I understand what you said, but you also said you don't want to provide for those who don't provide for themselves aka those who take advantage of the system. You'll always have these assholes living from welfare, that's a fact.FEOS wrote:
Read the highlighted part. I'm completely for welfare providing for those who are unable to provide for themselves. I never said otherwise.sergeriver wrote:
Not providing for those who are unable to provide for themselves because there are some assholes who take advantage of the system is worse IMO.FEOS wrote:
Providing for those who are UNABLE to provide for themselves is one thing...providing for those who DO NOT provide for themselves (wealth redistribution) is quite another.
Listen to the link, you'll probably learn some new things.FEOS wrote:
You're the one living in a fantasy land if you think the government bails all big companies out of bankruptcy. The ones that are generally helped in that way (subsidies) are ones critical to the DIB (automotive, aerospace, etc). There are plenty of big companies that have gone into bankruptcy and either folded or emerged with different business models.PureFodder wrote:
So you believe in free market fantasies?
No rich country has anything like a free market. All rich governemnts are highly protectionist and use vast amounts of public money to keep the business world going. Huge amounts of public money are used, as Cam says, for infrastructure and R&D.
What actually happens wen big companies fuck up and face bankrupcy? In comes the public funds to bail them out. I'm not saying that these things are inherently wrong, but socialism is alive and well in the US, it's just not aimed at the poor so much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgFlJjnULh0
Look at our government's entitlements budget...it's the single largest aspect of government spending. And it goes to individual citizens, not companies.
If America has a free market then there shouldn't be ANY bailouts. There shouldn't be ANY subsadies. There shouldn't be ANY lobbyists. They all go against free market economics. The only advertising allowed would be to inform people that a particular product exists and what it's uses are. Any brand imaging crap should not exist in a free market, which is pretty much the entire PR industry.
Last edited by PureFodder (2008-02-21 10:03:39)
Perhaps free market is a poor description. More of a "government doesn't control" market?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That could work... The only controls I see as valid in a market involve environmental protection and labor rights.