Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[ShowtekGER]

You see them as conservative? That's surprising to me. I figured they just attack anything which seems absurdly hypocritical, whether it's on the right or left, or whether it's scientific of religious. Like all good shows, they can't be funny forever, so I don't hold that against them. But in terms of politics, they seem to be all over the map and thus irreducible to any simplisitic label.

it's true that they also hold some liberal or perhaps non-committal positions but i usually find them conservative, yes. apart from denying that our climate is changing in a dangerous way and making fun of al gore for his efforts to spread awareness about climate change they are also against banning smoking in bars, call into question whether second hand smoking actually kills, state that the solution to stopping corporate injustice and crimes of walmart is not to shop their anymore (as opposed to regulating walmart), they advocate that sexuality should be taught by parents versus the school, defend religion, claim that immigration destroys one's economy, claim that people driving hybrid cars and residents of san francisco are smug, europe loving, and want to tell everyone how to live their lives (the archetype of the liberal as portrayed by american conservatives), and more, all of which are typically conservative opinions to me.

they have also made fun of glenn beck and suggested that catholic christianity change its holy laws, for example, but generally their position is conservative-libertarian.

[ITZ DENI3D]

it took a while for me to figure out that i actually disagree with many of their opinions and that they're mostly conservatives. they are even climate deniers! and you're right that they cover a lot of issues even though it seems to me that lately they've run out of good stuff to talk about. the first episode of this season was about men peeing while standing up and women being angry about it. really? and it wasn't even funny at all. it was just a sad try and a caricature of what south park used to be.

The second one was the best thought it was hilarious. First one was mediocre at best.

[ITZ DENI3D]

it's true that they also hold some liberal or perhaps non-committal positions but i usually find them conservative, yes. apart from denying that our climate is changing in a dangerous way and making fun of al gore for his efforts to spread awareness about climate change they are also against banning smoking in bars, call into question whether second hand smoking actually kills, state that the solution to stopping corporate injustice and crimes of walmart is not to shop their anymore (as opposed to regulating walmart), they advocate that sexuality should be taught by parents versus the school, defend religion, claim that immigration destroys one's economy, claim that people driving hybrid cars and residents of san francisco are smug, europe loving, and want to tell everyone how to live their lives (the archetype of the liberal as portrayed by american conservatives), and more, all of which are typically conservative opinions to me.

they have also made fun of glenn beck and suggested that catholic christianity change its holy laws, for example, but generally their position is conservative-libertarian.

Don't watch South Park if you don't like it. I mean for gods sake they even tried to give an even perspective from NAMBLA! (Well sort of ) But they aren't pussies and stand up for what they believe in which gives them respect in my book. Also I agree with most of there views, guess I am a conservative then even though I despise politics in America and really don't give two craps about either side. "I just don't see a difference between a douche and a turd..."

[ITZ DENI3D]

Ohh and yes we are having an effect on the climate change but you know what else? It happens every few thousand years and we are in that cycle again. I highly doubt we are causing the problem, but I do think we are accelerating it. We should have hydrogen powered cars by now anyways but governments really don't care about the future apparently...

[ITZ DENI3D]

Without goals and dreams what do we have to live for? I was just wondering because I am really stumped... Maybe to try to help your children or family achieve their goals? IDK...

[ScottieX]

There are definitely two sides to this issue. But if I can defend my position I would have to say that I don't feel like I'm making any assumptions when a stranger is in my house without my permission.

well there are legitimate reasons why someone might break into your house - they may even be more likely than 'attempting to kill you" including things like a child sneeking back into a house. If we had a policy that all of those people were fair game you could well be killing a lot of people who are trying to help you along with those that are trying to hurt you. It is probably a better world to live in where we dont have everyone ready with their guns all the time to kill others.

Also I dont think it is rational to just assume a person in your house is trying to kill you if for no other reason than just that is highly unlikely (well at least in NZ... maybe you could live in a really terrible area of the world).

And Im not sure how stand your ground works - but the other scenario is one where you already identified the person id definitly a home invader and definitly has intentions to hurt you - maybe a jilted lover or whatever. In that case it would still be a bit dubious for you to draw them into a room and execute them in a case where you could easily retreat safely. of course if you didnt think you could retreat safely that is a different matter.

