Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "Thom Hartmann Program" channel.

  1. Rusty Mckee RE: CEO's Yes, I agree that CEO's are being overpaid. However, taxing CEO's wouldn't even cover a tiny amount of money spent by the State. As an example, the Koch brothers (a favorite target of the Progressive far Left) have about $100 billion following about 80 years of work from two generations. The DoED blows through $100 billion each and every year. The functional illiteracy rate of American high school graduates is 1 in 5. Each student costs around $250,000 to put through 12 years of education.  Yes, the CEO's are paid too much - tax them all you like. It isn't going to change the fact of failing American schools. All that will happen is the money will be taken from relatively productive people and given to relatively unproductive people, wasted, and nothing to show for it.  I'll give you an example from my own experience. The government gave a $10,000.000 grant to teach minorities at a medical school. I personally tutored the ONLY minority. I did so for free. That $10 million was spent refurbishing the administration building in about 3 months time. ZERO was spent on any minority students. Or how about the $120,000,000 spent on medical research - this equated to pretty much nothing. And those are small figures. Very small. The State can easily blow through $10 - 20 billion in a few months with absolutely zero to show for it. And get this, most of the time it makes the problems WORSE. That's a fact.  I noticed long ago that Progressives have a faith in the State that's only matched in belief by the far right conservatives. Which makes sense. History shows both the far right (Religious extremists) and far left (Communists) kill in the name of their faith at a rate pretty much not matched by any other ideology.  Progressive Socialists and Conservative fundamentalists are two sides of the same coin. I don't think you have an idea as to how things really work in the real world. Yes, it's nice to blame the rich (and they do suck) but if you think the Government is any better, you have another thing coming. Public servants are much worse - and Government is a much bigger problem. Bernie knows this to be the case. Yet he still peddles his bullshit. I find that somewhat interesting. And telling. 
    1
  2. marisafari I like your idea on giving people a basic income. I'd like to see if giving an electronic coupon that had to be spent in 1 month (staggered randomly) wouldn't work a bit like a vote. As an experiment I'd like to see a lot of new currency devices tried.  As for the CEO being paid 300 times more - well, we have to assume yes, they are worth 300 times more. As an example, take Brad Pitt, he's paid 300x more than the stage hand and 3000x more than the extra. Is he worth all this extra pay? Yes. Which is why he's hired. Are ALL of the CEO's worth 300x more? Ask their employers, mostly the board. They'd say yes. Which is why they hired them as CEO. Is an Apple iWatch worth 300x more than a simple watch? Well, to the people who buy them it is.  I agree that the top 0.1% have too much power in society. The solution I put forward is to remove government from their grasp of power. If they didn't have governmental power, then in 2008 most of those 0.1% would be bankrupt. People like Warren Buffet would be part of the 99%, instead (thanks to Government) he's in the 0.00001%. Worse still, government distorts all aspects of society (see the Police State and the War on Terror). No, what we need is LESS Government and then just let the rich fail, as they ALWAYS do without Government propping them up. 
    1
  3. marisafari No one likes to see poor working day and night. But stop and think about this: Why are they working day and night? WHO is really at fault? When they offer their services to the public, no one wants to pay them more than a basic minimum amount. This is no different than you choosing to buy something like an apple instead of the banana. You're saying you favor the apple grower over the banana grower (as an example). Is ANYONE at fault? Is it your "fault" you prefer apples and not banana's? If the banana grower losses his job, is that your 'fault'? In a free society people are free to buy and sell goods and services. This means people generally find something they are good at that people ALSO find of value. We don't live in a free society. We live in a regulated society. This means there's going to be a lot of poor that cannot find a regulated job. Reason TV had a really great interview with a man on the dole who WANTED to work, but didn't want to work at a FastFood Inc... so he opened a BBQ up in a parking lot in a run down part of town with a bunch of closed businesses. Within a year a saved 18,000! THAT is what happens when you allow for free trade. Of course, the State came in a destroyed his business because he didn't meet it's "Regulations" and get this, the Police actually STOLE his money. It took him 3 years in court and he only recovered $11,000. The State IS evil. It can strangle you to death for selling a 0.50 cent cigarette. It wages trillion dollar wars against innocent people. It taxes you FOR working! By the hour! It just bailed out the top richest 0.01%. Anyway, the ONLY viable long term solution is a LIMITED government. Of course, people hate limited government because the State is the new religion. The POTUS is it's Pope and the Senators the Bishops. The people worship it. They love it. Thus, we'll all just have to get used to a lower standard of living, less personal freedom and a bloated evil State run by the rich for their benefit. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Dictator elected sometime in the next 40 years. Followed by a massive cull of the 'rich' as we shift far Left. I think a lot of Americans are going to be surprised to find out, they're part of the 'rich'. 
    1
  4. Rusty Mckee I agree the wars are wasting money that could be spent (used to direct resources) elsewhere. But it's the State that started the never ending wars. It's the State that perpetuates the wars.  As for broken schools. Government schools have been broken since they were invented in the 1800s by the Prussian aristocracy to brainwash their subjects. Government schools have always been about brainwashing (see: Pledge of Allegiance to the State). You can watch the downward trajectory of Government schools in the USA with the rise of the Public Teacher's Unions. Which is ironic - why do Teacher's need a Union? They work for the beloved and benevolent State. Up until the 1960s poor teachers were fired. Now they're promoted and run most of the schools. Heck, many teachers are nearly illiterate. Most barely passed undergrad. You can't blame corporations for poor education in the USA. Some corporations have even opened up their own Universities. It's gotten THAT bad.  I know this first hand as I have worked at numerous Universities in different countries. I see the same pattern again and again. It has absolutely nothing to do with corporations. As a matter of fact, education is a bit better when there ARE corporations because they act as a measure of the education - if they hire your grads then students want to go to your school, if not, they don't. Thus, schools have an incentive to properly educate. When there are no corporations, the quality plummets to below rock bottom. 
    1
  5. Rusty Mckee Look up the top 20 Universities in the USA. Of them, 19 are Private. I wonder, what do you think it the #1 priority at a University?
    1
  6. Rusty Mckee Are you trying to tell me a 'Conservative' wants to drink toxic chemicals and dosen't care if the poor are poisoned? Really? You believe that garbage. NO ONE outside of a sociopath wants to see people poisoned. I mean come on. The problem is, sociopaths are goods at climbing to the tops of corporations AND government. In a free society, corporations are sued when they pollute and government is limited in it's ability to strangle innocent humans for selling cigarettes. In OUR society corporations pollute all over the planet (which Americans support by purchasing stuff without knowing where its made) and the Government not only strangles people to death, it starts phone trillion dollar wars, graduates functional illiterates AND is the largest polluter in history. Look it up. The USA Government is the largest polluter in the world. 
    1
  7. Rusty Mckee I can see we agree on many points.  Okay, let me try this. It comes from Kant, and so it's not my opinion (more like a set of definitions). Kant was an Ethicist, he named four kinds of government: 1. Law and freedom without force (anarchy). 2. Law and force without freedom (despotism). 3. Force without freedom and law (barbarism). 4. Force with freedom and law (republic). Notice that the most moral society, has a government without force - which is to say, has no government (anarchy). A republic is predicated on the use of force. While Kant believed Republic was the best suited for humans, he understood anarchy to be the most moral. Government is just a group of people no different than any other - including a corporation. With one exception, government can use force against innocent people. Corporations cannot. Let's pick the largest corporation in the USA: Apple Inc. Compare Apple to the Government. Imagine if Apple calls you and says they want to talk to you. How do you feel? Maybe you don't mind the call? Maybe you tell them to piss off. Now, let's imagine the same person calls you, only they're from the IRS. How do you feel now?  Think about that.  Apple isn't harming you, it's serving you. Apple only survives IF it gives you things you want. The Government on the other hand couldn't give two craps about you. You will pay it, or you will be tossed in prison. You will do what it tells you to do. Your children will pledge themselves to it in it's Government schools. It will invade other nations, murder millions of people, and you will still pay for it. Like it or not. Not only this, but the Government controls the currency you must pay it in. That's insane amounts of power. Yet, you will support it. Why? I believe it is because you are (like me) an atheist. But almost everyone needs a superstition. It's built in the DNA.  Big God, Little State  Little God, Big State Government must be limited, this is what the Framer's of the Constitution understood. Sadly, this was forgotten.  
    1
  8. Rusty Mckee I've lived in four different countries: The USA and Japan being the two more similar and most dissimilar. I think all people have cognitive bias towards the tribe and they like to use the word 'we' when referring to it. I do it too. But, it's not true. There really isn't a 'we' per say.  I'd just reiterate, Anarchy has rule of law. Just no State. Anarchy would be your personal relationships with people. The rules in this case are often unwritten. Anarchy would also best describe your day to day shopping activities. You freely walk into a mall and buy and shop, but you're agreed to their rules upon entry of their private property. They themselves can employ secutiry and if you break their laws (shop lift, walk around without a shirt on, etc...) you can be forced off their property.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Anarchist, but I would be if I could be :) Who wouldn't? Anarchy is the end goal of a peaceful human civilization. We should be striving towards it. Anyway, I'd just like to also point out, IMO the ingrediants for a prosperous society are: Law (to protect private property and contract) Sound Money (derived by a free market) Free Market (this is to say free people) Limited Government (mainly to ensure the law is upheld).  So, what would a society do with a corporation that's polluting it? Imagine you live down stream of a chemical company. Currently, regulations ensure that the 'regulated' amount of pollution can poison you and your family. I'm sure this is a reasonable amount. Even cars emit pollution. Well, in a free society, you'd probably already had a contract with the company ensuring the same. But, lets suppose you didn't. Then you'd sue. Your neighbors would be the jury. Guilt would be determined. IF truly guilty, then the company could be closed and the CEO jailed. Of course, maybe the company hired a lot of people in the town? Or, maybe the company is constantly being harassed by frivolous lawsuits making it hard to do business. In a free society, we'd have to deal with these issues in a civil manner. But, we decided not to do this. We went with 'regulations'. Which is to say we went with the Government and it's ability to use force against innocent people (recall that guilt could have been found without the use of regulation). Yeah, it's efficient - violence always is. But, in the end we pay the price for resorting to violence. At least that's how I see it. That price is the society we live in today. What I'm saying is it isn't easy living freely, but it is possible. Corporations don't exist IF they don't produce things people want. And corporations WANT people to have money and be prosperous, because they only survive when people shop. I do agree some corporations are shitty (or appear so) but generally these go bankrupt in a free society because people (a) don't want their products or (b) don't want to work for them. It IS possible to deal with all of our problems with a limited government.  Currently our government is the largest most powerful (and IMO evil) entity to come into existence. It taxes us for working - by the hour! Did you know if government was the size it was in 1990 that NO ONE in the USA would have to pay an income tax on hourly wages? Did you know the USA government is the single largest polluter in the world? Just think of the trillions it wastes on it's wars. Or the trillions it spent bailing out the richest oligarchy in history - we're actually going to live through generational debt with a lower standard of living, on those two acts alone. ONLY the government has THAT kind of power. Which is why it needs to be limited.  But that's not going to happen. And it won't be for our benefit. 
