The Gipper keeps on winning

Thrasher said:

Not being empathetic and being unable to understand the less fortunate is endemic in the Republican party.

Click to expand...

The saddest aspect of this drivel is that you genuinely believe it.

Oh, please. Who can forget "let them die"? Or calling those on welfare "thieves" and "drug addicts"? The wholesale adoption of ideas by Ayn Rand illustrates a total lack of compassion, and dare I say, cultural autism?

But we won't let "facts" stand in the way of perception....

dteowner said:

The saddest aspect of this drivel is that you genuinely believe it.

Click to expand...

Don't you know that you hate poor people, women, blacks, gays, and pretty much everyone else. Did you not get the memo?

Well I didn't even go there, but thanks for reminding everyone.

Sorry, I missed the last double secret meeting with my corporate masters.

It's just so nice that they got a chance to drag out Ayn Rand's skeleton yet again. They seem to think it's some kind of trump card, but it makes them happy so we'll just smile and nod.

I'm not saying every single Republican has these beliefs, but many of the most outspoken and outrageous extreme members do. They probably get more attention than they deserve.

Ayn Rand voted Democrat!!

Who is this Ayn Rand anyway ?

She's the Author of Atlas Shrugged, a political novel about a group of wealthy heads of industry struggling against a government that seeks to control and exploit them. Its a classic free enterprise vs socialism story. Also, it heavily influenced the setting for Bioshock.

Ah, I see.

In my mind, things are very much about Balance.

We need a Balance between economic freedom and socialism. Both sides are bad in their extremes.

In my opinion, people need the possibility of freedom in enterprises combined with welfare for those who cannot do it.

One of my fvourite Examples is the current Hatz IV system. In its earlier time, when it was more rigid and more extreme, people weren't allowed to participate in the welfare when they still owned a house.

They were forced to sell heir houses, "eat up" ALL of their money they had put asisde, and ONLY when these thing were run dry (read: they had no more money left), THEN they were allowed to receive welfare money.

This sounds normal, but I tried to think about it, analysed it, and I came to this conclusion :

Who profits from people being forced to sell their houses ? Those who already have the money. Because no-one else is avble to buy complete houses except those who have the money for it.

Putting so much money aside for buying a house - and in this case : To buy THEIR houses back - requires several DECADES of putting money aside.

Which in result means that those who are forced to sell their houses probably (and most likely) will NEVER get them back IN THEIR WHOLE LIFE !

Because when they already receive welfare, then they won't have enough money for putting so much aside to get he house back.

But even when they get a job, coming into position tht allows them to put so uch money aside that they will be able to buy their houses back - coming in such a position that lets them earn enough money - that requires several years, and I believe at least a decade to do get into such a job position.

Houses here cost several hundreds of thousands of Euros here.

So, projecting this over time, those people who are forced to sell their houses most likely will never get them back.

And that might well be because those who have bought them most likely will not want to sell them. Why freely sell a save means of constant money income through rental fees ? I assume that any one here would agree that it would be a loss to sell a house that generates a constant stream of money income through rental fees to someone else. It would be like cutting oneself off a money income.

So, to put it rather extremely, it goes like this :

Family becomes poor by losing the job(s) - are forced to consume LL money put aside - are forced to sell the house - only afterwards they get elfare money.

Rich person or rich company has the money to buy the house (poor people or poor companies don't have the money to buy the house) - the bought house is rented - perhaps even to the former owners ! - the bought house generates a constant stream of money income by the rental fees. The money the rich person or company gave is coming in at one point - the house is neither resold nor sold back, because that would be cutting off this stream of income. The former house owners have truly lost their home. There are merely tolerated in their "own" house now.

To cut it short, from forced house sales only those profit - in the long run - only who already own the money. We have a proverb here which goes like this : "those who lready have, they will be given [even more]".

This is exactly what happens there.

Fortunately people aren't forced to sell their houses anymore.


And, by the way, people here in Germany more and more get the impression that the Hartz IV laws are "keeping them poor". A recent court decision says that people who recive Hatz IV welfare even must give money to the government that they have won ! Or they have received from relatives ! (In one case a grandmother had been giving money to her grandchild. The Hatz IV controlling Arge (tht's government in short) found that out (they are allowed to look into bank accounts of Hartz IV receivers). The family of the grandchild had to give the money to the Arge. There has been a lawsuit over that. And the decision was clear : They had to give the money to the Arge. In a similar thing someone had won a prize from …something by the governmernt. I think it was about art. He or she had to give half of the money to the Arge, too.)

In the "Grand Scheme", it is profitable for companies to have a class of people that is kept poor by the government.

Because people held poor are accepting much, much more bad, really bad wages than middle class people do. And tht means profits : The less money a company hs to pay (that's financial losses, in short), the igher the profits are.

And profits - they are given out by bonus payments and by shareholder revenues.

And who holds the most of the shares ? Usually either a) big companies or/and b) the top employees of the company itself ! - Just take a look at how many managers hold stocks of the own company !

In the end, only those profit from higher company profits who already have the money. Enough money to buy LOTS of shares, for example.