But if you are hunting him with intent to kill him... now he has, at some level, a right to self defense also.....

[ShowtekGER]

If the races were reversed on Martin and Zimmerman we would not have heard about this case as Zimmerman would already be in jail for murder.

i just read that zimmerman is of latin american ethnicity. isn't that group equally disadvantaged as blacks in the US?

and furthermore, the case doesn't seem clear at all. from the information currently available, it may very well be that zimmerman acted in self-defense. we'll see.

[Zefelius]

well there are legitimate reasons why someone might break into your house - they may even be more likely than 'attempting to kill you" including things like a child sneeking back into a house. If we had a policy that all of those people were fair game you could well be killing a lot of people who are trying to help you along with those that are trying to hurt you. It is probably a better world to live in where we dont have everyone ready with their guns all the time to kill others.

Well, if it's my child then that's a different story. Personally I'm not going to start shooting off guns just because I hear a sound in the house. I would certainly get a good view first. I think what I had in mind is the idea that I find someone else in my house who is a complete stranger. Now, if I ask them to leave and they don't, I would have to think of my family first as opposed to worrying about getting the stranger's intentions right. Honestly, I really have no way of determining what those intentions are, since there is no established basis for trust. Even if they seem polite and innocent, it could be a ploy. Therefore I can't assume anything about their intentions, but I can assume that my family is my first priority.

[Zefelius]

it's true that they also hold some liberal or perhaps non-committal positions but i usually find them conservative, yes. apart from denying that our climate is changing in a dangerous way and making fun of al gore for his efforts to spread awareness about climate change they are also against banning smoking in bars, call into question whether second hand smoking actually kills, state that the solution to stopping corporate injustice and crimes of walmart is not to shop their anymore (as opposed to regulating walmart), they advocate that sexuality should be taught by parents versus the school, defend religion, claim that immigration destroys one's economy, claim that people driving hybrid cars and residents of san francisco are smug, europe loving, and want to tell everyone how to live their lives (the archetype of the liberal as portrayed by american conservatives), and more, all of which are typically conservative opinions to me.

they have also made fun of glenn beck and suggested that catholic christianity change its holy laws, for example, but generally their position is conservative-libertarian.

When they satirize a view it doesn't necessarily mean that they are fully opposed to it. For example, I remember the show about San Francisco liberals. Personally I think they have a point: there is a type of individual who embodies that kind of smug, preachy personality. But that doesn't mean that Parker and Stone are against liberals per se. More often than not, they are opposed to smug, self-satisfied, hypocritical personalities no matter their political views.

[ITZ DENI3D]

When they satirize a view it doesn't necessarily mean that they are fully opposed to it. For example, I remember the show about San Francisco liberals. Personally I think they have a point: there is a type of individual who embodies that kind of smug, preachy personality. But that doesn't mean that Parker and Stone are against liberals per se. More often than not, they are opposed to smug, self-satisfied, hypocritical personalities no matter their political views.

Agreed, and if you saw the whole episode they said hybrid cars are a good thing. But apparently the world isn't ready for it yet...

[ITZ DENI3D]

I have a lot of free time on my hands so my mind wanders some times... I was wondering, am I the only one who is surprised that physician assisted suicide is illegal in the modern age? Both sides make great logical points but mostly what it comes down to for the people who oppose PAS is that they believe in a higher power and that all human life is sacred therefore PAS is completely unjustifiable because of that (at least that is what I have gathered from what I have read). They make other valid points as well but this seems to be there strongest argument...

[SVPM]

Without goals and dreams what do we have to live for? I was just wondering because I am really stumped... Maybe to try to help your children or family achieve their goals? IDK...

Win some civ rev tourney?

[HydroDragon]

I have a lot of free time on my hands so my mind wanders some times... I was wondering, am I the only one who is surprised that physician assisted suicide is illegal in the modern age? Both sides make great logical points but mostly what it comes down to for the people who oppose PAS is that they believe in a higher power and that all human life is sacred therefore PAS is completely unjustifiable because of that (at least that is what I have gathered from what I have read). They make other valid points as well but this seems to be there strongest argument...

I'm not surprised it's illegal in America but I am surprised it's not available in more European countries. People here have to travel to the Netherlands to do it, and even then their carers might face prosecution for manslaughter....

