Democrat victory hailed by some Europeans

[Clocker]

Honestly, and I've said it many times, it's better for us in the Europe if the Republicans win.

Democrats are rats that do the exact same types of things as their 'counterparts', only they do it in the shadows.

If I have to choose between two evils, I'd much rather see the openly aggressive right-wing hawks of the Bush junta operating

than some Democrat devil in a pansy's dress pretending to love world peace and then do what Clinton did in the 90's.

Just wondering, what exactly are you referring to with "what Clinton did"? And no political party is clean, that's for sure...I just happen to think that the democrats are lesser of the two evils, or better of the two, however you want to put it. But everyone is entitled to an opinion, right?

[Avinash_Tyagi]

- The borderline of when is someone mentally ill is debatable. But regardless, mentally ill or not, when someone wants to live on the street not much you can do unless you force them out and lock them up. Nothing you can do, parasitism will expand. They they do mostly when it time for the fiscal budget. It is no secret that Social Welfare workers are out recruting dependents to justify their budget. Now why would a Politician listen to an economist on this matter???

When someone is menatally ill they can't be expected to make rational choices, any economist would tell you when someone cannot make rational choices there is a reason for paternalism

[AROCES]

When someone is menatally ill they can't be expected to make rational choices, any economist would tell you when someone cannot make rational choices there is a reason for paternalism

I still don't follow. I guess I never knew that economist nowadays is into mental health and welfare providing, I always thought it was simply the study of economics. Unless, you are the only one who have expanded on it's role.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

I still don't follow. I guess I never knew that economist nowadays is into mental health and welfare providing, I always thought it was simply the study of economics. Unless, you are the only one who have expanded on it's role.

What do you think th study of economics entails? All this type of stuff pretty much falls under the study of economics, heck we were just studying this type of stuff in my Healthcare and public finance econ classes the other day.

[Mr Slayer]

Just wondering, what exactly are you referring to with "what Clinton did"?

He made a "Wag the dog" and attacked Kosovo 1999 to celebrate the 50th birthday of NATO, he refused to do anything in Rwanda 1994 (one of the few times the US actually would have mattered), appoved of illegal airstrikes against Iraq in 1999, etc etc etc...

[AROCES]

What do you think th study of economics entails? All this type of stuff pretty much falls under the study of economics, heck we were just studying this type of stuff in my Healthcare and public finance econ classes the other day.

You need to study on how to give hands out to the homeless? Gee, I never thought it was that complicated.

Well, one definition of an Economist is one who sees something happen in practice and wonder if it'd work in theory.

I guess this is just great, Economist will now solve the rest of the problem for us.

Edited December 12, 2006 by AROCES

[Clocker]

He made a "Wag the dog" and attacked Kosovo 1999 to celebrate the 50th birthday of NATO, he refused to do anything in Rwanda 1994 (one of the few times the US actually would have mattered), appoved of illegal airstrikes against Iraq in 1999, etc etc etc...

Admitted, the Rwanda situation would have needed addressing. That whole Kosovo thing...was a NATO operation as far as I know, and included negotiations before action, and was in the actual interest of NATO members in Europe due to the increasing influx of refugees. Plus it was developing into a humanitarian crisis as Milosevic and them were actually "serbinizing" Kosovo at the time. While no one is perfect and being the president of the United States must be very demanding, I still think Bush has been WAY worse in every possible way, which again, makes the case for democrats. By the way, I don't know if I said it already but I'm not such a big fan of the democrats either, or the libertarians...politics is a complicated issue as you know. But since the US basically has a bipartisan system, my vote would go for the democrats.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

You need to study on how to give hands out to the homeless? Gee, I never thought it was that complicated.

Well, one definition of an Economist is one who sees something happen in practice and wonder if it'd work in theory.

I guess this is just great, Economist will now solve the rest of the problem for us.

I don't think you quite understand, part of economics involves improving the overall welfare of society, this includes dealing with issues like poverty, homelessness etc.

[AROCES]

I don't think you quite understand, part of economics involves improving the overall welfare of society, this includes dealing with issues like poverty, homelessness etc.

- The simplier the solution , the better it works. Let the economies worry about the economy and the rest will be pulled up by it.

Thewre will always be poor people, nothing you can do about that. We help who we can and the rest needs to help themselves.

We don't sink the ship trying to get everyone on board.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

- The simplier the solution , the better it works. Let the economies worry about the economy and the rest will be pulled up by it.

