TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Well said
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Well said

And not likely to resonate well with any Obama supporters on this board.

quote:

Our Collectivist Candidates By DAVID BOAZ May 28, 2008; Page A17 On Sunday Barack Obama urged graduates of Connecticut's Wesleyan University to devote themselves to "collective service." This is not an unusual theme for a commencement address. But it was interesting how long he went on discussing various kinds of nonprofit activism without ever mentioning the virtues of commerce or of individual achievement. He also did not cite the military as an example of service to one's country. This is a surprising omission in a Memorial Day weekend speech to college-age students by a man seeking to be entrusted with the defense of the U.S. Sen. Obama told the students that "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." He disparaged students who want to "take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy." The people Mr. Obama is sneering at are the ones who built America � the traders and entrepreneurs and manufacturers who gave us railroads and airplanes, housing and appliances, steam engines, electricity, telephones, computers and Starbucks. Ignored here is the work most Americans do, the work that gives us food, clothing, shelter and increasing comfort. It's an attitude you would expect from a Democrat. Or this year's Republican nominee. John McCain also denounces "self-indulgence" and insists that Americans serve "a national purpose that is greater than our individual interests." During a Republican debate at the Reagan Library on May 3, 2007, Sen. McCain derided Mitt Romney's leadership ability, saying, "I led . . . out of patriotism, not for profit." Challenged on his statement, Mr. McCain elaborated that Mr. Romney "managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That's the nature of that business." He could have been channeling Barack Obama. "A greater cause," "community service" � to many of us, these gauzy phrases sound warm and comforting. But their purpose is to disparage and denigrate our own lives, to belittle our own pursuit of happiness. They're concepts better suited to a more collectivist country than to one founded in libertarian revolution � a revolution intended to defend our rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." One gets the sense that Mr. McCain would like to see us all in the armed forces. In a Washington Monthly essay published in October 2001, his vision of national service sounded militaristic. He wrote with enthusiasm for programs whose participants "not only wear uniforms and work in teams . . . but actually live together in barracks on former military bases, and are deployed to service projects far from their home base," and who would "gather together for daily calisthenics, often in highly public places such as in front of city hall." Mr. Obama wouldn't send us into the military. All he wants is our souls. As his wife Michelle said at UCLA on February 3, two days before the California primary, "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. . . . That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed." There is a whiff of hypocrisy here. Mr. Obama, who made $4.2 million last year and lives in a $1.65 million house bought with the help of the indicted Tony Rezko � and whose "elegant suits" and "impeccable ties" made him one of Esquire's Best-Dressed Men in the World � disdains college students who might want to "chase after the big house and the nice suits." Mr. McCain, who with his wife earned more than $6 million last year and who owns at least seven homes, ridicules Mr. Romney for having built businesses. But hypocrisy is not the biggest issue. The real issue is that Messrs. Obama and McCain are telling us Americans that our normal lives are not good enough, that pursuing our own happiness is "self-indulgence," that building a business is "chasing after our money culture," that working to provide a better life for our families is a "narrow concern." They're wrong. Every human life counts. Your life counts. You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others. Mr. Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of "The Politics of Freedom" (Cato, 2008).

quote:

They're wrong. Every human life counts. Your life counts. You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others.

Amen.

In fact, it is nearly impossible to make money in a free economy WITHOUT helping others in some way. That is the nature of capitalism. You can't build wealth for yourself without satisfying the needs and desires of others. In a free market, helping your fellow man is the key to your own success. Those who make others HAPPY (whether intentional or not) tend to acquire the most wealth. Very few politicians understand this simple truth. They tend to criticize and punish the successful, which ultimately hurts all of us.

David Bozo's comment's and attitude is exactly why right-wing capitalist economies are fucked socially. High poverty and high crime. I don't think Obama is telling people they shouldn't follow their own desires, he's saying that that's not all they should be striving for.

Individualism and materialism is why my society and your society is fucked. Everybody is so selfish and care only about themselves. This is an attitude personified by the ruling elite (and by that I'm talking about the big corporations and their allies in government) because if people weren't so selfish, if they didn't live under the illusion that "everyone can be a millionaire" then they'd begin to stick up for each other and that would be bad for these elites who rely on the poor to keep their dollars rolling in to maintain their privileged positions in society.

