Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
From what I understand, the whole point of the EU is to economically compete with large markets like the US, China, Southeast Asia.  Slice it anyway you want, but that is why countries want to join. Not mutual defense.

As to the U.S., the government fostered western expansion, not identity.  America is unique in that indiviual achievement, individual freedeom and individual prosperity is the founding cornerstone.  That is what Americans see as their identity.

It's not because Truman fosters suburbization, or because the government told people to go west or because Eisenhower installed the national highway system.  Americans dont say their american because of Conrail or Route 80. It is because we believe in economic and individual freedom.

Europe by contrast just got around to getting itself free in the last 100 years. Most a lot less. So, there has never been much autonomous freedom of the individual or much economic opportunity for individuals.  FOr the most, part Europe's experience has been completely totalitarian.  England is probably the only real exception.  Therefore, you have a band of elites who think they are smarter than the other europeans and want to control them through socialistic mechanisms.  That's at least how I see the EU.  Most of what I have read here only confirms that suspician.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 at 12:29:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From what I understand, the whole point of the EU is to economically compete with large markets like the US, China, Southeast Asia.  Slice it anyway you want, but that is why countries want to join. Not mutual defense.

Globalisation is certainly one factor and mutual defense is only beginning to be addressed.  But you miss all the other things - regional development, sectoral development, environmental policies, human rights, security cooperation - and all the things that are best handled on a Europe wide basis.

You forget a few things about the EU.

  1. Its budget is only c. 1% of GDP
  2. It's "bureaucracy" is about the size of Birmingham City council
  3.  ALL of the areas of policy it addresses are areas which ALL EU governments have ASKED it to address in various treaties.

It then suits various Government to "Blame" the EU Bureaucracy for unpopular proposals and deflect popular criticism from themselves.  In fact EU Governments actively push difficult policy areas to EU level to distance themselves from what they know is the rational and likely outcome.  

Your Tuscan friends are buying into this game.  The reality is Italy would be a basket case without the EU and the Euro - and is in significant difficulty even with them.  Alitalia has more debts than it has assets despite massive (illegal) Government subvention and support.

The reality is all EU policies are agreed by EU Governments.  Some suit some members better than others, and so a lot of horse-trading takes place.  You get a lot of messy compromises - a bit like the US Budgetary process.

If anything it is too easy for a particularly short sighted or self-interested Government to block necessary proposals.  The evidence presented by the surveys cited here is that most Europeans view the EU positively, would like to take a more active role in many areas, and support its enlargement.

Far from being governed by an unaccountable bureaucracy, most people actively support and vote for the policies which have been implemented.  I have argued long and hard that the level of transparency, accountability and efficiency in decision making needs to be radically improved as the EU grows larger and deeper.

You say that Americans are individualists and want to restrict the power of Government as much a possible.  Europeans see Americans as being ruled by corporations, the military/industrial complex, private interest groups and lobbyists, and would prefer to be ruled by an inefficient Government rather than an unaccountable corporation.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 at 03:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Socialists in America also see Americans ruled by corporations or the military complex.  This is all very old hat.  Are we still reading Galbraith?Corporations don't vote. The government does regulate and tax corporations as well as give them certain benefits.  As it does for enviromental groups, unions and other entities.  Europe does not do the same?  

I trust individuals to make free, unfettered decisions.  Americans support their system because it has promoted individual achievement and generated personal wealth.  

As for the mutual defense, does Germany still want Alsace Lorraine?  Europe's borders have been cemented over the past 50 years.  Democracies do not war with each other.  America has pretty muched guaranteed europe's freedom from soviet threats. So, war in Europe shouldnt really be a factor.  When there was (Kosovo), europe didnt do anything about it.

And if Europeans wholeheartedly support the EU, why are the member states governments trying to backdoor popular referendums to avoid "Non" votes again?

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 at 06:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Corporations don't vote. The government does regulate and tax corporations as well as give them certain benefits.  As it does for enviromental groups, unions and other entities.  Europe does not do the same?

