High court upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law

[wtd]

It's not taxes on the wealthy that drive them away so much as taxes on the businesses that they own, control or have an interest in. And business is what drives the economy, not rich people who buy fancy imported toys.

A consistent, sane policy towards taxing businesses would go a long way toward solving any economic problems. For instance, not subsidizing failing companies would be a start. Successful businesses should not be paying taxes so the government can give that money to companies like GM or Ford so they'll keep employing Canadians building vehicles no one wants.

[Justin_]

I know Chris, that seems to be the main problem with communism: work ethic. But with machines emerging, soon their won't be need for a janitor. And in terms of productivity, of course people will be awarded based on what they do, but not so much that they can afford to buy their own islands like these actors in hollywood. Another thing, great spirits always accomplish the most, so people who are passionate about something will always do their best and achieve the most. There's nothing to worry about there. I wouldn't want anyone less than passionate making discoveries.

So you're argument about communism failing. Well as I said it failed before in Russia, but I am arguing that Russia didn't have communism. And if it did, it was an amalgomation of communism and autocracy which actually has a name "Marx-Leninism". Marxist communism dictates that governments will not even be a major part of life in a communist society. And Marxism is communism, not Marx-Leninism.

But oh well, the world won't be communist for some time yet, so no sense in me beating a dead horse. But at least I hope people understand that communism is all about utopia, not about what cold war propaganda has turned it into as a legacy.

[1of42]

If any of you have taken economics, you've probably heard of the efficiency-equality tradeoff - namely that you can't have both. Think about it. Humans being how we are, how coud we possibly all be equal and also efficient? What would be the incentive for someone to put a massive amount of effort into becoming, say, a doctor, when they're just going to get the same returns as Joe Schmoe who skipped high school, is lazy, stupid, and basically sits on his ass all day? Answer: There is none.

That's why communism won't work. Now, the key to the ideological differences (the major ones at least) between most parts of the political spectrum is where they fall along this tradeoff, whether they advocate more efficiency, or more equality.

Personally, I fall more towards efficiency.

Interesting fact for our local communist though: did you know that the minimum wage is what (by and large) creates unemployment?

[wtd]

1of42 wrote:

Interesting fact for our local communist though: did you know that the minimum wage is what (by and large) creates unemployment?

Unemployment is vastly more complex than that. A good deal of it is also caused by corporate bureaucracies that cannot accept change, and thus lose customers. Fewer customers = less revenue = less profits unless costs are cut. Giving those businesses the ability to pay their employees less would in most cases only be a band-aid to keep incomptent management from being exposed for a year or two.

[1of42]

wtd wrote:

1of42 wrote:

Interesting fact for our local communist though: did you know that the minimum wage is what (by and large) creates unemployment?

Unemployment is vastly more complex than that. A good deal of it is also caused by corporate bureaucracies that cannot accept change, and thus lose customers. Fewer customers = less revenue = less profits unless costs are cut. Giving those businesses the ability to pay their employees less would in most cases only be a band-aid to keep incomptent management from being exposed for a year or two.

while I didn't say that the only reason for unemployment is the minimum wage, standard concepts of supply and demand demonstrate my statement. try doing a supply/demand diagram of the labour market, add minimum wage in, and see what I mean.

[Justin_]

I guess you just missed the part where I said: "Of course there will be benifits to those people who do excellently, just they won't be able to buy an island."

All I'm merely saying is if you just cut out half an acre of all these rich people's homes you could feed a quarter of the world for a hundred years.
The gap between rich and poor is unacceptable, Bill Gates is bloody black whole. (What he gives back to the economy is substantial but: what he takes is astronomical)

[1of42]

Justin_ wrote:

I guess you just missed the part where I said: "Of course there will be benifits to those people who do excellently, just they won't be able to buy an island."

All I'm merely saying is if you just cut out half an acre of all these rich people's homes you could feed a quarter of the world for a hundred years.
The gap between rich and poor is unacceptable, Bill Gates is bloody black whole. (What he gives back to the economy is substantial but: what he takes is astronomical)

The Gates foundation, which is endowed almost solely by Gates, is the #1 charitable group in the world, both by amount of money (I believe), and by the amount of each dollar donated that goes into actually helping people (with literacy, healthcare etc.), which is higher than any other charity in the world.

And Justin, if there are any benefits based on achievement, you no longer have a communist system, and we end up, eventually, right where we are now - or in Marxist-Leninism.

Martin says: Careful...

[Dan]

1of42 wrote:

You are stupid, aren't you? The Gates foundation, which is endowed almost solely by Gates, is the #1 charitable group in the world, both by amount of money (I believe), and by the amount of each dollar donated that goes into actually helping people (with literacy, healthcare etc.), which is higher than any other charity in the world.