Thewre will always be poor people, nothing you can do about that. We help who we can and the rest needs to help themselves.

We don't sink the ship trying to get everyone on board.

Actually quite the opposite, when the disparity between rich and poor grows too large you end up with massive problems, history has proven as such, no one is saying we should try and give everyone the same amount of money, but there should be a certain level at which no one is below, the goal is to formulate that policy.

[AROCES]

Actually quite the opposite, when the disparity between rich and poor grows too large you end up with massive problems, history has proven as such, no one is saying we should try and give everyone the same amount of money, but there should be a certain level at which no one is below, the goal is to formulate that policy.

Disparity between the rich and the poor is not measured by the amount of earnings, but the standard of living one can get and how affordable the neccesities in life is.

Karl Marx and Mao Tse Tung had that dream of no one goes below a certain level. To achieve it they had to pull everyone down.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Disparity between the rich and the poor is not measured by the amount of earnings, but the standard of living one can get and how affordable the neccesities in life is.

Karl Marx and Mao Tse Tung had that dream of no one goes below a certain level. To achieve it they had to pull everyone down.

Yes an many don't have anywhere near the proper standard of living even here in the US, and you don't have to pull everyone down, just push the bottom up a bit

[Clocker]

Well, the money has to come from somewhere. So it is probably away from someone else, through taxation. However, like I've said, I am ready to pay more if it makes for a better society. A social welfare system does not necessarily create parasites if it's handled correctly.

Progressive taxation; the rich pay more. They can afford it and can easily live very comfortably even with somewhat heavy taxation. I mean, isn't it somewhat greedy to want all the money in the world even though less would be easily enough? And mind you, I work in the business sector myself and make good money, probably will make a lot more in the future. I think it's ok to reward a person for his/her work, in fact I think it is perfectly just to reward someone for hard work and effort. But at the same time I think it's ok to tax those people more because they can afford it. If a person makes, say $150,000 a year, he can afford a lot of taxes and still live quite lavishly.

[AROCES]

Yes an many don't have anywhere near the proper standard of living even here in the US, and you don't have to pull everyone down, just push the bottom up a bit

Same dream, different eras. Where do you think the lifting will come from then??? You push the bottom up a bit and before you know it you are pulling the top down more and more to lift the bottom, for the bottom is becoming heavier and heavier.

[AROCES]

Well, the money has to come from somewhere. So it is probably away from someone else, through taxation. However, like I've said, I am ready to pay more if it makes for a better society. A social welfare system does not necessarily create parasites if it's handled correctly.

Progressive taxation; the rich pay more. They can afford it and can easily live very comfortably even with somewhat heavy taxation. I mean, isn't it somewhat greedy to want all the money in the world even though less would be easily enough? And mind you, I work in the business sector myself and make good money, probably will make a lot more in the future. I think it's ok to reward a person for his/her work, in fact I think it is perfectly just to reward someone for hard work and effort. But at the same time I think it's ok to tax those people more because they can afford it. If a person makes, say $150,000 a year, he can afford a lot of taxes and still live quite lavishly.

- And where do you think someone's 150K earnings is coming from? From business, and if you take away the buying power of the rich to expand welfare, guess what? You just weaken some businesses that relies on that sector of the consumers and you just took away the investment incentive of the rich. Then you have more people out of jobs and more welfare and what? You want to give more then?

[Clocker]

- And where do you think someone's 150K earnings is coming from? From business, and if you take away the buying power of the rich to expand welfare, guess what? You just weaken some businesses that relies on that sector of the consumers and you just took away the investment incentive of the rich. Then you have more people out of jobs and more welfare and what? You want to give more then?

Nope, when you take some away, you give the money to other people, who really do need the money and use it, and therefore power the economy. It is well known that a big middle class is what keeps the economy running, and giving poor people the push they need just get them closer to middle-class. The idea with a welfare system based on taxes is that the money that poor people get, they actually use all of it and therefore the money circulates, whereas "rich people" don't really use all the money they get. Most of the investments comes from the very richest anyway, and a little bit of taxes really has no impact on their material wealth, or willingness to invest.

So as you stated, businesses that rely on consumer sector just get richer since "poor people" are consuming more, and buying their products. Works well in some countries

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Same dream, different eras. Where do you think the lifting will come from then??? You push the bottom up a bit and before you know it you are pulling the top down more and more to lift the bottom, for the bottom is becoming heavier and heavier.