[asmodeios]

White Hispanic and Latino Americans are citizens and residents of the United States who are racially White and ethnically Hispanic or Latino.
White American, itself an official U.S. racial category, refers to people "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa" who reside in the United States.^[17]
Based on the definitions created by the Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Census Bureau, the concepts of race and ethnicity are mutually independent, and respondents to the census and other Census Bureau surveys are asked to answer both questions. Hispanicity is independent of race, and constitutes an ethnicity category, as opposed to a racial category. For the Census Bureau, Ethnicity distinguishes between those who report ancestral origins in Spain or Hispanic America (Hispanic and Latino Americans), and those who do not (Non-Hispanic Americans).^[18][19] The U.S. Census Bureau asks each resident to report the "race or races with which they most closely identify."^[20] See Non-Hispanic Whites for White Americans that do not report Hispanic or Latino origin.
As of 2010, 50.5 million or 16.3% of Americans were ethnically Hispanic or Latino.^[15] Of those, 26.7 million or 53% were White.

[ShowtekGER]

When they satirize a view it doesn't necessarily mean that they are fully opposed to it. For example, I remember the show about San Francisco liberals. Personally I think they have a point: there is a type of individual who embodies that kind of smug, preachy personality. But that doesn't mean that Parker and Stone are against liberals per se. More often than not, they are opposed to smug, self-satisfied, hypocritical personalities no matter their political views.

that may be a point but you probably won't find many liberals who express a decided animosity toward such groups as san francisco liberals or hippies, for that matter. this is a typical conservative issue. also, in the episode it does not seem that they discern between smug and normal drivers of hybrid cars which to me makes even less sense in the light of my impression that environmentally conscious people who also are smug about it are actually really rare.

furthermore, at least one of the creators of south park is a member of the libertarian party and both say their views could best be described as libertarian which generally, in america, counts as a sub-category of conservatism in my view. it's the republican party without social conservatism.

[ShowtekGER]

Don't watch South Park if you don't like it. I mean for gods sake they even tried to give an even perspective from NAMBLA! (Well sort of ) But they aren't pussies and stand up for what they believe in which gives them respect in my book. Also I agree with most of there views, guess I am a conservative then even though I despise politics in America and really don't give two craps about either side. "I just don't see a difference between a douche and a turd..."

they can be as conservative as they want, i still find the older episodes hilarious.

the "douche and turd" episode was also really good, yes, and had a valid point. you really won't save your country or make any major difference when voting one of the two big parties in your country. it's always the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. sadly, still everybody chooses either one.

[Zefelius]

furthermore, at least one of the creators of south park is a member of the libertarian party and both say their views could best be described as libertarian which generally, in america, counts as a sub-category of conservatism in my view. it's the republican party without social conservatism.

I would have guessed libertarian, but I wasn't positive. Libertarians are an interesting group: conservative on economics and liberal on ethics. They're close to anarchists but still believe in small government.

[ShowtekGER]

one really had to wonder why the people continue to accept and support a political system whose primary purpose is to enrich the rich. this has been rather obvious for many years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/op...cher.html?_r=4

[Zso_Zso]

Capitalism is simply the latest reincarnation of the good-old wealth-pump. It has been around since the Roman empire, throughout the colonial times, that a small wealthy minority extracts more wealth from the poor majority via unfair exchange of goods and money for labor.

In capitalism, it is no longer territorial (money siphoned from colonies to empire), instead it is operated globally between social layers. But you need to understand that it is absolutely crucial for the existence of capitalism, so you cannot simply vote it away. That would break the whole system.

If wealth was equally distributed, then nobody would have the capital to setup new industries, factories, mines etc. because they all require a large amount of initial investment.

[ShowtekGER]

In capitalism, it is no longer territorial (money siphoned from colonies to empire), instead it is operated globally between social layers. But you need to understand that it is absolutely crucial for the existence of capitalism, so you cannot simply vote it away. That would break the whole system.

well, the short-term solution would be to heavily regulate it, e.g. by redistributing wealth, establishing barriers to what is economically permissible, etc. you would be able to gradually abolish the system as well.

If wealth was equally distributed, then nobody would have the capital to setup new industries, factories, mines etc. because they all require a large amount of initial investment.

that's true when we're referring to absolute economic equality. if our goal is just to decrease inequality to more reasonable levels people would still be able to borrow money and start businesses withing a capitalist system.

on the other hand, within a state system, there would still be business and productivity alongside absolute equality if the state earned an equal amount of everybody's individual share and and used this for economic matters instead of individual actors driven by a profit motive. then we're having a classic discussion about free versus planned markets.

that's in a way what i would advocate, just without a state. a state and government would only result in elitist abuse of the system as we have seen numerous times in the 20th century. without it and without its natural structures of inequality i would hope for the greed incentive to be removed and for people to collectively arrange politics without their opinions brainwashed and individual rights oppressed.

[ShowtekGER]

seriously, santorum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGORiD82rQ

i still can't believe that approximately 20% of the american voting public votes for this extremely extreme dumbf*ck as opposed to the 30% who vote for the moderately extreme dumbf*ck.

we're watching in amazement
sincerely,
the rest of the world

[HydroDragon]

Lol, and that's a serious political broadcast. I'd immediately assume it was a parody anywhere else in the world....

[ITZ DENI3D]

well, the short-term solution would be to heavily regulate it, e.g. by redistributing wealth, establishing barriers to what is economically permissible, etc. you would be able to gradually abolish the system as well.



that's true when we're referring to absolute economic equality. if our goal is just to decrease inequality to more reasonable levels people would still be able to borrow money and start businesses withing a capitalist system.

on the other hand, within a state system, there would still be business and productivity alongside absolute equality if the state earned an equal amount of everybody's individual share and and used this for economic matters instead of individual actors driven by a profit motive. then we're having a classic discussion about free versus planned markets.

that's in a way what i would advocate, just without a state. a state and government would only result in elitist abuse of the system as we have seen numerous times in the 20th century. without it and without its natural structures of inequality i would hope for the greed incentive to be removed and for people to collectively arrange politics without their opinions brainwashed and individual rights oppressed.

Socialism would be good if it was run right but since it never will be I would prefer Capitalism over Socialism... Our system is broken but it is better than having a system like Russia or China...

[Zefelius]

seriously, santorum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGORiD82rQ

i still can't believe that approximately 20% of the american voting public votes for this extremely extreme dumbf*ck as opposed to the 30% who vote for the moderately extreme dumbf*ck.

we're watching in amazement
sincerely,
the rest of the world

Well, 20% of the voting public does not vote for him. That's incorrect information.

And I can see why you're upset: it's a pretty dumb ad which manipulates people's fears quite explicitly. I almost wish I could be equally upset as you, my gf, and many other good people. But I just think to myself that most of the human race consists of a bunch of ignorant animals---and that I can't be any more upset by this fact than when other animals are even less reflective or self-aware. My take is that more than 90% of the world's population believes in equally bizarre, hateful, superstitious, or shallow-minded stuff as Rick Santorum. The world if full of crazies. That justifies nothing, of course. But neither is anything unjustified. We both reject metaphyscial moral truths, and so we both know that all moral systems are equally insane when projected as universal. Since I can't rely on anything universal, I'll stick to my own local commitments. But aren't those local commitments sustained by larger communities? Sometimes Yes, sometimes No. There is nothing inherently impossible in achieving local success in one's adventures while much of the world drowns in stupidity. How can this fact be proven? Empirically: throughout mankind's history there has always existed craziness alongside of success (however we might define that), thus proving repeatedly the viable possibility of their coexistence.

Hence, as far as I can tell, it is only a residual moral belief which propounds that we must reach out to others to eradicate the world of Santorum-like vacuity and exploitation. It's the belief that we must make the world a better place for all. But that's no less superstitious than any other religious dogma. If we can empirically show that local values can be sustained without universal progress, then we can't rely on pragmatic arguments in favor of such universal enlightenment and progress---but only on the kind of liberal superstitious creeds which are no more valid than their conservative counterparts. In other words, imo, liberal and conservative paradigms are in many ways equally fabricated and manipulative.

[sdu754]

one really had to wonder why the people continue to accept and support a political system whose primary purpose is to enrich the rich. this has been rather obvious for many years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/op...cher.html?_r=4

This is the problem with liberals, there so disgusted that the rich get richer they don't care that the poor are also getting richer. What's wrong with a system that benefits everyone?

well, the short-term solution would be to heavily regulate it, e.g. by redistributing wealth, establishing barriers to what is economically permissible, etc. you would be able to gradually abolish the system as well.

