Did you know one person used to be able to support a family of 5 with one salary? Did you know that people were often successfully able to run their own businesses and support their entire living families? Are you opposed to larger governments? Are you opposed to taxes? Are you alarmed that more and more people just barely aquire enough for thier needs in this society while they could take what they have and leave and support their entire families elsewhere? Does it bother you that people break their backs for their general needs in their countries and are not in the position to live well in their economies? Are you opposed to immigration? Do you worry about illegal immigrants? Did you know that people view our country as a wealth pot that they get in and get out of? Or do you really believe illegal immigrants take advantage of our health care and are a large threat to security? Please answer the questions and comment on each one if you wish. I want to talk about how you should be taxed on only one thing, everyone should own a house by 18 and every labourer in the world should make a minimum of $10/hr. Lets talk about efficiency and not pessimistic right ring intense theory economics.
I completely agree. My grandfather once earned 72 dollars per hour as a mechanic in 1970. Today, in 2011, after 40 years of inflation, a mechanic in the same position typically earns only 16-22 dollars per hour. In most urban cities, all the younger mechanics are not white (tells you something). I also even made two sites, the first discussing poverty and homelessness in the USA, the second showing how much immigration costs the USA. Of course, immigration and outsourcing are only one of the reasons for poverty. https://sites.google.com/site/revolutionagainstdemocracy/ https://sites.google.com/site/displacedbyimmigrants/home
$72/h in 1970? It is $150/h today. You gotta be a CEO to earn that. Not even the well published high paying jobs such as software engineer and mathematician are reported above $120/h. (National statistics.)
Right. Then came feminism and diluted this expectation especially from the point of view of employers. All I want is food and shelter so that a girl doesn't need to say that I am a popper who she can't stay with for physical reasons such as a place to go. Absolutely not. Stop being a propaganda victim. Immiigration is with many categories. The educated worker immigrant is likely to become an employer evetually, so that is positively good. If I was a Mexican stereotypically living under one dollar a day, it would make sense to me to do what they all do. Get an (illegal) dayjob over the summer in New York, then go home and build a nice house for my wife out of it, before coming again next summer. The problem is not with immigrants. The problem is with those power circles that rule Washington and globalisation, and artificially play games with currency exchange rates to eliminate labor cost when outsourcing. What 18 year old would want to be lumbered with a responsibility of a house when even mommy's chores are too much? But the global $10/h went down the drain when American Labor Unions became no more than tools for organized crime. Otherwise they should have realized that when the jobs are moving they must move with them, across the border if necessary.
My grandfather married at the age of 20 and rented an apartment at a reduced rate from his wife's family. He managed to save enough money to buy a house at age 29, taking on a 25-year mortgage. Note he never obtained a college degree, yet he was still able to buy a house which was nicer than most of the unaffordable little crap houses they are building now. I agree, the widescale homelessness in the USA is shameful, and in many ways morally wrong. I am surprised the disgruntled homeless have not revolted! It certainly is a sign that living standards are sinking to third world levels. Of course, the Americans public is blame too; right up to the recession most of them put the blame of homelessness on the homeless themselves. They actually thought all the homeless were drug users, alcohaulics, mentally ill, and/or lazy. Until the harsh economic reality caught up with them that they too could lose their job and house and find themselves out on the streets. While immigration certainly is an important factor in the recession, I believe that mosts of the costs of immigration are delayed and we will not really feel the full costs until decades into the future. Although non-white immigration is by far the most damaging problem to society, in terms of current economic effects I think it contributes to the recession about as much as outsourcing. I do not believe for a second that the housing crisis is the root cause of the recession, it only precipitated out other deeper problems that had been developing for some time before. Even ten years before the recession, there were serious signs that something was wrong, housing was becoming unaffordable and everyone had to have a college degree to get a decent job. No one said anything about all the homeless in the years before the recession, now perhaps people will take notice. Also, one can never trust what economists say- now they are saying the recession is "over" As far as I am concerned, things have been bad for the last 10 years and are no better now. The USA has enough poor minorities, and with all their homeless people, they cannot afford any more.
