• uniquely-ironic said on Dec 10, 2007....

  While the wealthy have better skills making money based on past experience, I'd bet we'd have another whole crop of bright enterpreneurs.  Or at least I'd like to think so.

• bloc said on Dec 10, 2007....

  unlikely since most wealthy people are born into it or get it for arbitrary reasons. The saudi's aren't rich because they are smart, they are rich because they were born on top of oil.

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 10, 2007....

  Good point bloc. 

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 10, 2007....

  After doing just a brief reading on Sweden I'm not sure why they are considered socialist.  I mean the government doesn't seem to own much.  Isn't that the deciding factor how much the government controls vs privitazation.  I haven't done enough reading on how their health care actually functions though.

• bloc said on Dec 10, 2007....

  it depends how you define socialism. I always find that you oversimplify and talk about extremes which leads to seeming contradictions. You'd claim that universal healthcare, a large safety net, and other such programs are socialism. I point you at a country that does all those things and you say they aren't because the government doesn't own and control the means of production. Basically you try to shoehorn all countries into one of two extremes and no country fits into either of those boxes. 
  
  
  All countries of a mixture of socialism and capitalism and the real question is finding the right balance. We won't succeed if we limit out mental model to the extremes. We see this with republican candidates that want to call anything they don't like socialism. 

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 10, 2007....

  I try not to oversimplify.  But in all fairness I find that you take so much into consideration that makes a definition impossible.   If the objective is to find the proper mixture, then you have to question why something works in one country, and if it could be applied to our situation. 
   
  I'm not against Universal Health Care, mostly because we've already decided as a nation that we aren't going to deny emergency care to anybody (and emergency care doesn't mean bullet wound either like I originally thought) to anybody period.  So it's simple math that we are better off stopping problems before they get bigger than we waiting until they are ER worthy.
   
  I mean obviously certain things that are issues for us, say transportation aren't issues to a smaller counteir where more people live on less land.  Obviously they have less need for cars than we do.  Obviously they would be better off on internet and modernization because everything is so close together that it's easy to lay down the newest cables.  It's not practical for us.  Doesn't mean their plan is bad, it means that their plan works for them but perhaps another works for us. 
   
  You do see Republicans (and a lot of libertarians to be fair) calling anything having to do with our government and our bussiness interacting as socialism.  You have a lot of libs (and they are out in force on SC right now) who are so rabidly anti-captitalist that anytime somebody makes more money than them they have slipped over to the darkside. 

• silverwhisper said on Dec 10, 2007....

  there are differences in the skillsets required to build an empire and to maintain an empire. i suspect there would be massive changes.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Dec 10, 2007....

  "You have a lot of libs ... who are so rabidly anti-captitalist that anytime somebody makes more money than them they have slipped over to the darkside. "
  
  D6 was the one that said that anyone making over something like 50k was rich. LOL
  
  
  In all seriousness, I'm not sure what your asking. The topic of sweden was brought up in a different post where you said "but I doubt socialisms ability to function in a real world period." I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you were implying this in comparison to capitalism. If you restrict your definition to absolute socialism then I would assert that absolute capitalism won't work in the real world either. 

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 10, 2007....

  Black Market and the inability to destroy it begs to differ.  War on drugs too.  :-P
   
  Dear god did D6 say something THAT stupid?  I  mean that does put you above the national average of 32 odd, but I question the validity of any number that doesn't differentiate between independent individuals and High School students, and Californians where minimum wage is at (or nearly) 7 an hour and other places where the minimum is 5.15. 
   
   
  It does seem that it breaks down in many ways if certain regulations aren't aren't put into place.  Ideally it regulates BEFORE the people on the bottom get violent.  Which honestly I don't think we are at any particular risk of happening here in the US for some time.  Things aren't nearly that bad, not even for the poor it seems.  (but that is a matter of personal opinion.) 
   

• bloc said on Dec 10, 2007....

  "It does seem that it breaks down in many ways if certain regulations aren't aren't put into place. Ideally it regulates BEFORE the people on the bottom get violent."
  
