06-15-2011, 08:52 PM
Hi,
But you are more than willing to compare your ideal, theoretical system to the real systems which have or do exist, and to claim that some untested system (for you exclude the tests which have been tried and have failed) is better.
Indeed. Marxism only appeals to young, inexperienced, ignorant nations. And people.
I added the emphasis. What you said is the crux of the matter. However, it is not easy to do. It is not easy to describe. It is not easy to understand. It is not easy to label. So, for those incapable of thinking at that level, clear cut extremes, labels, slogans and sound bites replace understanding.
This is the kind of illogical nonsense that makes me wonder if you have brain damage beyond stupidity.
There is equal opportunity for success. Get a Ouija board and ask Carnegie who did it at a time when the deck was even more stacked against individuals than it is now. Or ask my parents, who came into the USA in '51 with two suitcases and $31. Neither of them had much education -- a little thing called WW II interfered with that. And yet, withing three years they had their own millinery company; they were able to retire, comfortably, in their own house; they were able to live in that house for almost 30 years past retirement.
I don't know if your claim about the top 400 is true or not, and I don't care because it is meaningless. How does the average person live? Do they have food, clothing, and shelter? Can they afford the necessities and some of the luxuries? Do they have access to education and health care? Those are the real questions.
But, what makes your statement ignorant nonsense is that it implies that somehow "equal opportunity" and the disproportional amount held by the very rich somehow are related. Consider how those very rich got there. Bill Gates came from an upper middle class family. Warren Buffett was from a middle class family. I'd consider Larry Ellison to be from a lower middle class family. And, yet, they are the three top names on the Forbes 400 list. Next is Christy Walton who inherited from her husband who in turn inherited from his father Sam Walton who came from a middle class farm family.
So, the fact that many of those top 400 got there because of their abilities and efforts shows that equal opportunity is there and they are proof of it. Makes your request to reconcile the two appear rather foolish.
--Pete
(06-15-2011, 05:58 AM)FireIceTalon Wrote: ... as there is no such thing as a completely perfect system, not even Marxism ...
But you are more than willing to compare your ideal, theoretical system to the real systems which have or do exist, and to claim that some untested system (for you exclude the tests which have been tried and have failed) is better.
(06-15-2011, 08:18 AM)kandrathe Wrote: Only in the backward impoverished semi-feudal agrarian societies has Marxism gained a tenuous and brief foothold, until it consumes itself in the despotism, corruption and tyranny that ultimately spawns from those who do the central planning.
Indeed. Marxism only appeals to young, inexperienced, ignorant nations. And people.
(06-15-2011, 06:43 PM)Gnollguy Wrote: You need the right amount of regulation, because most people agree that unchecked the abuses can be severe, while overchecked the system can collapse.
I added the emphasis. What you said is the crux of the matter. However, it is not easy to do. It is not easy to describe. It is not easy to understand. It is not easy to label. So, for those incapable of thinking at that level, clear cut extremes, labels, slogans and sound bites replace understanding.
(06-15-2011, 07:16 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: If we have such an equal opportunity for success here, then explain to me why top 400 wealthiest individuals in the country have more than the bottom 150 MILLION combined.
This is the kind of illogical nonsense that makes me wonder if you have brain damage beyond stupidity.
There is equal opportunity for success. Get a Ouija board and ask Carnegie who did it at a time when the deck was even more stacked against individuals than it is now. Or ask my parents, who came into the USA in '51 with two suitcases and $31. Neither of them had much education -- a little thing called WW II interfered with that. And yet, withing three years they had their own millinery company; they were able to retire, comfortably, in their own house; they were able to live in that house for almost 30 years past retirement.
I don't know if your claim about the top 400 is true or not, and I don't care because it is meaningless. How does the average person live? Do they have food, clothing, and shelter? Can they afford the necessities and some of the luxuries? Do they have access to education and health care? Those are the real questions.
But, what makes your statement ignorant nonsense is that it implies that somehow "equal opportunity" and the disproportional amount held by the very rich somehow are related. Consider how those very rich got there. Bill Gates came from an upper middle class family. Warren Buffett was from a middle class family. I'd consider Larry Ellison to be from a lower middle class family. And, yet, they are the three top names on the Forbes 400 list. Next is Christy Walton who inherited from her husband who in turn inherited from his father Sam Walton who came from a middle class farm family.
So, the fact that many of those top 400 got there because of their abilities and efforts shows that equal opportunity is there and they are proof of it. Makes your request to reconcile the two appear rather foolish.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?