New American Leader... Barack Obama
Hey, go to Civ. 5 General, thread with same headline as this.
I found the discussion so interesting that I wanted to continue it.
Okay I'll see if anyone migrates over to this thread with me then. First off in the old thread to the guy who said I couldnt use Magret Thatcher in my argument for Socialism. Well you see that's where you are wrong under Thatcher in Britain (arguably one of our most right wing leaders in the last 100 years) Socialism was still alive and well in Britain We still had a Welfare state Now if the Iron Lady kept this alive it certainly must of been because she thought it worked, because if you hadnt noticed if the woman didnt like something she got rid of it.
Now as for my Bill Gates statement I admit that was a bit of an exageration. But if you look at for example the stock market if you win big you Win BIG and if you lose big you really lose. This kind of un-hampered crass comerece is more what i was talking about with no saftey net you fall right to the bottom if you lose and guess what? that hurts.
The permemnant dependent class that you speak of is a small price to pay for no one starving on the streets and there is no upper wall stopping them from bettering themselves. In times such as these where there are no jobs for them to fill anyway the disscusion is moot really because it's capitalism which has created this mess if society was even more heavily socialised than it currently is then this mess wouldnt be nearly as bad as it is now.
BTW is that Punctuated well enough for you? I'd hate to hurt your poor ickle eyes
Last edited by Cralus; 04-13-2010 at 11:30 PM.
Well, I saw someone saying that government can't controll the marked, and that there will be ups and downs.
I don't remember the name, and this question really applies to anyone with that view.
When you say government can not controll the marked, do you mean they can't avoid future crashes aswell? If you mean that they can't or should not influence a healthy private sector, then I totally see your point.
But should'nt they be allowed to controll and balance check companies and restrict how much debt individuals and companies can have? This really does not affect standard business in my view, but it should be more than enough to make sure that thouse collapses does not happen.
I think American Politics could only become more entertaining if they changed the constitution and let Arnold run for the presidency! Then again that might not be so hot, "I'll be baaawwwk" isn't a great concept for Iraq at the moment.
I get tired of Republicans these days because redistribution of wealth (socialism) is always "evil" and absolutely never justifiable. That is a valid opinion that anyone can have but I personally immediately turn off when I hear anyone talking in absolutes. We've had socialism in this country since we started collecting taxes to support an army. I can look up the date but its been much of the country's lifetime. There is still a huge spectrum to slide on despite the fact we are already socialist before we hit communism. In fact there is a lot of room to slide before we even hit the level of socialism of many European countries.
Going hand in hand with this is the fallacious slippery slope argument. A change to the way we do things does not necessarily mean a chain reaction that leads to an extreme will be set in motion, nor is it even likely. Even if it was then it should apply on both sides. A switch to less regulation would lead to pure capitalism and massive monopolies that would stifle innovation and the economy just as much as a switch to more regulation would lead to communism or whatever. The sooner that rhetorical device dies the better this country will be.
Finally countries do not exist in a static vacuum. The countries around them change. The environment changes. Technology changes. Society changes. If governance and politics remain static then history has shown us that countries will either fail or fade into the background. Therefore no one should be against any change by default. Everything should be considered on its own projected merits and drawbacks in the current reality and decided on independently instead of simply rejecting things based on a generic and absolute prejudice.
Last edited by wandmdave; 04-14-2010 at 06:05 AM.
Thankyou. Finaly someone is not a close-minded fool.
Originally Posted by wandmdave