    1
  9. Rusty Mckee I didn't quite understand your last post. Immanuel Kant (not me) defined Anarchy in his book Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (published in 1785) as a society consisting of "Law and Freedom without Force".  You then posted a link to Dictionary.com. The first definition (1) defines anarchy as a state of society without government (or law). Given the "or", this definition is not incompatible with Kantian Anarchy.  Not that it matters, I wrote the four societies that Kant defined so that I was clear as to how I was using the work Anarchy. As I said, I personally think (like Kant) that a Republic is the state of society best suited to humans. However, the fact is the most moral society is Anarchy, thus, our goal should always be to move closer to Anarchy - hence, limited government. 
    1
  10. Rusty Mckee I'd also add, Kantian anarchy and republic, is how politicians define themselves. It's why it's legal for the State to pass a law making the sale of cigarettes illegal, and then hire a person to legally strangle you to death for selling a 0.50 cent cigarette without a State licence. Actually, depending within which State you (through dumb luck) happen to have been born into and live in, you may or may not be able to legally drive a car, marry who you love, cut hair, sell BBQ chicken, smoke a weed, babysit, walk around with out a shirt on, send an email without it being intercepted and stored on a government computer for future use and etc...All of these actions may result in your being killed by the Police / militant arm of the State.  In 1919, Max Webter defined the State as having a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (monopoly on violence) in his book Politics as a Vocation. Weber describes the state as any organization of humans that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory (aka: a State). So, while Dictionary.com may have a definition of what anarchy is, it's not the complete definition as used by social scientists and Ethicists for that last 300 years. 
    1
  11. Rusty Mckee Kant defined lawless as Barbarism. So, Anarchy isn't lawless. Anarchy simply doesn't have a Government to enforce the laws against innocent people. See, this is the key. Anarchy does have police, and those police will enforce the law, but not against innocent people. As an example, you should (in theory) own your body, and as an adult should have the right to determine what you consume with your body. But, you can be murdered by the government for smoking a weed. However, you are a morally innocent human - given you own your body. Another example would be people who are murdered for holding a belief. But, you own your body and your mind. Yet, if you are atheist, you may be murdered (by the Government of KSA or Iran) even though you are (morally) innocent as you own your body and mind.  See? Government has the right to initiate violence - this can occur in a Republic or otherwise. It's simple the defining feature of a Government.  Anarchy has law and may actually (believe it or not) have MORE laws and less freedom (in some ways) than a Republic. Which is interesting. I know it's hard to imagine, however, there are many examples of various Anarchies written about. You may find this of interest: 1000 Years of Irish Anarchy:  https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/1000-years-of-irish-anarchy/ Note: I'm in favor of a limited Government myself. 
    1
  12. Rusty Mckee This is where we differ. The ONLY reason to have a government is because it can legally use violence against innocent people. ALL governments share one common feature, the legal ability to initiate violence against innocent people. It doesn't matter if the government is run by a monarch, communist leader or president of a republic or a majority vote via direct democracy.   That's not a false dichotomy, it's THE defining feature of all governments since there was a concept called 'government'. It's what delineates governments from other groups of people.  Government is a group of people. In that sense it's not different from a corporation or small business or large business. It's just a group of people, except they can legally initiate violence against innocent people. Which is why it's best to limit their influence in society. Because a lot of sociopaths like to work in governments.  I'm not sure why you want government (a group of people with a monopoly on violence) to have anything to do with means of production? Or distribution of goods and services.  It should be noted Bernie Sanders has stated the free markets should always we used FIRST to produce any good or provide any service. That's something to concider.  Free trade with sound money is the most efficient means to distribute goods. Without a price mechanism its impossible to know what to produce and who to distribute anything to. Also, in a free society (free ability to trade / free trade), money acts as a 'real' vote. This ensures the goods and services are provided to the maximum number of people.  In a free society, each individual attempts to provide a good or service and 'sell' it to other free people around them who voluntarily to buy that good or service. The only reason anyone would want the government involved is if they wanted to force people to buy their good or service (this is what many corporations do, and banks I might add - if you consider money a good). As for Ireland, I gave this as an example of a functioning anarchy. Of course we're never going to live like tribes (short of catastrophe). The point is there are all sorts of ways to organize people. Anarchy is the most moral. It may not be ideal, but it should be the goal. If these means completely destroying concepts we currently treasure, ideas like "America" or "Republic" or "The US Dollar" - then so be it. Oh, and for the record, I don't believe humans are capable of living in an anarchy just yet. In the future, yes, this will happen. But, for now, we should aim for a limited government. And, most of the problems we have right now, have to do with money. Had we let the banks crash in 2008, we'd be living in a pretty equitable society right now. Much better than the one we have. Too bad we don't have a limited government - one that can't bail out the rich. Oh well, people cherish stability over equality. Always have. Always will. Particularly as they get old.
