Lets talk politics

[WastedMeerkat]

On that last point I have to contest with you Wasted, on two terms.

[trickle-down is dumb]

[there's no more hard-earned money]

["team mentality"] (agree)

Of course the rich will get richer. If they have money, they're going to invest it in things, and in turn, get more back. But then they'll use it to employ and invest some more. It's smart business and it keeps the economy running.

Also, it doesn't matter if someone earns their money through hard work or not. Someone could just have a brilliant idea that everyone wants to buy. Take Notch and Minecraft for example. It's still fair. Are you saying he shouldn't have all that money, and that it would be fair for the Swedish government to tax Notch out of all that money just because he didn't spend years of toil to earn it?

"It's like the majority of people voting don't actually know what the fuck is actually happening." - Quote of the Year

As far as mid term elections go it seems a little silly, over here we're implemented the opposite scheme. The coallition government is protected from re-elections for 4 years so that the country can see some stability, for better or for worse (i believe the last coallition government lasted 6 months).

I think the idea behind midterm elections is that if you like what the president + supporting congress is doing, you can vote in a congress that keeps supporting him. But if you don't like what they're doing, you can vote in a congress that opposes him and slow down his progress.

welcome to american politics.
[democrats+problem=throw money, republicans+money=problem]

[democrats+government healthcare+tax hike=love all citizens]

[Bush made gov't bigger, lowered taxes and spent money that we didn't have on a war]

[tax cuts are dumb, Republicans are dumb, tea party is dumb, make funny joke about trickle down and Reagan]

[lame demotivational 4chan poop]

On your first point, I half-agree. Democrats do throw money at problems. That is called Keynesian Economics. However, not all Republicans create problems with money. You're basing your opinion of Republicans off of Bush, and I don't think anybody but those with team mentality for the Republicans liked him. He was very progressive towards the end of his second term. He started bailouts with Fannie May and Freddie Mac.

I agree that there are democrats that believe what they're doing is helping us. I believe that Obama has good intentions, even if I don't like what he's doing. But then on the point of letting the Bush tax cuts expire... you know why they're doing that, right? Instead of just voting to raise taxes, they're just going to let them expire so they can say "Well, I didn't want to raise taxes. Wasn't me." Now, even if you believe that increasing taxes is the right way to go, does it have to be now?

Again, not gonna argue about Bush. But you gotta admit, we did help the crap out of those Iraqis.

If less money is given to the government, businesses have more money to invest and employ with. The Tea Party believes this, but honestly, how does this not make sense to you? But with the tax cuts expiring, businesses aren't confident making any moves right now. They don't know if they're going to be able to survive in a struggling economy, but added taxes on top of that? Really?

 

[Pocket]

If less money is given to the government, businesses have more money to invest and employ with. The Tea Party believes this, but honestly, how does this not make sense to you? But with the tax cuts expiring, businesses aren't confident making any moves right now. They don't know if they're going to be able to survive in a struggling economy, but added taxes on top of that? Really?

I didn't watch that because the douche who uploaded it apparently doesn't know what video compression is. But just tell me, do the Bush tax cuts include corporate taxes? If not, then there's no reason this is going to hurt businesses, unless their wealthy higher-ups decide to further cut expenses and raise their own salaries to make up for their higher taxes. And if they do, then I'm not exactly going to weep for them when their underfunded company fails.

 

[Terr]

[Bush] was very progressive towards the end of his second term. He started bailouts with Fannie May and Freddie Mac.

Bailouts to huge investment banks is nowhere near what Progressive means, not if you ask current self-identified "Progressives" nor if you examine the historical record.

But then on the point of letting the Bush tax cuts expire... you know why they're doing that, right?

Certainly there's some "not us" here, but remember that it was the Bush administration and allies in congress who explicitly designed those tax cuts to expire in 10 years, so that they could exploit a loophole around "reconciliation" to avoid a re-vote.

I'm not trying to say reconciliation is good or bad, but the loophole they exploited certainly was: The 10-year sunset was to make it appear--on paper--that the tax-cuts were "revenue neutral" when in fact they were nothing of the sort.

You care about the deficit? Even with the size of overseas wars, Bush's tax cuts are the bottom portion of the iceberg.

If less money is given to the government, businesses have more money to invest and employ with.

Or invest in huge stock bubbles. Or use to ship US jobs overseas. And of course the US government doesn't do anything at all that is remotely similar to "investing" or "employing".