The basic position that causes poverty and homelessness is that caring for or about less well off people is an unaffordable gross imposition on the liberties and freedoms of the more well off. It is an argument over individual right to property, basically that people who own property have the right to ignore those who do not. No mention of anthing like basic human rights is allowed.
So, your grandfather was making over $150k a year as a mechanic in 1970? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). A man can still support a family of five with his job...if he's a liberal politician or a labor organizer. Normal people can also support a family of five if they don't feel compelled to live in a million-dollar house and vacation in Tahiti. I'm 70-years old and no one ever supported a family on minimum wage. Everyone should have a house before they've ever had a job. Okay. Whatever you think.
People can still support a family of 5 on one salary but as it's possible to have 2 people earning most people don't need to. And if you can't support a family of five then don't have it. I am against tax, the very idea of taking from a man what he has produced just because you have a gun in your hand is deeply moraly wrong, it suprises me that many people don't see it. The problem is not immigration, it is the reasons which make people want to immigrate that is the problem, those are the providing of free health care and the rewarding of doing nothing. It is not a threat to security and if these things were taken away then the people who would immigrate would be those who are seeking jobs and would wish to produce and contribute. What is the one thing you should be taxed on? This sounds very much like the economic bill of rights, I ask you this though, who will build those houses, who will pay that $10/hr, at whose expense
The idea that someone should be allowed ignore their obligation to contribute to those things that are necessary to make living in a large complex society possible just because they do not feel like paying taxes is a very surprising moral stance to me.
The dollar used to be worth 20 times what it is now. Thanks debt-based currency for causing inflation and trillions in debt.
You do not think that the abbilty of a thug to force you to give him your money is wrong? do you think when the mafia comes round and "asks" for protection money that is moraly justified? The goverment is merely an entity which legaly disarms the people while legaly arming itself.
That is certainly a way to look at government if you are a self absorbed anti-social psychopath but most reasonable people who wish to live in a peaceful society realize that a certain amount of collective agreement and collective endeavor which all should contribute to is useful, and the formation of some entity to manage it, i.e. a government, is preferable to having to deal with the minutia of this yourself. Of course there are many cases where this situation goes awry and the government works against collective agreement and endeavor and so degenerates into a thugocracy or a kleptocracy, or both. The blame for this happening lies with the citizenry. No government can exist without the consent and participation of its citizens. As recent events are proving, even the most oppressive venal and corrupt of governments cannot rule when the citizens remove their consent and refuse participation. You cannot blame the government for anything. if you do not recognize social obligations and duties how can your government? If you do not act for anything but your own personal desires, how can you expect politicians and government officials act differently? Governments are a reflection of their people, a perfect mirror of collective thought. Only by changing how everyone thinks about their mutual concerns and desires can a government be replaced by one dedicated to collective endeavor. To just rant and rave against government in general while eschewing your own social responsibility serves no purpose at all except to encourage an even more self serving venal and corrupt government of arrogant selfishness.
Tredre: "Did you know one person used to be able to support a family of 5 with one salary? Did you know that people were often successfully able to run their own businesses and support their entire living families?" Wow, that's amazing. I'm 70-years old and can you tell when the time was that one person--not a Kennedy or an Obama or a Kerry or a Pelosi but a normal person--could support a family of five with one salary and better than they can now. And, people were successfully able to run their own business when they didn't have the government fighting against them.