    1
  13. Rusty Mckee RE: False Dichotomy. ** NOTE: By false dichotomy do you mean you think I'm suggesting it's either Government or corporations? I certainly agree corporations can be corrupt. However, with free markets, property laws and contract we can use sound money to put most out of business. Just look at GM. I'm not suggesting all people who work in Government are evil either.  If not then you'll have to clearly list the two choices you think I'm restricting you to. I didn't define government - the government itself legally defines itself as the one (and only) institution (group of humans) that have legally right to initiate violence against innocent humans within a geographical location. This is a matter of legal definition. I can give examples: - Strangling someone for selling their own property (a cigarette) to a willing adult (here in our republic). - Or, thinking the wrong thoughts (atheism in KSA). - Or, offering political alternatives (North Korea).  I only list those examples to illustrate the defining characteristic.  Yes, I agree that people who work in both public AND private institutions can act and be sociopathic. BUT, I don't believe most people ARE sociopaths. I do think living in non-free societies (such as ours) can begin to bring out the worse in people. Even normal, otherwise good people, will when under duress act in uncivil manner. It's just being human. Most do. Which is why we celebrate heros as they are able to (somehow) act brave (normal) in times of duress.  I of course think Government should play a limited role in society - primarily upholding the law. But, maybe also play a role in property rights. I also think humans should be free to move anywhere on earth. We should eliminate States. We should trial all sorts of different forms of social organization. Even Communism (which might work well within a Religious Order - and I'm perfectly fine with that, so long as people are free to leave).  It's my opinion we should have allowed for the financial collapse in 2008. That was our 'reset'. It was what makes free markets worth having. Not allowing that to occur, will, (again, just my opinion) result in something 1000 times worse. What will that be? WW3? A dictator? Or just a slow slide into poverty like has happened in North Korea? I'm going with this last option. I'm fairly certain this is the path forward for us. We'll probably elect a POTUS from the far Left and then when that fails one from the far Right. But, neither is going to fix the problems we face. What we need (again IMO) is a reset and then a return to sound money, law and free markets. I think that will bring about what we both want. I may be wrong. I am sure there's more than one path to prosperity. So, let's just see what happens. 
    1
  14. Landorcan (A) There is not "X" amount of jobs.  (B) At one time 85% of all Americans worked on farms. Then came the cheap tractor and put all put 3% of them out of work. If you think Asians are cheap, try competing against a tractor! And, guess what? We became richer as a result of the loss of those jobs with the cheaper production of food. JUST like electronics today.  (C) We wouldn't have the internet, tech industry, Youtube, smart phones, large TVs, iPads, laptops or any of the other inexpensive electronics that characterize our modern world, without Chinese there making them. Lastly, those jobs are NOT coming back. It's that simple. If tariffs go up, or minimum wages is raised, soon robots will do the work. Therefor, the key is sound money, law and the ability TO trade with one another freely. Freedom of movement would also be a huge help. Although, that said, it's pretty easy to move anywhere in the world.
    1
  15. Landorcan The DoED holds a near monopoly on education, and like any monopolist, the quality of product is low (1 in 5 government school graduates are functionally illiterate) and cost is high (we pay much more than most other nations - Japan for example).  Again, the solution is simple. Free trade in pedagogy. Allow for Charter schools to compete with Teacher Unioned poorly functioning stagnant Government schools - may the profits go to the one with the best educational outcomes. 
    1
  16. Landorcan You seem to be stuck on the 'money' aspect. For example, you ask: "Who is going to pay for the private schools". Money is just a medium of exchange. It's the goods and services that are important. As an example, suppose in the next 10 years we have 3D printers that replace Chinese. AND there's no need to buy 90% of anything. Will having 3D printers make us 'poorer'? Of course not. Just as the tractor replaced the farm hand, the assembly line in the USA replaced the single worker, the Chinese replaced the assembly line in the USA.  Each step we become more prosperous. Not less, more. The fact that Chinese are making electronics extremely cheaply, is a good thing. And when the 3D printer comes along, that will be even better. What we need is free-markets INSIDE the USA. That, and sound money (derived though free trade) and laws - and we'll be fine. You asked WHO is going to buy the private schooling. What you should ask is WHO is going to TEACH inside a private school. And the answer is, now that we don't have to waste our time making cheap electronics, WE are FREE to put ourselves to this more interesting and productive use of our time.  We ARE more prosperous for it. Now, the major problems in the USA are: We do not use sound money, we are taxes for our labor hours, we do not have free trade inside the USA and most laws are unjust and many more immoral. 
    1
  17. Landorcan You seem to be hung up on money. Money is only a means of exchange. The unemployment rate in the USA is around 6%. Hardly 'no jobs'. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, tractors replaced 82% of the 'jobs' (farm hands) in the 1800s - and we became MORE prosperous. Not less. More. One day 3D printers will replace cheap made in China - and we'll be MORE prosperous. Making cheap junk is one type of employment. Another type is producing high end products like designing a new software or made a new medicine or even performing an art and producing high quality handmade products (food or paintings or clothing, etc... ). Because we don't need to waste our time making cheap junk, we can instead focus our energy on producing better education. Or, I should say we 'could' IF this is what Americans want. It's not, because Americans don't value education enough to pay people well for the service, but it could be.  One thing you miss in your analogy, IF we retained those jobs in the USA, we wouldn't be exporting electronics (because they would be too expensive and of relatively low quality) and most Americans wouldn't own a smart phone or probably have access to the internet. China OTOH would still produce cheap electronics and other countries like Japan and Germany would buy them. We'd be falling behind. Sure, there'd be a few factories making smart phones going out of business. Hardly a recipe for success.  The 'Digital Age' would not have had happened as it did. Would YOU buy a Made In America smart phone that ran half as fast and cost $2500? Probably not.  I understand what you're suggesting regarding food coming in from overseas. I personally try to only buy local when possible. Although it's getting harder. IMO that best option is free trade inside the USA. We need free trade amongst ourselves. For being 'free' America is one of the most regulated markets in the world. Those jobs you're talking about are ONLY coming about when Americans are allowed to create them. 