OK, so those are mostly overly-vague snark. How a tax works is at least as important as whether it exists or not or is high or low. Higher taxes on capital-gains encourages people to keep their money in their investment. Lower taxes encourages speculation and pump-and-dump behavior.

 

[Numerous]

Of course the rich will get richer. If they have money, they're going to invest it in things, and in turn, get more back. But then they'll use it to employ and invest some more. It's smart business and it keeps the economy running.

Also, it doesn't matter if someone earns their money through hard work or not. Someone could just have a brilliant idea that everyone wants to buy. Take Notch and Minecraft for example. It's still fair. Are you saying he shouldn't have all that money, and that it would be fair for the Swedish government to tax Notch out of all that money just because he didn't spend years of toil to earn it?



I think the idea behind midterm elections is that if you like what the president + supporting congress is doing, you can vote in a congress that keeps supporting him. But if you don't like what they're doing, you can vote in a congress that opposes him and slow down his progress.



On your first point, I half-agree. Democrats do throw money at problems. That is called Keynesian Economics. However, not all Republicans create problems with money. You're basing your opinion of Republicans off of Bush, and I don't think anybody but those with team mentality for the Republicans liked him. He was very progressive towards the end of his second term. He started bailouts with Fannie May and Freddie Mac.

I agree that there are democrats that believe what they're doing is helping us. I believe that Obama has good intentions, even if I don't like what he's doing. But then on the point of letting the Bush tax cuts expire... you know why they're doing that, right? Instead of just voting to raise taxes, they're just going to let them expire so they can say "Well, I didn't want to raise taxes. Wasn't me." Now, even if you believe that increasing taxes is the right way to go, does it have to be now?

Again, not gonna argue about Bush. But you gotta admit, we did help the crap out of those Iraqis.

If less money is given to the government, businesses have more money to invest and employ with. The Tea Party believes this, but honestly, how does this not make sense to you? But with the tax cuts expiring, businesses aren't confident making any moves right now. They don't know if they're going to be able to survive in a struggling economy, but added taxes on top of that? Really?

First of all, yes, if you come up with some brilliant idea like notch and minecraft, then yes, you should profit from it. However, when it comes to the point of hundreds of millions, say, then the fact of life is it's not actually going to make a difference whether they own $500 million, or $700 million. Either way they're incredibly filthy rich. So I say, use it to ensure the system really is fair. The whole thing about capitalism is supposed to be that everyone can earn their status depending on their own personal merits, etc, but if the school systems suck and you're completely fucked if you don't have private health care, then really, the system is broken for the poor.

Not to mention, a lot of the stuff the government does (in theory, at least) is going to benefit EVERYONE, no matter where you are. Think about it, no matter how rich you are, if you're in a horrible accident that means they can't identify you, then you're pretty fucked if the public hospitals are completely overworked, aren't you? They can assume you're just some penniless hobo and wait around for you to die, instead of doing that life-saving surgery. Believe it or not, the time it takes to identify someone and get access to private health care funds, or even be sure that you HAVE the funds, can make the difference between life and death. Even for rich top-hat-and-monacle-wearing multibillionares. The wrong funds in the right place can make all the difference in the world.
And you say "if businesses have less money to give to the government, they have more money to invest and employ with". So what? The businesses are going to invest in the businesses. The fact of life is, if they have more money to use, and they can get away with still paying the same, LOW wage, they'll do so. They might invest money in new ventures, which will tend to increase the GDP, but really, if you want the money to go to something that will benefit the People, then the people spending it must have the People as their intended benefactors, not themselves. And GDP? It's a myth. If you crash your car and have a horrible accident, then the national GDP goes up. All the work that needs to be done on the car, all the health care, the insurance, the lawyers etc, all of that means that regardless of what happens to you, GDP goes up. GDP does not equate to happiness.

But do you know what does? Education, and social support. Ultimately, the base wage in australia compared to the cost of living is MUCH higher. So that means that we're more wealthy, on average. And we have better health care and schools. Ultimately, poverty and ignorance tends to be self-propagating, and ignorance tends to breed poverty, and poverty tends to breed ignorance. So really, in terms of investment, the best thing you could possibly do, in the long term, would be to invest in social security, and public health and education. Believe it or not, if you're poor, it's not because you're lazy. It's quite often because you're unable to afford to get some education, to get a job, to be able to afford some education. Really, education is what makes the difference between being employed as a cleaner, or being a marine biologist. You need to know shit to get hired.