You two fall for it hook line and sinker every time, they must have seen you comin a mile off

Still holding out hope that you can change human nature eh smiley?

It would be nice if the world could hold hands and sing kum bay yah...but that is not going to happen. You have 10,000 years of human evolution working against you. The fact is that we live in a world of finite resources, and in any system of finite resources there will be competition. Individuals will ALWAYS place a higher value on the well-being of themselves and their families than on random strangers down the street. You can call this "selfishness", but in a world of limited resources it is inevitable.

Unfortunately you lefties fail to recognize this and keep trying to impose policies that fight the natural order of things...using government force to fight the human instinct for self preservation...to fight the natural desire of men compete, excel, and prosper. This anti-achievement "do-gooder" attitude has done far more damage to society than any level of "greed" from private business owners.

The left claims to "feel" for the unemployed...to sympathize with them..but it is impossible to count the number of people who don't have jobs because government has made the cost of doing business so prohibitive in places like France, etc. Endless regulations/restrictions/taxes/fees have created millions of artificial failures on modern mixed economies. People who might have gone into business, or might have been employed by a business are never counted in the census. Corporate greed is often blamed for unemployment, but in reality, these people are the invisible victims of do-gooder government intervention.

If you want to elevate society, get government out of the way.

While I agree with the gist of what you said above, there are some things I need to point out:

Of course individuals will put a higher priority on themselves/close associates than strangers. But prioritising doesn't have to mean excluding. It also doesn't mean placing the same priority on others as yourself, only that you place some on others. It doesn't mean you have to physically go out and help people, your attitude can help. Take tax - if people realised the benefits of tax to society instead of viewing them as "theft" then governments would be in much better positions to help citizens in times of crisis, as it is, if extra revenues are needed to help people then it's almost impossible to raise the necessary taxes without facing a revolt, and hence, those most in need are neglected by society

And I completely disagree with your theory on unemployment. There is more than enough capital in both our societies to give every single man woman and child a high standard of living, yet millions are forced to live in poverty while a few at the top live their millionaire lifestyles. Without government employment legislation (if such a thing even exists in America! lol) then companies would hire even less, pay even less and make workers work all the hours god sends (ever heard of the Victorian work houses? Or working conditions in 19th century Britain? That is exactly what you are calling for when you say governments should be kept out of employement because that is exactly what happened)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley And I completely disagree with your theory on unemployment. There is more than enough capital in both our societies to give every single man woman and child a high standard of living

Of course there is enough capital to do this, but I get the sense that you (and other lefties) simply don't understand where this capital came from..

Capital is not a natural resource. It is not something that automatically renews itself regardless of the circumstances. Bad policies that discourage investment and risk taking will cause that pool of capital to dry up fairly quickly. Socialist legislation such as income and profit caps have an effect on incentives, and when looking at the economy you must take incentives into account. They have a huge effect on employment and everything else. You can't just take existing capital for granted...You must understand where it came from and WHY it exists in the first place.

quote:

Without government employment legislation (if such a thing even exists in America! lol) then companies would hire even less, pay even less..

I have no idea what you mean by "employment legislation". I don't think we have that in America. Companies hire and fire people as they need to. Obviously no company wants to hire more employees than they need. That would be a waste of money and make the enterprise much more likely to fail. In a free market, a business will always hire enough to get the job done, no more and no less. If they succeed, they can obviously hire more people. A successful businessman will create hundreds or THOUSANDS of new jobs for the unemployed, not because he is compassionate...but because it is IN HIS INTEREST to do so. He is motivated by profit, and this motivation (incentive) is what creates wealth for other people as well as himself. Adam Smith was 100% right with his invisible hand argument.

quote:

make workers work all the hours god sends (ever heard of the Victorian work houses? Or working conditions in 19th century Britain?