Plesas do not use personal atacts in debates such as calling some one stupid.

As for gates i whould think there dentions are largey for tax and P.R. reasons not out of the good of there hearts.

[Justin_]

I don't know if we'd end up right where we started. It's possible, but to me the ideal would be if a communist society could agree to give special privledges to those who serve them well (i.e. Make a discovery, or do much for their community) I don't think people would have a problem giving a little extra to those who truly deserve it.

I think that would be ideal, anyhow. And I believe in striving for the ideals, always.

[chrispminis]

Yes, but like I said before, with meager rewards... Countries who decide to go communist, would experience horrible brain drain, as the greatest of their people leave to work in a country where there skills will get them an island. The world isn't ready for communism, and any new communist countries will be penalized by either brain drain, or lack of personal freedom (if you don't allow people to emigrate).

[1of42]

Hacker Dan wrote:

1of42 wrote:

You are stupid, aren't you? The Gates foundation, which is endowed almost solely by Gates, is the #1 charitable group in the world, both by amount of money (I believe), and by the amount of each dollar donated that goes into actually helping people (with literacy, healthcare etc.), which is higher than any other charity in the world.

Plesas do not use personal atacts in debates such as calling some one stupid.

As for gates i whould think there dentions are largey for tax and P.R. reasons not out of the good of there hearts.

ok, my bad. On the other hand, your response makes me want to use the same personal attack on you. I find it unbelievable that you're so jaded - the man has given more to charity in total, and almost certainly more as a percentage of his income than probably any other living person. He has given 17 billion to charity - substantially over 10% of his wealth, which puts him high on the list of philanthropists. He's not doing it for tax purposes either - most of his wealth is tied up in shares of Microsoft, which wouldn't be taxed until he sells them.

I'm just amazed by your response. I know there's a lot of anti-Microsoft and anti-Gates sentiment around here, but the fact that you would just disregard his massive contributions as for "P.R. and tax reasons" astounds me.

[Justin_]

10% is not the communist way, for bill gates the communist way is 99.9% and that .1% is enough to buy him an island.

It takes a rich one to give a lot to charity. If I had a billion dollars I would not only donate 99% of my riches, I would also spend most of my time fixing world issues.

You think Bill Gates is such a great man cause he can afford to give away his pocket change? Most people put in his position could do more. Bill Gates really isn't such a bad guy, it's our fault for letting him get as rich as he is. When all he is good at is cheating people out of their money, I'd say he doesn't deserve to be the richest man alive. . .

I'm a communist, through and through, you can either love me or hate me.

[chrispminis]

Pah. Just because you support communism doesn't mean you should attack Bill Gates. He IS a philanthopist. 10% is a LOT of money no matter who you talk to. Most wouldnt dream of donating 10% of their money to charity. Besides, you forget that he did promise that when he dies, all his money except one billion $, i think, will go to charity. That's a lot of money, more money than many countries have. While it's easy to say that others in his position would do more, you have to realize the majority of his wealth is also in stocks. And withdrawing his investments to donate to charity would harm the world economy more than it would help.

I don't hate communists, I just prefer to think that "perfect" communism can't work. Besides, presently, communism is not going to be introduced, since it doesn't have much support in North America, and a lot more antagonsim, not to mention people who are neutral won't want such a radical change. Its too hard to go against convention. When a near evolutionary stable strategy evolves its difficult to turn the tables.

[Justin_]

We can agree on that much. Communism will not be a form of government any time soon in North America. Why do you reckon that I'm talking 'bad' about Bill Gates. Honestly, why would you even care what anyone says about Bill Gates?

[Dan]

1st of all where did this 10% fact come form i whould like to see some suport for that. And tho i can only talke for my self i do not think our dislike of bill gates has to do with our thoughts on communism. As justin was saying if you have billions and you give a few millions it dose not hurt that much, now if you where an advaege person and you gave that much i whould be adzamed and respect you. It is not about how much money in total you give but about giving when u need it your self. It is easy to just sing some checks and become a good guy, if he whonts my repsect lets see him go out to a soup kitechen or homeless sheart and give his time. Also a big % of the money M$ donates is in there own software to schools and orgarastions witch realy costs nothing. I rember that they even whonted to pay there cort bills in software, lucky they did not go for that. And how can u not see that it is for P.R.? In my mind some one who is buying islands and has mations bulit in to mountes is being greedy. No one needs that much, that is behond comfortable and in to just a stupied area.

To chrispminis: Techaly i do not think a "perfect" captisume can work ether, lol. And pleas do not tell me that our system now is perfect. Also just becomes somthing dose not have suport dose not mean it is wrong or a bad thing or that it should not be used/done. Also if such a system was ever to be put in place it whould deftaly not be all at once, but over a long perioed of time, for all we know we could be slowying going that way now.