Artful Dodger:
Of course excessive population creates many other problems as well. A common argument is that there are enough resources to sustain an even greater population.
That may be the case with less waste, but that's an ideal that doesn't exist with capitalist economics. In an ideal world nuclear power too would be safe, but we don't live in an ideal world.
Medical advances have greatly reduced infant mortality but have not reduced birth rates. Maybe starvation is the solution rather than the problem.

Bernice:

> perhaps USA, UK, AUS should just invade the countries and feed the poor.....mainly the USA because their spend on "WAR" is phenomenal

On the surface it seems reasonable. Specially when the cost of the food is a lot less than what is spent on military budgets. However, giving away free food does not eliminate the underlying causes of poverty. It is like putting a bandaid on a wound without first cleaning and disinfecting the wound.

We can give away free food, but that does not mean that we are getting rid of dictatorship, fascism, corruption, imperialism, predatory capitalism, religious fanaticism, exploitation, abuse, etc.

The poor of the world do not need charity. What they is social justice and the fair and equal distribution of wealth. That is the one thing that capitalism can never offer to them. Taking from the rich and redistributing equally among the poor is the stuff that revolutions are made of, and nobody in our capitalist world wants that.

So we look at poverty from far away. We know it is there, but we walk around pretending that it is not there, or hoping that somebody will come up with a good idea. We know what the medicine is, but it pains us to accept it.

Dark Prince:

> Of course excessive population creates many other problems as well. A common argument is that there are enough resources to sustain an even greater population.
That may be the case with less waste, but that's an ideal that doesn't exist with capitalist economics. In an ideal world nuclear power too would be safe, but we don't live in an ideal world.
Medical advances have greatly reduced infant mortality but have not reduced birth rates. Maybe starvation is the solution rather than the problem.

We could just skip starvation altogether and accelerate things a bit. We can take those nukes that plague our not-ideal world, and then use them to nuke the poor out of existence. We would solve hunger and poverty in one go!

Of course, there is another solution. Give people a good sexual education, make contraception widely available, teach men to accept vasectomy as a safe, cheap and viable means of birth control, accept abortion as another means of birth control, etc. In general use aggressive education and family planning.

But then, the Pope says condoms and contraception are wrong. Nobody wants abortion on religious grounds. Sexual education is wrong because it tells young people how to have sex without getting pregnant. Family planning goes against Genesis and the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying. It generally goes against religious principles.

So on religous grounds starvation is more acceptable. And using the nukes even more so because it spares the poor the agony of a slow death.

Übergeek 바둑이:
I agree with a fair distribution of wealth, but I can't say "fair and equal" does enough to encourage excellence.

Using nukes adversely affects all life. There's already too much habitat destruction from human encroachment not to mention resource exploitation. Nuclear weapons have condemned many to slow agonizing deaths.

Limbaugh is now officially and idiot.

Dark Prince:

> I agree with a fair distribution of wealth, but I can't say "fair and equal" does enough to encourage excellence.

I suppose that it depends on what "excellence" means. Is it making a lot of money? Is it becoming famous? Is it being fair to other human beings? Or sharing what you have?

I think that the problem is that we insist on measuring achievement in terms of how much money a person makes, how famous they become, how many inventions they create and how much money they make from them, etc. I rarely see anyone say that the best person is that one who helps the most human beings without asking anything in return. My mother does a lot of work to help poor people. She has spent countless hours collecting money, raising awareness, showing others not to be so selfish, etc. I never saw anyone say that my mother had "excellence" in her. When my mother dies nobody will remember her except those of us in our family. I see people crying over the death of somebody famous who made a lot of money or who became very powerful. I never saw many people shed a tear when some aid worker gets killed in some conflict zone. In capitalism excellence is money. Nobody cares about scientists or artists who made no money, even less about those who put time and effort to help other human beings. People care only when some rich, powerful man gives to charity, because it somehow convinces people that capitalists are a-OK. Don't get me wrong, they do great work and help thousands. But who remembers those who dodge bullets to bring food to a conflict zone?

