularity.

In WWII, the West learned its lesson too well, didn't learn about the dangers of centralisation and revolution which IMO was the real lesson of WWII, and forgot other lessons. It also seems to believe hypernationalism is not a threat from Latinos and hyperfanaticism from Muslims.

There is a healthy level of nationalism provided it is rooted in the local and is not too abstract or scientific.

EsaT
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:53 am
Location: 61.6° N, 29.5° E - Finland

Post by EsaT » Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:25 pm

aristide1 wrote:There's something wrong going on:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15462007/site/newsweek/
I guess WWII didn't teach them a damn thing.
You got it all wrong, they (=state/Stalin's communistic party) learned that agression towards others nations and people is accepted.
Trip wrote:That's the first I've read of Russian hypernationalism.
How ironic...

After Stalin's purges everything was subjugated for spreading holy word of state, telling that they're good guys and others are bad, repeating "official" truth distorting everything in favor of tyhose ones in power etc.
That brainwashing was all around from childhood to grave, it also filled part of religion's job. Schoolbooks and whole upbringing system were all made according to that, concentrating to hammering to heads of childs greatness of their system, its achievements and telling everything else was bad and insignificant. Even sciences were strictly subjected for that ideology.
And don't be mislead, they changed name but stamping new name to same old cake made of sh*t doesn't change it to anything else.

And what is ironic is that US, supposed opposite of this isn't really so different.
Theo-cons with fascistic tendencies are preaching very similar things all the time and practically monopolized media ownership is taking care of repeating official truths everywhere. Themes are exactly similar, you're god's people, you and everything you do is good and everything different/else is bad. Also same hypernationalism is there, all that patriotism with confined, egocentric general education. Even marking everyone disagreeing/confronting official truths as bad and opponents of common good and distorting sciences is there.

“Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocyâ€

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:29 pm

i was thinking hypernationalism in an ethnic sense not in loyalty to the government which hyperstatism might be more applicable.

no time to read the rest atm sorry.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:13 pm

The word you're looking for is managerial society not fascism. Fascism just means too many different things, esp since it's contrasted with communism and America's welfare state which are all three similar as you point out.

There's a lot of truth to what you say. However, the ideal must be a balance.

A common problem of the societies you mention is that their members are left to rely on strangers. The ideal is an orderly, decentralised society that exists on a human scale where acquaintances/friends/kin depend on each other. Also, the weak are taken care of as a member of that community not as some burden for the disconnected "society" to deal with.

A society without nationalism is precisely what the Soviet Union accomplished. The Marxist ideal was achieved through the Soviet Union. That's the ideal realised in the only way it can be realised (within a narrow range of variation).

It's important to make a distinction between loyalty to one's community and larger cultural group which I'm calling nationalism and loyalty to one's state which I'm calling statism. You seem to have blurred the two.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:28 pm

from: this thread

vertigo,

What I argued before was that a moral citizenry was vital for a free republic governed by the citizenry. It has to be capable of disciplining itself and voluntarily doing what is best for the state without giving in to lust or greed. A moral hierarchy would exist as is ideal of course, but the ideal is for the citizenry to act in the state's best interests within reason because the state exists to serve and protect them. The state is the only thing that can provide "natural rights."

The alternative is one governed by a centralised managing body that is entrusted with great power. There just is no libertarian third way that I can see.

Shining,

I was wrong about you. I had originally misjudged you as a Republican hack, but you're clearly not.

There is a growing conservative (reactionary really) intellectual movement with its core at Chronicles magazine. There are some monarchists in the movement, William S. Lind comes to mind, though I'm not a monarchist. At least I don't believe a monarch ideal for the US though it might be ideal for another state. Buchanan was strongly influenced by Chronicles :)

WorldNetDaily is a good site.
In addition, Ackerman and other conference speakers believe that we as a nation need convicted murderers, rapists and other felons to help us select our leaders at the ballot box.
They would be more easily manipulated and would more readily vote for handouts.

Anyway, with the flattening forces of the internet, big media's memory hole and control over the allowed range of discussion is over at least for now (until the internet is closely regulated). You can see this with an increase in right wing thought as people begin to think for themselves outside of big media's dark box.

It's funny, the same people who want freedom of pornography do not want a freedom of discussion or an honest view of history taught. Self government has failed as they see it, and they don't want the citizenry thinking for itself, standing up for itself, and getting in the way. As it works out then, almost anything that is good for a self governing Republic is opposed.

Things have become so absurd that the masses, of all groups, are now the right wing balance on the leftist elite. Isn't this supposed to be reversed with the masses demanding more wealth and generally being more corrupt, weak, less intelligent, and dominated by desire? Instead our elite is so out of touch with reality and so lost in its leftist dreams that the masses and their foundation in reality, common sense, and the real world are the balancing sanity of the elite!

Post Reply