By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Apparently the recession changed my political views

Kasz216 on 14 September 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Funnily enough I read something interesting that is tenuously link to your debate Kasz and manusjustus. This week in new scientist they had an article on how to build the perfect world and one of them was to redefine poverty, it's just based on wealth and the condition you live in. But research suggested that many people that live in poverty are happier with their lives than many people who are rich. They have inner peace because of factors like they tend to lead more fulfilling traditional lives and so on. It was quite interesting.

To me it has less to do with wealth as it does motivation.


I mean... if your happy you really aren't going to be motivated to try and make a lot of money... while people... atleast in the US have good upwords mobility as shown earlier in the thread.

If your poor you have a 50% chance of not being poor in 10 years.

The poor are likely happier because a lot of poorer people are probably natural laid back people

Like me.  I had a chance to go into a graduate program into a field where i could make shittons of money... had connections that would set me up and everything

But i didn't.

Why?  I'm damn happy.

Give me a computer with the internet... and that's basically all I need for matieral things.

Why do something I wouldn't much enjoy just to make a bunch of money?  Not only would i be unhappy i'd be taking up a spot for someone who might actually enjoy it.

 

Now my friends dad.  He got out of vietnam... was unhappy with his life and got an army grant to start a computer buisness to train war veterans.

He fucking hates computers... doesn't know much about them... but he became head of this company built on them due to saying "I'm not happy I want to make some money."

He spent years running a buisness that he didn't even like just for the money.... kept buying shit to show off and remind himself why he worked there...

eventually got fed up and sold the place for somethin like 10 million dollars.  Now he's finally happy, because he can sit back relax and do the things he wants... the money isn't even that important.

 

A lot of rich people i imagine are people who are working to try and fill holes in their lives... there are a few notable exceptions.  Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for example... who just love what they do and what they do makes them shitloads.... but you'll notice they are fairly rare... and they have certain qualties about themselves.

For example they know money isn't what's important.  Neither one plans to leave their kids that much money.  Well a lot by our terms... a few million... but there billions will be given away to charity when they die...

Because money doesn't make you happy.  You make yourself happy.

The real problem America has is it's culture.  It's too money hungry... the culture needs to change.  Not the laws.   Laws focusing on the gini coeefficent and other such stuff is just going to make us more money and object valued.

 



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 14 September 2009
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:

Well, I'm sorry that you are unable to actually comprehend how the world works.

Here is my economic opinion, and I will use an analogy so you understand.

When every human being in the US is born, they are given a set of tools to they can utilize to improve their lives economically. Those tools include the ability to go to any school they strive to go to. To go to any University they earn entrance into. To work any job they qualify for. To live anywhere they can afford to live.

All these tools are at that baby’s disposal over the course of his life. What he does with those tools should be of no concern to Government. His outcome based on the use or lack thereof, should be of no concern to government.

What government is for, is to make sure those set of tools are available for everyone.

What the heck are you talking about? You start talking about something completely unrelated to the discussion and act like you've just proven your point.  Surely no one would argue that we dont have more social rights today than we did in the past, but that has nothing to do with the decrease in minimum wage over the years.  Unless you are arguing that civil rights comes at a price, and that price is lower minimum wage and a larger gap between rich and poor.

Combustion occurs when methane and oxygen react to form carbon dioxide and water.  And Ronald Reagan was the 40th president.

 

What I am talking about, is if everyone has the opportunity to succeed, who gives a shit if they do?

 

As long as everyone can take advantage of the system, why do you care if some don't?

 

I guess the reason I am stating the things I am in this thread, is as long as people can achieve, this thread is pointless.

 

In other countries where based on your race or your sex, you are limited in what you can achieve, I can see the requirement to fight for economic equality.

 

In this country, the individually has the responsibility, and means, to fix it for themselves.



SnesTea on 14 September 2009

Socialism is evil.

/stupid flamebait. seriously, this is the dumbest I have done all week.

Please don't ban me.


My political views haven't changed much. I still don't like the idea of nationalized health care, but I don't disagree it with it as much as I did.



HappySqurriel on 14 September 2009
ManusJustus said:
HappySqurriel said:

In what way has the American government become "More Capitalist"? Between social security, Medicare and Medicaid more money is spent on wealth transfers from the federal government today than any other expense; and more money is spent redistributing wealth today then at any other time in history. It could be argued that this ever increasing social spending is correlated to (and potentially causing) the increase in disparity between the rich and the poor.

You are correct that spending has increased over time, but government control over the economy has decreased over time.  I am specifically thinking of deregulation and privatization.

Do you consider government spending as a factor of captialism or socialism, or do you do consider freedom of the market as a factor of capitalism or socialism?  I consider the freedom of the market to define capitalism and socialism, as taxes are the norm for pretty much every system of government ever devised and increasing or decreasing taxes doesn't have much of an affect on government idealogy. 

If North Korea decided to cut taxes for everyone while keeping the same economic practices, I wouldnt say that they were suddenly more captilalist.

If you think there are less restrictions from the government on the economy try building a power plant. What was once a fairly simple process of getting the plans approved of has now become a multi-decade struggle with the government to provide demanded energy to the public. Beyond the obvious growth in environmental and health and safety regulations, there has been massive growth in labour regulations and corporate welfare over the past 50 years.

Now, a tax-cut is basically a statement from the government that an individual can make rational decisions to provide for themselves without the need of government intervention; and is a move towards economic freedom of the individual which is implicitly capitalistic. If the individual does not have personal property rights, contract law is not protected, and a person does not have the ability to control the means of production the country may not be a capitalist state; but the act of reducing taxes is a step towards more free markets.