Which means that people in the top positions are interested in paying as few wages as possible - because the less is paid ( = the less there are production losses), the higher the profits are.

The result is that a society with lots and lots and lots of poor people is actually VERY profitable for the "top people". Because poor people work for less. And the less, the better ( read: the less, the higher the profits).

Which could imho very much result in lobbyists trying to influence the government so that people are kept as poor as possible.

And this is what currently happens here in Germany.

And this lower class already has a name : It's called the "Prekariat".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prekariat

Read elsewhere, thought it applied:
"The food stamp program, a US Government run program, announced it is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, also part of the US Government, asks us to "please do not feed the animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.."

dteowner said:

It's really a difference of fundamental philosophy, and yours looks just as stupid to us as ours looks to you.

Libertarian approach- set minimal rules and let everyone play the game. There will be winners and there will be losers, but everyone played by the same simple rules so their only limitations were their own motivation and skill. Thus, a fair system.

Social dem approach- set oppressive rules so there is no game. There can be no losers because that makes us cry. Winners are evil and must be drug down. The system forces equal results, so everyone is lifted/drug to the middle. Thus, a fair system.

Obviously, that's broad brush stuff with all the problems associated with that technique, but I think it communicates the point.

Click to expand...

Except that this is completely wrong. You don't all play by the same rules as a libertarian. If you are born rich u play bu a whole set of differet rules. The social dem approach as seen in countries like Finland and Sweden is to give people born rich or poor the same playing field. It's exactly what libertarians according to your definition want but don't do.

Pladio said:

Except that this is completely wrong. You don't all play by the same rules as a libertarian. If you are born rich u play bu a whole set of differet rules. The social dem approach as seen in countries like Finland and Sweden is to give people born rich or poor the same playing field. It's exactly what libertarians according to your definition want but don't do.

Click to expand...

So lets say a man from a poor background struggles and works hard his whole life. Though he was born with very little and received very little from his parents he managed to scrap, work, and save his whole life. Though he worked a traditionally "poor job" he was eventually able to build enough wealth that he was not only able to care for his family, but when he passed on he left a substantial sum for his children.

So, explain to me how this is unfair? Does the man not have the right to provide for his family? Does he not have the right to leave them his money after death? (btw, estate taxes in the US are rediculous) Are his children somehow undeserving?

And libertarians do want a fair shake for everyone. Fair =/= Equal. To paraphrase one of my favorite authors: You get the same thing everyone gets. You get one lifetime.

What you choose to do with is up to you (At least in a free society).

dteowner said:

Libertarian approach- set minimal rules and let everyone play the game. There will be winners and there will be losers, but everyone played by the same simple rules so their only limitations were their own motivation and skill. Thus, a fair system.

Social dem approach- set oppressive rules so there is no game. There can be no losers because that makes us cry. Winners are evil and must be drug down. The system forces equal results, so everyone is lifted/drug to the middle. Thus, a fair system.

Click to expand...

This is a rather extreme view on it.

And the Libertarian philosophy lacks in one important part : The will to exploit.

The current economic theories do NOT include ANY kind of human emotions. They do so as if ALL humans were acting based on Rationalism, as if they were acting out of pure Logic.

The current economic sciences totally fail to see that EMOTIONS are involved.
nd this failure to include emotions into theories on human economic behaviour imho speaks volums about the scientists' school of thought of how humankind is built of, and acts.

The will to exploit others is there. If anyone would agree - in the Libertarian way - to agree on a FAIR game, then NO-ONE would develop a will to exploit others, because Exploitation is the direct opposite of Fairness.

But there ARE companies trying to exploit others. Paying the greatest minimum of wages to let's say farmers for their crops - and selling them with the highest possible profits.

Companies EXPLOIT their might and power. Let's go into retail : Retail companies actually SELL their shelf space. And they exploit their dominance by saying . "If you don't give us HUGE discounts, then you WON'T be able to use OUR shelf space !"

And these discounts - are used to generate profits. Minumim bying (of items for the shelves), maximum selling (the highest possible price tht doesn't hurt customers). It's the price difference between both.

Fact is, that companies like Walmarket are fist destroying "Aunt Emma shops" (the small groceries) by selling things with prices so low that "Aunt Emma groceris" jut can't compete.

And THEN, after this destruction, they have erected a near-monopoly. Which allows them to rise the prices at wish, and to use this "monopoly power" at will against those from which companies like Walmarkt buy from.

Walmarket is imho a very good example of how this works. Because hey have already gained a near-monopoly status. Together with Target and how they all are named, they have erected an Oligarchy Of Retail Shops. MIcrosoft is similar example.

You see, destruction of competors is a common way used by companies.

Now compare that to the Libertarian (spelling ?) philosophy : In theory, the rules would allow a FAIR SYSTEM.

How does Destruction of competors fit into the concept of Fairness ?

I can only call the Destruction of Competors as UNFAIR.

Which in result means that a Libertarian philosophy in which all rules apply for everyone will lead into some participants a) exploiting their power and b) resulting in an unfair system.

Which in result means that a Libertarian system is unfair. To cut it short.


Which is the reason why there MUST be at least a MINIMUM of strict rules to be applied.