I think we discussed this "We'll go back to sweatshops" argument previously. Those old "work houses" you refer to are part of a transition period that every developing economy experiences. If we abolished all labor laws today in the USA, we would not go back to those working conditions because so many other alternatives are available to people. In modern economies, the infrastructure is built and there is largely an equilibrium between jobs and employees. In the 1800s when you had many people emigrating from farmland to fast growing cities, there was a huge oversupply of labor. That combined with a lack of infrastructure led to very bad working conditions...but as I said, this is a necessary transition period and we have moved beyond it. I have no problem with basic laws against child labor, etc...but you and I know government today goes FAR BEYOND protecting people from physical abuse.. The permit process..zoning laws, the endless red tape force small entrepreneurs to make a huge investment in both time and money if they want to get into the market, and ironically most of this legislation serves to BENEFIT the big monopolies, since they are the only ones who can afford to cut through the legal garbage.

When I say "get out of the way", I don't mean that the government should ignore obvious abuses. I simply mean that the government doesn't need to be involved in every tiny detail in the economic sphere. It needs to stop sticking it's nose (and claws) into the orifice of everyone trying to achieve their dreams. We should reduce government barriers to success (and yes TAXES are one of these things). Step back and let the people breathe for a change, and prosperity will come naturally.

I know this is difficult for a socialist to accept, but you will see that by "doing nothing" for a while, you will actually be helping those most in need.

Re: Well said

quote:

Sen. Obama told the students that "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." He disparaged students who want to "take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy." The people Mr. Obama is sneering at are the ones who built America � the traders and entrepreneurs and manufacturers who gave us railroads and airplanes, housing and appliances, steam engines, electricity, telephones, computers and Starbucks. Ignored here is the work most Americans do, the work that gives us food, clothing, shelter and increasing comfort. It's an attitude you would expect from a Democrat.

I don't think this is terribly "well said." In the first place, a person who wants to "take [his or her] diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy" is hardly the characterization of an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs often must eschew such luxuries, at least in the short run, in order to invest in the development of their businesses. Mr. Boaz clearly must realize this, so his attempt at criticism comes off as very contrived here.

quote:

"A greater cause," "community service" � to many of us, these gauzy phrases sound warm and comforting. But their purpose is to disparage and denigrate our own lives, to belittle our own pursuit of happiness. They're concepts better suited to a more collectivist country than to one founded in libertarian revolution � a revolution intended to defend our rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Hmph. The pursuit of happiness is a fool's errand. Happiness is not something that you pursue or obtain, it's only a mechanism that our brains use to reinforce those behaviors that produced particularly successful outcomes in the past with regards to a particular goal or goals. Trying to make happiness, itself, the goal only short-circuits this operation and impairs mental and psychological function.

Granted, making it one's goal to increase the material wealth of the lower class or to participate in military engagements that produce negative utility both for the individuals involved and for the affected societies generally are both of comparably dubious value. But the more general idea of having acutal, meaningful goals rather than participating in the counter-productive "pursuit of happiness" is a sound one.

It's a pity because the emphasis on the individual, rather than the collective, that this piece attempts to encourage is one that is badly needed. But simply leaving the average person to his or her own devices, so that they can foolishly pursue whatever they think will make them "happy" is not a sound means by which to promote individual well-being. Given the current state of affairs, it's quite the opposite, in fact.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Individualism and materialism is why my society and your society is fucked. Everybody is so selfish and care only about themselves.

Trust me it isn't only in the US or UK.

quote:

if they didn't live under the illusion that "everyone can be a millionaire" then they'd begin to stick up for each other and that would be bad for these elites who rely on the poor to keep their dollars rolling in to maintain their privileged positions in society.

Actually it is very possible for Americans to become decimillionaires in their lifetime. But many are just stupid when it comes to creating wealth from their money so many won't ever become decimillionaires. Look if you save money and invest it in the stock market(mutual fund) and you keeop putting money in each month. Chances are when you want to retire you are going to have over a million dollars and the retirement age for Americans is 67 so all you really need to live off for the remainder of your life is 800 000 dollars. But most don't have that sort of money because they don't invest in themselves. Blame American people for not being rich as they could be.

Re: Well said

more email spam Shakka?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka The people Mr. Obama is sneering at are the ones who built America � the traders and entrepreneurs and manufacturers who gave us railroads and airplanes, housing and appliances, steam engines, electricity, telephones, computers and Starbucks. Ignored here is the work most Americans do, the work that gives us food, clothing, shelter and increasing comfort. It's an attitude you would expect from a Democrat.

STARBUCKS?! How could he forget the founding fathers of Starbucks! Why thats just craazzy!



All hail His Frappuccino Highness! Godspeed Mr. Schultz, godspeed.

no, not spam. A good editorial piece written by the good ole Cato Institute.

I wonder how many private sector jobs Mr. Schultz gets credit for creating?

Probably not enough to offset the ones lost to McBush policies.

What are you trying to say? Last I checked there's still a Starbucks on almost every street corner, not to mention the ones outside of the U.S.

Re: Re: Well said

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 more email spam Shakka?

wow, way to support your man in a simple intelligent discussion.

if you had half a brain, or at least one testicle, you could have done so much better...fail

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt (and yes TAXES are one of these things).

government is an entity that can do things no private citizens or groups could accomplish. without government, necessary infrastructure could not exist for your free markets to work. taxes are the means for the government to accomplish building infrastructures. Taxes are absolutely vital for the creation of wealth. how well do you think the US economy would work without the highway system, the FAA, police forces, the SEC, and the university systems. Thank taxes for these vital services.

Additionally, the US government is the largest supporter of technological research in the world, which is instrumental in the creation of private wealth (which is accomplished by university research grants, military spending, private grants, etc....). So before you continue knocking the government, you should give credit to the US government for fostering the right environment for the creation of wealth, and providing forward guidance because free markets don't allows move forward.

with that said, i do think the US needs to lower its corporate tax rates from 35% to about 20%. The US has the second highest average corporate tax rate of all developed countries, it sits behind only Japan.

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru Trust me it isn't only in the US or UK.

I know

quote:

Actually it is very possible for Americans to become decimillionaires in their lifetime. But many are just stupid when it comes to creating wealth from their money so many won't ever become decimillionaires. Look if you save money and invest it in the stock market(mutual fund) and you keeop putting money in each month. Chances are when you want to retire you are going to have over a million dollars and the retirement age for Americans is 67 so all you really need to live off for the remainder of your life is 800 000 dollars. But most don't have that sort of money because they don't invest in themselves. Blame American people for not being rich as they could be.

What percent of Americans can become millionaires by the time they retire?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Of course there is enough capital to do this, but I get the sense that you (and other lefties) simply don't understand where this capital came from.. Capital is not a natural resource. It is not something that automatically renews itself regardless of the circumstances. Bad policies that discourage investment and risk taking will cause that pool of capital to dry up fairly quickly. Socialist legislation such as income and profit caps have an effect on incentives, and when looking at the economy you must take incentives into account. They have a huge effect on employment and everything else. You can't just take existing capital for granted...You must understand where it came from and WHY it exists in the first place.

Capital was perhaps the wrong word, I think I should have said wealth. Capital (I think) tends to refer to money, whereas wealth refers to a number of things (including money)

quote:

I have no idea what you mean by "employment legislation". I don't think we have that in America. Companies hire and fire people as they need to. Obviously no company wants to hire more employees than they need. That would be a waste of money and make the enterprise much more likely to fail. In a free market, a business will always hire enough to get the job done, no more and no less. If they succeed, they can obviously hire more people. A successful businessman will create hundreds or THOUSANDS of new jobs for the unemployed, not because he is compassionate...but because it is IN HIS INTEREST to do so. He is motivated by profit, and this motivation (incentive) is what creates wealth for other people as well as himself. Adam Smith was 100% right with his invisible hand argument.

Employment legislation (and I was being sarcastic when I said they don't have it in America) refers to workers rights. Maybe there are no employment rights in America but you have unions so I find it hard to imagine there aren't some. It's stuff like hours workers are allowed to work, the amount of holidays they are entitled to, working conditions, sick pay, minimum wage, etc, etc. Without these, and other regulations that fend off the harshness of unabated capitalism, then companies would force workers to work longer hours for less pay. What you said about not going back to "workhouse conditions" well if there were no laws or regulations to stop companies doing anything they wanted to, then IMO workers would be find themselves in a similar position to 200 years ago when you worked for 18 hours, had a bit of a kip, then started work 6 hours later (Sunday mornings you get off for church!).

