Hooray for the tax cut…

[permabear]

[quote=surveyor]”The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. ”7

Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest—unlike selfishness—will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good.[/quote]

FTFY

I think it’s pretty clear that a large percentage of very wealthy people in the US have derived their wealth by screwing over other people, and robbing publicly-funded institutions like education and social security via government-backed bailouts, taxes, and loopholes that favor the rich over the middle class.

The US will soon be dead-last in education, social support, vacation time, equal rights. We’re all pretending if we still think we’re a “first world” country at this point. Hell, even with technologies we invented like the internet, other countries are blowing by us by using – guess what – public funds to run huge sections of infrastructure.

Look at our rating for internet access:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/int_int_int_ban_mbp_percap-international-bandwidth-mbps-per-capita&date=2005

Here’s another one. That’s right, Latvia is ahead of us:

http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1538368~c655b533c91ea717854ff853f68cc5ce/Latvia.jpg

Meanwhile we can’t even fix potholes most of the time, because we have the least-progressive tax structure of any developed nation.

[Anonymous]

Flu, there has always been “us vs. them.” Always will be. And it’s been worse, much worse.

In the 1860s we were slaughtering each other by the tens of thousands.

Now we just bicker on internet boards.

There is no slavery debate today, but many of the economic issues and dynamics of the conflict are the same. Particularly the part where the uber-wealthy are able to rally the working classes to sacrifice for a cause that is actually against their own self-interest.

“Those Yankees are trying to take away your freedom and impose big government restrictions on our way of life! Now put on that gray uniform and start marching toward that line of cannons while I stay here and mind the plantation…”

Seems the plantation owners have used Fox News to get their stride back.

[Anonymous]

Flu, there has always been “us vs. them.” Always will be. And it’s been worse, much worse.

In the 1860s we were slaughtering each other by the tens of thousands.

Now we just bicker on internet boards.

There is no slavery debate today, but many of the economic issues and dynamics of the conflict are the same. Particularly the part where the uber-wealthy are able to rally the working classes to sacrifice for a cause that is actually against their own self-interest.

“Those Yankees are trying to take away your freedom and impose big government restrictions on our way of life! Now put on that gray uniform and start marching toward that line of cannons while I stay here and mind the plantation…”

Seems the plantation owners have used Fox News to get their stride back.

[Anonymous]

Flu, there has always been “us vs. them.” Always will be. And it’s been worse, much worse.

In the 1860s we were slaughtering each other by the tens of thousands.

Now we just bicker on internet boards.

There is no slavery debate today, but many of the economic issues and dynamics of the conflict are the same. Particularly the part where the uber-wealthy are able to rally the working classes to sacrifice for a cause that is actually against their own self-interest.

“Those Yankees are trying to take away your freedom and impose big government restrictions on our way of life! Now put on that gray uniform and start marching toward that line of cannons while I stay here and mind the plantation…”

Seems the plantation owners have used Fox News to get their stride back.

[Anonymous]

Flu, there has always been “us vs. them.” Always will be. And it’s been worse, much worse.

In the 1860s we were slaughtering each other by the tens of thousands.

Now we just bicker on internet boards.

There is no slavery debate today, but many of the economic issues and dynamics of the conflict are the same. Particularly the part where the uber-wealthy are able to rally the working classes to sacrifice for a cause that is actually against their own self-interest.

“Those Yankees are trying to take away your freedom and impose big government restrictions on our way of life! Now put on that gray uniform and start marching toward that line of cannons while I stay here and mind the plantation…”

Seems the plantation owners have used Fox News to get their stride back.

[Anonymous]

Flu, there has always been “us vs. them.” Always will be. And it’s been worse, much worse.

In the 1860s we were slaughtering each other by the tens of thousands.

Now we just bicker on internet boards.

There is no slavery debate today, but many of the economic issues and dynamics of the conflict are the same. Particularly the part where the uber-wealthy are able to rally the working classes to sacrifice for a cause that is actually against their own self-interest.