    1
  18. Landorcan Corporations go broke if we're not buying their products. Chinese factories close - if we're not buying their products. You seem to think these corporations are going to survive without consumers buying their goods. They WANT to sell to you. They WANT you to buy their stuff, made in China or otherwise. Otherwise meaning they'd happily sell you made in the USA, but most Americans don't want made in the USA electronics at $5000 a smart phone. Thus, made in China. I don't disagree that the monetary system is broken and so are the hyper-regulated markets. The solution is free trade INSIDE the USA, less regulation, sound money and straightforward laws.  In some States you need a licence to cut hair, sell flowers, fix computers. Why? GMO white colored sugar water (aka: skim milk) is legal, while selling raw milk to other ADULTS will have you sent to prison. The MAIN problem in the USA is our lack of freedoms - particularly to trade.  One day soon, 3D printing will replace Chinese. Automatic trucks will replace truck drivers. Robots will replace workers. All of this will happen and we WILL be more prosperous for it as these all save labor and time.  You'll see.
    1
  19. I 100% agree with the caller. In my line of work (advanced pedagogy) there's no way to work within the system to fix the problems (institutionalization and massive bureaucracy) and there's no way I'd want to attempt to compete against public institutions. Thus, we'll continue to see a lower quality of pedagogy. And we do. The only solution IMO is to bring in competition. This will only happen once these large public institutions collapse under their own weight.
    1
  20. Just imagine what life would have been like in the USA had we never allowed for the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and allowed them to create money by fiat in 1913. And if we have never amended the US Constitution to force workers to pay a tax on their labor (income tax) - also, 1913. Who knows how the banking world would have developed. Perhaps we'd have everything from bit coins to State issued currencies to gold and silver and through the markets we'd have 100 years to ensure the best survived and the worse was left in the pages of history. But, then it wouldn't have been possible to promise people State mandated Progress. Which would have side-lined politicians and made an independent free people - independent free people. And we don't want that now do we? Not when the Bush Jr and Oblahma side show is so much better at telling Americans how they can and can not live their lives.
    1
  21.  judyleasugar97 The Fed was created BY private banks and still is OWNED by private banks. The Fed is their creation. They sold it to the idiot public that it was going to 'reign' in the banks. This is stupid. They caused the Great Depression less than 10 years later. Which may have led to WWII. The Fed has bank rolled all of the US wars since. The Fed IS the problem - which will become more evident in the coming decade.
    1
  22. If the job of Politician was in the private market, Bernie would have been required a State licence, which would limited to a specific number each year and cost thousands of dollars, and so he would have never been allowed to run. Of course, in such a case, Thom would be all for the "Regulation" of politicians - you know, for the good of society. Essentially, Bernie coming out of left field is an example of the virtue of the FREE MARKET. The reason why the rest of society is screwed, is because Progressives like Thom support State regulated and managed markets which has only led to State regulated Banks, over expensive doctors and lawyers and even Taxi medallion scams.
    1
  23. judyleasugar97 The Federal Government only stays afloat because it levies a labor-tax on workers for working.  Given we don't live in the mid-14th century, I'm not worried about States 'warring with one another'. 
    1
  24. Theo-Bot - vs - State-bot I see no problem with the USA Postal Service offering these services and I think the US Post should be sold to the American public offering each citizen 1 share per person. 
    1
  25. China, Russia and North Korea were Communist - they destroyed their land which were (and many are) highly polluted. Therefore the problem is more about human's exploitation of the environment than the use of capital. Capital actually protects the environment better than other forms of human organization. Regardless, we actually are NOT capitalistic any longer. We are Fascist. 
    1
  26. valhala56 How would we know? We don't use sound money. So, the most we can say is Fascism in a Progressive Republic devours the planet.  Capitalism requires capital savings. We don't have savings, we have debt.
    1
  27. valhala56 I provided three examples of highly socialistic countries with horrid environmental problems not based on capitalism.  Maybe you should define what you mean by capitalism. When you were young and saved some money, that capital could have been invested - THAT is capitalism. I invested in green energy two years ago. Biofuel to be exact. It's been the worst investment of my life. I'll probably end up losing most of my investment, if not all of it - and it was a large investment for me. About 3 years savings / capital. I get pissed off when I see people skip past the 'Green' fuel while at the same f*cking time complaining about the environmental degradation. The problem isn't capitalism - the problem is people being totally unconnected to society. I think this has to do with the growth of government because it takes away responsibility from the individual. The Citizen instead says "I pay me taxes" and doesn't give two f*cks, and goes back to watching sports. Capitalism isn't to blame - the Government allowing people to be lazy ignorant shit heads is to blame.
    1
  28. That isn't an argument. While I agree I did most certainly commit multiple informal logical fallacies (such as making an anecdotal argument from personal experience) you haven't actually replied with anything logical. Look, we bot would like to live in a prosperous society. But, what IS prosperity? It's time + civil liberties. We are working longer and harder for less and less. We are losing our civil liberties. We are becoming less prosperous.  The solution IMO is: - sound money - private property - law - free markets (free trade) We have none of those things. Is it any wonder we're becoming poorer? I also find it interesting that the USA preaches these exact ideas to OTHER countries but not to itself. Is there anything we can do? Only raise your children to think logically and peacefully. Other than that, we have to wait for society to get so poor that a majority will finally rise up and start again. Maybe the United States will break up? Maybe we'll get a fourth branch of government to maintain the money supply and soundness? Who knows. But the problem is NOT capitalism. Communism didn't work. Socialism is not working. It's the natural order that the State will grow and the people will give way. We just so happen to be living in the shit end of the cycle.
