Making it In Today's World: Is it justifiable?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Originally posted by derEikopf
P.S. I am very well educated on Christianity--I grew up in a Church and was a very devout believer.

NO!!! You speak using logic AND facts, WITCHERY!!! YOU MUST BE A PAGAN!!!

 

[Create Reality]

Lol, what sarcasm.

The issue with capitalism is that where there is no growth of industry, there is little if any money to be made. The computer tech bubble reflects this exactly, and is pretty much a prime example of immense profits generated overnight. That's also because the PC was revolutionary, and all of us wouldn't be chatting right now without it (good or bad ). It opened up markets that never existed. But when everyone got a PC or 5, PDA, Cell phone ect., the market slammed on the brakes.

The computer market (with few exceptions) has evolved into a pure competitive market basically, much along the same lines as a grocery store.

 

[Gus]

The issue with capitalism is that where there is no growth of industry, there is little if any money to be made.

I understand what you mean, but I disagree. Let's say that computers top out at 5 GHz with no significant speed increase for 20 years. Then, suddenly, I release a quantum computer that runs at 2 THz (terahertz). Imagine the money that will be made! I think a stagnant industry opens the doors of opportunity even wider. And a capitalist economy is the PERFECT catalyst to move stationary industries into progress, because of the incentive provided by such progress.

As a matter of fact, it is the lack of growth in an industry that lets capitalism work its magic!

The computer market (with few exceptions) has evolved into a pure competitive market basically, much along the same lines as a grocery store.

The same was to be said of domestic cars back in the 70s and 80s, until imported cars became HUGE successes because they ran so much better. Apple does a good job of jumping on opportunities and creating new markets (such as online music retail, portable media players, stylish computers, etc.).

At this point, it seems that PC markets such as processors and hard drives are simply a number race...but the incentive to produce (personal profit) will keep innovation up. That incentive will always be there until the government raises taxes enough and gives enough of your money away to other people...or you choose to do it voluntarily .

 

[Create Reality]

A stagnant market is definately a catalyst for demand. The profit-seekers will make sure of it. Without growth, entropy sets in and all markets will eventually reach a point of pure competitive flux.

In the Marxist system, this is not even an issue. Of course, the rate of growth is stifled by the government-controlled economy.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

I find it very difficult to believe how ANY kind of growth and progress can be made under a socialist/Marxist government.

Think of it this way - one of the biggest motivators for humans to grow is because we see those rich dudes across the road, and we want to be rich like them.

Or we see that top athlete who runs 100 metres in 10 seconds, and we want to do better.

In other words, competition. For those of you who know a bit of history, this is why European nations became so powerful during the 17th-19th centuries. Because European countries were pushed into competition against each other. In comparison, countries like China and Japan fell behind because they had no competitors.


But in an equal society, there can be no competition. You're not allowed to be better than anyone else. So then how do people and societies grow? If everyone is equal and content, where is the motivation to do better, and improve society?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Originally posted by diplomatic_lies
But in an equal society, there can be no competition. You're not allowed to be better than anyone else. So then how do people and societies grow? If everyone is equal and content, where is the motivation to do better, and improve society?

There's nothing so unequal as treating unequals equally.

 

[MetalFortress]

Originally posted by derEikopf
Actually, socialism has everything to do with the religious way of thinking (particularly Christianity). One of Christianity's big teachings is self-sacrifice and service towards others.

For example, Jesus said to a young rich man, when the man asked Jesus how to get into Heaven: "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor..."

Luke 6:24 says "But woe unto you that are rich! For ye have received your consolation."

Christianity preaches that your riches should be given to the poor. In other words, everyone should be poor. It is unfair to be rich when there are poor people, so you have to sacrifice your wealth for everyone else. Your sole purpose of production is for the sustenance of others...how long can a person live for everyone's sake but his own? Christians, in the truest sense, live their lives for their community and society (communism, socialism). THAT is the connection between religion (particularly Christianity) and socialism.

So if you're Christian, your responsibility, to avoid being hypocritical, is to give all of your money to the poor, and become poor yourself. Live your life for others. Hell, you might as well give your food to everyone else to. Why hoard it all for yourself? Other people are much more important than yourself...you might as well not breathe while you're at it...the people who smoke cigarettes could use that fresh air you're hoarding much more than you need it. After all, you're going to Heaven anyway, right?

It seems to me that seeking death is the only way to be the best Christian you can. But don't commit suicide...that's not biblical...