Anyways, point is, capitalism is broken. And it's probably not going to get fixed any time soon, because it isn't the poor who owns the media, is it now? And don't anyone say that the average person is too mart to be easily fed bullshit by the media, that's basically the entire reason for Fox news' existence.

 

[WastedMeerkat]

I didn't watch that because the douche who uploaded it apparently doesn't know what video compression is. But just tell me, do the Bush tax cuts include corporate taxes? If not, then there's no reason this is going to hurt businesses, unless their wealthy higher-ups decide to further cut expenses and raise their own salaries to make up for their higher taxes. And if they do, then I'm not exactly going to weep for them when their underfunded company fails.

Try watching in a lower resolution. Yes, the Bush tax cuts do affect corporate taxes. I agree on your second statement; if a business owner doesn't care for his employs enough to share the burden, then I would be glad for his company to go under. But then that would adversely affect his employs, who have done nothing wrong.

(I'll finish this post later)

 

[Numerous]

I really need to stop reading these. I end up posting a massive rant, then feel obliged to come back to check the replies, which makes me end up posting a massive rant. And it also sort of bugs me.

 

[absurdistof]

1st bit:
Of course the rich will get richer. If they have money, they're going to invest it in things, and in turn, get more back. But then they'll use it to employ and invest some more. It's smart business and it keeps the economy running.

2nd bit:
Also, it doesn't matter if someone earns their money through hard work or not. Someone could just have a brilliant idea that everyone wants to buy. Take Notch and Minecraft for example. It's still fair. Are you saying he shouldn't have all that money, and that it would be fair for the Swedish government to tax Notch out of all that money just because he didn't spend years of toil to earn it?

Come on man, for real?

First off I'm just going to point things out from a fact perspective:
1st bit: Neither I nor you have given any facts towards either argument, but I'll look into getting some so this can become valid , and please don't generalize what I said as dumb, I never said it like that.

2nd bit: I'll quote myself here, "The second point is not so much something against you but something of interest." So basically I never said anything about the validity of earned money I was reflecting on opinions of it in the past

Also, on those links you gave I got a few comments,
Keyenesian economics: "Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1]"
Didn't read much about the throwing of money, and generalizations don't help in these things

The second link makes a convincing argument, but the problem lies with the facts cited. They take a very simplistic approach, comparing only two things. Problem is everyone knows that economics isn't just an a/b relationship. TL;DR, it's not fair to only compare two parts of a huge equation and consider it valid.

The third link didn't directly cite any sources, never made a real statement against the tax cuts, and felt pretty one sided
Side note on that, it's interesting he used a corporation as his example as most people who disprove of tax cuts disprove of their effects on real people, even though legally companies are considered people as well..

Finally, on a picky note I'm going to have to ask something of this thread to continue cleanly.
Please don't generalize, add opinion into people's statements, or make grand statements without fact. Unless you're trolling then it's k

 

[309blank]

I will comment on this hot button issue once i'm done with my bachelor thesis. But a few points in advance:

Republican understanding of how economics work is inherently flawed. Their love affair with free markets doesn't account for a wide array of issues that make free markets fail.

They don't really understand externalities, they are against secularism, they try to give opinions in economics while constantly devalueing the scientific method ( e.g. creationism) and while they claim to be about personal freedom they are vastly in favor of restricting moral laws and codes that have been abolished in most of the western world (e.g. death penalty, illegality of prostitution, gay marriage etc.)

I will of course back up all these statements as time permits, but i have a deadline in 2 weeks so i'm kind of strapped for time

 

[Numerous]

Food for thought: the countries such as norway and sweden, with the best average living conditions, most aid money donated to third world countries, lowest crime rates etc, ALSO have a fairly large, socialistic government.

If capitalism > socialism, why is this so?

Although really, when talking about "capitalism" and "socialism", you need a scale, not a boolean cap/soc to indicate what any given country is.

EDIT: Also, do I need to provide a source for the first 2 lines? I'm pretty sure it's public knowledge, and there's statistics somewhere that indicates so too, UN website or something.

 

[Terr]

Food for thought: the countries such as norway and sweden, with the best average living conditions, most aid money donated to third world countries, lowest crime rates etc, ALSO have a fairly large, socialistic government.

If capitalism > socialism, why is this so?

IMO the real problem is both words have been stretched and beaten into shape in so many ways that they mean very little.

Consider "Socialist". One definition holds that it means the government owns the means of production. Another definition would be that the government has a role in redistributing wealth to the needy.