    1
  29. Rick's Channel In Australia, all Australians have the right to free healthcare. Yet, there's a thriving private healthcare market. As a matter of fact, when given the choice, no one in their right mind would want to have surgery performed at a free public hospital.  Why do you suppose, when given the chance at 'free' state of the art healthcare, so many Australians would rather pay those 'greedy corporations' instead? Why choose to pay for something, when you can get it for free? Why pay those greedy healthcare corporations who only care about making money and couldn't care at all about you or your health when there's "free" government provided healthcare right next door? In Australia, the government spends a lot of tax money on primary education. Yet, at the same time has a thriving private education industry. Private tuition for high-school in Australia is $25,000 per year (base funding, then you have to pay for uniforms, books, activities, etc...). So, why is it, do you think, that so many Australians pay? Many private schools have a $1000 retainer fee you must pay per year, for 10 years prior to having your application reviewed at grade 9. Why is that? Why not just get the 'free' education? Why pay those 'greedy corporate' private schools who only want to make as much money as they can and couldn't give two craps about kids education" when there's free government schools right next door? 
    1
  30. Rick's Channel How is it, do you think, the poor are able to afford supercomputers that fit in their pocket and have access to nearly all information in the world? The free-market. See, the free-market [which is to say you and I agreeing to trade without using force against one another (aka: free people)] is the most efficient means of bringing prosperity to the poor. Most poor attend Government schools and 1 in 5 will graduate as a functional illiterate. With little skills needed to secure a good job in today's markets.   Ever hear the phrase "Good enough for Government work"? Which is to say, over priced and half-arsed.  If you really cared about the poor, then you'd choose less government and more free-markets. A 1910 census found the Black Americans living in Chicago had an 85% literacy rate (this is without Government schooling). In 2010 this same neighbourhood had a literacy rate around 50%. This is what 'Good enough for Government work' is. Twice the cost, half the quality.  Medicine and Finance are HYPER-regulated by the Government. These Government-regulated markets are a total mess. Medicine continues to drop in quality year after year. Finance is more a scam than anything else. Imagine if next year you paid twice as much for a computer only instead of 16 GB of RAM you got 2 GB of RAM. And it crashed all the time. That's Government regulated medicine. We pay more year after year, and the quality goes down year after year. The same holds for Government schooling, the never ending Wars, Finance, and etc....
    1
  31. I thought Thom would blame Reagan for this too.....
    1
  32. Do you have a link? I've read the exact same thing occurring in CA where a country ran out of money, paid private security, have never had better 'police' protection than with their private police - and this was a dirt poor neighborhood who organized it among themselves. Crime dropped 300% lower with the private police working FOR their customers. 
    1
  33. The degree of inequality?! Are you sure the founding Framers of the Constitution would be saying we need MORE and not LIMITED government because of 'inequality'? THe slave owning founders? Really? They'd be pushing for more ... what? Progressive Income tax? Progressive Central Banking? Progressive Regulations?  Give me a break.  I will agree to this: The Republic may indeed be on the path to ending - I for one would be more than happy to see some States leaving the Union through legal means. 
    1
  34. Shreyas Rao Actually, there's a problem right now with to many law graduates not able to fine work. 
    1
  35. Jack Jammen "He'd rather leave you in a ditch". What? Are you 12? It's people like you with your child-like thinking that's destroying this country. I blame Government Schools. 
    1
  36. James Last You're question is a great example of what I'm saying. You asked me a false a dichotomy. Which is fallacious reasoning. You were probably educated in a Government school, yet you are making Grade 7 reasoning mistakes (unless you're 13 I will have to assume you were not taught to reason properly). The DoED found 1 in 5 of it's Government School graduates are functionally illiterate.  ANY American citizen accepted into a University can receive a Pell Grant that will pay for the tuition. Given the number of unemployed graduates, we don't need more University graduates. We need people to open up more businesses that hire people with or without degrees. As for education, there's a LOT of free courses run by Universities like Stanford on the internet. Anyone can enroll. They're free and convened by Stanford Professors. The probably is the horrible sad state of K-12 education and the overly regulated markets they're stuck competing for the small number of jobs in. 
    1
  37. According to OECD statistics, the United States spends 3.3 percent of its GDP (2006-2011) on infrastructure investment versus the European Union’s 3.1 percent. With roughly equal GDPs, the United States actually outspends the Europe Union – our model of infrastructure perfection. The OECD finds that among the twenty largest countries, the U.S. ranks second only to Canada.  The World Economic Forum index also shows that U.S. infrastructure beats the European Union average by a wide margin. Again, this whole let's spend 3 Trillion in debt on infrastructure is all more Progressive magic thinking. 
    1
  38. judyleasugar97 Why do Americans choose to buy at Walmart? If Americans cared about the cost of a CEO then they wouldn't shop at businesses that pay their CEO so much and pay their workers a higher wage. IF we want the price of labor to go higher, AND not to suffer inflation in the price of food and other basic goods and services, then we need LESS regulations so that people can open more businesses and compete for existing labor providing more goods and services. But, Progresses want MORE regulation and to make it HARDER to open a business. So, again, this is just more Magic Thinking on the part of Progressives. In the real world, we need people to open more businesses - then maybe the pay of CEO's will come down. 