But - there is another source of Economic Power : Lobbyists. Alrerady powerful economic branches will try to bend the rules applied by the government (by influence those members of the government which are responsible for economy-related laws) so that the can gain much more power and influence.

Long-term influence of Lobbyists is nothing that is covered by economy theories, not that I know of. The current Libertarian theories act as if there just didn't exist any long-term influiences to economy-related laws by Lobbyists. The Libertarian theories are seemingly practicall blind towards that aspect of influence on the Economy.

Guys, these big corporations and banking conglomerates don't exist in a vacuum. They have to get their money from somewhere. You think Walmart is evil? The only reason they can drive the Aunt Emmas of the world out of business is because the Uncle Joes of the world are only to happy to spend less for the same product and Aunt Emma and her little "serving the community since 19whenever" sign be damned. The Uncles Joes are every bit as complicit as Walmart is. Perhaps more so. They are the ones who get to choose where to shop after all.

Dollars are votes and the people have spoken. They want cheap stuff manufactured somewhere they couldn't find on a map if you held a gun to their heads. And corporations have listened. Maybe the people should've been more careful with their votes...

CrazyIrish said:

So lets say a man from a poor background struggles and works hard his whole life. Though he was born with very little and received very little from his parents he managed to scrap, work, and save his whole life. Though he worked a traditionally "poor job" he was eventually able to build enough wealth that he was not only able to care for his family, but when he passed on he left a substantial sum for his children.

So, explain to me how this is unfair? Does the man not have the right to provide for his family? Does he not have the right to leave them his money after death? (btw, estate taxes in the US are rediculous) Are his children somehow undeserving?

Click to expand...

Either you misunderstood everything I wrote or you're trying to dodge my point.

What's unfair isn't him working his ass of. The part that's unfair is that this guy had to compete with the other guy whose dad owns a multi-national and multi-million dollar company and automatically gets a vice-president's role in that company along with a good education at an Ivy League school, just because his dad donates a lot to that school.

The problem is also that this guy you talked about had to work a 16-hour day at a job that is neither mentally satisfying nor allows him to actually work on other skills like business management or see his kids, while the son of the rich guy can happily work 8-9 hours a day, earn twenty times as much and spend more time with his family and that is just because his father was rich.

This had nothing to do with the rich guy being good, but only his luck of being born rich.

So, no it isn't fair.

Note: His "poor job" would not have allowed him to save a substantial amount of money, he would have more likely been in debt to be able to send his kids to university and so on...

As is unfortunately quite common, you're confusing libertarian thought with anarchist thought. Minimal government intervention does not equal zero government intervention. Laissez faire capitalism does not equal anarchocapitalism. I guess it's easier to demonize the opposition if you paint them in the most extreme colors you can find.

edit- for clarity, this post was directed at Alrik

I always know the conversation has run its course when we start talking about "fair". The term is subjective to the point of being nearly meaningless and any attempts to impose it on human beings is doomed to failure. Humans ultimately don't truly want that particular leftie holy grail anyway.

dteowner said:

As is unfortunately quite common, you're confusing libertarian thought with anarchist thought. Minimal government intervention does not equal zero government intervention. Laissez faire capitalism does not equal anarchocapitalism. I guess it's easier to demonize the opposition if you paint them in the most extreme colors you can find.

Click to expand...

I always know the conversation has run its course when we start talking about "fair". The term is subjective to the point of being nearly meaningless and any attempts to impose it on human beings is doomed to failure. Humans ultimately don't truly want that particular leftie holy grail anyway.

Click to expand...

I was just taking your own definition … And you're the one who brought up "fair".

Libertarian approach- set minimal rules and let everyone play the game. There will be winners and there will be losers, but everyone played by the same simple rules so their only limitations were their own motivation and skill. Thus, a fair system.

Click to expand...

Not my fault, is it ?

On shareholders and shres I found a curious remark in the DDO forums (I was surprised to find it there, actually) :

Conflict of Interest and Full Disclosure
As we all know Turbine was acquired by Warner Bros. Interactive, which is owned by Warner Bros, which is part of TimeWarner, inc, which is a publicly traded company (TWX ticker symbol). It is not far-fetched at all to think that a good number of people in these forums can own TWX stock (or other financial instruments) or a mutual fund/ETF owning TWX shares. For those who do have a financial interest in TWX (I don't atm), this presents a conflict of interest since it would be in their best interest to get other people in these forums to spend more money in this game since that will, indirectly, affect the shareholder's bottom line — while you could argue that Turbine is just a spec of sand in TWX earnings-wise, it still a conflict of interest none the less. The reason I bring this up is because I've seen thread after thread as to how good (or bad) the CE pre-purchase packages are. But, should we trust the opinions/views of someone who owns TWX shares (or someone shorting it)? Would you trust an ad telling you that XYZ corp has the best values? All I'm asking is: if you own TWX financial instruments (or derivatives thereof), please state so, so that people reading your views/opinions with respect to game purchases are aware of the conflict of interest.

/financial sense

Click to expand...

Source : http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=363998

Other participants in the discussion about it rather make fun of it, although he or she is imho right in theory.