Collective agreement? collective endeavor? what are these but a way for the parasites to take from the producers. Whenever someone wants another to do their work for them, they call on alturism or collective endeavor. Why would those who can produce need to be in a collective it is only the leeches who latch onto to these collective plans so that they can suck the life blood from those who produce. This is an incredibly narrow and ignorant view of the goverment, it is after all made up of humans and it is not a direct representaion of it's people it is merely what some of the people prefer over another option goverments have gone arwy in cases like libya do you think thats what the people wanted? So don't pretend that the govermant is a mirror of the people of that country, they are a group of humans who were able to accumalte slips of paper for propmises they will never fufil There should be no goverment, not as it is today the only power goverment should have is the enforcment of buisness contracts, not the control of what we eat, what we see, what we can have. Not the power to steal our money from us as they see fit. Goverments are no where near a reflection of their people they represent a small amount of peoples prefrence over other parties. In america you have two choices of parties, what if neither of them represent what you want then what do you do? In England there are several parties but as of now we have a coalition, which is not what the people asked for, where's your reflection there. Social responsibility? what is that yet again you have used words with no real meaning behind them but I can only assume that you are refering to alturism again which I have already expressed my views on, and the goverment could not be corrupt if it preformed it's proper fuction unlike now where it has appointed itelf omnipotent.
I suppose you believe that all the things that make it possible for people to live in our modern society did not come about from cooperative endeavor, things like roads and highways, water and sewer systems, education, police, etc that benefit everyone? Even producers need roads to get their goods to market, access to clean water, an educated workforce and police protection. You have a particularly misinformed view of society. All government is a reflection of its people, not a perfect one but a reflection nonetheless. Yes, Somalia is doing so well in its two decades without a functioning government that multinational businesses are just flocking there to set up operations. Why should it be up to the government to enforce business contracts? Maybe you should talk to the Shabab about that, they are setting up their own government in parts of Somalia and are looking for ideas. American people are lazy and self absorbed, they get the government they deserve, self absorbed venal and corrupt politicians acting in their own narrow interests, a perfect reflection of the American people. The UK is not much different, just more irrelevant choices that most people could care less about. No, I am not referring to altruism, I am referring to the mutual cooperation necessary for people to go about their lives in peace in a large and complex society. Only a paranoid imbecile would claim that the necessary everyday cooperation of human beings is some sort of cleverly disguised altruistic masquerade designed to enslave them and steal their stuff.
The things that make it possible for todays society are the products of mans mind, It is the great chain that has lead us to where we are each of us pulling on it, it is beyond any mans ability to control and any that say they can wither have their hands in your pocket or a gun to your neck. I could say the same about you. Yes a reflection in the same way the looking at a matt black surface gives you a reflection of your face. The government currently enforces buisness contracts so there's no 'why' about it. First of all somalia is lawless I am not talking about a lawless state, second, how many have died in somalia? Then compare that to the number that have died in the wars and genocides perpertrated by the governments of todays world. Don't you see that the american people only have two choices, they can not pick a governemnt that represents them as they do not all fit neatly into 1 of the 2 catogries. I imagine that you've never been to america as refering to them all as you have is completly wrong. The whole idea that you think that you can group an entire country into one stereotype just to justify your argument shows extream naivity at best and down right idiocie at worst. No but the forced "cooperation" for the greater good of society is clearly Aluturistic, people will trade with one another if they wish to, but you propose that they should do it even if they don't for the good of society. If they wanted to trade then they would do it anyway.
Pulling on that chain, wouldn't that require a collective endeavor so everyone pulls together in the same direction and society actually gets somewhere? It is true that no one person can control the direction of society but that does not mean that society cannot collectively decide on a direction. Since society is very diverse some people will be unhappy no matter what direction society takes. The government does not enforce business contracts, it only adjudicates contractual disputes in legally enforceable contracts that are brought before it. There are many private means of enforcing contracts that do not involve the government at all. There are also many business contracts that the government refuses to even recognize, illegal ones for example. I am no defender of government but you have presented a particularly hair brained idea as to the role of government in society. It would be improbable even in a society where the only things people ever engaged in were "business contracts" but this is not the case and never will be. Somalia is not lawless, there are a myriad of entities enforcing laws in Somalia, that they are not coherent or consistent or do not meet your standards of law is irrelevant. The American people have lots of choices, that they fail to exercise them is no one's fault but their own. If you do not agree with what society is doing you are free to leave or to try and convince people to see things your way and make appropriate changes or start a rebellion. Those are your choices, they are not without consequences so choose wisely.