    1
  39. judyleasugar97 Decades ago the markets were much freer. Much freer. The period you're referring to was before the rise of the Welfare State. The 'livable wage' as a minimum wage was way back in the 1960s. That's half a century ago. Since LBJ's Great Society we have seen a drop in the living standard and a massive explosion in Regulations and huge drop in educational standards.  Here's an example: Drug laws. They came into effect in the 1970s. Now we're living with the largest non-violent prison population in history, massive drug problems (gangs, no-go zones, people hooked on drugs, welfare ghettos). There's no waving a magic wand and POOF everything goes back to 1963. Cause and effect.  Another example is the Department of Education. Started in the late 70s, now it chews through 80 billion a year with abysmal outcomes. Over 1 in 5 graduates from High School are functionally illiterate. Teacher Unions protect Bad Teachers and good teachers generally give up or quit.  The number of regulatory agencies and regulations themselves in the USA has exploded. You may find this hard to believe, but in the 1960s most Americans still wanted to open a business. That was (was) our culture. Now most Americans just want a job. Well, when everyone wants a job, there's too much labor on the market, the price of labor goes down. It's very simple law of supply and demand.  Have you ever started or attempted to start a business? You didn't find all the paperwork and regulations you needed to meet once you hired an employee and the licences you needed to obtain a huge hamper on your business? Imagine if you had a hard time reading and writing like the 1 in 5 Government school graduates. Not to mention, in the USA the average literacy grade is 6. That is to say, most Americans read at the level of a 12-13 year old. Waving a magic wand is NOT going to fix this problem. Even if we knew the answers, we're talking generational change that will take decades - which will never happen in the USA because Americans prefer magic thinking, free and now. 
    1
  40. Rick's Channel 30 years of Reaganomics? Really? What? Is Reagan secretly Dr. Evil controlling all of US history from the grave?! Not to mention for 16 years we had Democratic POTUS including a time when both the POTUS and Congress where run by Democrats. Given Thom takes every and ANY opportunity to push this Boogeyman story of Reagan the POTUS who destroyed the middle class - I'm going to suggest you've been told this enough times that now you believe it. It's not true.  Explain why the same economic reality is also true in Australia? In Australia there's even LESS mom-and-pop stores and even BIGGER monopolies (Westfields, Coles, Woolworths, etc...). The same is true in Canada. The same is (somewhat) true in Japan. Let me guess, Reagan was their POTUS too? OR... Or maybe, large monopolies always occur when given a State regulated market? Now, I mention that because in Japan I've noticed there actually ARE still a lot of mom and pop stores along side the big Box Top monopolies. Why? Because it's much easier to open a mom and pop type business in Japan. Like opening a bar that seat 3 people. AND, Japanese seem to support smaller niche businesses that provide higher quality whereas in the USA, most Americans want cheap and don't really care to support high quality (or so that's how I notice it).  So, no it was NOT because of Ronald Reagan we have large chains - this phenomenon has occurred EVERYWHERE in the modern world from Asia to Europe. And it's not inevitable, in Germany Aldi (a chain) put Walmart out of business. Why? Because Germans preferred Aldi as they had lower prices and higher quality. There's no need to involk some 30 year conspiracy theory. It's basic economics. 
    1
  41. Rick's Channel Yes, it's true that large monopolies out-compete small competitors IN the same market. That's not necessarily a bad thing for society as a whole. One day 3D printing will put Walmart out of business - and that's a GOOD thing. The tractor put manual laborer's out of work - which was good. Yes, it's bad if it's YOUR business going bust or your job lost, but too bad. That's life. In a free society you have to offer something of value that other people want to pay for. That's just the way progress goes. Jobs come and go. Some skills become obsolete. Low skilled people are stuck having to sell low end labor at a cheap price in a free society - people don't want to spend good money paying for low quality.  As for Box Tops, don't compete against Walmart or Ford unless you're a big market maker. If you're small, then you have to provide people with high end goods and services they want to pay for. I don't shop at Walmart because their shit is cheap AND breaks quickly. I prefer to pay more knowing it isn't going to bust because my time is worth more than saving a few dollars. I want to eat organic food - and I'll pay more for that and support those suppliers. Most of which don't sell through Walmart because they're small mom and pop farmers.  IMO we need to make it MUCH easier to start a business. Eliminate almost all regulatory agencies and regulations that prevent competition. Basic common Laws are more than good enough. Secondly we need to end State monopolies, beginning with Government Schools. Government schools are singlehandedly destroying society. Government school pedagogy is unsound, the system is totally broken and any child put through 12 years of it is wasting most of their time for a very very LOW quality degree. One in five Government School graduates are functionally illiterate. End this monopoly and reduce or eliminate regulations and we may have a fighting chance. Keep blaming Reagan  and you're just wasting time. There;s no rewinding the clock. We must move forward. Those jobs are NOT returning to the USA, we need to make different jobs.