> Using nukes adversely affects all life. There's already too much habitat destruction from human encroachment not to mention resource exploitation. Nuclear weapons have condemned many to slow agonizing deaths.

Of course, I was talking sarcasticly!

Übergeek 바둑이: Connect the dots. If we were really concerned about getting control of oil (anyones oil), then why do we resist drilling for it in our own backyard? Are you suggesting we aren't accessing the oil we are already in control of so that we have an excuse to invade other countries?

Your obsession with oil is like obsession with aliens. You can make a case for U.S. greed for oil, and I can make a case for why aliens are interested in our planet. Mine isn't predicated on looking for any reason to find fault with the U.S., especially when it's obvious that the rest of the world couldn't care less about your concerns if you bothered to apply them equally across the board.. the aliens are equal opportunity invaders.

Iamon lyme: There are some people in the US that think that by taxing the rich, and giving that money to the needy (as a sort of monetary equalization) that such an idea is sustainable in the long run. It's not. And it won't make people equal. Milton Friedman had it right. Only a free enterprize system can help equalize the financial disparity in a country. You take money from the rich and two problems immediately emerge: The rich run out of money and then refuse to work so hard and take so many risks only to have it confiscated by the government to give it to the undeserving who have little ambition in life (except to suck off the hard work of others).

Artful Dodger:
Taxing the rich has never been about monetary equalization but about progressive taxation, and it is sustainable. It won't make people equal and isn't intended to.
Friedman was an effective propagandist, but his theories were never able to explain the great depression.
The free market cannot help equalize financial disparity. Quite the opposite. As taxes and regulations for the wealthy has decreased over the past decades, the middle class has shrunk and the disparity increased dramatically.
It's a fallacy to think either that the wealthy work hard or that those not rich do not. No doubt some of the rich work hard and some of the poor do not.
Few would fall in the category of undeserving that suck off the work of others. Some that do fall into that category are wealthy.
By percentage, more is "confiscated" from the middle and lower classes than the upper class when sales taxes are factored in.

The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit. Milton Friedman

Artful Dodger:
Well Spun!
Unfortunately, Bush got us into this mess starting 2 wars while cutting taxes for the wealthy instead of paying for those wars. It was under Bush that jobs migrated out of the country and unemployment rose and continued to rise. Where were the fiscally responsible pundits then?

Artful Dodger:
Is that argument against the Free Market or for Regulation?

Artful Dodger: You are right, motivation for doing more than most of us are willing to do would fly right out the window. The only reason some people work hard to make their business grow is because it's possible for them to make their business grow. I don't have that kind of drive, but I've done okay working for people like that.

Taking away the incentive for getting ahead is the best way I can think of to kill anyones motivation for getting ahead. I've known guys who refused to work because they didn't want to pay alimony or child support. If some dead beat dads refuse to work because they won't see all the money they earn, then what makes socialists think killing any incentive to work is such a good idea?

I've never been rich or owned my own business, and I've never been hired to work for someone who wasn't in a position to pay me. Actually, I did work for someone like that once. I got talked into working for a short time for someone who couldn't afford to pay me, so as you can imagine that job didn't last very long. He was paying me with stories and explanations and promises, but I can't buy groceries with nothing but a mouthful of words, so it had to end.

The idea that it's not fair for some people to have more than others is nonsense. Not everyone is willing to do what it takes to get ahead. What is not fair is to reward non productivity and penalize productivity. When that happens then everyone suffers, even the people who put themselves in the position to gain the most.. you can't gain much when there is much less being produced to gain.

Dark Prince: Overheard at a meeting of Spendaholics Anonymous: "Hello, my name is Barack Obama, and George Bush is a spendaholic."

Iamon lyme:
The time for spending is now, but not on wars.
We need to bring our troops home and spend some of the money that would be going to the war on our country employing those released troops and other unemployed.