  I'm going ot be pedantic. The first "it' refers to a pure capitalist society. In the second sentence you us "it" again, in such a way as to imply "it" is the market since you used it right after another use of "it" with no change of subject between. However, the second "it" refers to the government regulating which makes it not a pure capitalist society. The US is far from a pure capitalist society so I stand by the point that pure capitalism is equally as impractical as pure socialism.

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 10, 2007....

  The question seems to be which way to err.

• bloc said on Dec 10, 2007....

  the danger of that is mental laziness which is common. Someone will conclude that it's safe to err towards x and then they will refuse to understand or deal with reality and loudly proclaim that y is terrible. We see this a lot with the healthcare debate. 
  
  
  Even people I respect like andrew sullivan make snide remarks about "socialized" medicine but he never addresses the problems with our system or how we should deal with them. Just keeps saying that y is bad. I've even emailed him a couple of times asking me to address some of those issues. I doubt he reads all his emails but he has responded to some of my emails on other topics. 

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 10, 2007....

  I think the biggest problem with health care (as an issue) is that very few people have any firm understanding on it and how it works.  I know I'm guilty of this.  I assume that it shouldn't work because public schools don't seem to hold up against their private counterparts.  (though private schools are free to teach what they want to include Creationism so it's a catch 22 for me) I don't hear many people debate the advantages of of the USPS vs UPS or FedEx. 
   
  However I don't hear ANYBODY even on the right argue for a privitazation of the military.  And with good reason, you want soldiers who are loyal to your country, not your money.  (though one day I would love to see how well that works in reality) So obviously not all systems behave identicly for identical reasons.
   
  So I guess the first thing is to try to get better educated, ideally with as little bias as possible.

• bloc said on Dec 10, 2007....

  "I assume that it shouldn't work because public schools don't seem to hold up against their private counterparts."
  
  I don't believe this. It's hard to compare private and public schools because parents that are willing to pay for private school are far more likely to care about their kids education.

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 10, 2007....

  That is true. I would argue that the average private school has better facilities, more up to date books as well.

• bloc said on Dec 10, 2007....

  it's much easier to have more resources per student if you don't have to take all kids in the country. this is the problem I have with people that want to switch all kids to private schools. Many of the problems that exist in public schools are the result of the requirement that they take all kids. Private schools simply kick out severe behavior problems, but my wife gets them in her classes and they take up so much of her time that it hurts her ability to teach the other kids. 
  
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Dec 10, 2007....

  My mother teaches special ed at the high school level.  Most of her students are can barely read, and many are english learners.  It's not so much that she has too many students it's that non of the have and desire to learn. 
   
  Honestly kids who have failed to acheive X should just be tossed in a vocational school. 

• D6fer said on Dec 10, 2007....

  I know for a fact that it would end up mainly in the same hands as it is in now....especially in the case of the "self made" wealthy....you cant redistribute connections.

• D6fer said on Dec 10, 2007....

  btw....I don't remember saying that 50 k was rich...but I suppose it's all relative...depending on the context of the post....50k would seem like an awful lot of money to many people living in different parts of the country.

• D6fer said on Dec 10, 2007....

  I keep reading the responses and have to respond to each....as a parent of kids that are in special education....I am a bit offended by your comments Sean.....my kids do have a desire to learn...it's just a lot harder for them because of their learning disability....I do think that there are some kids...maybe even a lot of kids that don't have the desire to learn...but it's the kids like mine that are on the line between individual education programs and the mainstream that suffer the most....having to go to classes with kids with anti-social behavior problems, etc.....no popular students in special education classes....so there is a stigma attached to them.
  
  I personally know several people that went to vocational school that are doing very well for themselves....electricians.....auto body techs....refrigeration techs...and instrumentation specialists....all of which spent a fraction on their education of that of a college grad....took at least half the time to get the education....and had a job the day they graduated....doesn't sound too bad of a place to be "tossed" to me.
  

• bloc said on Dec 11, 2007....

  Oops, you didn't say 50k, but what you said is probably even sillier. You said that the top 50% of wage earners are rich. Here's the link

• D6fer said on Dec 11, 2007....

  yeah...I remember....but as I said...it's all relative

Comment on "Reset the world"

Currently tagged	WEALTH poor rich money (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment