Income disparity makes people unhappy

This is socialist BS. The reason this is an issue is beause the media and social activits put the idea in peoples heads that it is an issue. My grandparents and great grandparents where happy caring people who had little to nothing, yet they had friends fun and a full life. Happiness has never been about money.

"the gap between people's own fortunes and those of people who are better off is correlated with feelings that other people are less fair and less trustworthy,"
This suggests some believe those that are better off did not earn their wealth. Today, in many cases this is understandable with the corruption of the govt. How do the politically connected get appointed to Freddie or Fannie to earn a few million, like Rahm? Or the regulators that do a few years time and then are hired to lobby? Or politicians that write books for a few million?
Most respect those who work hard in the private sector creating wealth and job opportunities by selling products and services people want to buy.

Right. I was giving the article the benefit of the doubt until the end with a blatent pro tax-the-rich "solution", just after they said that they can't be sure the correlation is "causation". If just "knowing" that there are people that have achieved more monetary success causes one to be unhappy, then the problem is with that individual's poor value system. At no time should the existence of "more successfull" people make one unhappy. The fact that people have more than I do ENCOURAGES me to try harder. I know that it can be achieved because others have done it and more continue to do it.

Rather than satisfy the anger of those that perceve themselves as not successful enough (by their own judgement) by bringing down the rich, why not, instead, try to open mors to make it easier for people to achieve their goals.

Also, stop ranting against our peers that have achieved success and fanning the flames of mispdirected anger.

My grandparents and great grandparents where happy caring people who had little to nothing, yet they had friends fun and a full life. Happiness has never been about money.

obviously your single case of personal anecdotal evidence clearly refutes 48,000 surveyed people over 37 years. I'm sure a letter of retraction and apology for insulting your sensibilities is in the mail.

Wasn't the French Revolution about income disparity?
Left to their own own devices human societies naturally stratify income-wise because of differences in ability, motivation and opportunity. Unless actions are taken to mitigate this tendency a caste-like society is inevitable.

Fairness aside, who wants that?

"differences in ability, motivation and opportunity."
If $1,000,000 was 'redistributed to Mother Teresa, would she still be poor? I suspect she would have donated it all. Nemo forgot 'desire'.
When people have the opportunity and desire they can choose for themselves their level of 'richness'.
Socialism kills desire be removing opportunities and confiscation.

I believe the calls of socialism regarding this article are incorrect. Studies involving fairness among localized groups of individuals clearly show animosity and tension in groups when certain members feel others are getting special treatment or they themselves are not getting their fair share. I would say the conclusion that inequality is a factor on happiness is beyond obvious.

What sounds more like propaganda. You can be poor and be happy or when people are given a fair chance they are happy. The ability of the rich to suppress the poor in any case should make anyone unhappy.
CSharpner You basic called everyone who isnt rich lazy or stupid. This is not about becoming super rich with hoe at your side and a bulge in your pants its about being able to feed your family.

If we care about the happiness of most people, we need to do something about income inequality." One way to accomplish that end, he says, is with more progressive taxation.

This is just another advertisement for a socialist society.

Happiness is not about money and things. Happiness is mostly a choice and is built upon may things which have nothing to do with wealth.

The authors are apparently so envious of others that they cannot be happy. Few of us are so narcissistic.

CSharpner You basic called everyone who isnt rich lazy or stupid.

I have no idea how you got that from what I said, because I certainly do not believe that non-rich are lazy or stupid, considering I, myself, am not rich, nor am I lazy or stupid.

This is not about becoming super rich with hoe at your side and a bulge in your pants its about being able to feed your family.

At least you got that part of what I was saying right (unless, you think you're preaching it me, in which case, I need to inform you that you're preaching to the choir).

I thought I was pretty clear in what I said, but let me see if I can rephrase it to clarify my point:

- People who have animosity toward their peers that have more cash have a poor value system.
- People shouldn't judge their own happiness based on how they perceive OTHERS to be "more successful".
(continued...)

You and your ilk are so envious you have to create people to be envious of when none exist. Welfare queens are a good example.

(continued...)
- I live by what I say in the 2 bullets above because when I see my peers becoming successful (successful by my perception), it encourages me to try to be more successful... It doesn't make me mad.
- A more positive alternative to the authors recommendation of taxing the "rich" even more, would be to open more doors and remove more roadblocks for those "less successful", so that they have a better chance of achieving what they perceive as "success". (Turn more "poor" people into "richer" people as opposed to turning more "rich" people into "poorer" people).

I think these are reasonable statements, don't you? Help me understand, if not.

You and your ilk are so envious you have to create people to be envious of when none exist. Welfare queens are a good example.

Who was this statement directed to?

dogbert

The authors are apparently so envious of others that they cannot be happy. Few of us are so narcissistic.

What about "hair disparity"? Is it fair that some people have a full head of hair, while other's have none? Why cannot we impose a progressive hair tax? Or redistribute hair implants to the genetically less-fortunate? I'm also concerned about discrimination against the follically challenged, and a "wage-hair gap". Perhaps I'm just suffering simple jealousy, and maybe Senator Hairy Reid has no power to absolve my pain, but one clear and obvious solution is undeniable. We all go bald.

This article is not claiming that happiness or lack therof is married to a person´s financial status. It is true, however, that in the U.S. money does buy opportunity, education, luxuries, and security-- and it can be a bitter feeling to know that the primary thing seperating you from the elite, and from the full realization of your own potential is pure chance. As a kid, I remember feeling shame, envy and a little depression when seeing a friend´s international vacation photos, and being reminded of how my own family would have to save for months just to afford the plane tickets.

getting special treatment or they themselves are not getting their fair share.

Who but the govt can grant 'special treatment'?

There is opportunity in a socialist economy: you can work so that there is a greater variety of interesting and useful things in the world than there would be if you didn't work - even if you are not a scientist, you can work to support technological advancement in your society; and if you can't work you can psychologically support the other people - your well-being will always affect the morale of those who know you and many who simply see you; witnessing hardship can stress and depress the otherwise successful, potentially costing society scientific discoveries.

The ability of the rich to suppress the poor in any case should make anyone unhappy.

How can 'the rich' suppress the poor without the use of govt power?
Most in the USA became wealthy by helping others become 'rich' in what they wanted.

Where do you think the money to open more doors for the poor people can come from? It has to be collected in the form of taxes. Making the poor people richer strengthens our economy as the previously poor people become educated and develop products, and the rich people don't need the money - such taxation would not impoverish them.

Where do you think the money to open more doors for the poor people can come from? It has to be collected in the form of taxes.

B.S. If transferring money through taxation and redistribution could actually make the poor richer, the "war on poverty" would have been won years ago.

Government never creates wealth for anyone. The wealthy create more jobs and wealth through investment of their wealth. Taxing it away from them just makes everyone poorer.

If we weren't so industrialized to believe money is such an important element in our lives, we would all be happy. I am happy going out doors and seeing this beautiful world we live in. I am neck deep financially because of my industry failing because of ClearChannel, but I am the happiest person alive, simply because of the lack of materialistic obsession. Personal liberty and choice is what fuels me, not communistic oppression.

CSharpner The fact that people have more than I do ENCOURAGES me to try harder. I know that it can be achieved because others have done it and more continue to do it.
My statement was directed at this view point. "Income disparity has grown a lot in the U.S., especially since the 1980s. With that, we've seen a marked drop in life satisfaction and happiness." You are talking about a neighbor making more than you. That is not what this article is addressing this about sever inequality. This is a copy and paste from wikipedia Just about every socio-economic indicator shows that the distribution of income in the United States is becoming increasingly unequal. In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nations income. People are not achieving more nor are more people earning more unless you all ready had wealth. Scratch at the door as much as you want no one Is going to let you in.

Reaganomics and war have destroyed this country. Fight wars not wars!

CSharpner - A more positive alternative to the authors recommendation of taxing the "rich" even more, would be to open more doors and remove more roadblocks for those "less successful", so that they have a better chance of achieving what they perceive as "success". (Turn more "poor" people into "richer" people as opposed to turning more "rich" people into "poorer" people).
Please elaborate the only way I know how to do this is through inflation.

Where do you think the money to open more doors

Who's under the impression that openning doors requires more money? There's a plethora of ways to open doors without spending money. School vouchers to increase families choices for their children's education. Remove the "I can never be fired" protection from teachers so it's possible to get rid of bad teachers. Make teachers have to compete, just like anyone else. The students win, gaining better educations, openning doors, and reducing costs without having to fund bad teachers and creating more tax payers by better educated grads.

Remove a lot of the red tape for starting and running small businesses. Remove some of the overburdening regulations on big businesses to let them be more nimble.

The list goes on and on.

I hope your viewing this as a positive response to your comment and not antagonistic, because it's not meant to be antagonistic. I'm assuming your question was a genuine one so I've provided a genuine answer.

You are talking about a neighbor making more than you.

I'm talking about ANYONE making more than me, including the Trumps. Gates', Soros', etc... It does not bother me, in the slightest that they make more than me. I'm inspired by the fact that it is possible. I honestly cannot relate to someone looking at say, The Donald, and getting angry, based solely on difference between Trump's money and their own. There's so much more to life than money and basing one's happiness on how much I make compared to ANYONE else is the epitomy of shallowness and envy.

Again, the authors wrongly suggest the solution is to knock down the objects of their anger. I recommend a more positive solution to help prop up those that believe they need more.

Even if you disagree with me if that's possible (I really hope you don't disagree), I'm sure we could agree, in principle, that if it's possible to bring the poor up, without bringing anyone down, we'd all prefer that?

Income disparity is strongly correlated with quality of life. Saying it's about anger at the wealth of others is simplistic and naive. It is more likely related to the fracturing of social cohesion and community spirit which is known to be very important to our social species.

Any bank lends money to the rich not the poor. So the poor is constantly denied opportunity and invited to die off. This is economic genocide plain and simple.
The rich have no intention of diminishing their fortunes but they want to accumulate even more wealth ; dictators and kings do just that : own an entire country.

CSharpner (Turn more "poor" people into "richer" people as opposed to turning more "rich" people into "poorer" people). This is what I want you to explain you either wrote to hastily or you dont understand why that wont work. If money doesnt matter why try you are so full of contradictions it not even funny. You are confusing the American dream with a economic view point in order to justify a tax system that through history has proved to cause poverty and inequality.

This suggests some believe those that are better off did not earn their wealth.

Trump didn't earn a dime. I think the fact he does nothing but destroy communities with his father's money breeds discontent. One could say the same of Bush Jr.

How can 'the rich' suppress the poor without the use of govt power?

Economic power, dipshit.

CSharpner (Turn more "poor" people into "richer" people as opposed to turning more "rich" people into "poorer" people). This is what I want you to explain you either wrote to hastily or you dont understand why that wont work. If money doesnt matter why try you are so full of contradictions it not even funny. You are confusing the American dream with a economic view point in order to justify a tax system that through history has proved to cause poverty and inequality.

Can you please retype this with all your grammatical errors and spelling errors corrected? I want to make sure I'm reading your response correctly before I reply.

BTW, to use the quoting feature, you can click the "quote" link under the post or put the letter Q in square brackets at the start and /q in square brackets at the end. That will help prevent your reply from being merged into what you're quoting.

Thanks

I guess they don't teach you about parentheses in fancy voucher schools. Free market ahoy!

The wealthy command a certain amount of private assets, the vast majority of which does not go toward creating new jobs for anyone. The richest have such high incomes they can't spend most of it - it just sits there unused; the concentration of money in the private accounts of the rich means less economic demand per unit of currency - persons in the middle and lower classes spend much larger percentages of their incomes.

There may be plenty of ways to open doors without spending money (and I would like the full list of them), but where would we be without grants and financial aid. CSharpner, you said we could open more doors by firing bad teachers; but the public school system needs more money just to keep its schools open, to keep class sizes down and to provide optimum nutrition for its students' brains.

Csharpner:

There's a plethora of ways to open doors without spending money. School vouchers to increase families choices for their children's education.

Please explain how vouchers don't cost money. I find this laughable that you could have misunderstood the concept so badly, so I'm going to assume you didn't mean that.

Also, please explain how you would prevent vouchers from disproportionally helping the rich over the poor.

Csharpner There are medical reasons for my grammar errors deal with it. You just avoided having to explain your logic. Reaganomics or horse and sparrow theory does not work. It didnt work in the past and it wont work in the future. You sound like a parrot whos telling you what to type?

Before I spend any more time on this topic, may I ask to those in this discussion, if, in principle, it were possible to narrow the income disparity without having to tax others, would you be in favor of that?

Csharpner There are medical reasons for my grammar errors deal with it. You just avoided having to explain your logic. Reaganomics or horse and sparrow theory does not work. It didnt work in the past and it wont work in the future. You sound like a parrot whos telling you what to type?

There's no need to be uncivil. Until that post, I was under the impression we were having a freindly discussion. If my request for clarity offended you, I apologize. I assure you that was not the intent. If this is going to be an angry back and forth with tit for tat, then I won't participate as that is a fruitlesss excorsize. If, on the otherhand, you'd like to discuss this civilly, I'm happy to oblige as I believe we can all benefit. Can I count on you for a civil discourse?

How to the 'rich' in the USA use economic power to make people poor without using the coercive power of the Regulatory State?

Please explain how vouchers don't cost money

They don't cost any MORE money than is currently spent on k-12. Sweden uses vouchers.
Parents and students then decide how and where to spend that money. Schools must then compete for students and teachers and administrators would be held to account by how many students they attracted not how many politicians the union buys. Of course this takes power from the unions and politicians puts it in the hands of parents and students.
Instead of being taught that 'society' is holding them down, the voucher schools may teach and promote the thousands of opportunities available in the USA to create wealth.

CSharpner This is a major problem with the 2001 bush tax cut info by wikipedia.
The Alternative Minimum Tax was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is a parallel system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that eliminates many deductions. However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted to match the lowered rates of the 2001 and 2003 acts, causing many more people to face higher taxes. This reduced the benefit of the two acts for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes.

There is much more wrong with the bush era tax cuts than this. In order to cure the symptoms you need to treat the ailment which is the bush tax cuts. If we slash government spending it will have only treated the symptoms and the economic crises plus inequality will be prolonged.

CSharpner This is a major problem with the 2001 bush tax cut info by wikipedia.

Though I've not been discussing the Bush tax cuts, thanks for sharing your opinion on it anyway, I guess.

I still need to know, if it were possible, in principle, to help the poor without taking even more from others, would be desirable for you?

The following is not diected specifically toward you:

I'm kind of shocked, that just by asking that question above, as well as asking for civil discourse, that people actually downvoted it.

Lollypop pixie dust economics gets you a 1.

Is it better to teach a man to fish or give him fish every day and keep him dependent?
The first is win-win, the man wins as he can take care of himself, and others. The second is lose-lose as the state must catch or take more fish and the man can't care for himself or others.
There are many who like keeping other people dependent as they believe this makes them more powerful.

We are disusing inequity and economics the bush tax cuts are directly involved in such a discussion. It is not possible to give to the poor with out taking from the rich. You have few options if this is the coarse that you wish to take all though be it not necessary. You could have inflation, mine more gold, steal from another country or accept cooper as a currency reserve I'm sure there are more do you know any? You are left with few options other than taxing the rich as they are the only ones that are capable of paying off the Chinese dept that we have acquired.

It is not possible to give to the poor with out taking from the rich

I think that's where our disconnect is. I'm not talking about giving cash to the poor. I'm talking about changing the playing field to make it more fair and easier for them to achieve their goals. Many things in this regard have already been done like the Americans with disabilities act, non-discrimination laws, non discrimination company policies. The plethora of ideas is nowhere near exhausted.

Would you agree, in principle, that if it were possible, in principle to help the poor achieve without taking even more from others, that it would be preferable? Your answer to this is important to my discussion going forward. Just a reminder, this is my 3rd time asking.

Thanks

How to the 'rich' in the USA use economic power to make people poor without using the coercive power of the Regulatory State?

Simply take a look at gas prices and let us know when you finally figure it out.

CSharpner No I do not the tax code will not allow it. This is what you will not address.

CSharpner It is common rule of thumb that the entrepreneur should have access to a sum of money at least equal to the projected revenue for the first year of business in addition to his anticipated expenses. For example, if the prospective owner thinks that he will generate $100,000 in revenues in the first year with $150,000 in start-up expenses, then he should have no less than $250,000 available. Failure to provide this level of funding for the company could leave the owner liable for all of the company's debt should he end up in bankruptcy court, under the theory of under capitalization.
This is why it is so hard for a small businesses to start up the current tax code suppresses the ability of someone with a good idea to turn it in to a reality.

How to the 'rich' in the USA use economic power to make people poor without using the coercive power of the Regulatory State?

Simply take a look at gas prices and let us know when you finally figure it out.

Gas prices are high because the dollar is weak. The value of the dollar is controlled by the Federal Reserve, aka the Regulatory State.

SH - gas prices are high now Because of government refusal to allow drilling and the building of more refineries. If we let rich people do their thing, they would drill more because the prices are so high (creating more jobs), they would build more refineries (creating more jobs), gas prices would go down because there is more supply, then a poor person can buy a cheap car that doesnt get 30 mpg and that person can drive to get a better job. With a better job s/he could afford a larger house a better car(creating jobs), eat better food creating better health.

But remember this. Obama your hero wanted $5.00 gal gas. In 2009 the average price of gas was $2.40 today it is around $3.90 just a dollar short of Obama's goal, but he still has a year and a bit more to achieve his goal before he is voted out.

CSharpner No I do not the tax code will not allow it. This is what you will not address.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying: in spite of the fact that you believe it's not possible, even if it turned out that it WERE possible to help the poor without taking even more from others, you'd STILL be against doing that? You'd still prefer to take more from others, even if the same goal to help the poor could be achieved without taking more from others?

I find that difficult to believe, which is why I'm asking for clarification. Maybe I read your response wrong.

But yes, I've already addressed what you said I didn't. You just disagree with me that those things help the poor without raising taxes on others. But, I've not been focusing on responding to that yet, because, as I've said, my path forward depends on your reponse to the question. I do acknowledge that you answered it above, but as explained, I believe I may have misinterpreted your response.

Thanks

Funny, I remember gas being even more ($4.19) toward the end of Bush's presidency. I guess that's Obama's fault somehow though.

No I don't. You are not living in reality we have been using your system for 10 years now and all it has caused is economic inequity. So what are we doing wrong specifically you have talked about removing red tape in order to help small businesses. What red tape are you talking about?

SH - gas prices are high now Because of government refusal to allow drilling and the building of more refineries.

Bullshit. Sorry, this is demonstrably false. Even if you allowed full on drilling of all subletted sites you'd only produce 3% more than current. Beyond that, omnce it's extracted, you don't own the oil, the oil company, who sets the price, owns it, dummy.

No I don't. You are not living in reality we have been using your system for 10 years now and all it has caused is economic inequity. So what are we doing wrong specifically you have talked about removing red tape in order to help small businesses. What red tape are you talking about?

Dude, honestly, I'm not your enemy. Saying things like "you don't live in reality" accomplishes nothing. I'm trying as hard as I can to be polite while responding, but you're going out of your way to be rude to me. I'd like to have a mature and civil discussion with you. If that's not what you're interested in, just say so and we'll end this. I'm not interested in an antogonistic argument.

So, I'm perplexed now. You willfully admit that if you could help the poor without taking more from others, you still wouldn't do it. I just can't comprehend that. The only explanation I can think of is that you're angry with the so called rich and you just want to punish them. Please tell me I'm wrong

What red tape are you talking about?

You have done nothing but avoid every issue that has been brought to you why have we not seen a return from the tax cuts other than inequality.

You have done nothing but avoid every issue that has been brought to you why have we not seen a return from the tax cuts other than inequality.

Well, I guess you've indirectly answered my question of do you want a civil discourse. You answer is clearly "no".

My simple statement of "hey, rather than take even more from people, why not make a more fair playing field?" Got branched out to more threads than I have had a chance to respond to today. I DO work for a living, and I've got 3 emergency code changes with thousands of people depending on my work. Sorry if I put a higher priority on that than spending so much time trying cover all the braches here.

Also, the only thing I'm honestly interested in in this thread is to state that I disagree with the authors conclusion that piling more taxes on the rich is what's needed to make poor people more rich. I am convinced, as are many others, that the best way to help the poor is to help them help themselves rather than hand out

Economic prosperity should make people happier as they would have more economic security. People could move from job to job, or quit a job for a few months with the security they could readily find other opportunities.
The World Bank has data showing entitlements (redistribution of wealth) do not promote prosperity:
http://www-wds.wo...5660.pdf

I guess you are to stupid to answer my questions. Try learning about tax law before opening your ignorant mouth.

Rather than hand out freebies. I get that you're convinced that's not possible, but I respectfully disagree. I honestly don't have the time to spiral down into covering all the critiques of my statement. I will offer something to think about to question your assertion that the ONLY solution is to raise taxes. Consider ending the 4 wars we're in now and redirecting those funds. I have no doubt any reasonable person would agree there's sufficient funding there as an alternative to any acceptable tax hike.

But, again, I just don't have the time, nor the interest in a pointless tit for tat with stangers on the internet who want nothing but to fight.

So, you'll have to do with what I have time to write, and honestly, you need to be able to agree to disagree. It's not possible to argue, endlessly, everytime we find a difference. You've not done anything to convince me that you're right. And, you know what? I'm OK with that. And you should be too. It's unhealthy otherwise.

I guess you are to stupid to answer my questions. Try learning about tax law before opening your ignorant mouth.

I don't know what your problem is, nor can I comprehend how one human being can intentionally be so hateful to another who's been walking on egg shells and being as polite as possible. I've not been talking about any details at all about tax law, so you have no idea what I do or don't know about it.

Your behavior is abysmol and I've reported you for directly and willfully violating physorg's posting guidelines. Read them in the "please read" link at the bottom of this page.

Calling stupid accomplishes nothing but make you look petty and hateful. I tried having a mature and respectful discussion with you and you refused. You are now, officially, trolling and I won't take your bait.

I'm done trying with you; but I will defend my honor should you continue to defame me and I will continue to report your hateful posts if there are any more.

Consider ending the 4 wars we're in now and redirecting those funds. I have no doubt any reasonable person would agree there's sufficient funding there as an alternative to any acceptable tax hike.

-Except that those wars are essential to the survival of western culture and the billions whose lives depend on it. Think of something else.

As far as income disparity goes, I've had a few ideas. Humanity exhibits a much broader distribution of intelligence and capability than most any other animal. Why is this? Because substandard individuals are normally selected out in the wild or by husbanders. And yet the modern world depends on this disparity among humans because of the great range of work which needs to be done.

What if everyone could get into harvard? Would anyone be content to drive a truck or work in a laundry? Our culture could not survive with true equality. The kibbutz failed because of this.
Cont-->

What if everyone could get into harvard? Would anyone be content to drive a truck or work in a laundry? Our culture could not survive with true equality.

Excellent point.

There's more. We have recently entered an age where these disparities can be reduced. Medicine, proper nutrition, reproductive health can all be used to ensure healthy babies are produced who can grow to be sound adults. We have the power to prohibit those practices which cause disparity- drugs, alcohol, tobacco, physical and emotional abuse and such, and we COULD have been greatly reducing their effects for some time now. It used to be illegal for pregnant women to indulge in these things and there is NO moral readon why a mothers weakness should have precedent over a lifetime of misery for child.

And yet this is not done. As we entered this new age these vices were decriminalized and one could even say encouraged. And so the culture of disparity persists, chromosomes were damaged, countless intellects are truncated, bodies were stunted, the prisons were filled, and the ditches are dug. Castes which were once caused by overpop and the resultant deprivation, are now Designed.

Their will always be social classes it is also well noted that inequality through out history has had major negative effects on society. Utopian society's are far off from what any serious socialist would propose.

Their will always be social classes it is also well noted that inequality through out history has had major negative effects on society.

And why is that- because you can't imagine an egalitarian world? Repro rates have been controlled in western culture. Robotics promises to obviate the need for human drudge work. Genetics can eliminate our defects, technology can prevent damage and medicine can fix it.

We could have been doing much of this already except for the apparent NEED of disparity for society to function. History does not pertain to this; although I would say that inequality was obviously essential to the development of civilization. Certainly not favorable mind you, but castes were indispensable to reducing pop growth and getting work done.

And yes, so was slavery. Such has been the desperate and deplorable state of humanity up until the recent past. Conquest and enslavement were the only ways of avoiding being conquered and enslaved.

It is not possible to give to the poor with out taking from the rich. You have few options if this is the coarse that you wish to take all though be it not necessary. You could have inflation, mine more gold, steal from another country or accept cooper as a currency reserve I'm sure there are more do you know any?

Another way to give to the poor without taking from the rich is for the government to take what it already owns and give it to the poor; this practice could be made sustainable by the government using what it already owns to operate a business that generates wealth and aggregates money by selling that wealth and then giving some of that money to the poor (say in the form of food, housing, medical care and education) and invest the rest of it in scientific progress (this is assuming that things like roads, sanitation, etc. are already paid for by means outside this government-owned business) that it could capitalize on.

We already have this. It's called the military.

However, if you wanted to have a similar system except demilitarized it would instantly be derided as socialist and probably garner you a few death threats.

What knowledge treehouse is describing is more on the order of fascism than communism/socialism, but there is not a lot of difference in the two. In actual practice, there tends to be a blending of various forms. For example, in the U.S., we have played with socialism for years and have recently included government ownership of businesses (fascism) when we purchased GM, etc.

giving some of that money to the poor

In Yellowstone National Park visitors can be fined (or killed) for feeding the bears.
Stupid tourist give food to these animals making them dependent upon handouts. When the tourist runs out of food, the animal doesn't understand 'no mas' and demands more, possibly attacking the stupid tourists.
Charities give food to the poor but may also require the recipient to do something to earn that charity or at least show a sense of gratitude.
Welfare makes people dependent upon the state and we are seeing all over the world what happens when the govt tries to cut back on its largess, riots and teachers occupying state capital buildings.
Snipers are posted in areas where animals congregate in YNP just in case the animal attacks people stupid enough to give them food.

knowledge_treehouse You would have to make a large company such as wall-mart publicly owned. In order to make that feasible. But this would drive out all other stores of that nature. Leaving wall-mart in control of every aspect of the populations life.

Wal Mart is publicly owned. Anyone can buy their stock.
Other stores like Target, Ace Hardware, major grocery chains are still opening and doing business in the vicinity of Wal-Marts.

The government should just take the corporations that have committed major crimes, keep them otherwise intact so that there will not be a crisis for those who work for them and evaluate their positive and negative social impacts - with the private profits taken out of them there won't be as much manipulation of such evaluation by private interests. The evaluation should inform the government how to alter these productive structures' mechanisms of production to best serve society.

There is nothing to prevent the citizens from participating in the evaluation of a government-owned business's structure. America would still be a democratic nation, perhaps even more than before if such a change lessened the rich's ability to manipulate our government to advance the expansion of their private fortunes - they do this by lobbying, dominating campaign contributions and putting their people on government boards.

And of course the motivation of the govt is pure.

ryg.. shame on you, govt is always pure. There is no higher honor than working for the government having taxpayers do your will and pay your salary whether you do a good job or not, whether you provide a service or not. Only pure people go into teaching, police. We can trust the govt, they say we can trust them, the media says we can trust them (as long as it is socialists controlling the govt)

The only time progressives say you cant trust the government is when conservatives are in power. Then government is evil.

And of course the motivation of the govt is pure.

Compared to the motivations of bankers, Charles Mansion looks pure.

When the tourist runs out of food, the animal doesn't understand 'no mas' and demands more, possibly attacking the stupid tourists.

This sounds like greedy capitalists to me. Shows youre getting creative though.

Bears will try to protect their newfound source of food by running off the competition, just like greedy capitalists. I have seen squirrels doing this too. This is why there needs to be a govt which can make greedy capitalists understand 'no mas'.

if everything was free man then would evolve - there is no food shortage you cold fill a couple of sky skyscraper with food we have hydroponics we have solar power - you can turn salt water into fresh water you could run a planet using resources we have - resources are abundant - we have leaders who run the planet and want to keep things as they are - its all been tried - its the same motion - make everything free depending on resources

The bears become like progressives, when fed without working they become fat and lazy (and live in their parents basement!) and when their food is threatened they become violent. Greece anyone????

FH/SH No it wasn't Obamas fault. It was that democrats and their environmentalist allies have been stopping and hindering oil from being drilled and being refined in the US for decades. However Obama did say he WANTS gas to be at $5.00.
in 2000 --- $1.56, 2004 -- $1.92, 2005 -- $2.34, 2006 -- $2.63, 2008 --- $3.32, 2009 --- $2.40

If the US had started on a program of drilling and refinery building in 2005 gas prices wouldn't be anywhere close to what they are now. If Obama wants to bring down gas prices tomorrow he can. All he has to allow drilling and building of new refineries.

This sounds like greedy capitalists to me. Shows youre getting creative though.

Capitalists can't use violence.

ryggesogn2 A public company or publicly traded company is a company that offers its securities (stock, bonds, etc.) for sale to the general public, typically through a stock exchange, or through market makers operating in over the counter markets. This is not to be confused with a Government-owned corporation which might be mis-described as a publicly-owned company.

ryggesogn2 Brak polly wanna cracker!

freethinking Brak polly wanna cracker!

This sounds like greedy capitalists to me. Shows youre getting creative though.

Capitalists can't use violence.

Ever hear of Pinkerton? The mafia?

The mafia is a criminal organization.
Capitalists do not have the legal authority to use force under a govt that monopolizes violence.

Government-owned corporation

Like Freddie and Fannie and AMTRAK? How have they preformed for their customers?

This sounds like greedy capitalists to me. Shows youre getting creative though.

Capitalists can't use violence.

What nonsense.

So marjon, what happens if a capitalist commits violence? Is that person no longer a capitalist?

I'm assuming you are seriously confused, but given your posting history you're probably intentionally playing with definitions because you think it will help your cause.

When talking about "violence" in the sense that "government has a monopoly on 'violence,'" violence means the power to compel people to do things.

I know you are so fond of contracts. How exactly does the government enforce contracts without violence?

This is socialist BS.

It's a fact. The problem is, when diversification of income becomes too pronounced, the very rich people can earn another money in much cheaper way, than the poor people ("money are doing money"). In fair society every could get the money corresponding his usefulness for the rest of society. I.e. not by personal needs, as the communists are asking - but not for nothing too, as we can observe in contemporary society.

Govt has the monopoly on violence which SH and the other socialists want.
Frank, why would a capitalist want to commit violence? It is not cost effective unless he can buy cover from the govt. Then, the capitalists crosses over to socialism as he now is subjecting himself to state control.

If anyone commits violence he risks a violent reaction either by self-defense from the victim and/or prosecution by govt law enforcement.
Capitalists wouldn't risk such violence UNLESS they knew they had the protection of some govt. In this case, the capitalist has relinquished control of his business to the state and he is no longer a capitalist. He is an agent of a socialist state.
The govt owns AMTRAK and can use force to prevent competition.
Privately owned businesses cannot use force to restrict their competitors, unless they bribe a govt agent as Sun did to prosecute Microsoft. I don't blame Sun, I blame the govt.

the implications are clear: If we care about the happiness of most people, we need to do something

That's a good question. Do we care about the happiness of most people? The US constitution gurantees the right to 'persue' happiness. It doesn't gurantee happiness, and it doesn't say that we need to do anything to keep other people happy. It just says that we have the right to make ourselves happy. I guess that leads to the question of whether making other people happy makes us happy too. Including hash brownies in Mc Donalds value meals might work better than a change in tax structure though. Just thinking outside the box here.

This makes me unhappy. One of the chief architects of the Obama depression increased her wealth by 62%

http://thehill.co...percent-

Now I know where the shovel ready jobs went to.

lol, the 'Obama depression' started way back in Bush Sr and Clinton days. Heck, the baby boomer generation is more to blame than obama.

GSwift I will agree with you that the seeds of Obama's depression started way back. However instead of solving the problems, he made it worse, much worse. Just look at Canada 10-15 years ago they were in the same mess the US is in now. However by cutting governement, they are doing much better than the US.

Obama is a president that take no responsiblity for anything.

Obama is a president that take no responsiblity for anything.

That is the example set by the baby boomers, "it's not my fault".

Ryggeson.... what you said reminds me of my kid who after just braking a glass door said, its not my fault the shovel I threw just hit to door (I can still hear the glass cracking and tinkling)

Obama, the economy isn't my fault (it wasnt when unemployment was at 7%, but 2 1/2 years later at 9 % either he doesnt know how to fix the problem or he has made the problem worse, or both.) Remember last summer was the summer of recovery. So the question is, are you doing better than a year ago? How are those shovel ready (couldn't help that one :)) jobs doing? Where did all the money go? (Union bailouts/payoffs anyone!)

what you said reminds me of my kid who after just braking a glass door said, its not my fault the shovel I threw just hit to door

That's what the boomers wanted, never grow up. Sex, drugs and rock and roll forever!

That's what the boomers wanted, never grow up. Sex, drugs and rock and roll forever!

For themselves, but not for anyone else. No soup for you!

That's what the boomers wanted, never grow up. Sex, drugs and rock and roll forever!

For themselves, but not for anyone else. No soup for you!

And they want everyone else to pay for their retirement and medical care.

Marjon, as usual, there are so many things wrong with what you say. Let's just start with the latest:

And they want everyone else to pay for their retirement and medical care.

What happened to all the money that the baby boomers put into Social Security? Hmmm. It was loaned to the federal government. That's right. Loaned. Bonds were issued. They will be collecting money and returns that they paid into the system. That is the way it works. Where does the actual cash come from? Sure, tax revenues from the year it is paid, but it is no different than a CD you cash out from the bank. The bills you are receiving came from the guy who made a deposit that day. Your year old CD is being paid out with money collected by the bank TODAY!!! Oh wait. That isn't a big deal. Medical care is much more complicated, but they paid into that as well.

no different than a CD you cash out from the bank.

Yes, it is quite different.
Banks can't print money to pay back the CD. SS and Medicare are Ponzi schemes.
CDs and other commercial bonds are repaid with profits earned from investment, not from taxes that are confiscated.

Back to income disparity. I looked at this article and thought to myself, "Well duh."

In the US in the mid-1970's the top 1% of Americans earned 8% of all income. In 2007 the top 1% earned more than 23% of all income. The collective income of the top 1% of Americans is more than the collective income of the bottom 50%. The US has the most unequal distribution of wealth in any major country in the world.

Why is it this way? Reagan era tax cuts for the wealthy (with Dubya's piled on top). Deregulation. Free Trade and the resulting arbitrage of labor.

We don't make things in America anymore because it is cheaper to make them elsewhere. Now we are increasingly becoming a service dominated economy, serving our own needs and not producing anything to bring wealth to our nation. Our government has been bankrupted by policies paid for by the moneyed interests and now they're trying to privatize everything to drink the last drop; leaving nothing.

So yeah, we're unhappier.

Banks can't print money to pay back the CD.

Yeah. Hmmm. You're right. Good thing they have so many smart guys working there thinking up ways to invent it using derivatives and investment devices like mortgage backed securities. Rather than printing money they gave it to people, sold the notes, and tried to crash the world economy. Good point though.

You don't like taxes? Move to Somalia.

Banks can't print money to pay back the CD.

Yeah. Hmmm. You're right. Good thing they have so many smart guys working there thinking up ways to invent it using derivatives and investment devices like mortgage backed securities. Rather than printing money they gave it to people, sold the notes, and tried to crash the world economy. Good point though.

You don't like taxes? Move to Somalia.

'Progressives' love to use Somalia as an example of anarchy. Too bad it is such a bad example. Somalia demonstrates the failures of socialism and how individuals in traditional societies can govern themselves without an oppressive state.
"We find that Somalia's living standards have improved generally not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government."http://mises.org/daily/2701

BTW, money is printed in Somalia too. Only one denomination bill is accepted and its value is the cost to print the bill.

Pyle, if Obama and the democrats keep things going as they are, we will have Samalia here.

Exactly how are we heading toward Somalia notthinking?

"At the time, Siad Barre explained that the official ideology consisted of three elements: his own conception of community development based on the principle of self-reliance, a form of socialism based on Marxist principles, and Islam. "
http://countrystu...a/24.htm
Doesn't sound too different from the Obama regime.

"The state a judicial monopoly must be recognized as the source of de-civilization: states do not create law and order; they destroy it. Families and households must be recognized as the source of civilization."
http://mises.org/...the-City

I'm not sure either where you are going with that comment ft.

Marjon, my point with Somalia was that you could move there and not pay taxes. My understanding is that it isn't a very nice place to live (by American standards) unless you can afford to own and maintain a compound and a small army to protect it.
I'll stick to a country where Congress collects taxes. Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

Back to the point I originally responded to. I believe that Social Security and Medicare qualify as programs that promote the general Welfare of the United States.

Anyway, the disparity in wealth is a huge factor in people's current unhappiness in the US. Especially since the bottom are struggling to keep roofs over their heads and food on the table.

Frank, why would a capitalist want to commit violence? It is not cost effective unless he can buy cover from the govt.

Violence? Who said anything about violence? We should use persuasion on our competitors. Make them an offer they cant refuse.

If anyone commits violence he risks a violent reaction either by self-defense from the victim and/or prosecution by govt law enforcement

And as we own the local law enforcement, they will protect us from any recourse to persuasion from our competitors.

For it is true, violence is so much more effective when enacted by govt. Pinkertons were completely legal werent they?

It is Inevitable that competitors will resort to cheating. Humans learned this from a few million years of tribal warfare. Cheating could always win out over brute force on the battlefield; Sun Tsu only wrote down what had always been practiced.

We are the progeny of the most successful cheaters of history. You dont expect to see this in the business world?

Pyle, if Obama and the democrats keep things going as they are, we will have Samalia here.

You mean this place?
http://www.travel...lia.html

-It too is total chaos due to religionist wombs competing with one another. A 100 square kilometer area around Samalia has an approximate population of 6,193,0628 (0.619306 persons per square meter). We dont want that in the west.

FH aka SH. Its the economy stupid! Inflation making the dollar worthless.

Interesting thing, non religious Europe has a population density of 134 people per square mile, which far exceeds Africas density of 65. If Samalia were all fundamentalist christians, or at least people who lived by strong moral ethics my guess is that no one would be starving and Somalia would become a rich country.

Right, because if Somalia were a bunch of fundamentalist christians and still the shithole it is, you'd deny their christianity.

No true christian, lol.

If Samalia were all fundamentalist christians

Theyre hindu. Fundamentalist xians want to outreproduce their competition too, which is the cause of inflation, instability, disparity, conflict, mistreatment of minorities, and the gross lack of morals in conflict with the enemies of god.

Kind of like sudan.
http://www.lnsart...tory.htm

Xians make such good martyrs dont they?

Back to the point I originally responded to. I believe that Social Security and Medicare qualify as programs that promote the general Welfare of the United States.

Maybe you should study what the authors meant when they wrote 'general welfare'.

since the bottom are struggling to keep roofs over their heads and food on the table.

Thanks to the democrats destruction of the economy, its not the bottom who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. The 'bottom' are much better off as they are eligible for all sorts of welfare.
Obama must be proud of all the people on food stamps.
"over 44 million Americans on food stamps,"
http://www.mrc.or...737.aspx

Progressives and government teaching important lessons about economics to kids
http://www.wusa9....500-Fine

If you just want to make a few bucks, forget it.

A serious question for otto (if you really live in germany)and any other europeans Do kids set up lemonade stands or is it prohibited?(I never remember seeing a lemonade stand while I lived in germany)

It is Inevitable that competitors will resort to cheating.

Who will competitors cheat? If you are cheated by a business will you buy from them again?
I recently heard a radio advertising spot for a home improvement company that is promoting they do background checks on their employees and verify they are not illegal aliens.
You know billions of dollars of illegal drug deals are done. How many cheat their customers?

FH, North Korea = Fundamentalist Progressive state. If someone has no ethics, kills, rapes, steals, etc I would say they are not living the christian lifestyle. Great progressives such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al, progressive yes, christian I would say no.

its not the bottom who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. The 'bottom' are much better off as they are eligible for all sorts of welfare.

You mean the middle are struggling to continue to maintain lifestyles (including roofs) more expensive than the ones the bottom can get with welfare?

Maybe you should study what the authors meant when they wrote 'general welfare'.

Where you going with this one? Huh? I haven't the foggiest. I think I will side with the US Supreme Court. There is a history of them reversing themselves, but the current interpretation is broad. I have no problem saying I feel that Social Security and Medicare promote the health of the United States as a nation.

FH, say you aren't SH. I can't believe I would have missed that, or is ft really notthinking?

Obama must be proud of all the people on food stamps.

Really? And you link an article that talks about Obama causing the economic collapse? You are seriously deluded. The fractures in the economy created by conservative policies and promoted by big moneyed interests are cataclysmic. The economy was already in the gutter and plunging deeper when Obama got in office. And Republicans have done everything they can to keep him from fixing it.

One in six Americans are on food stamps because they are POOR. They can't afford food. This makes Obama the food stamp president? No, this makes Obama the president trying to clean up the mess caused by 30 years of Republican led deregulation and tax reductions. How is Obama at fault for the miserable state of the US economy he was handed? Do I feel he could do more? Absolutely, but how do you get anything done when 40 Senators block all of the bills that pass the House that they can to torpedo your efforts? Sorry, this is the great Republican Recession. Obama's just trying, not very effectively, to pick up the pieces.

Rant over. Deep breath. Wow, you really got me worked up.

Typically, anything that can be blamed on Reagan that isn't temporally impossible is Reagan's fault.

Also, I'm not SH.

FH, North Korea = Fundamentalist Progressive state. If someone has no ethics, kills, rapes, steals, etc I would say they are not living the christian lifestyle. Great progressives such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al, progressive yes, christian I would say no.

You don't seem to know what progressive means. Beyond that Hitler and Stalin were both ministry students. Doesn't speak well of your religion that they learned their tricks from those you trust, now does it?

I don't mean to blame it all on Reagan. I think that a lot of what was done back then could have been tempered and really benefited us. Instead it wasn't and rather than being balanced it was taken off the deep end and you end up with Dubya in office and the world economy on the brink of a second Great Depression. In order to get the US back on track we need to invest in America. Part of that is keeping our senior citizens off the streets and feeding the poor. But more importantly it is investing in our youth through education, rehabilitating our infrastructure, and promoting skilled job creation. (Sorry international readers. But I suppose you are used to it.)

FH, thanks for the negative confirmation. SH is so anti-puppet that I would have been very surprised.

One in six Americans are on food stamps because they are POOR.

What is Obama doing about it?
His administration is trying to stop Boeing from opening a factory in SC to build the new Dreamliner.
Obama won't allow drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and at the last minute rejected a coal mining permit in WV that had been previously approved.
EPA regulations are being implemented without examining their economic impact. They don't care.
Obama has been more worried about keeping SEIU members employed than those who have wealth creating jobs.

If Obama is so smart, then he is intentionally increasing the unemployment rate putting more people under control of his regime.
Or Obama is incompetent.
What do you 'progressives' want to believe?

Pyle, you obviously then don't care what the authors of the Constitution meant when the wrote 'promote general welfare'.
So don't be surprised when the SCOTUS decides you no longer have the freedom to post on blogs like these.

"why growth has been anemic, resulting in (what seems to be) a permanent loss of output. In his presentation, Lucas warns that bad government policy is playing a big role. He says that the problem is government is doing too much, and he specifically highlights the likelihood of much higher taxes, focused on the rich and a large increase in the role of government in the healthcare sector.

In his conclusion, Professor Lucas is not overly optimistic about recovering lost output. He doesnt make any flamboyant claims, but he does note that European economies have larger government role and 20-30% lower income level than US."
http://www.cato-a...wth-gap/
So instead of a growing economy that increases the wealth of everyone, the socialist solution is to stunt economic growth making everyone more poor.

"Joe Balash, deputy commissioner for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, said one company had plugged its well in NPR-A out of concerns that the permitting and development of pipelines would be too burdensome.

"The distance and regulatory gauntlet that has to be run to transport that oil resource ... is daunting," Balash said. "
http://www.nytime...926.html
More regulations making people poor in the USA.

"Experts in Sweden said the abolition of the wealth tax should halt - or at least slow - this damaging capital flight and make more resources available for venture capital and other early stage investments.

"This is a symbolic as well as a real move. It is important to have entrepreneurs and to offer them finance from other entrepreneurs. This will have a real impact on the willingness to invest," Anders Borg, finance minister, told the Financial Times.

The wealth tax has been blamed for Sweden's low level of investment by individuals in start-up businesses, contributing to disappointing entrepreneurial activity in comparison with other European countries."
http://www.ft.com...621.html
Sweden is really making progress. They eliminated the wealth tax and have school vouchers.

Marjon, I'm surprised you would acknowledge the Constitution contains the word "welfare."

Marjon:

blah blah EPA blah blah

Right. Because who is government to prevent industry from poisoning the land? We must look at the immediate profit of corporations to make the right decisions. No. Wrong.

...than those who have wealth creating jobs

Hmmm. Interesting. Haven't we had enough trickle down economics? Historically we have seen that more money is reinvested into the economy when tax rates on the rich are higher. Yeah, that's right. They would rather invest their money in their companies and grow than pay taxes. When tax rates are low its time to plunder and make your pile of wealth bigger. As we have seen over the past 30 years, especially the last decade.

Pyle, you obviously then don't care what the authors of the Constitution meant when the wrote 'promote general welfare'.

Actually I do care. And so does the Supreme Court, and we seem to be on the same side. SS and Medicare make the US stronger. (And people happier, nod to article) more...

European economies have larger government role and 20-30% lower income level than US.

No. The comparison is bunk. Each country's starting position is different. Their resources are different. Their populations are different. How can you compare one number, income, and make an honest comparison? How about expected life span? Happiness? Quality of life? Distribution of wealth? Even disposable income might be a better measure.

So instead of a growing economy that increases the wealth of everyone, the socialist solution is to stunt economic growth making everyone more poor.

No. That is false rhetorical nonsense and you know it. More accurately I can say that the conservatives agenda in the US has been to make the piles of the few bigger on the backs of the many. Look at the US over the past 30 years and tell me it isn't. And they still pursue the same broken policies.

FH, North Korea = Fundamentalist Progressive state. If someone has no ethics, kills, rapes, steals, etc I would say they are not living the christian lifestyle. Great progressives such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al, progressive yes, christian I would say no.

Since you keep foisting religion I must respond. It is a lie that religion is the source of morality. Continuing to tell that lie demonstrates how immoral Religionists are.

'Morality' is part of the tribal dynamic of internal altruism and external animosity. Tribes with the strongest expression of these traits would consistently prevail in competition with other tribes. It is wholly 'moral' to kill enemy tribesmen and impregnate their females, biologically speaking.

Religion is only a convenient way of extending this dynamic artificially over many tribes. EVERY religion exhibits these two traits. They are integral to, and inseparable from, the concept of religion.

THIS is your 'morality'. It needs to END.

permitting and development of pipelines would be too burdensome

That is right. Getting permission to dramatically alter the environment for a lengthy period of time, potentially impacting the local habitat in a severely negative way, SHOULD be a burdensome process. Would you rather some slap shod approach with local residents tap water catching fire, for instance?

More regulations making people poor in the USA.

Hyperbole. Regulations protecting the environment can be detrimental to short term profit. There is need for reform in environmental regulation, but they can't be just wiped away so that somebody can line their pockets.

The wealth tax has been blamed for Sweden's low level of investment by individuals in start-up businesses, contributing to disappointing entrepreneurial activity in comparison with other European countries.

OK, so what does this tell us? It tells us to be smart with our legislation. We have something Sweden doesn't have, a HUGE consumer market that others want access to. Use it to make the laws we have here work and prevent the further erosion of our national treasure that the conservatives have caused over the past 30 years.

Sweden is really making progress. They eliminated the wealth tax and have school vouchers.

Sweden is a small country (population) surrounded by the rest of Europe where their tax structure stood out. We won't have this problem unless we continue believing our unilateral free trade policies work. And what do school vouchers have to do with anything? (School vouchers will only work if public schools work. Fix them first or exacerbate the problem.)

ryggesogn2 "This is a symbolic as well as a real move. It is important to have entrepreneurs and to offer them finance from other entrepreneurs. This will have a real impact on the willingness to invest," Anders Borg, finance minister, told the Financial Times.
You are talking about getting more countrys to buy US bonds but since you are a conservative you probably dont want to raise the dept limit. So why bring up diversification of are dept?

Who will competitors cheat? If you are cheated by a business will you buy from them again?

Your dumbacting is very convincing. Competitors cheat by 1) Colluding to fix prices; 2) Unfairly corner supply; 3) Buy off politicians; 4) Put melamine in food or make baby juice with no juice in it; 5) Harass, intimidate, or kill off the competition or put horses heads under their sheets; hire pinkerton guards to set up browning machine gun emplacements on hillsides and rooftops to mow down disgruntled consumers; 7) Et cetera.

-This too is a wholly natural expression of the tribal dynamic. Greedy capitalists who are best at it enjoy enhanced opportunities for procreation and the continued success of their tribes ('la familia')

Why is it that you fail to acknowledge the role of extralegal shenanigans in business? Somebody get to you maybe? They holding your horse hostage or something?

OK, so what does this tell us?

Taxing the rich will make everyone more poor. The rich left Sweden for more economically friendly places.
Bloomberg warned that raising NYC taxes will drive away more of those few who pay most of the cities taxes.
"The EPA is currently conducting a campaign against coal-fired power and one of its most destructive weapons is a pending regulation to limit mercury and other hazardous air pollutants like dioxins or acid gases that power plants emit. The 946-page rule mandates that utilities install "maximum achievable control technology" under the Clean Air Actand even by the EPA's lowball estimates, it is the most expensive ..."http://online.wsj...eLEFTTop
"AEP expects a net loss of approximately 600 power plant jobs with annual wages totaling approximately $40 million as a result of compliance with the proposed EPA rules."
http://www.aep.co...?id=1697

Your dumbacting is very convincing. Competitors cheat by 1) Colluding to fix prices;

Prove it. Data does not support this.

2) Unfairly corner supply;

What does 'unfair' mean? Has China unfairly cornered the market on rare earths? A mine in NV has reopened to mine rare earths.

3) Buy off politicians;

Sounds like a govt problem. Why buy off politicians if they can't use the Regulatory State to limit your competitors?

4) Put melamine in food or make baby juice with no juice in it;

Those companies are no longer in business so how much money did they make poisoning their customers?

5) Harass, intimidate, or kill off the competition or put horses heads under their sheets; hire pinkerton guards to set up browning machine gun emplacements on hillsides and rooftops to mow down disgruntled consumers; 7) Et cetera.

All these examples require a govt to enable the violence.

You are talking about getting more countrys to buy US bonds

No, I am not talking about US bonds.

And what do school vouchers have to do with anything?

Swedes show signs of anti-socialism.

Marjon, I'm surprised you would acknowledge the Constitution contains the word "welfare."

Why?
Welfare:
": the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity"
http://www.merria.../welfare

This is the definition the authors had in mind, for every individual.

So to summarize:
(1) You think that companies don't collude to raise prices. You are so very wrong it isn't even debatable. Risk of prosecution is the ONLY reason many companies don't collude.
(2) You think that companies don't try to corner the supply of valuable resources? Wrong again.
(3) Government problem? You are right. Corporations are NOT citizens and shouldn't be allowed to participate in politics. Citizen United needs to be fixed.
(4) You think poisoning is OK as long as the company loses customers after they cash in. Relying on market forces rather than preventive regulation would result in CHAOS with today's manufacturing and distribution capabilities. You are severely deluded if you think markets can function without regulation in the current global environment.
The rest:

All these examples require a govt to enable the violence.

Without a government you think there would be less violence? You are just plain nuts.

Why?
Welfare:
": the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity"
http://www.merria.../welfare

This is the definition the authors had in mind, for every individual.

You said it. Not me. Sounds like you are a proponent of social welfare programs after all...

You are a quote mining troll. Address the arguments made against you rather than merely deflecting the retorts to your nonsensical biased statements. Every once in a while you have a decent point, but the majority of the time your corrosive dialogue hints at malintent.

Sounds like you are a proponent of social welfare programs after all...

The key is 'every individual'.
Not every individual wants the govt to take his hard earned wealth and redistribute to those who don't want to work so hard.

You think that companies don't collude to raise prices

How long can this be maintained if there is real competition?

You think poisoning is OK as long as the company loses customers after they cash in.

How would they cash in? They lose customers and will be destroyed by lawsuits. Not a good long term business strategy.

Without a government you think there would be less violence? You are just plain nuts.

Depends upon the govt doesn't it? Ask the Cambodians who suffered under Pol Pot or the millions murdered by Stalin or Mao or those starving and dying in DPRK.

Prove it. Data does not support this

Prove you are dumbACTing? I would need more data. As to pricefixing:
http://en.wikiped...e_fixing

-Explore the links at the bottom for innumerable examples.

What does 'unfair' mean? Has China unfairly cornered the market on rare earths? A mine in NV has reopened to mine rare earths.

-One example; 10 secs to find:
http://www.cultof...gy/79941

Why buy off politicians if they can't use the Regulatory State to limit your competitors?

Uh so they will pass legislation which favors your company or product? Again, endless examples. Heres one:
http://en.wikiped..._scandal

Those companies are no longer in business so how much money did they make poisoning their customers?

They were caught. How many are never caught?

All these examples require a govt to enable the violence.

Correct. One which is not configured to detect and prevent it.

How about this?
http://en.wikiped..._lock-in

-This is not fair but it is inevitable, natural, and if not made illegal, it WILL always happen. Your freemarket cannot ever survive without regulation or it will consume itself. Guaranteed.

Its like democracy. Both have the inherent instability of an F16. They need constant Management and Maintenance or they will crumple up in midflight. They only offer the Illusion of stability.

"the gap between people's own fortunes and those of people who are better off is correlated with feelings that other people are less fair and less trustworthy,"
This suggests some believe those that are better off did not earn their wealth. Today, in many cases this is understandable with the corruption of the govt. How do the politically connected get appointed to Freddie or Fannie to earn a few million, like Rahm? Or the regulators that do a few years time and then are hired to lobby? Or politicians that write books for a few million?
Most respect those who work hard in the private sector creating wealth and job opportunities by selling products and services people want to buy.

WTF Rygg? I had to give you 5 stars because that statement was basically awesome. What happened while I was gone?

Gotta admit. That first comment was spot on. I 5'd it too.

Your freemarket cannot ever survive without regulation or it will consume itself. Guaranteed.

Of course free markets can't survive without regulation, but they can THRIVE without govt regulation.
Do you all intentionally misunderstand the concept of free markets to promote your socialism?
Free markets are regulated by the participants in the market.

"Almost every piece of price-fix­ing legislation produces results opposite to those intended."
http://www.thefre...-fixing/
So govt price fixing fails how can non-govt price fixing succeed?
"it might be important to note that the record of many price-fixing cases prosecuted under our Sherman Antitrust Act has revealed a conspicuous lack of price-fixing success. With few exceptions, the prices have not been really fixed and have not been uniform for any substantial period of time; the evidence indicates that the agreements have broken down with almost monotonous regularity. Firms have been convicted for having a price-fixing agreement or "tampering with price structures" or agreeing to charge the same price, but rarely, if ever, for having accomplished successful price collusion."
http://www.thefre...llusion/

There was a recent case of poisoned dog food from Chinese protein sources. No govt lab or agency discovered the problem.
The Canadian company that manufactured the dog responded to customer complaints, tested the product and pulled it from the market because they wanted to stay in business.
National Sanitation Foundation, a private company, is now in China testing products.

Your freemarket cannot ever survive without regulation or it will consume itself. Guaranteed.

Of course free markets can't survive without regulation, but they can THRIVE without govt regulation.

The free market can thrive without regulation until it runs out of resources. It just isn't good at planning how to use finite resources. Sure it tries to make things cheap but not to make them last - you can't not buy something necessary because it isn't built to last, and it isn't in your financial interest to sell something that lasts if you can make more money by replacing it. Besides, look at all the useless junk in our world - the toys in Happy Meals are not only useless junk; they are detrimental to society, causing children to bug their parents into buying them unhealthy food. That is why the democratic government of San Francisco passed a law banning Happy Meals with toys.

Capitalists can't use violence.

Poisoning people is violent; hydrocarbon extraction and use does this. Our democratic regulates the emissions of coal power plants so that people don't get hurt. The hydraulic fracturing method of extracting natural gas (commonly called 'fracking') requires toxic chemicals that often end up in the water supply, sometimes making livestock drop dead and tap water highly flammable and undrinkable - one home even exploded from it. In Dish, Texas people were having headaches and blacking out, the air stunk and a private environmental consultant found high levels of neurotoxins and carcinogens in the air with no explanation other than that the town is near 11 natural gas compression stations. Many governments have banned fracking, but capitalist corporations do continue the practice in many parts of the US.

The free market can thrive without regulation until it runs out of resources.

Prices regulate the allocation of resources in free markets.

Poisoning people is violent;

Which is all enabled by the govt. The govt 'owns' the oil and gas. Companies bid on leases to extract those resources an pay royalties to the govt. In a society that protects private property rights, the govt would not own the oil or gas and anyone injured by pollution would be readily able to sue for damages.

but capitalist corporations do continue the practice in many parts of the US.

With the blessings and protection of the US govt.

In a society that protects private property rights, the govt would not own the oil or gas and anyone injured by pollution would be readily able to sue for damages.

So the guy with the biggest gun or the biggest pile of dough gets to make more money. Screw everybody else. And you can sue for damages, with what money? How do poor people sue anybody, let alone a leviathan corporation with a fleet of attorneys? You are living in some theoretical la la land that will never exist. Again, there are so many things wrong with almost everything you say it is hard to argue with you, nevermind your constant switching and ignoring the arguments against you.

Income disparity leads to unhappiness. Especially when the bottom is struggling to survive. The Republican policies of the past 30 years have exacerbated the income disparity. Now that it has happened, fixing it is a nightmare, but further deregulation and tax cuts aren't going to help make anybody happy except the top 1%.

And you can sue for damages, with what money? How do poor people sue anybody, let alone a leviathan corporation with a fleet of attorneys?

You are assuming then the govt IS corrupt. Why don't you attack a corrupt govt system?
An honest judge should not be swayed by money or high priced attorney's, just the facts of the case.

Your impression of a legal system and how it works is naive, just like your idea that your Utopian-free market society could ever function in a real world.

Your impression of a legal system and how it works is naive,

Now you are making excuses for a corrupt legal system controlled by the state.
Those poor, weak politicians and judges just can't withstand the temptations of being bribed?
Maybe the problem lies in a system where politicians can legalize plunder instead of being limited to protecting private property rights.
Free markets expect each participant to act in their individual self-interest, not in the interest of 'society'. How is that Utopian?

Who has the power?
"White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley took heat from business executives Thursday for the Obama administrations regulatory expansions. Daley also said he didnt have any good answers for some of what President Obama is doing and expressed frustration about the bureaucratic stuff thats hard to defend.

Sometimes you cant defend the indefensible, Daley said at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) meeting.

Daley couldnt answer basic questions and continually faced criticism from the executives in the room.

Read more: http://dailycalle...bCwvJhG"

the banks have place the puppets in front of us - if they wanted change they wouldn't get in - its took them 300 yrs to gain control of this planet the idea was to get mankind off its backside- promoting greed for growth using corruption wars and murder - they have built ALL the systems around to keep it all in place - they are all in the same club - its all on a massive scale and run everything - they don't care about the planet and they don't care about you - why should they there just a business they print the pieces of paper - give it its value - tell you what its worth - make up inflation and interest to produce scarcity and control and still get there chunk - cash your gold promotion because money is now made up in computers credit cards - it doesn't exist - the brain has been programed and wired - like a computer to this state since the age of 3 - there are billions all over the planet in this kind of mesmerized state following leaders - we we we - same people getting in

Banks don't print money. Govts do and they may try to set its value but ultimately it's the consumer that decides its value.
Of course it is easier for 'progressives' to attack banks than to blame themselves and take responsibility for their actions.

Marjon, do you realize even Adam Smith supported regulations against banks?

Do you also realize in the US it's the Federal Reserve (a private bank) that places all orders for money to be printed? I guess you can play semantics and say the Treasury physically prints the money, but it doesn't do so without an order from the Federal Reserve.

If the Federal Reserve was a private bank, why is the chairman appointed by the president?
Why was the Federal Reserve created by an act of Congress?
The Federal Reserve is no more private than the GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"It then became clear to these big-business interests that the only way to establish a cartelized economy, an economy that would ensure their continued economic dominance and high profits, would be to use the powers of government to establish and maintain cartels by coercion, in other words, to transform the economy from roughly laissez-faire to centralized, coordinated statism. "
"the regulatory commissions could subsidize, restrict, and cartelize in the name of "opposing monopoly," as well as promoting the general welfare and national security."
"the Federal Reserve System as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation's banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion, without suffering quick retribution from depositors or noteholders demanding cash."
http://mises.org/daily/3823

If the Federal Reserve were a public bank, don't you think the government would have more control over it than the appointment of its governors? If the Federal Reserve is so public, wouldn't the president have removed a Fed Governor from his position at some point in the last 100 years?

I remember Clinton having difficulties with Greenspan. Why not just eliminate Greenspan?

Your freemarket cannot ever survive without regulation or it will consume itself. Guaranteed.

Of course free markets can't survive without regulation, but they can THRIVE without govt regulation.
Do you all intentionally misunderstand the concept of free markets to promote your socialism?
Free markets are regulated by the participants in the market.

No it is you who do not understand the dynamics of competition. The intent is to WIN. In your world losers and their families would starve. To many this is not an option.

Acknowledge the role of collusion to limit competition or else it will be obvious you have severe cognitive deficits.

If the Federal Reserve were a public bank, don't you think the government would have more control over it than the appointment of its governors? If the Federal Reserve is so public, wouldn't the president have removed a Fed Governor from his position at some point in the last 100 years?

I remember Clinton having difficulties with Greenspan. Why not just eliminate Greenspan?

Ever hear of separation of powers?
The president nominates the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court but has no authority to remove him from office.
Yes, let's turn the position of Federal Reserve Chairman into a political appointee subject to the whims of the president. That should hasten demise of the Federal Reserve.
The govt has much control over all banks. Ever hear of the FDIC? The govt regulates the capital banks must have on hand.

"So how does the Federal Reserve print money? First, it buys government bonds and other financial securities from big New York City banks. It pays for these bonds with newly created electronic money, using computers to change the records of the banks accounts at the Fed. If the banks want paper dollars, Federal Reserve Notes, the Department of the Mint at the U.S. Treasury prints and sends crisp new dollars to the Federal Reserve which forwards them to the banks."
http://www.csmoni...nt-money

I gather there's a lot of rich people commenting on this article.

"This is socialist BS." - Aennen

Translation.... "Then let them eat cake."

"No it is you who do not understand the dynamics of competition. The intent is to WIN." - Otto

And in America's deregulatory schemes to win, America is bankrupt and rapidly declining to third world status.

Well done Libertarians.

"If the Federal Reserve were a public bank, don't you think the government would have more control over it than the appointment of its governors?" - Frank

Consider this comment and tell me if you want him in charge of the FED.

"We must manufacture an 'economic' crisis in order to assure that there are no alternatives to a smaller government." - Republican - Jeb Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995

Starve the beast of big government through fiscal insolvency.

Some dare call it treason.

"the Federal Reserve System as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation's banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion" - RyggTard

Correct. That is BY DESIGN, since Libertarian Economists maintain that a 3% inflation rate is best to spur economic growth.

Libertarian QuackTards don't even know what their own chief economists have designed into the system.

"Why was the Federal Reserve created by an act of Congress?" - RyggTard

Because without an act of congress legalizing it and beholding the other banks to it, it couldn't exist to serve it's intended purpose.

You poor Tard you.

"I remember Clinton having difficulties with Greenspan. Why not just eliminate Greenspan?" - Frank

Libertarian/Randite RyggTard never seems to answer questions put to him who's answers that undermine his Libretarian/Randite Liedeology. In place of answers he posts Ideological Libertarian/Randite Claptrap that borders on anti-government conspiratorial lunacy.

And that is the heart of the Libertarian Ideal. "Government is evil, so it must be destroyed."

Hence the ongoing destruction of America.

"Banks don't print money." - RyggTard

Ah, more Libertarian/Randite Ignorance...

The U.S. uses a fractional reserve system in which by law all lending that is done by banks be supported by maintaining a factional cash reserve of approximately 10% of all money loaned.

If a bank has $100 in deposits it is free to loan out $90 of that and keep 10% as a reserve deposit. All of that $90 will circulate in the economy and return to the bank as a new deposit. And by the rules, the bank is then allowed to re-loan 90% of that $90 deposit, which again circulates and is re-deposited this time as $81, and again 10% is held in reserve, and the other $72.90 is circulated.

So for every dollar initially deposited in a bank, the bank loans out about 10 times as much money - magnifying the initial deposit.

SO yes.. all banks in a fractional reserve system print money, about 10 times the money initially deposited within them.

Libertarians/Randites are invariably and spectacularly ignorant.

"Who has the power?" - RyggTard

Ultimately the American People do.

But the American people are spectacularly ignorant and have allowed the poison of Libertarianism and Randite ideologies to destroy their nation.

So be it.

"Now you are making excuses for a corrupt legal system controlled by the state." - RyggTard

Ya we have heard it all before from Libertarian Quack Tards. Everything that stems from the state is necessarily evil, corrupt, and must be destroyed.

Hence the ongoing destruction of America by Libertarian Leaning Republican politicians.

"Starve the beast of big government" - Libertarian plan

"Maybe you should study what the authors meant when they wrote 'general welfare'." - RyggTard

Libertarians place the welfare of self far above the welfare of their fellow man. The phrase "general welfare" informs everyone that America's founding fathers were interested in the welfare of society and the government's role in promoting the welfare of that society.

America has been destroyed by Libertarian Ideological poison.

Well said! And that *liberal*tarian clap-trap is our post-modern legacy anathema from Immanuel Kant. A is A Objectivism is NOT Libertarianism.

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth.

I gather there's a lot of rich people commenting on this article.

Why?
How do you define rich?

@VD

And in America's deregulatory schemes to win, America is bankrupt and rapidly declining to third world status.

You EXAGGERATE like all your tv heroes do.

@MARJON

Acknowledge the role of collusion to limit competition or else it will be obvious you have severe cognitive deficits.

RESPOND to this please. Acknowledge that the irrepressible tendency of humans with common interests to band together to overcome their enemies, is why your free market is only a nocturnal emission on your sheets.

Acknowledge that the very reason for the existence of tribes, stems directly from this, and that it is the Reason we should expect to find this tribal dynamic at work in the very highest levels of govt. And Beyond.

And that we should in fact be puzzled and dismayed if there is not one triumphant Tribe of Leaders in charge of the world at this time, ensuring that all Their grand Illusions continue to function when logic tells us they should not.

SPEAK NOW or forever hold your Piece.

"Finally, it might be important to note that the record of many price-fixing cases prosecuted under our Sherman Antitrust Act has revealed a conspicuous lack of price-fixing success. With few exceptions, the prices have not been really fixed and have not been uniform for any substantial period of time; the evidence indicates that the agreements have broken down with almost monotonous regularity. Firms have been convicted for having a price-fixing agreement or "tampering with price structures" or agreeing to charge the same price, but rarely, if ever, for having accomplished successful price collusion. Thus, much of the factual and empirical evidence concerning price collusion appears to bear out the general correctness of the theories examined in this paper. "
http://www.thefre...llusion/

In a free market people who have common interest are free band together, to pool their resources, to buy and sell shares of stock in order to increase their wealth.

It depends on what our society values. With decreasing working-class wages (real wages), we seem to be valuing hard work less and less. Unions kept working-class wages propped up for many years, but unions have become politically undesirable lately.

The US society valued the individual liberty of its members because historically it has been shown that protecting the inherent, individual rights of every citizen builds a strong and prosperous society.

In a free market people who have common interest are free band together, to pool their resources, to buy and sell shares of stock in order to increase their wealth.

There you go. That wasnt so hard was it?

And this banding and pooling and transacting is often done to limit competition, limit choices that customers have, reduce the quality of goods and services while raising prices... in order to increase their wealth.

Merovingian: "Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without."

-THIS is how business wants to be done. This is how it wants to run itself. THIS is why it needs to be regulated from the outside, and from Above.

protecting the inherent, individual rights of every citizen builds a strong and prosperous society.

-From enemies both foreign and domestic, and from the animalistic tendencies still present within most all of us partially domesticated, weak-brained human animals. A Work in Progress.

around 300yrs ago a young Rothschild was at the Californian gold rush - seeing every one getting robbed - he got himself some land - set up gun turrets and built a vault then says keep yur gold ere it wilbe SAFE for ths ill take mi INTEREST - but gold got heavy so he started to issue PROMISSORY NOTES - trade started - all this greed for growth got the attention of the hidden Freemasons the mask behind the throne who decided to commit this programing of our species - give it to the world and get them off there knees anyone that got in there way were either corrupted or they simply dissuaded-wars were no problem they would fund both sides they then started to build all the social educational political structures to fit to keep it all this nurture neatly in place -its all been planned committed - its being controlled by a fraction of the Freemasons who claim to possess the powers of the universe - sshh the Illuminati who basically want to wipe the mess off the planet for the Aquarius age

Schism,

... I would say the conclusion that inequality is a factor on happiness is beyond obvious.

So what are you saying? That politicians are more disillusioned than ever(regarding to a job and what it`s worth), and thus fostering an era of socialist sympathisers in N. America? Uh-oh, they better get their ducks in a row!

If a bank has $100 in deposits it is free to loan out $90 of that and keep 10% as a reserve deposit. All of that $90 will circulate in the economy and return to the bank as a new deposit. And by the rules, the bank is then allowed to re-loan 90% of that $90 deposit, which again circulates and is re-deposited this time as $81, and again 10% is held in reserve, and the other $72.90 is circulated.

So for every dollar initially deposited in a bank, the bank loans out about 10 times as much money - magnifying the initial deposit.

The first paragraph in this quotation suggests that for every dollar initially deposited in a bank, the bank loans out about .9 times as much money. And the paragraph just before the quotation wasn't clear either.

This article says that the Federal Reserve made a profit of 82-billion dollars last year and gave 79 billion of it to the government: http://www.nytime...business

Good discussion everyone. There are way too many factors in a study like this to draw conclusions. The bottom line is that no one wants to keep playing a game if the same people always win and most people have no chance of winning. In the game of life, it's the same thing. Most sub-systems of the economy recognize this. The NFL "redistributes" wealth, gasp! Poorer, small-market teams get some of the profits from the big-market teams. Why? To keep the game competitive. Players would not enjoy playing against weak opponents, and fans would quickly lose interest in watching one team constantly clobber everyone else. What's the fun of that? I bet if you look at the reward distribution profiles of successful, sustainable industries like professional sports it is more equal than what we get in the real world. To keep people motivated and interested in playing the game, and keep everyone competitive, there needs to be a reasonable chance to come out ahead. That's why they got these results.

"Finally, it might be important to note that the record of many price-fixing cases prosecuted under our Sherman Antitrust Act has revealed a conspicuous lack of price-fixing success.

Do you think the successful schemes have been prosecuted? Most likely the successful ones were never found out.

- I live by what I say in the 2 bullets above because when I see my peers becoming successful (successful by my perception), it encourages me to try to be more successful... It doesn't make me mad.
- A more positive alternative to the authors recommendation of taxing the "rich" even more, would be to open more doors and remove more roadblocks for those "less successful", so that they have a better chance of achieving what they perceive as "success". (Turn more "poor" people into "richer" people as opposed to turning more "rich" people into "poorer" people).

I think these are reasonable statements, don't you? Help me understand, if not.

Yes, they are reasonable. But how do you give more people more opportunities without spending some money that those people don't have?

And regarding your first bullet, success is relative. The wolf who eats all the sheep before the other wolves arrive is more successful, until he ultimately starves because there are no more sheep.

- I live by what I say in the 2 bullets above because when I see my peers becoming successful (successful by my perception), it encourages me to try to be more successful... It doesn't make me mad.

Yes, seeing your peers succeed can give one hope of future success, however, seeing people born into wealth succeed by virtue of their parents' hard work is maddening.

Look at the Hiltons. Is showing some vagina and getting caught up in porn scandals an acceptable way to get ahead?

Pauli, 1) the NFL is in a currently in a union lockout.
2) MLB has anti-trust exemption, 3) All professional sports are entertainment and need to satisfy customers.
Has the US govt imposed fairness in professional sports?
Henry Ford started a 40 hr week and raised the salaries of his employees because 1) he could do so with the profits he had created and 2) his employees would have more time to be customers.
Solutions offered by 'progressives' demand forcible redistribution of wealth by the state.

I think society should be organized such that the succesful are not disracted by the suffering of others. To do this we must eliminate the suffering.
When I shared this idea with a friend he suggested killing the suffering people. I told him losing a family member can be traumatic even if they are an idiot. He then agreed with me that we must eliminate the suffering without harming any one.

"Look at the Hiltons. Is showing some vagina and getting caught up in porn scandals an acceptable way to get ahead?" - Skeptic

You do mean "some head" don't you?

I note that this thread has presumed that success = money.

Another reason for the ongoing failure of American Society.