Iamon lyme: Exactly. Many on the left continue to blame Bush even thought it's Obama that has caused more debt that ALL THE OTHER US PRESIDENTS COMBINED!!!

But it's Bush's fault we're so far in debt. Even though Obama spent the money!

And not Obama wants to spend more money on failed Keynesian economics. There's no end to his stupid!

Iamon lyme: Cain is the man in the debate! You watching?

Dark Prince: spend money to employ people to do what? Maybe create new government jobs? We obviously don't have enough of those. If we did, then everyone could be employed.

We are already playing with the concept of diminishing returns, making it possible for there to be less and less money to go around. But we can't keep that up forever.

The only way socialism is able to do anything is to insert itself into a normally functioning society by convincing people that they need a small elite group of people (them) to micro manage their lives for them. When I say everyone suffers when productivity is controlled instead of encouraged, I am not exagerating. Castro would have died if he hadn't sent for a doctor outside of Cuba. His own doctor botched the opperation. Think about it.

Artful Dodger: I like Cain. I like anyone who doesn't talk nonsense.

Iamon lyme: Now that Obama's teleprompter is missing, we'll hear a lot of nonsense!

Iamon lyme:
That concept is thrown around a lot and usually has nothing to do with the actual topic.
As far as doctors go, there are plenty of doctors working under capitalist economic rules that are guilty of botching the job whether it be diagnostic or surgical.

Socialism implies that the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government. Neither socialized medicine nor government sponsored public works projects are socialism. Government sponsored health insurance is not the same as socialized medicine. There will still be numerous functions provided by the health industry that will be elective and not covered by insurance.

Without government sponsored public works projects, we would not have our interstate highway system. That system is in disrepair. Fixing it will put many of us to work and provide a valuable resource in better working order for all of us to utilize including corporations that need to move products where they will be available for us to purchase and thereby further stimulate the economy.

Iamon lyme:
Hah, more like record profits.

"...insert itself into a normally functioning society by convincing people that they need a small elite group of people (them) to micro manage their lives for them."

That sounds like the republican party passing laws to make abortions unavailable or difficult at best and squashing collective bargaining.

Who is controlling or attempting to control productivity in the US?
Or was that just hyperbole suggesting that the US will soon be like Cuba?

Artful Dodger:

> failed Keynesian economics.

What does that mean? I mean Keynesian economics? How did they come about? Why was it necessary to control interest rates and the monetary supply?

Übergeek 바둑이:
I agree with much of what you said. It is a conundrum.
I think such judgments can only be made realistically on a local community level. That too would be difficult in our disjointed societies in which there is a great deal of fluidity with large numbers of individuals relocating with some regularity.
I don't think any national or state policy could adequately address the issues you expounded.
In the world as it is, the real problem is that people work for corporations instead of corporations working for people. Of course corporations should make profits, but profit above all else is a disastrous model both for the environment and the work force.

Dark Prince: Why should the means of producing and distributing goods be owned collectively or by a centralized government? If you don't need a middle man telling you what to do and how to do it, because you are already doing it, then why give a third party a piece of your action? Protection money? To avoid future shakedowns? Do you like the idea of a nanny state controling every aspect of your life? I suppose it's okay for the "nannys"... not so good for everyone else. I could understand the appeal of socialism if I had an aversion to making decisions regarding business and personal matters.

My point about Castro was, I thought, self evident. If I was him I would make sure I had the best medical care possible, but apparently the finest Universities and Colleges in Cuba couldn't produce a doctor good enough to do the job.

Capitalism doesn't need to be socially engineered. It has always been the natural way of doing things. People began specializing in one particular area and then trading with people who specialized in other areas. Bartering was replaced with coin and paper transfers that made the system move more efficiently, and the rest is history. All socialism does is to fix what isn't broken and cause the development of better technology to come to a grinding halt. As bad as things are right now I'm still better off as a proor man in the U.S. than a king was in his cold dank castle a thousand years ago.