    1
  42. Rick's Channel Re: Walmart Have you ever read the statistics on what happens after a Walmart moves into a town? http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?id=125  Many studies show that following the closure of many small retail businesses, ultimately there are more jobs. Of course, it depends on the town and it takes about a decade before the small savings in retail add up. Yes, I agree small competitors go out of business - that's because OTHER PEOPLE who live in the town prefer to shop at Walmart. It's basic economics. But, think of some young kids in that small town. Many would much rather work at Walmart than get trapped working in a mom and pop store. You seem to think it is bad for Walmart to out compete mom and pop stores - but what of the kids who compete against mom and pop stores already established in that small town? They're in the SAME position, unable to compete with a 'bigger' mom and pop store compared to their tiny retail store and icecream stand. Which is just the way life is. Everyone competes and in a free society people choose with whom to do business with. BoxTops are a reality of living in a free society. People freely choose NOT to shop at mom and pop stores and go to the Mall or BoxTop to get a better deal.  One day 3D printers will put Walmart out of business and I'm sure you'll be there tell me how horrible they are and think of all the lost jobs. Another day I'll have solar panels that make me self sufficient and you'll again be telling me how horrible this is too and think of all the lost jobs.  It's not about jobs. The tractor put 85% of Americans out of work 100 years ago.  I've lived in many countries from Asia to America and the Big Box Tops are everywhere. It's Economics, not Reaganomics. The best solution I've seen is in Japan where it's simply MUCH easier to open a small business offering high end products or products that do not compete against Chain Stores. The solution is MORE economic freedom. That way you have BOTH boxtops AND lots of small businesses. 
    1
  43. Rick's Channel RE: Walton Family  Yes, that family is rich, but YOU can also buy stocks in Walmart. That aside, free trade has lifted 100s of million of humans out of poverty. Those humans may be Asians living in China, but so what? I find it interesting how callous you are towards these other people. I also take note of your Nationalism "What's Good for America". That doesn't even make sense. What's good for HUMANITY is pulling 100s of millions of people out of poverty. Free trade IS doing that. Socialism on the other hand starved to death 100s of millions AND at the same time leads to the type of Nationalism you just spouted. This leads to War - again, murdering millions of people. Sorry, but I care about humans, regardless of where they happen to have been born. 
    1
  44. Rick's Channel The role of the USA Government is actually to uphold the US Constitution, not to educate citizens. That said, it's a fact that 1 in 5 Government School graduates is functionally illiterate. That's according to the DoED's own published statistics. What I propose is private Charter Schools compete against Government schools and then let parents take their kids, and tuition, to the school of their choice.  As an aside, Government Schools are horribly inefficient and use an outdated 100 year old pedagogy. This is what happens with monopolies - so, let's agree monopolies are bad and work to end Government School monopoly. 
    1
  45. Rick's Channel I'm not a Republican. That said, Clinton together with Congress deregulated the Banks which gave a misleading uptick in the economy - but in the long run led to the GFC. Bush II was a horrible POTUS and Obama is an even worse POTUS if you can imagine that possible. Hillary will be even worse. Which is all very normal at this stage in Empire. 
    1
  46. judyleasugar97 Not true, The U.S. ranks fifth in spending per student. American schools receive more funding per GDP than Japan yet the very notion of a graduating high school student not being able to read would be unthinkable in Japan. Again, in the USA 20% of the graduating cohort are functionally illiterate. It only requires a 20 cent pencil and paper to learn to read and write. And someone to teach them (usually a stay at home parent). So, this has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with unsound Government school pedagogy together with a morally bankrupt public. Not to mention Teacher Unions that protect bad teachers, leaving good teachers to either go along to get along or quit altogether.  The problem is larger than just Government schools, but they are exemplar of what is wrong with the US. Did you know, the average American reads at grade 7? Government school monopoly needs to end. 
    1
  47. Strawman, Libertarians do not say 'get rid of government'. They say maximize morality via the non aggression axiom. This just happens to logically lead to less government. Of course, the USA has the largest government in history, with more Laws than any other nation  - ever. We started with LIMITED government and now have more Government than any other nation on earth with more laws than any other people in history. This myth we live in a 'free market' is a joke. We live in a hyper regulated fascist State.
    1
  48. What is Thom talking about? The USA spends more than most other countries. We're fourth highest in the entire world. The problem is Government Schooling, it's unsound education.  If you have a child, place them into a Chartered School, preferably a Montessori. 
    1
  49. 2snoopys Look up the data. The USA spends more per pupil than most other countries. The USA also has more teachers per pupil compared with Japan. It's not money, it's not resources - it's an unsound Government Schooling system and the people who make it up (all of whom were themselves products of unsound Government Schools). As an example I present you. You don't know what the fundamental differences are between logical, rational, empirical, reasonable. These are all words you have a vague meaning for. You have no idea who Descartes was and why he was important. Or Hume. Or Kant. Or Plato. Or what their faults were. You don't know the difference between induction and deduction. Probably couldn't analyze data statistically and therefor wouldn't know what alpha values or P values are. This is assuming you are the typical product of the American Government Schooling system. No amount of money is going to change Government Schooled Cogs from what they are. It's that simple. FACT: 1 in 5 Americans are functionally illiterate. It only costs $0.01 to buy a pencil and $0.10 for a pad of paper. 
    1
  50. ZerqTM It's not "free" you pay for it. Either you (A) pay directly, or you (B) pay indirectly (where you'll pay more because you have to pay more people).  One way or another you pay. When you choose B, you pay for all the hundreds of thousands of Governmental bureaucrats who take a cut. They may tax large corporations, but that only acts to raise the prices of the items they sell - so again, you pay more. One way or another you'll pay. Lastly, the USA pays more than most of counties. I have a question, do kids graduate from Public Schools with a diploma who cannot read and write where you live? Because they do in the USA. More money isn't going to fix the problems of the USA. It's a problem with Americans themselves. Currently 1 in 5 Americans are functionally illiterate.
    1