Unfortunatly this is the basic liberal / communist solution. The problem is that if you take away peoples incentive for making more money by taking it away through taxes, they are not going to risk it, which will kill investing and reaseach, and thus kill job growth and the economy.

seriously, santorum?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGORiD82rQ

i still can't believe that approximately 20% of the american voting public votes for this extremely extreme dumbf*ck as opposed to the 30% who vote for the moderately extreme dumbf*ck.

we're watching in amazement
sincerely,
the rest of the world

What suprises me is that 40% of the people think that Obama is doing a good job, especially since he can't even speak without a teleprompter, thinks there are atleast 57 states, complains about the tax breaks that were in his own economic stimulus package, and chose perhaps the dumbest person on earth as his vice president. And you think Santorum is dumb, where have you been?

Plus his policies are killing any chance of an economic rebound, because he has absolutely no understanding what so ever of economics. His energy plan is to drive the cost of oil so high that alternative energy is no longer too expensive, even if it kills the middle class.

[ScottieX]

What suprises me is that 40% of the people think that Obama is doing a good job, especially since he can't even speak without a teleprompter, thinks there are atleast 57 states, complains about the tax breaks that were in his own economic stimulus package, and chose perhaps the dumbest person on earth as his vice president. And you think Santorum is dumb, where have you been?.

its just a giant douche and a turd sandwich

[sdu754]

its just a giant douche and a turd sandwich

pretty much.

[ITZ DENI3D]

its just a giant douche and a turd sandwich

South Park wins again

[ShowtekGER]

Socialism would be good if it was run right but since it never will be I would prefer Capitalism over Socialism... Our system is broken but it is better than having a system like Russia or China...

russia and china are both capitalist nations nowadays! russia is also a democracy, though one that doesn't function as well as western ones. china is an interesting example because it is both capitalistic and a tyranny at the same time which goes against the common notion that capitalism and democracy are somehow intrinsically related.

[ShowtekGER]

But I just think to myself that most of the human race consists of a bunch of ignorant animals---and that I can't be any more upset by this fact than when other animals are even less reflective or self-aware. My take is that more than 90% of the world's population believes in equally bizarre, hateful, superstitious, or shallow-minded stuff as Rick Santorum. The world if full of crazies.

yet, in the west we had a period of enlightenment which made us all a lot less crazier and a lot more rational. it's no use to condemn the human race because of characteristics that are clearly not absolute.

but that's also why i am able to hold americans and other westerners to different standards compared to the rest of the world. i'm sure politics in the middle east consist of muslim rick santorums only but they didn't go through the same historical philosophical process as we did. and even though we did, about 20% of the people who vote in america vote for someone like santorum who conducts politics according to the word of god.

Hence, as far as I can tell, it is only a residual moral belief which propounds that we must reach out to others to eradicate the world of Santorum-like vacuity and exploitation. It's the belief that we must make the world a better place for all.

i don't care about that but if somehow like santorum is voted to be the president of the world super power it affects me as well. furthermore, i seek individual fulfillment in the collective and if the collective is intellectually, morally, and spiritually retarded i am also affected. i don't want to rid the world of dogmatic and idiotic policy and leaders because of some abstract moral rule but because i choose to do so based on what i think makes our experience here on earth more valuable collectively and, thus, also individually.

[ShowtekGER]

This is the problem with liberals, there so disgusted that the rich get richer they don't care that the poor are also getting richer. What's wrong with a system that benefits everyone?

it's a historical truism that the poor have also gotten richer under capitalism (even though i would dispute whether that's actually connected to the system of capitalism) but that isn't true today anymore. the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. for decades real wages in america have stagnated for the vast majority of the population while working hours have increased. from a global perspective, i don't think the starving african or dying chinese in an apple factory approves very much of the fact that poor people are richer in an economic sense than 100 years earlier either.

not to mention the psychologically and socially crippling effects of economic inequality which account for many of the social problems we are experiencing and rarely find an explanation for.