Put the politicians on minimum wage and watch how fast things change!!

Iamon lyme:
I think you are the one to have brought up socialism.
My point was that it has little to do with what we are talking about. I am not a proponent of socialism and said nothing to indicate otherwise.
Capitalism without regulation leads to unfair exploitation of workers and consumers deceived with unsafe and substandard products and subjected to predatory practices suppressing legitimate competition.

Übergeek 바둑이: More specifically, the idea that the government can stimulate the economy by spending money is a deeply flawed idea. The liberals here think it's a good idea, even though it's been a proven failure. Yet they want to continue to do now and into the future that which has not worked in the past.

The current president has increased the nation debt more than all previous presidents combined. And no one is scratching their heads on that fact. Were Bush to have done that, the libs would be all over it. And rightly so. But it's the golden boy and he can do no wrong.

October 19, 2011
'Sharing' Without Asking
Jeannie DeAngelis

The occupiers on Wall Street are busy occupying a street they don't own, demanding benefits they didn't work for, and are determined to pilfer the coffers of the rich to implement what they have determined is an acceptable standard of economic justice.

Yet a group of people who feel comfortable stealing from the rich and redistributing the spoils to those they deem less fortunate seem stunned and disappointed when "brazen crooks within their ranks...[robbed]...fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops - even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food."

Dark Prince:
Sorry about fat fingering my last post. I intended this text in it.
Roosevelt had many spending projects to help turn the economy around and there are many more examples of government spending helping the economy.
On the other side, there is no evidence that tax breaks for the rich leads to job creation, but there is plenty of data showing that lack of correlation.

Artful Dodger:

> More specifically, the idea that the government can stimulate the economy by spending money is a deeply flawed idea. The liberals here think it's a good idea, even though it's been a proven failure. Yet they want to continue to do now and into the future that which has not worked in the past.

The truth is that every American president since WW II has raised the debt ceiling and increased the deficit. The first truly massive increase came during the Regan administration and every president since then has just added more wood to the fire. The only president to not increase the deficit for 1 year was Bill Clinton who finished his last term with a surplus, and that was only 1 year of the 8 years he was in office.

I think that any president who comes to Washington is very quickly faced with the reality of ever increasing Department of Defense costs. It was the War on Terror that did it for George W. Bush. Barrack Obama promised to scale back by bringing the troops back from Iraq, but I think he was unrealistic. Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Lybia) left to their own devices is a recipe for disaster. So the American government is committed to those expenses for decades to come.

At the same time the American government insists on passing irresponsible tax breaks. Every president since WW II has raised taxes on the middle class while giving tax breaks to the super rich. The rich can argue all they want about "creating jobs by paying less taxes" but the reality is that unless taxes are raised, the USA is never going to get out of its debt. Raising taxes is the most unpopular medicine to the current disease.

Direct government investment and spending in infrastructure was effective in the past, but considering the current deficit any form of spending will be unpopular. The Bush administration survived the economic problems by spending a lot of money and employing a lot of people in war. However, that is not a sustainable approach because when the war ends then the companies (defense contractors) involved in the war make a lot less money.

I think that the only way Washington is going to get out of this mess is if both parties make a true effort to work together. Otherwise they will keep blocking each other and accomplishing nothing. After seeing some of Republican debate a couple of days ago I was left with the feeling that none of the candidates has a concrete solution. They all talked on generalities and concentrated more on putting a negative light on their opponents than on giving real answers to real problems.

I was most bothered by Michelle Bachman. She kept talking of the "economic miracle" of the Regan administration. It seems to me that people confuse the popularity of the man with the real track record of the economy in that period. If the candidates are selling Reganomics as a solution then they have to think twice. It was 30 years of Reaganomics that brought the USA (and the rest of the world) to the current mess.