Both definitions are in common use, yet Norway fits only one of them.

 

[WastedMeerkat]

I will comment on this hot button issue once i'm done with my bachelor thesis. But a few points in advance:

1. Republican understanding of how economics work is inherently flawed. Their love affair with free markets doesn't account for a wide array of issues that make free markets fail.

2. A. They don't really understand externalities, B. they are against secularism, C. they try to give opinions in economics D. while constantly devalueing the scientific method ( e.g. creationism) E. and while they claim to be about personal freedom they are vastly in favor of restricting moral laws and codes that have been abolished in most of the western world (e.g. death penalty, illegality of prostitution, gay marriage etc.)

I will of course back up all these statements as time permits, but i have a deadline in 2 weeks so i'm kind of strapped for time

1. Name a Marxist economy that hasn't collapsed or is on the way to collapse.

2.A. Are you in the externalities bandwagon because of pollution?

B. Secularism is dumb. If someone makes a decision, I don't care how he made it whether or not it had anything to do with his religion. If you don't like what someone does, don't vote for him.

C. Yeah, they do that.

D. You're obviously not Christian.

E. The death penalty is fair. The legal system is not. It's become all about winning, no matter who is right. I do however agree that prostitution and gay marriage should be legal. Just because I don't like something that someone does, that doesn't mean I should keep them from doing it. If someone wants to pay someone for sex, I say they should go ahead and do it. And I'm not passionate enough to go to gay pride rallies or anything, but I do agree that they should have the right to be married if they want to be.

 

[Numerous]

1. Name a Marxist economy that hasn't collapsed or is on the way to collapse.

2.A. Are you in the externalities bandwagon because of pollution?

B. Secularism is dumb. If someone makes a decision, I don't care how he made it whether or not it had anything to do with his religion. If you don't like what someone does, don't vote for him.

C. Yeah, they do that.

D. You're obviously not Christian.

E. The death penalty is fair. The legal system is not. It's become all about winning, no matter who is right. I do however agree that prostitution and gay marriage should be legal. Just because I don't like something that someone does, that doesn't mean I should keep them from doing it. If someone wants to pay someone for sex, I say they should go ahead and do it. And I'm not passionate enough to go to gay pride rallies or anything, but I do agree that they should have the right to be married if they want to be.

For B, D, and E, you missed a few nuances:
B:
The fact is, if you don't have secularism, you can't have any real tolerance of different religions. Honestly, that's fairly basic. Freedom of religion, basically, and if you allow church and state to mix, shit happens. I'm going to skip to the next before this becomes a rant.
D:
It's irrelevant whether he's christian or not. It's like saying that because you're not white, you can't comment about racism. And it seemed awfully like you were implying that that devalued his statements.
The fact is though, the creationists are FUCKING CRAZY. And I say that having spent several hundred hours in the last month trying to debate with them. When it comes down to it, they spout irrelevant buzzwords, and don't bother to learn evolution 101 (seriously, you explain how NO, evolution is NOT chance, theres this thing called "natural selection", which funnily enough, is selective, and a few weeks later they come back to square one, claiming its all chance) yet still insist that their arguments are completely undoubtable. Have you read answers in genesis? They also basically entirely discount carbon dating, which is also generally stupid, considering that they very rarely actually give any evidence, let alone evidence which actually looks half-reasonable (and of the half-reasonable evidence, I havent seen any that's at all compelling).
..this is becoming a rant. Next.
E:
The death penalty isn't ultimately fair, considering that most of the time, the complete sociopaths etc are basically the result of abuse etc, and are ultimately still human. That said, it's expensive as hell, and in reality the money could be better spent on other things. HOWEVER, approximately 10% of all executions have been SHOWN to be false executions (they execute someone INNOCENT). Considering that the numbers have reached upwards of 1000 (It was something like 1000 executions in the US in the last year, either that or in the last 5 years) and obviously, 10% of 1000 is one hundred. And unlike someone I know, who due to the shitty legal system in the US was locked up for 11 years for a crime he didnt do, before the actual murderer found out he had cancer, and confessed, giving evidence only he knew, you CAN'T release someone who has been executed. In an ideal world, the death penalty would not exist, and niether would the child abuse etc that happens in the first place, and this isn't a perfect world, but how much are those peoples lives worth?
The fact is, having the death penalty for the complete wastes of money is fair enough, considering its fairly expensive to lock them up, and the money could be used to save other people's lives, who deserved it more and were more useful to society, but are the innocent victims that die as a result of trigger-happy judges/juries worth the money? Not to mention, it's a slippery slope.