Unfortunatly this is the basic liberal / communist solution. The problem is that if you take away peoples incentive for making more money by taking it away through taxes, they are not going to risk it, which will kill investing and reaseach, and thus kill job growth and the economy.

i'm not sure to what extent this affects people. surely though, the idea that the greater the money incentive, the greater the productivity is surely not true. there is only so much abstract enrichment you can crave. if 1 million dollars in our current society is what it takes to risk because this is considered a lot, it might just be 1000 dollars in another region. to give you a real example, 68% top tax rate in my country (denmark) does not keep people from risking and being productive in a captialistic system and i think this is because the parameters are different. the psychological mechanism behind it is to own more or achieve higher status than others and this mechanism is also active if economic inequality is minimized.

of course, this is all moot in a society of resource abundance because it doesn't need the money incentive in order to produce.

What suprises me is that 40% of the people think that Obama is doing a good job, especially since he can't even speak without a teleprompter, thinks there are atleast 57 states, complains about the tax breaks that were in his own economic stimulus package, and chose perhaps the dumbest person on earth as his vice president. And you think Santorum is dumb, where have you been?

Plus his policies are killing any chance of an economic rebound, because he has absolutely no understanding what so ever of economics. His energy plan is to drive the cost of oil so high that alternative energy is no longer too expensive, even if it kills the middle class.

not that i approve of obama, but this kind of opinion is really sad as you're simply repeating what the propaganda machine has instilled in your head. yesterday i and a group of people reached the consensus that we may allow ourselves the arrogance to claim that about half of the american public are completely brainwashed so i'll just apply this here.

And you think Santorum is dumb, where have you been?

in the land of sanity.

[Zefelius]

i don't care about that but if somehow like santorum is voted to be the president of the world super power it affects me as well.

Fair point ShowTek. Although I may have my philosophical rant from time to time, when I vote later this year you know it's not for the crazy guy Santorum. Obama is as good as it gets in my book, and I hope he gets another 4 years. He's not perfect, as SDU pointed out, but who is? He's miles ahead of anyone the Republicans fielded this year.

[ShowtekGER]

i don't think we can ever speak of a true democracy as long as lobbying exists. this particular case of the koch brothers is quite frightening.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...719370179.html

[Zefelius]

it's a historical truism that the poor have also gotten richer under capitalism (even though i would dispute whether that's actually connected to the system of capitalism) but that isn't true today anymore. the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer.

There's truth in that... Like SDU I'm more of a capitalist, but I agree with you that excess deregulation has made economic conditions worse. People didn't realize this in the 80s b/c women in the work force offset the worsening conditions. But now we see that banks need closer regulation if we're to avoid bailing them out again for gambling with our money.

[ShowtekGER]

Fair point ShowTek. Although I may have my philosophical rant from time to time, when I vote later this year you know it's not for the crazy guy Santorum. Obama is as good as it gets in my book, and I hope he gets another 4 years. He's not perfect, as SDU pointed out, but who is? He's miles ahead of anyone the Republicans fielded this year.

yes, actually i think i have to revise my stated opinion that there is no great difference between democrats and republicans, though that may have been true before obama was elected. but by now one can legitimately argue that republicans fondle corporate balls quite passionately while the democrats do it without that kind of rigor. and you're definitely right that those republican candidates are unelectable.

yet, if i were american my choice would still be either the green or the communist party.

[Zefelius]

yet, if i were american my choice would still be either the green or the communist party.

That's because you're deeply religious and have hope in mankind despite its numerous historical setbacks.

[sdu754]

it's a historical truism that the poor have also gotten richer under capitalism (even though i would dispute whether that's actually connected to the system of capitalism) but that isn't true today anymore. the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. for decades real wages in america have stagnated for the vast majority of the population while working hours have increased. from a global perspective, i don't think the starving african or dying chinese in an apple factory approves very much of the fact that poor people are richer in an economic sense than 100 years earlier either.

It's obvious real wages have gone down in america, especially since everyone has multiple video game systems, personal computers, cell phones, blueray players, dvd players, ever increasing bigger tvs and more of them. People have way more in america today then they did decades ago.

not to mention the psychologically and socially crippling effects of economic inequality which account for many of the social problems we are experiencing and rarely find an explanation for.