Corporations don't vote, but they influence the law-making directly, via impressively effective lobbying. We're all free to lobby, true, but it costs money and thus somehow ends up favoring those that can actually afford to do it on a systematic basis.

Government does regulate and tax corporations, but it is doing an increasingly poor job of it because of corporate lobbying.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 at 06:56:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Corporations don't vote - and neither do most Americans.  Corporations buy votes, and most senior Administration officials have significant corporate connections or will end up working in the corporate sector again in due course. American politics is run by corporate "donations" even though the American polity is supposed to be made up of citizens rather than corporations.

Americans also have free speech (provided they aren't labeled a communist) but corporations control what voices are heard.  I don't doubt that many Americans buy into the corporatist culture you exult in, but many do not.  

In contrast more Europeans tend to buy into and participate in their local and national political cultures -including the emerging EU dimension to many of those aspects of Government - and this despite the fact that Europeans come from many different and diverse countries without the homogenising effects of a single dominant national culture which you so often express here on behalf of the US.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 07:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Corporations are taxed and regulated by the government, are they not?

But there are also unions, enviromental groups, the Sierra Club, the ACLU, Women's groups and a host of other leftist groups that also attempt to buy influence and do. This doesnt go on in Europe? Come on.

Communists and Socialists have the right to free speech and often use it in the U.S.  Most socialists actually hide within the Democratic Party because most americans dont like socialism.  Socialism likes to hide its agenda under other agendas because socialists here cannot convince the electorate otherwise.

Those who dont participate in the US political system tend to support the way its going. Massive turnout happens when the electorate is very upset with the current state of affairs.

As to corporations, why are corporations so evil?  Corporations employ people and provide goods and services. In fact, I believe one employs you Frank.  If it wasnt for corporations, you probably wouldnt have a computer to type on.  Corporations dont take anything from anyone. They offer a good or a service that people buy voluntarily.  Socialists tend to be people who really cant produce anything on their own.  Thus, they advance themselves by taking the means of production into their own hands (by force) so that THEY can be in control.  

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 11:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From what I understand, the whole point of the EU is to economically compete with large markets like the US, China, Southeast Asia.

Which, in an era of cross border ownership and transnational corporations , is no point at all, since you only compete with yourself.

"Competition" is all about depressing wages and living standards for the many to the benefit of the few. As has been exhaustively analysed and presented on ET...

Having said that, I know I'm in a minority here on ET since it is not clear to me what the EU is actually for in a globalised world.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 at 04:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Competition is not about depressing wages and living standards. Competition is about producing a good or service at the most effective cost for the best price the market will bear.  The opposite of competition is monopoly. This would be when there is one milkman and he can charge whatever he wants because there is no competition.  Introduce competing milkmen, and the other milkmen will charge lower prices.  

Competition and free market economies benefit the CONSUMER.  Business produces goods and services for people in exchange for money and profit.  Prices are determined by supply and demand.  Price is determined from information from a varity of sources.  No one person controls the price of anything.  That is what is democratic about the pricing system.  Free marketers dont want government intervention into the pricing system because it distorts market prices and causes unintended consequences such as shortages, etc.  So, for example, government starts giving out student loans to help students.  Now, students have more money to go to college if they are willing to hock themselves in debt. The result in the US, massive inflation in education costs.  Or, Clinton imposed a luxury tax on boats in the 1990s. The result-boats went up in price-massive layoffs in the boating industry, lost profits, lost taxes.  Or, government starts subsidizing corn for ethanol. The resulting distortion, massive inflation for corn products, corn sweetener, animal feed resulting in higher beef prices.  Poorer people now have to pay more for food. All for ethanol which is not a good fuel alternative.

Here is a great link to Milton Friedman explaining the economics of how a pencil is produced-it is two minutes long but worth 4 college credits.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 11:57:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What a lovely religion you have. Unfortunately, nothing you say is true in the real world as opposed to the world of voodoo.


Competition and free market economies benefit the CONSUMER.

Sometimes, when appropriately regulated. Sometimes they don't - see the energy, rail and other infrastructural markets like health or education. I'm sure you're familiar with the sections of Hayek and Smith where they point out  there is a role for public provision there. I'm not sure if Friedman is sane enough to admit it: I still haven't got around to reading his stuff.

No one person controls the price of anything.  

No, that would take groups of companies colluding. Which I'm sure never happens in the wonderland that is the US. In the real world, I'll refer you to The Wealth of Nations for what happens when producers meet.

So, for example, government starts giving out student loans to help students.  Now, students have more money to go to college if they are willing to hock themselves in debt. The result in the US, massive inflation in education costs.

And lots of people having the opportunity of a college education that didn't have it before ... what was the effect of that on the economy.

Suitably regulated markets are among the tools we have to achieve our aims as a society. The stock and financial markets rely on brutal regulation to function at all: look what happens when the regulations are enforced badly or not adapted to the changing market.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 12:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course, you're assuming that free marketers dont believe in ANY regulation.  That would be an incorrect assumption.  Friedman and Hayek say that there are certain areas where there are "market failures" where the government must intervene.  Enviroment regulations are a good example of "market failures".  Collusion and price fixing is another proper intervention as Smith noted.  That's why we have an anti monopoly law.  Smith also noted thought that price collusion often brings it's own revenge without gov. regulation.

I dont agree that energy, railroad and healthcare are good areas for government intervention.  These are business areas and bureaucrats are incapable of regulating industries properly. If they were, they would be in the private sector. Our medical industry is heavily regulated, especially with prices. This causes massive distortions in prices.  So, a doctor I know gets paid $75 for a spinal tap.  My father in law goes into the hospital for observation only for ten days and the insurance company pays $65,000.00 (no tests, no operations).  

As to education, I dont have a problem with a public role. It's just that private schools are better. The curriculum is more reading and writing oriented toward a British style system.

As to the higher education costs, do a lot more people have access to higher education now thanks to student loans? No, because the price of one year at college went up to $45K a year.  Student loans do not come close to that level.

As to stock markets, I think they are casinos. I do not think buying stock is "investing", it is gambling.

Being a free marketer doesnt mean your against regulation or laws. It depends on the regulation and what is trying to be accomplished. Unfortunately, much government regulation ignores human nature resulting in unintended consequences.


Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 02:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From what I understand, the whole point of the EU is to economically compete with large markets

You understand very little. (That was not even runner-up in my reasons when I votes Yes for Hungary to join the EU.)

Not mutual defense.

No one said it's mutual defense.

the government fostered western expansion, not identity.

And Western expansion fostered identity. It's a basic logical chain.

indiviual achievement, individual freedeom and individual prosperity is the founding cornerstone.

Depends on whom you ask. It may be true for you. At any rate, the old American state, regional (say, Confederate...) and religious identities, and economic structures like plantations, were washed away by the forces I mentioned, and made it possible in the first place for Libertarians and like-minded Republicans to preach individualist capitalism the defining mark of the USA today.

Therefore, you have a band of elites who think they are smarter than the other europeans and want to control them through socialistic mechanisms.

LOL. Your caricature couldn't be further from the truth. Our elites aren't much of a believer in socialistic mechanisms, they are increasingly believers in opressive and anti-democratic free-market mechanisms.

Most of what I have read here only confirms that suspician.

I have noticed earlier that you don't undestand what you are reading here. Say, Migeru on natiuonalism and Spain. I suggest you first make the effort to understand before making judgements.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Dec 16th, 2007 at 04:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I perfectly understand what people are saying. I just dont agree with much of it. The spaniards poll didnt quite jive with what he was saying.  I have heard these tired socialist arguments before.  Anti capitalism, anti corporate. Free Market is anti freedom.  Yawn.

Americans going west doesnt make them feel american. They went out west because they saw opportunity.

Perhaps you dont see europe coming together for common defense, but others here have mentioned that as a reason.

Precisely how does free marketism anti democratic?  