This is what he told me. I had difficulty believing it, since it would be very surprising today if a mechanic who did not own his own shop could earn 72 per hour, let alone in 1970 before all the inflation. I asked him a second time, just to be sure I was not misunderstanding what he was saying. I told him what mechanics are earning today and he started to get a little irritated and insisted "No, they earn 72 per hour." He seemed to have trouble understanding why it was so hard for me to believe. In many parts of the USA, normal people cannot afford to rent an apartment, even with a room mate. And buying a house, even a modest condominium, is just a distant dream. There is no way they can ever save up enough money on minimum wage. And the way the suburbs are designed, it is nearly impossible to get around without a car. Many hispanics are supporting families on minimum wage. Living conditions obviously are overcrowded and not very pleasant, and the children are growing up in hostile environments. Most Americans are not willing to work 3 part time jobs 70 hours a week, working under stressful conditions, standing all day without being allowed to sit down, then to come home to an overcrowded dingy little apartment packed with extended relatives. Most Americans would not even be willing to work at a difficult job 40 hours a week, with little opportunity for advancement, unless they were able to save enough to money to eventually buy a house.
No we all place our hands on the great chain but it is only through us all pulling for our own selfish reasons that we move the great chain for the benefit of all, take this example, a developer buys a piece of land and builds the utilitys and roads, they then sell the land to a housing company, the housing company builds houses on the site and sells them. The developer does not buy the peice of land so they can lay down the carpet for the housing developers, they do it to turn a profit. The housing developers are not a charity supplying houses for the needy, they are a company that pays its workers fo the work they have done. And the buyers of the houses do not buy them to provide the wages of the workers they buy them because they want a house. All of the above take hold of the great chain and pull it for their own sellfish needs but the out come benefits them all. But who is to decide for society? The Government? The King? God? I say NO! I say that it is up to every man to take hold of the great chain himself, and only then will evey man (or 'society') get what they want. And yes there will be those who are displeased by the direction the great chain pulls but that has always been the way. Those who do fall behind are merely a victim of progress. Really what are those? legitimit buisness contracts, the ones I am talking about, are bound by law and as such are enforced by the government. The hands that pull the Great Chain are those of industry life is full of contracts buisness or not, there will still be human rights which are held inviolate but the parasites of government will not be able to leech onto every man under their control. In terms of Government they have exactly 2 there is no way for them to exercise them. I see no reason why I should have to leave and let the parasite gorge on the remenants of our society, but I have to think where is there a country for men like me. men who think that a man is entitled to the sweat on his brow and that Rights are inviolate, The answer is nowhere, and so I have decided to make one.
Take this example, a private mortgage company makes a deal with investment bankers to package and sell its loans to investors as Collateralized Debt Obligations. The mortgage company proceeds to underwrite a lot of bad loans which it fraudulently represents as sound investments so it can make a lot of money on the fees. The investment bank suspect this, and eventually knows it, but ignores it because it is also making a lot of money on the fees. The housing market booms and then collapses and takes the entire economy down with it. The mortgage company owners and investment bankers walk away with $Billions. This is selfish desire. You seem to believe that it is only selfish desire which drives human activity? That is a very dangerous and outdated view of human behavior which is not supported by any evidence. In fact most recent scientific studies of the mind point to an opposite conclusion, that humans are inherently and automatically inclined to be cooperative but it takes a conscious effort to act selfishly. Acting selfishly on only your own personal desires without regard to others does not lead to positive outcomes in a large and complex society. No, not everyone will get what they want. Only by working for mutual benefit can the chain move at all. There are many who believe that no one should be left behind, that there should be no "victims of progress". Many believe that those who will leave others behind are the parasites, disclaiming any obligation for others in their uncaring and destructive pursuit of selfish desires. Who decides the law? [/QUOTE] The hands that pull the Great Chain are those of industry life is full of contracts buisness or not, there will still be human rights which are held inviolate but the parasites of government will not be able to leech onto every man under their control.[/QUOTE] Really? What rights would those be? Good for you, but do not expect to be successful with your anti-social views. I anticipate that you will meet quite a bit of opposition.