Many of the social problems in america are due to the Welfare state set up by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s

i'm not sure to what extent this affects people. surely though, the idea that the greater the money incentive, the greater the productivity is surely not true. there is only so much abstract enrichment you can crave. if 1 million dollars in our current society is what it takes to risk because this is considered a lot, it might just be 1000 dollars in another region. to give you a real example, 68% top tax rate in my country (denmark) does not keep people from risking and being productive in a captialistic system and i think this is because the parameters are different. the psychological mechanism behind it is to own more or achieve higher status than others and this mechanism is also active if economic inequality is minimized.

I wasn't talking about productivity, I was talking about investment. But since you brought up productivity, many workers won't do any more than they have to if there is no incentive. Investors look at risk versus reward, the higher you raise taxes the lower the reward will be, and therefor less money will be risked in investments.

not that i approve of obama, but this kind of opinion is really sad as you're simply repeating what the propaganda machine has instilled in your head. yesterday i and a group of people reached the consensus that we may allow ourselves the arrogance to claim that about half of the american public are completely brainwashed so i'll just apply this here.

So If I don't agree with your assessment I'm somehow brainwashed? It's also astounding how you claim to have so much more knowledge of America than the people who actually live there. There was not a thing in my previous post about Obama that isn't a true fact, but much of the stuff you say about Santorum being some sort of religious zealot is complete propaganda (And I'm not a Santorum supporter) Maybe you should face the fact that over there in Denmark you're not getting the entire story about what goes on here in America.

Fair point ShowTek. Although I may have my philosophical rant from time to time, when I vote later this year you know it's not for the crazy guy Santorum. Obama is as good as it gets in my book, and I hope he gets another 4 years. He's not perfect, as SDU pointed out, but who is? He's miles ahead of anyone the Republicans fielded this year.

How is Obama as good as it gets? The economy is far worse now than when he took over, the federal debt is balooning with no end in sight, He does nothing to bring down energy prices, in fact his policies have raised them, His socialized healthcare system is going to crush small businesses and drive up cost. It is true that the best people the republicans have didn't run this year, but just about anyone would be better than Obama, even Ron Paul.

[sdu754]

There's truth in that... Like SDU I'm more of a capitalist, but I agree with you that excess deregulation has made economic conditions worse. People didn't realize this in the 80s b/c women in the work force offset the worsening conditions. But now we see that banks need closer regulation if we're to avoid bailing them out again for gambling with our money.

It's actually government interference and over regulation tha'st causing the economic problems we have today. It was Fannie may and Freddie Mac forcing banks to loan money to people who couldn't afford thier morgages that caused that housing market collapse. So what did Obama do, he propped up fannie mae and freddie mac, and put a whole lot of regulations in place that make it harder for small banks to lend money to anyone. You should have watched the John Stossel special on Fox about a month ago, where he showed all the crazy laws and regulations out there. It's actually illegal for a kid to open up a lemonade stand in this country. To drive a taxi you have to have a million dollar medalion in ever major US city except Washington DC. The regulations are killing small businesses.

[Zefelius]

How is Obama as good as it gets? The economy is far worse now than when he took over, the federal debt is balooning with no end in sight, He does nothing to bring down energy prices, in fact his policies have raised them, His socialized healthcare system is going to crush small businesses and drive up cost. It is true that the best people the republicans have didn't run this year, but just about anyone would be better than Obama, even Ron Paul.

All I can do is compare him to what I hear from his competition. I'm not an expert on climate change or the economy, but from what I've heard during the Republican debates many of them, other than perhap Huntsman, really do seem at odds with what most experts say. I noticed this last summer as well during the budget wrangling: most economists and even many prominent business leaders suggested that a balanced approach would be good, whereas more of the Republicans argued dogmatically against any tax increases.

I have many conservative beliefs. But for some reason today's Republican establishment seems a bit crazy and anti-science to me. I'm not a liberal, but until the Republicans can do better Obama seems like the best choice.

[ITZ DENI3D]

russia and china are both capitalist nations nowadays! russia is also a democracy, though one that doesn't function as well as western ones. china is an interesting example because it is both capitalistic and a tyranny at the same time which goes against the common notion that capitalism and democracy are somehow intrinsically related.

China is not a capitalist country the have a couple city states that like Beijing for example that are run in an capitalistic manor, but the whole of china is closest to Communism or Socialism with figureheads to make it appear like they are not a dictatorship. But I am not an expert on the matter so perhaps I am wrong? I do know that they are definitely not a capitalist country though... I love google