P.S. I am very well educated on Christianity--I grew up in a Church and was a very devout believer.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-stock-market.html

^despite being about a different subject, this still answers what you say better than I can answer it on my own.

A Christian's responsibility, is to honor God and to share the good news of Jesus Christ with the world. Everything else is just details.

EDIT: See also http://www.gotquestions.org/managing-finances.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/wealthy.html

 

[Lost In Translation]

Quote - MetalFortress
A Christian's responsibility, is to honor God and to share the good news of Jesus Christ with the world. Everything else is just details

yes :yes:

 

[SupaDupaAFC]

i be rollin on 20s suckaz, with da fat dough for all the hoes

 

[MetalFortress]

20s? Try 26s!

(heh, I've actually driven a GMC Yukon Denali on 26s before- good until you pass 40 MPH, when it starts to ride the same way my 1987 Honda Civic Wagon rides at 80 MPH. belongs to the owner of my place of employment)

 

[Gus]

A Christian's responsibility, is to honor God and to share the good news of Jesus Christ with the world. Everything else is just details.

You are to give honor, simply and plainly, without anything else? How is that possible?

So you're saying if you rape 100 women but honor God and share your testimony while doing it, then that's all you have to do?

The details ARE the honor; if you don't follow the details, you are dishonoring. The Bible says that it is the word of God. If you disobey ANY commandment given in the Bible, are you not disobeying God? Disobedience is one of the most dishonorable things you can do.

To simply label the Bible as nothing but petty details is to denounce your entire belief in the religion so that you may uphold your religion.

There's nothing so unequal as treating unequals equally.

Isn't it that easy? It's as simple as a math equation. That's how groups like the ACLU are turning us into socialists...by forcing down our throats (through using pity trips and appealing to our emotion) an equation that is invalid! Let a = 1, and b = 2...socialists live by faking reality and pretending that a = b...that 1 = 2...that incompetence = competence...that disobedience = obedience.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Originally posted by derEikopf

Isn't it that easy? It's as simple as a math equation. That's how groups like the ACLU are turning us into socialists...by forcing down our throats (through using pity trips and appealing to our emotion) an equation that is invalid! Let a = 1, and b = 2...socialists live by faking reality and pretending that a = b...that 1 = 2...that incompetence = competence...that disobedience = obedience.

Excellent analogy! I think you've shown the perfect way to demonstrate this misconception, via math! It is just that easy! I'm adding that to my arsenal! Many thanks!

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

Is socialism really a threat to capitalism as practiced in America? What I see is the government protecting and coddling certaint industiries. I can't fathom a red revolution anytime soon.

I don't even see gov't sponsored healthcare as an attack on capitalism.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Originally posted by SELF-MASTERY
I don't even see gov't sponsored healthcare as an attack on capitalism.

The government wouldn't have enough money to sponsor the cost of health care in the states. The R&D cost alone of just one pharmaceutical can easily cost several hundred million dollars.

The pharmaceutical companies need to recoup the cost somehow. The government would not be able to pay that much for every medicine across several companies without an influx of additional monies. We all know where the government gets its funding, don't we?

If the government did get the funds, they would disperse it as they have done historically, equally. So in theory a half @ssd product would be subsidized as much as one that was primo because of an exponential level of R&D. If that company could not recoup those funds, why would they continue to create their products?

They'd go under, the half @ssed producers would survive because they wouldn't spend nearly as much in R&D. Without competition there would be a monopoly AND without competition, capitalism can not exist.

 

[STR8UP]

I can't even begin to tell you how much it gets under my skin to hear people complaining about the way our system allows for such a disparity between income levels and whatnot. Can anyone be so ignorant as to believe that their quality of life would be better if the CEO made the same amount of money as the cleaning crew?

This is one of those issues that many people assume what I call a "default" stace. On the surface equality and harmony and all that garbage sounds great. Anyone who takes the time to dig just an inch deeper usually realizes that "greed" is good and that only a system that allows people to reap what they sow can survive for any period of time.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

People either forget or have never realized that the reason that people came to this country was to be free of limits. This was the first country where anyone could become a millionaire by starting their own business. In other countries you either had to inherit your fortune or steal it by force.

But nowadays the masses feel that they are owed a fortune because the work a typical 9 to 5. Not that they've created the next best computer operating system or newest hybrid automobile; just because someone else has more than them. That it isn't fair that just because someone worked harder/smarter and made their fortune, why shouldn't they give away what they worked so hard to earn?