I personally love the idea of killing all the completely sociopathic bastards that are absolutely no use to society and a boon, and removing them so we could use the money on problems in the world (which by the way we are in no means lacking, just take a look at third world countries), but the fact is, the system just isn't effectively workable like that.

..I don't think that was a rant. Probably repeated the point several times, but not a rant.


Also, Cuba. In quite a few ways, cubans are better off than we are, you know. Of course, most people don't know jack schitt about cuba, because it sort of goes against the schtick of the conservatives that "omg marxism is evil omg omg omg".

 

[309blank]

about cuba: literacy and child mortality rates in cuba are a lot more desirable than the ones in the US. as i said, i would love to chime in, especially regarding the condescending externalities bandwagon comment, but i'd rather try to finish my thesis and work on my map

but i have to hand it to wasted, he is one of the few republicans i have encountered that think the personal freedom thing through to the end and are not restrictive in their moral reasoning. I'm neither gay nor do i want to visit prostitutes, yet i still think A: gays should be allowed to have the same rights and benefits heterosexual couples can have, and B: the human traficking and abuse issues associated with prostitution are usually best curbed by allowing and controlling prostitution. In Germany, prostitutes get health check ups every 6 months and pay income tax and even VAT (lol, what is the value added ^^) generating income for the government while they have the legal security to sue customers for breach of contract and whatnot or if they are abused.

 

[absurdistof]

So I just looked up secularism and I decided I'm a hardcore secularist(?). I believe that in a political system it is one's duty to vote as honestly and as free of opinion (thoughts or ideas emotionally based that aren't proven with fact thus could be flawed via ignorance and emotion) as possible.

On to your response Wasted, please try and keep this reasonable
For 1, 2A, C, and D I feel like you're trying to get a reaction not prove a point, which is the antithesis of this sort of discussion.

Also, I did do my homework and looked up some stuff on trickle-down economics. Here's my response: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html

Also, I'm sorry wasted that you're the only one standing for what you believe

Finally, guys please keep these responses concise, fact-based, and emotion free

 

[LeSwordfish]

I could very easily get very started on religion.

My personal feelings are that its not necessarily a political issue, but a moral issue. If someone freezes because they cant afford their heating bills: that is, simply, wrong. Any government that allows them to is an immoral government. With the concept of "Money" as free-flowing as it is, a government that allows this to happen can only blame the economy. If the economy makes this viable, we change it. Morality needs to come before everything else: no current system adequately deals with this. All i can do is throw all my political effort in to making the LEAST SHIT people win.

To digress; this moral thing sums up my religious views; namely, like fuck will i deify someone who kills the entire world with a flood, real or not.

Oh, and over the pond here? The government are, despite promising not to, doubling university fees. JUST in time for me to pay more.

 

[drp]

1. Name a Marxist economy that hasn't collapsed or is on the way to collapse.

2.A. Are you in the externalities bandwagon because of pollution?

B. Secularism is dumb. If someone makes a decision, I don't care how he made it whether or not it had anything to do with his religion. If you don't like what someone does, don't vote for him.

C. Yeah, they do that.

D. You're obviously not Christian.

E. The death penalty is fair. The legal system is not. It's become all about winning, no matter who is right. I do however agree that prostitution and gay marriage should be legal. Just because I don't like something that someone does, that doesn't mean I should keep them from doing it. If someone wants to pay someone for sex, I say they should go ahead and do it. And I'm not passionate enough to go to gay pride rallies or anything, but I do agree that they should have the right to be married if they want to be.

secularism is the only logical way to go. i want to have decisions made on logic and common sense. not dogma.

 

[Numerous]

I concur with the above 4 posts.

In theory, law should be the best mutual compromise in terms of what we all believe is moral and fair. Would you agree with this?

 

[LeSwordfish]

In theory yes, but laws have been built on a foundation of religion. for gods sake, we legalised homosexuality about thirty years ago!

We're trying to rebuild a legal system that still drips of the middle ages (SEE: All those stupid laws like a pregant woman can shit in a policeman's helmet), to make it fair nowadays. And since no-one can do anything even slightly radical under threat of being voted out, nothing happens.

As soon as i am old enough, i'm moving out of this country of scared twits who put little bits of carpet on their toilet seats, and to somewhere more interesting, like Canada.