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 12:24:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The whole point of the free market is to replace the one people=one vote principle with the one dollar=one vote principle. Deeply oligarchic when dollars are not equally shared, as is the case everywhere.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 06:37:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Samuelson's introductory economics textbook uses the sleight of hand of describing the operation of the market as involving dollar votes to use the emotional attachment of the impressionable teenage reader to person votes in order to push the marketista ideology.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 07:27:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, a "free market" could be a viable (actually, not sure abour the viable part), democratic way of allocating resources if everybody had the same amount of money...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 07:50:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you gave everyone the same amount of money. Certain people would always end up with more in the end.  That is because certain people have skills that are more valuable than others.  Others, may prefer to work less but have more free time.  Some people have frugal needs, others more lavish.  Different people have different values.  

What way do you propose that better allocates resources?  Socialism? Pure socialism exists on the kibbutz.  These systems have failed because they ignore human nature.  Some people work hard, others dont. Yet, everyone gets the same earnings.  It's known as the freeloader or freerider effect. At some point,the hard workers get fed up and leave. That's exactly what's been happening in Israel.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 02:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Holy cow.  You're hard core, aren't you?  

Who are you going to vote for, if I may ask?

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 02:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't love many of the candidates. Thompson or Giuliani if I have to. Perhaps, the libertarian candidate (again).

Terry
by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Alrighty then.  Gotcha.  There's no point in me disagreeing with you further; we will always be of two minds.

I've decided to write in Putin.  That's my plan until someone successfully sells me on Edwards.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, you're quite right. We are never going to agree. The point of debating, however, is not always to persuade but to have people challenge your beliefs.  I have come to the right place. There's a nest of socialists here.  And socialism is totalitarian in nature.  Most socialists are envious of other people's wealth. They feel rather helpless in a capitalist economic system so they seek to destroy it.  Interesting how all the people you could choose to right in, you chose someone who seems to have those leanings.

Edwards is not totalitarian though.  His "Two Americas" is probably in line with your politics. Of course, I like how he is carving out his multi million dollar mansion in a forest miles away from civilization.  He will live in a large estate off the beat track while all the commoners live in the suburbs and cities.  All while he is preaching about two americas.

Vote Obama. I dont agree with anything he says. But there is no doubt that he genuinely believes in his philosophy. I can respect that at least, as to say, Hillary or Edwards.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:46:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Internaut Terry sealed the helmet on his General Electric Tubesuit then ran through the final checks, testing his BFG-1100 Red Roaster Flame Gun on a stack of copies of Das Kapital before launching himself onto the Interwebs, shouting "I'm gonna smoke me a nest of socialists."
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:55:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which still doesn't make the free market democratic in any way.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 02:38:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some people work hard, others dont. Yet, everyone gets the same earnings.

and capitalism is better how? in that it is possible for the person who works hard to earn much less than the person who hardly works at all, just happens to have had money to start with.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 02:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
People are paid with relation to how much their skill is worth.  

Please explain how your system is better.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That isn't true, I'm not advocating any particular system, I'm just saying that your argument is deeply flawed and packed with assumptions.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, well maybe someday you will take a stand and make an argument on how some other economic system is better.

I have at least done so.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:19:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Q: "Buffett, why are you a Democrat?"

A: "I have what I call the minus 24 hour genie test. Imagine a genie poofed up 24 hours before you were born and asked you what kind of world you would want to live in. And you being the smart minus 24 hour baby would ask, "what's the catch?" And the genie would respond that you would have to participate in the "ovarian lottery" and draw one of 6 billion tickets. Things such as born United States or Bangladesh; white, brown, or black; male or female; smart or dumb; these would all be completely up to chance. Well then, what kind of world would you create? And my [Buffett's] world would be a society with equality that treated everyone fairly. And the Democrats seem to be better at doing that."


You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Most of the extreme disparities in wealth really come from people being lucky - born in the right place and time, given the right education, inheriting wealth and a good start in life, just plain getting lucky. The free-market based systems magnify that luck with more access to opportunities for wealth.

What would work better was a balanced system that recognised the justice shortcomings of market based systems and balanced them against the need for incentives for the good of society. Redistribution is required to even make the theoretical models underlying free trade or free markets work.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 03:19:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What nonsense.  Maybe that's how it works in Europe.

Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, T. Boone Pickens, Rockfeller-I could go on.  Why dont you look them up and see what these people started with.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well Bill Gates was definitely Lucky, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and according to some sources succeeded by using ripped off versions of other peoples software.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL. I'm hardcore??

If Bill Gates ripped off somebody's software, someone would have sued him. It's not too hard to find a lawyer in the US.

Luck always helps.  But let's face it, he created something from nothing.  

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 07:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is not how they started, it's how they acquired their wealth. The acquisition of great wealth is almost more obscene than being born with it.  

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 05:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"The acquisition of wealth is obscene".

My my, you socialists are so envious of other people.  If you want to tell me some soccer player makes way too much, I might go a short distance with you.  

Some of you just dont like reality.  People create things, produce things, provide services to make money. They do this to feed their family and buy things they want.  Some do so well that they amass a lot of wealth. So what? The additional wealth creates more jobs and provide great things like that computer your typing on. The computer helps doctors, business and other industries provide better services and products.  How do think that computer got in front of you?  Elves didnt make it.  Because of profit motive.  You should probably thank these people rather than sneer at them.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Mon Dec 17th, 2007 at 07:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So it is your opinion that only profit motivates people?

I live in a well functioning society where the differential between the top and bottom salaries is something of the order of 48:1. In your country it is 480:1. My well functioning society produced Nokia.

I only sneer at the people who want too much and who will trample on the rights of anyone else to get it.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 06:01:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where did I say that only profit motivates people?

Most individuals want to achieve something with their lives by using the talents they have. They also have obligations, like the need to eat, the need to live somewhere and perhaps, a family to educate and take care of.  

In my opinion, developing your talents to the best of your ability (ayn rand would call it "productive work") is one of the most important factors to happiness.  Family, recreation, friends, love are some of the others.

48 to 1? 480 to 1?  Are you saying it should be 1 to 1?  10 to 1? 5 to 1?  What is fair? Who is to decide what a doctor should make and a janitor should make? Should they make equal salaries? Incomes do vary greatly in the US.  The real question is what is the living standard of our poor.  The answer is that the living standard of the poor is quite a bit better than most people in the world.  The majority of the poor have 2 televisions, a phone, a computer, a place to live and, often, a car.  That doesnt mean their life is as comfortable as say, mine.  Thankfully, the US system allows for a lot of upward mobility and opportunity for those that apply themselves.

Your country may have produced Nokia. But the telephone was invented in the United States.  Ironically, it was invented by a Scotsman who came to find opportunity.  I wonder why he didnt stay in Europe?


Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:35:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Terry:
 Thankfully, the US system allows for a lot of upward mobility and opportunity for those that apply themselves.

Unfortunately that is a myth, the US alongside the UK come at the bottom of measures of Social mobility. all of those socialist countries that you criticise come way above both of those countries.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 10:32:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's why everyone flocks here.  The "myth" of opportunity and social mobility.  

When I was in college, I worked at a bagel store. The store hired some Polish immigrant cheap to clean the floor. A grim task with all the fish we also sold. Within in a year, he was a baker. Two years later, he owned his own store.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 01:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's why everyone flocks here.  The "myth" of opportunity and social mobility.  

A succinct summary of the situation. Well done.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 01:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One anecdote dosn't ammount to proof,

if you go and look at Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America (pdf warning) a report by the centre for economic performance, you'll see that you're far more likely to have a chance to improve yourself in Europe than you are in the US.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 02:08:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Redistribution.

So, it's ok for the government to take what I earn by force to give it to another person?  Is that what your saying?

I work hard for what I earn. Why should my family have less just because someone thinks someone else should have more?  Indeed, this is the language of socialism. That what someone makes belongs to everyone else. Society can take what you make and give it to other people.  That sounds quite totalitarian to me.

Terry

by Terry (Terry@pollackzuckerman.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who gives a flying fuck if you think this is the language of socialism? What is your obsession with socialism?

If you believe you have what you have solely because you worked hard for it then you are far removed from reality. Why hasn't someone stolen it all?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 09:44:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you against taxation in general, or just in the case where it may be given to the 'undeserving' poor?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Dec 18th, 2007 at 02:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series