capitalism, by definition, is a stupid and foolish human system
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, January 13, 2025 18:50
VIEWED: 28147
PAGE 24 of 28
Quote:
No problem - she's and endless nonsense and denial machine. No wonder her husband agrees with her... *shudder*
ad hominem
Well, the real G shows up.
G, didn't you claim that you were looking for intelligent debate? I answered your comments several times, point by point, with both opinion and facts to back them up. Isn't that the mark of intelligent debate?
You, OTOH, only seem to have ad hominems on your side of the board.
Yanno, I'm looking for intelligent discussion too. It would be nice if someone could stick to a point, track down the underlying logic, find supporting (or countervailing) examples, and do all of the necessary things that are expected in a intelligent debate. So far I'm sorry to say that I haven't found it from you. However, should you wish to engage in an actual, real intelligent debate in the future, please let me know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
No it's not. It's called communism.
si shen
Ah, I see where your philosophy lies.
Actually there are many places in the world where governments own or highly tax resources and utilities and they are not necessarily communist. Singapore springs to mind as a very uncommunist country, but where government largely owns all utilities.
30 years ago, in this country, most utilities were government owned, and most then were sold off. The status of government owning or not owning utilities made no difference to our system of government which is a democratic one. It did however affect the price of electricity and gas, and also how well the infrastructure was maintained.
It's very easy to panic about ideas which feel outside the norm for your ideology and to catastrophise such ideas. The world is a much more nuanced place than 'Mericans, Commies and Jihadists'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
No it's not. It's called communism.
si shen
Ah, I see where your philosophy lies.
Actually there are many places in the world where governments own or highly tax resources and utilities and they are not necessarily communist. Singapore springs to mind as a very uncommunist country, but where government largely owns all utilities.
30 years ago, in this country, most utilities were government owned, and most then were sold off. The status of government owning or not owning utilities made no difference to our system of government which is a democratic one. It did however affect the price of electricity and gas, and also how well the infrastructure was maintained.
It's very easy to panic about ideas which feel outside the norm for your ideology and to catastrophise such ideas. The world is a much more nuanced place than 'Mericans, Commies and Jihadists'
I would love to see a higher gas tax. It represents a higher fee for those who use our highway system the most and hits those who own gas guzzling air polluting vehicles where it hurts. In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.
I am not panicked, many of the answers are at our fingertips and we should try to achieve them first before throwing the baby out with the bath water
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:MD, here in the U.S.A. we have been very effectively brainwashed into believing the concept that high taxes & government regulation (much less control) is a far leftist, Commie plot to destroy Democracy.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Actually there are many places in the world where governments own or highly tax resources and utilities and they are not necessarily communist.
BTW, I am NOT being facetious here.
See: AURaptor.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I would love to see a higher gas tax. It represents a higher fee for those who use our highway system the most and hits those who own gas guzzling air polluting vehicles where it hurts. In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.
I am not panicked, many of the answers are at our fingertips and we should try to achieve them first before throwing the baby out with the bath water
si shen
So what was with the crack about communism? You probably are not even sure of my views, so why assume that I want to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I would love to see a higher gas tax. It represents a higher fee for those who use our highway system the most and hits those who own gas guzzling air polluting vehicles where it hurts. In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.
I am not panicked, many of the answers are at our fingertips and we should try to achieve them first before throwing the baby out with the bath water
si shen
So what was with the crack about communism? You probably are not even sure of my views, so why assume that I want to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.?
Giving or returning government control over any business is certainly not a first step that would be recommended by anyone who believes in capitalism. That suggests you believe in an alternative. So I ask you, what are the alternatives?
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:COMMUNISM! [/snark]
So I ask you, what are the alternatives?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Giving or returning government control over any business is certainly not a first step that would be recommended by anyone who believes in capitalism. That suggests you believe in an alternative. So I ask you, what are the alternatives?
si shen
Sorry I must be confused? Didn't you just write this
Quote:
In the 70’s there was a big push to privatize everything. The reason for doing so remains the same. The belief is private companies can do it better for less. I don’t buy into that like many but there it is. Government enterprises may be a bit bloated but many more people benefit from them. With private industry to few benefit the most.
I don't believe in unfettered capitalism, it needs checks and balances the same as governments do. The problem with the US, one of the problems, is that your corporations, unelected and largely unregulated are far more powerful than government. Government becomes just another pawn in a corporatist society. I dont know how you solve the problems of the US and dont even begin to try.
However, I dont live in the US and i do believe we can learn through your mistakes, not that we aren't suject to economic pressures as a result of decisions made in your country. I supported a superprofits mining tax, similar to what happens in Norway. I think companies shouldn't solely profit from what should be a national resource.
I think there is a place for publically owned housing and banking, and to not sell off any more utitlities.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Norway's resources tax and how it works.
Quote:
NORWAY'S Prime Minister has spruiked the benefits of his country's oil and gas industry tax while in Perth today amid suggesting Australia's controversial mining tax should not necessarily follow suit.
Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, in Perth to officially open the world’s largest offshore marine simulator - Norwegian company Farstad Shipping’s $20 million offshore simulation centre (FSOSC) located at Bibra Lake - provided an overview of his nation’s successful system which taxes oil revenue at a world-leading 78 per cent.
Treasury has predicted that the controversial minerals resource rent tax (MRRT) will raise $11 billion in its first three years after lobbing a 30 per cent tax on iron ore and coal mining companies’ profits.
Mr Stoltenberg described how Norway’s “special system for the oil and gas industry” worked well because of its equitable benefits for the nation’s economy and industry.
“They (oil and gas companies) have quite high tax rates,” Mr Stoltenberg told PerthNow.
“But, on the other hand, the industry is allowed to deduct all their expenses against the higher tax rates so, in a way, the industry pay higher taxes but they also deduct the costs against the tax rate so, in that, it’s not so heavy a tax burden.”
Mr Stoltenberg said the 78 per cent tax has not negatively affected local foreign investment in the lucrative sector.
“That works well,” he added.
“They can deduct 78 per cent of their costs, so you have to see both sides of the coin.”
Importantly, Mr Stoltenberg clarified how his country was investing the revenues generated by the oil tax into a national pension fund, akin to a future fund or sovereign wealth fund, securing Norway’s economic future on the back of the massive oil and gas industry.
“We established a pension fund: the idea is to save the revenue from the oil and gas sector,” he explained.
“All the state revenues are going directly into the pension fund and then we spend only the return, the real return, which is estimated to be 4 per cent.
“So we will never, in anyway, spend the instalment or use the instalment, we will only spend the return on the instalment.
“And the instalment for the time being is equal to around 100 per cent of GDP, more than $US500 billion.”
The MRRT does not include any form of sovereign wealth fund, in fact, Prime Minister Julia Gillard in August said that Australia does not need a sovereign wealth fund
“I believe that superannuation is already our trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund – but with market benefits,” Ms Gillard told a Financial Services Council breakfast in Sydney.
“That’s because it’s privately managed by thousands of trustees instead of a sovereign wealth fund managed centrally by a Canberra-appointed manager.
“Or alternatively, you could say that Australia has eight million sovereign wealth funds – the superannuation accounts of Australians across the country.
“These are the very same superannuation accounts we want to make massive injections into.
“But we can’t do it without an important piece of policy architecture, and that is the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.”
http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/dont-copy-our-oil-and-gas-tax-norw
ay-pm/story-e6frg2r3-1226218409771?nk=bd369ea7bd41fc04062d47682039cee8
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finland funds all education including higher ed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland
Education in Finland is a system with no tuition fees and with fully subsidised meals served to full-time students. The present Finnish education system consists of daycare programs (for babies and toddlers) and a one-year "pre-school" (or kindergarten for six-year-olds); a nine-year compulsory basic comprehensive school (starting at age seven and ending at the age of fifteen); post-compulsory secondary general academic and vocational education; higher education (University and University of Applied Sciences); and adult (lifelong, continuing) education. The Finnish strategy for achieving equality and excellence in education has been based on constructing a publicly funded comprehensive school system without selecting, tracking, or streaming students during their common basic education.[1] Part of the strategy has been to spread the school network so that pupils have a school near their homes whenever possible or, if this is not feasible, e.g. in rural areas, to provide free transportation to more widely dispersed schools. Inclusive special education within the classroom and instructional efforts to minimize low achievement are also typical of Nordic educational systems.[1]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME