"Freedom" thread or something

Further, Teo, when a poor person acts unethically it can affect a few people.  When a rich person acts unethically, it can affect thousands, perhaps even the entire economy.

Damn cell phones are prone to errors

Your statement is true. However, since there are (obviously) much more poor people than really wealthy people, larger percentages will act unethically so it wi actually affect the economy. Think of a poor neighborhood where prices are high because of crime.

Unethical behavior affects many people no matter who does it.

The T wrote: Damn cell phones are prone to errors Your statement is true. However, since there are (obviously) much more poor people than really wealthy people, larger percentages will act unethically so it wi actually affect the economy. Think of a poor neighborhood where prices are high because of crime. Unethical behavior affects many people no matter who does it.

 

Untrue, Teo.  Being a member of the middle class, makes me very concerned about the welfare of that group of people.  Part of my issue with the rich is that they are driving people from the middle class down into the poor category with their greed and hoarding of resources (which by the way, I find to be as unethical as theft).

I personally am very concerned about the state of the middle class, and (at least in NJ) the biggest problem is...ta da: the government!

Shocker right?

Already a high tax state, but our property taxes are insanely high. Property taxes alone are a huge strain on the middle and lower classes. The beloved defenders of the middle class, regular person and liberals...the Democrats of course thought it blasphemy to tinker with those property taxes. Which also hurts small and local business mind you.

In fact, we had Dems coming to our door saying how we need more money for the teachers union.
Now, I have a deep respect for teachers, plan to be one, and think they have a bad deal in the HS levels and down. That being said, they already put up a fuss when Christie said they should pay into their pension (which of course we all pay into) then they want more?? While we have our own bills to pay, pensions to fund, and during a recession??
Way to come together as a community and help all NJ citizens eh?

Anywho, there's always the constant inflation of our money. So even when we take steps to cut spending (pretty much to zero) and reworked our health and auto insurance we still see no gain!
But inflation is a beast for a different day

King of Loss wrote: JJLehto wrote: I personally am very concerned about the state of the middle class, and (at least in NJ) the biggest problem is...ta da: the government! Shocker right? Already a high tax state, but our property taxes are insanely high. Property taxes alone are a huge strain on the middle and lower classes. The beloved defenders of the middle class, regular person and liberals...the Democrats of course thought it blasphemy to tinker with those property taxes. Which also hurts small and local business mind you. In fact, we had Dems coming to our door saying how we need more money for the teachers union. Now, I have a deep respect for teachers, plan to be one, and think they have a bad deal in the HS levels and down. That being said, they already put up a fuss when Christie said they should pay into their pension (which of course we all pay into) then they want more?? While we have our own bills to pay, pensions to fund, and during a recession?? Way to come together as a community and help all NJ citizens eh? Anywho, there's always the constant inflation of our money. So even when we take steps to cut spending (pretty much to zero) and reworked our health and auto insurance we still see no gain! But inflation is a beast for a different day Aren't the teachers' union a part of the middle class?

Well....the leaders/big wigs probably not but of course, the teachers, as we know, make a middle class living at best.
The bigger point was, while I get it, how selfish is it to already have unpaid pensions, and want more??
But that's what government can enable amirite? This goes for any union...instead of working with whatever company, just petition the government and maximize your well being at all our expense! Government can be a tool for anyone to maximize greed.

We're not rich, so it's in our interest (hey whadya know?) to not care about having our greed maximized at their expense, but if someone is truly a caring and fair liberal, there should be problems with this.



Edited by JJLehto - December 08 2012 at 16:39

The Doctor wrote: Untrue, Teo.  Being a member of the middle class, makes me very concerned about the welfare of that group of people.  Part of my issue with the rich is that they are driving people from the middle class down into the poor category with their greed and hoarding of resources (which by the way, I find to be as unethical as theft).

 

Isn't that something? Middle class on middle class warfare! How sad Marx would be right now...not being unified and thus letting the bourgeoisie walk all over us!

Really though, you could be right...IDK if its that sinister (though I'm not ruling out such an elite conspiracy) but it could also be this: We are all self interested beings. Its not greed per se, or anything deeply philosophical...we all want what's best for us. And its not some by product of capitalism (as I fooled myself into believing).
Soooo that's the major issue with government, it allows anyone to try and maximize their self interest via force against others. Granted it may be the better off ripping off the lesser, but its open to anyone.

Naturally I used to be crazy pro union but I actually saw long ago: they are not really needed today and they are greedy. We all have the 40 hour week and OT, and office work doesn't have unsafe conditions. Maybe some fields still need unions to protect them but really, I just don't think there's much realistic need today.

The T wrote: 100% employment is likely not possible, but it is desirable.

100% employment is not desirable. If no one is looking for a job, it is impossible to create new businesses, sell new products and market new technologies.

It is of course impossible so kind of a moot point.
We've only seen full employment during WW2 and Nazi Germany and those are unusual and unwanted scenarios.

But just for sh*ts...llama, while it may be economically inefficient wouldn't it still be a good thing? I mean every single person (who wants to work) having a job? All the populace spending and saving, seems like it would be a positive, even though it'd be inefficient.
Not that it matters, for the reasons that llama and doc gave (ironically!) there is always a natural unemployment rate. It's just not possible to dip below that, unless you want a state of continuous major war. If we get more neo cons back I'm sure they'll try!

Edit: the topic reminds me of this goodie. How successful was the economy really during WWII? http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=138 and it resulted in a command economy, kind of like under the Nazis. Ouch...it seems the leftist dream of full employment and command economies only happen under massive war


Edited by JJLehto - December 09 2012 at 14:13