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

My idea of govt healthcare isnt what the politicians push. Create a NON-UNIVERSIAL health care program that covers people who absolutely can not obtain it any other way. No reason to cover ppl with means. If I were king I would fund such a program with a national lottery. Hell my state funds education that way, a 3.0 gets u an education tuition free into any state school. This will never hapen....

 

[Gus]

The U.S. is a mixed economy--mixed between capitalism and socialism. Compromise is the worst thing that happened to this country...and here's why:

First, if the people of the U.S. allow some of their rights to be overridden (such as their right to keep what they earn...which IS a moral right), then they are agreeing that their rights are conditional to a higher power. In conclusion, the people are saying, in essence, "I do not exist by right, but by the permission of society". Since their individual rights may be overridden by society (and, since the government is chosen by society, the government is included in society), it is not their right to question society, but to follow it and serve it. What is a societal economic and government system? Socialism. By violating the integrity of capitalism and becoming a mixed economy, the only path that can follow is a decline to socialism. While there may be swings toward capitalism on its decline...the ending result is unavoidable.

There is a difference between compromises within moral principles and compromises outside moral principles. For example, if you are haggling a price with a car dealership--both of you agree that that the buyer is required to pay the seller. The compromise comes from within that principle.

If, however, there is a burglar in your house, who believes that he is not required to pay for your goods...but you believe that he is...then compromise will violate your principle (that you believe he should pay for goods) and it will acknowledge his principle. You have effectively surrendered to the evil principle and denied the good principle (by good I mean rational and logical and by evil I mean irrational and illogical). So, there can be no compromise between good and evil...such a compromise will only allow evil to win.

Supporting Federally controlled healthcare is like compromising with the burglar. The burglar is the government, in this case, and it is stealing, by means of taxes, what you earn (it, however, has NOT earned the money that it takes from you...which means that even taxes are a compromise). By allowing the government to impose taxes on you and violate your right to keep your earnings, you are acknowledging that the government's power is greater than your rights.

It can also be looked at mathematically. Suppose you are good, and Joe Blow is evil. Joe Blow is making demands, and your personal rule is to always compromise in order to be fair. Let's say you compromise 50% each time. Here is the ratio of good to evil after subsequent demands (and, therefore, compromises):

1/1
1/2
1/4
1/8
1/16
1/32

So, after 6 compromises, evil is ahead by 31 points. As you continue compromising, evil continues to approach infinity, while good continues to approach zero (although good stays at 1, if you convert the ratio to a decimal, it gives the amount of good per one unit of evil...which decreases as the denominator increases).


THAT is why you should not compromise rights for the good of society. Once individual rights are compromised, it will only continue and will eventually lead to the annihilation of ALL individual rights.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Originally posted by derEikopf
It can also be looked at mathematically. Suppose you are good, and Joe Blow is evil. Joe Blow is making demands, and your personal rule is to always compromise in order to be fair. Let's say you compromise 50% each time. Here is the ratio of good to evil after subsequent demands (and, therefore, compromises):

1/2
1/4
1/8
1/16
1/32

So, after 5 compromises, evil is ahead by 31 points. As you continue compromising, evil continues to approach infinity, while good continues to approach zero.


THAT is why you should not compromise rights for the good of society. Once individual rights are compromised, it will only continue and will eventually lead to the annihilation of ALL individual rights.

That was beautiful man....

 

[Bonhomme]

What makes sense to me

What makes sense to me is to have a mixed government, in which the general basis of personal interactions is Libertarian (i.e., your rights end where your fist meets my face or your dog's crap hits my lawn), with an increasing amount of public control of any entity to the degree its actions affect the public.

What people pay to the government is supposed to be the cost of benefits derived from the government. Someone's gotta organize things. Any government is flawed to the extent it deviates from that basic principle.

Reagrding federally funded health care, I think it makes sense to have it available, but not manadatory. IF you can afford to go to whatever doctor you want, go for it.

But if I as an employer am not paying my workers enough benefits to have health care, I've no problem with it coming out of my income as taxes, once I've earned enough to live comfortably. It's called responsibility.

The tax structure really rapes start-up small businesses. Probably a disincentive to compete with the fat cats the government really represents. Having a business pay 15% self-employment taxe on almost nonexistent profits is not reasonable. That is looting. Nobody who makes less than about $20,000 US should pay any income-based taxes of any sort.