 

[WastedMeerkat]

On to your response Wasted, please try and keep this reasonable
For 1, 2A, C, and D I feel like you're trying to get a reaction not prove a point, which is the antithesis of this sort of discussion.

Also, I did do my homework and looked up some stuff on trickle-down economics. Here's my response: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html

I didn't address the points with facts because they honestly wouldn't be worth arguing. Those topics are never settled, and any argument about them only ends with frustration on both sides.

1. I'm not going to get argue with someone who believes that the free market system always results in failure. If he would look at a list of free market systems that no longer exist, he would see that they all became command economies and thrived while they existed.

It becomes pointless to argue about points 2C and 2D when you account for 1. Creationism is something you can't prove with science, it's something you believe through faith. If evolution is true then why is it still the THEORY of Evolution? Because there is still not enough evidence for it to be concrete. Again, I'm not looking for counter-arguments for these topics because I can't very well present you with evidence.

Now, onto 2A. I actually admit that I don't know much about this topic, and I would be open to any statement that someone can make about it.

Now, Absurdist, that article is dumb. It completely overlooks the fact that if someone owns a company, they are entitled to do what they want with their money. Keep in mind that if a business owner owns all of the money he receives as a result of his business but has to give it to his employees because they signed legally binding contracts that promise them a wage. A business owner doesn't pay themselves more. They just earn more money, but they still give a percentage of that to their employees. If an employee is unhappy with his salary, he should ask for a raise or leave. If the boss doesn't give him a raise, then tough. If he signs a contract, then that means he agrees to the salary he would receive.

Strikes are logical, too, because if all the employees leave a company, then the company is rendered useless; inoperable. But the business owner can only give their employees so much before they can't make a profit. Would you have the business owner pay his employees the same amount regardless of their work? Would you have the owner earn the same salary as everyone else that is a part of the company? Would you make it a law that the business owner has to give the employees a certain percentage of their profit in order for the company to be "fair"? That wouldn't be fair for the business owner at all. He came up with the idea, he started the company, and he profited off of it. If you take away these principles, then that would not be capitalism.




On the subject of secularism:

If man doesn't get his morals from God, or his religion, where does he get them from? From man? Can you imagine what the world would be like without religion? Most religions are peaceful and uphold good values like respecting your parents, not murdering, not stealing, not lying, not committing adultery. If we lived in a world without religion, then there would be nothing stopping anybody from doing anything.

Swordfish brought up the story of Noah and the Ark. Do you know why God flooded the earth? Noah was the LAST follower of God. The last one. The entire world was just plundering and pillaging and raping and having orgies. There were no morals. Noah's life work was building the Ark; he spent hundreds of years building it because it had to hold 2 of every animal. The entire time he was mocked. He warned people of the coming flood and nobody listened. When it came the only people on the Ark were Noah and his family. Even after the flood, the only ones with morals were the Jews. Just compare Hebrew society with the Greeks or the Arabs.

My point is that without religion and morals abortion wouldn't be contested, rape would be legal, theft would be legal, and murder would be legal. There wouldn't even be law. So you think secularism is the way to go, but would that mean abandoning all morals for the sake of logic? If you become pregnant and you don't want the responsibility of a child, then the easiest way to avoid that responsibility is to kill it. If you want something, then the easiest way to have it is to steal it. If you don't like someone, the easiest way to get rid of him is to kill him.

If you want to be rid of the undesirables in society, the easiest way to get rid of them is to control human breeding and only breed those with the best of genetics, like breeding cows and pigs and sheep. What do you do with the runts? The ends justify the means. That's called eugenics.

I personally love the idea of killing all the completely sociopathic bastards that are absolutely no use to society and a boon, and removing them so we could use the money on problems in the world (which by the way we are in no means lacking, just take a look at third world countries), but the fact is, the system just isn't effectively workable like that.

Numerous, that is dangerous thinking, sir.

 

[absurdistof]

So, Wasted you and I talked out our beliefs on capitalism so I consider that matter settled
And as for religion, I believe that someone can form their own morals from living, but I also know that morals are subjective (logical side of me) and thus it's unfair to argue them. From another perspective, someone with different morals then you or I could have considered that a time of greatness, ended by god. So it's really nothing provable

Also, for those who wish to educate themselves well on our current economic system: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html

EDIT: Numerous stop trolling please? It doesn't take too long to figure out the impact of emotions on the human psyche, and thus it's not a long step to see that these 'sociopathic bastards' aren't what you think they are, and that it's easy to become one yourself.