Yet you say this won't happen because there are too many alternatives, well you're arguing for eliminating all government interference in the economy which also includes abolishing anti-trust legislation, so tell me how many small companies would survive when the mega-corporations buy them up or force them out of business? How many jobs exactly does a mega-corporation that controls the market industry actually create? More or less than all the jobs in that industry today? Answer: Far far less. And hence, workers will be so desperate for those jobs those corporations can lower wages and increase hours...

Anyway, I think I've probably gone way off topic and we always end up like this because to you, there are only small businesses and to me, only mega-corporations

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I know What percent of Americans can become millionaires by the time they retire?

More than you'd think. It just seems that most of them are horrible savers and investors and prefer to have the latest gadget and a nice car. Have you ever read The Millionaire Next Door?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka More than you'd think. It just seems that most of them are horrible savers and investors and prefer to have the latest gadget and a nice car. Have you ever read The Millionaire Next Door?

well, as for salaries, the top 90 percentile make more than $125,000 a year. with proper saving the top 10% of americans can easily save $1 million or more in at most 25 - 30 years. The average american, however, makes about $50,000 a year or less. That person will have a very difficult time saving more than $1 million. Especially considering people with lower incomes generally have more children, resulting in less disposible income.

If i had to guess, i would say that about 15% of americans have the ability to rather easily save more than $1 million. Perhaps another 10% could save more than $1 million by living an unamerican lifestyle. the rest of americans are fucked when social security runs dry. I would also guess that the retirement savings of americans generally don't follow any sort of straightline increase as salaries increase. I think that there is very little retirement savings for most people who make less than a certain amount, perhaps around $75K. Then, after that point, retirment savings increases in relation to the income. But i'm just taking a guess.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka More than you'd think. It just seems that most of them are horrible savers and investors and prefer to have the latest gadget and a nice car. Have you ever read The Millionaire Next Door?

Erm no funnily enough!

Can you give me the wage that you'd need to be earning to be able to save $1m by the time you retire? Or tell me how much a person would need to save each month and add their other outgoings on top of that?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Erm no funnily enough! Can you give me the wage that you'd need to be earning to be able to save $1m by the time you retire? Or tell me how much a person would need to save each month and add their other outgoings on top of that?

a person would need to save about $9k a year for 40 years, at an interest rate of 4.5% to earn $1million. not an easy task for most americans. You would need to make about $90,000 - $100,000 a year to do that comfortably if you have no children.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 a person would need to save about $9k a year for 40 years, at an interest rate of 4.5% to earn $1million. not an easy task for most americans. You would need to make about $90,000 - $100,000 a year to do that comfortably if you have no children.

Heh, piece of piss innit?!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What percent of Americans can become millionaires by the time they retire?

Supposely the Americans' could have had 35 millionaire homes rather than the 5 millionaire homes they do. If the people had invested their money in products that would have grown over time like a mutual fund or real estate. But mostly mutual funds will make you a millionaire if you begin to invest early in your career and that will save you a lot of money if you wanted to make the same million as someone had begun earlier.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Can you give me the wage that you'd need to be earning to be able to save $1m by the time you retire? Or tell me how much a person would need to save each month and add their other outgoings on top of that?

All what would need to be put aside is 1080 dollars a year beginning your 29 birthday. Keep putting money into a growth fund and by the time you are 67 you will have a million dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 a person would need to save about $9k a year for 40 years, at an interest rate of 4.5% to earn $1million. not an easy task for most americans. You would need to make about $90,000 - $100,000 a year to do that comfortably if you have no children.

Not true

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru Supposely the Americans' could have had 35 millionaire homes rather than the 5 millionaire homes they do. If the people had invested their money in products that would have grown over time like a mutual fund or real estate. But mostly mutual funds will make you a millionaire if you begin to invest early in your career and that will save you a lot of money if you wanted to make the same million as someone had begun earlier.

So tell me how much they would have had to put aside each month. And tell me how much they would need to earn each year to be able to afford to do that, and for how many years would they need to save...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.