I have said before the what the USa needs to do is get rid of all the current tax breaks, then give tax breaks only to companies that create jobs at home. For every new job created in the USA, a company would get a tax credit. If a company wants to manufacture overseas, then the price is no tax breaks for that company. It would go a long way to creating jobs and levelling the playing field for smaller companies that cannot compete with big companies manufacturing their products cheaply abroad. However, none of the candidates in both parties will talk about that because their big contributors are companies that benefit from the current system.

Dark Prince: Maybe not socialism per se, but I believe we do disagree about the proper role of government. Keeping up roads and bridges is the governments responsibility, since everyone uses (directly and indirectly) roads and bridges. Health care is primarily a personal responsibilty. The argument that people who are not insured but are taken care of anyway has nothing to do with it. Hospitals have often absorbed the cost of saving someones life and not gotten payed for it. I don't want someone from a state agency standing over me to make sure I eat my lima beans, brush my teeth, and not smoke cigarettes. I like lima beans, wear dentures, and have no immediate plans to quit smoking, so I don't need a nanny.. unless she's pretty, then I'll think about it.

Capitalism is already subject to regulation, and for the reasons you just stated. Are you saying that regulation doesn't go far enough? More to the point, how much regulation would you feel is too much?

Übergeek 바둑이:" The truth is that every American president since WW II has raised the debt ceiling and increased the deficit."

So what? It's still irresponsible. When does it end?

"I think that any president who comes to Washington is very quickly faced with the reality of ever increasing Department of Defense costs."

It is NOT the most cosly thing for the government.

"but the reality is that unless taxes are raised, the USA is never going to get out of its debt. Raising taxes is the most unpopular medicine to the current disease."

Rubbish. Raising taxes just gives the government more money to SPEND MORE! They won't pay down the debt. They are irresponsible dolts.

"Direct government investment and spending in infrastructure was effective in the past, but considering the current deficit any form of spending will be unpopular."

It effective on a limited basis. And amy more spending will NOT revive our economy. The last spending spree did nothing,

"I think that the only way Washington is going to get out of this mess is if both parties make a true effort to work together."

IT will never happen. We need to get rid of all progressives. That's a good start.

Your statement about Reagan's effect on the US economy is nonsense.

The free market will revive the economy. Reagan understood this. That's why under Reagan we experienced an economic boon! Under Reagan, we experienced the largest peacetime economic boon and added over 35 million jobs to the US economy.

Joint Economic Committee, The Great Expansion: How It Was Achieved and How It Can Be Sustained, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 2000, pp. 4-6.

"White House trying to confirm Qaddafi's status".

Report: he is now registered to vote in Chicago.

needs a wash and get something done about the pimples....there is plenty of medications around to enable that....I would not employ her to work as ANYTHING the way she looks at the moment :(

Bernice: Yes he's dead. And he's officially dead and the proof is that he's now a registered voter in Chicago.

Artful Dodger: hahahaha

Bernice: A liberal friend of mine was defending the Wall Street occupiers. I was explaing that someone was stealing food and he replied, "maybe they were hungry"

So I invited a bunch of hungry homeless people over to his house and told them to take all the food they wanted.

he called the cops.

hmmmmm

October 23, 2011
Gaddafi's haul from 40 years in power; $200 billion
Rick Moran

Awesome corruption. The Libyan dictator put every other thug in the Middle East to shame with his purloining of public monies.

LA Times:

Moammar Kadafi secretly salted away more than $200 billion in bank accounts, real estate and corporate investments around the world before he was killed, about $30,000 for every Libyan citizen and double the amount that Western governments previously had suspected, according to senior Libyan officials.

Occupy Protester Morons:

I nod yes, looking up at the building. I am asking Franzen about his latest proclamation, that he and the group intend to levitate the Georgia Pacific Building if the Koch brothers in New York do not withdraw their political money from Georgia Politics.

"We've been having a team of alchemists and faith healers and doctors of physics working together to develop a mathematical formula to levitate the building," Franzen said.