Why would that happen? If you design the system right you won't get that problem, the issue arises when politicians draft systems out of political convenience rather than economic sensibility (like any economist will say that medicare was designed badly, with its "upside-down structure", but it is designed in such a way as to garner more support)

[AROCES]

Nope, when you take some away, you give the money to other people, who really do need the money and use it, and therefore power the economy. It is well known that a big middle class is what keeps the economy running, and giving poor people the push they need just get them closer to middle-class. The idea with a welfare system based on taxes is that the money that poor people get, they actually use all of it and therefore the money circulates, whereas "rich people" don't really use all the money they get. Most of the investments comes from the very richest anyway, and a little bit of taxes really has no impact on their material wealth, or willingness to invest.

So as you stated, businesses that rely on consumer sector just get richer since "poor people" are consuming more, and buying their products. Works well in some countries

- Right ther is our difference, your is take and give. Mine is invest, work and earn. Do you really think that it is ideal to make the economy run well to have half of it's consumer not earning what they spend?

[AROCES]

Why would that happen? If you design the system right you won't get that problem, the issue arises when politicians draft systems out of political convenience rather than economic sensibility (like any economist will say that medicare was designed badly, with its "upside-down structure", but it is designed in such a way as to garner more support)

Design it as mush as you want, but you have something that attract parasites, parasites will come and try to attach to it.

See what I'm talking about? The politician alone is already a parasite.

[Clocker]

- Right ther is our difference, your is take and give. Mine is invest, work and earn. Do you really think that it is ideal to make the economy run well to have half of it's consumer not earning what they spend?

The idea is to lift those people so they wouldn't need that support. And it is only a small percentage that needs that kind of support. I don't want an economy that runs well but has people suffering. I want an economy that runs well and has as few people as possible suffering. Life can be rough; sometimes you really can not affect you fate as much as many people would like to believe. That's where people need support. It may be because of mental illness, or physical illness, a severe accident or whatever.

Principally, an ideal system to me is based on investing, working and earning, but with taking and giving involved where it's needed. I don't see it as such a big difference. It's not black and white.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Design it as mush as you want, but you have something that attract parasites, parasites will come and try to attach to it.

See what I'm talking about? The politician alone is already a parasite.

Doesn't matter, if you design it right, you can prevent "parasitism", economists deal with issues like that all the time i.e. the "Moral Hazard problem" in healthcare.

[AROCES]

The idea is to lift those people so they wouldn't need that support. And it is only a small percentage that needs that kind of support. I don't want an economy that runs well but has people suffering. I want an economy that runs well and has as few people as possible suffering. Life can be rough; sometimes you really can not affect you fate as much as many people would like to believe. That's where people need support. It may be because of mental illness, or physical illness, a severe accident or whatever.

Principally, an ideal system to me is based on investing, working and earning, but with taking and giving involved where it's needed. I don't see it as such a big difference. It's not black and white.

Got no problem helping those who really needs help, such as handicapped and Seniors.

And to those who just think they need help, well whatever we have to help them is all they will get, can't demand that they need more. That is how you can control the abuses.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Got no problem helping those who really needs help, such as handicapped and Seniors.

And to those who just think they need help, well whatever we have to help them is all they will get, can't demand that they need more. That is how you can control the abuses.

Nope, that doesn't work because then you get massive income disparity, which is frequently followed by massive economic turmoil on a macro level

[AROCES]

Nope, that doesn't work because then you get massive income disparity, which is frequently followed by massive economic turmoil on a macro level

It has been proven again and again that over taxation leads to economic depression. You can ask Jimmy Carter himself.

But we can make it voluntary, those who wants to give more then tell the IRS that they wanted to increase their TAX BRACKETS. Now we will see how many as you claim agree and feel as you do.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

It has been proven again and again that over taxation leads to economic depression. You can ask Jimmy Carter himself.

But we can make it voluntary, those who wants to give more then tell the IRS that they wanted to increase their TAX BRACKETS. Now we will see how many as you claim agree and feel as you do.

Wrong, taxation didn't lead to the recession under Carter, what caused it was panic, when a small amount in the production of oil occured the market panicked expecting another energy crisis, which caused the price of oil to go up and that created a shock to the economic system because a rise in oil prices causes the cost of production to go up