“Those Yankees are trying to take away your freedom and impose big government restrictions on our way of life! Now put on that gray uniform and start marching toward that line of cannons while I stay here and mind the plantation…”

Seems the plantation owners have used Fox News to get their stride back.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor]flu, not sure your /sarcasm is off but here goes:

“The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. ”7

Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest—unlike selfishness—will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good.

http://american.com/archive/2010/december/human-nature-and-capitalism/%5B/quote%5D

I’ve never seen anything that would indicate someone acting in his own best interest would benefit society more than if we acted in the best interest of society first. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an ardent supporter of an individual’s right to act in his/her own best interest **as long as nobody else is harmed in the process.** However, where economics are concerned, a society that promotes the individual over society tends to end up with massive disparities in wealth, and a powerful, corrupt elite that destroy the environment, deplete natural resources, exploit labor, and cause massive poverty and suffering among the masses.

One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor]flu, not sure your /sarcasm is off but here goes:

“The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. ”7

Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest—unlike selfishness—will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good.

http://american.com/archive/2010/december/human-nature-and-capitalism/%5B/quote%5D

I’ve never seen anything that would indicate someone acting in his own best interest would benefit society more than if we acted in the best interest of society first. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an ardent supporter of an individual’s right to act in his/her own best interest **as long as nobody else is harmed in the process.** However, where economics are concerned, a society that promotes the individual over society tends to end up with massive disparities in wealth, and a powerful, corrupt elite that destroy the environment, deplete natural resources, exploit labor, and cause massive poverty and suffering among the masses.

One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor]flu, not sure your /sarcasm is off but here goes:

“The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. ”7

Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest—unlike selfishness—will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good.

http://american.com/archive/2010/december/human-nature-and-capitalism/%5B/quote%5D

I’ve never seen anything that would indicate someone acting in his own best interest would benefit society more than if we acted in the best interest of society first. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an ardent supporter of an individual’s right to act in his/her own best interest **as long as nobody else is harmed in the process.** However, where economics are concerned, a society that promotes the individual over society tends to end up with massive disparities in wealth, and a powerful, corrupt elite that destroy the environment, deplete natural resources, exploit labor, and cause massive poverty and suffering among the masses.

One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor]flu, not sure your /sarcasm is off but here goes:

“The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. ”7

Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest—unlike selfishness—will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good.

http://american.com/archive/2010/december/human-nature-and-capitalism/%5B/quote%5D

I’ve never seen anything that would indicate someone acting in his own best interest would benefit society more than if we acted in the best interest of society first. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an ardent supporter of an individual’s right to act in his/her own best interest **as long as nobody else is harmed in the process.** However, where economics are concerned, a society that promotes the individual over society tends to end up with massive disparities in wealth, and a powerful, corrupt elite that destroy the environment, deplete natural resources, exploit labor, and cause massive poverty and suffering among the masses.

One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor]flu, not sure your /sarcasm is off but here goes:

“The American founders believed, and capitalism rests on the belief, that people are driven by “self-interest” and the desire to better our condition. Self-interest is not necessarily bad; in fact, Smith believed, and capitalism presupposes, that the general welfare depends on allowing an individual to pursue his self-interest “as long as he does not violate the laws of justice.” When a person acts in his own interest, “he frequently promotes [the interest] of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. ”7

Here it is important to distinguish between self-interest and selfishness. Self-interest—unlike selfishness—will often lead one to commit acts of altruism; rightly understood, it knows that no man is an island, that we are part of a larger community, and that what is good for others is good for us. To put it another way: Pursuing our own good can advance the common good. Even more, advancing the common good can advance our own good.

http://american.com/archive/2010/december/human-nature-and-capitalism/%5B/quote%5D

I’ve never seen anything that would indicate someone acting in his own best interest would benefit society more than if we acted in the best interest of society first. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an ardent supporter of an individual’s right to act in his/her own best interest **as long as nobody else is harmed in the process.** However, where economics are concerned, a society that promotes the individual over society tends to end up with massive disparities in wealth, and a powerful, corrupt elite that destroy the environment, deplete natural resources, exploit labor, and cause massive poverty and suffering among the masses.

One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?[/quote]

Gates and Buffet have created arguably thousands of jobs during their lifetime and many millionaires where there were previously none. Those jobs have not only benefited the workers, they have also created a society where luxuries that could only be previously accessible to the rich are now even affordable to the poorest of the United States.

Gates and Buffett have also decided to spend a large portion of their personal fortune to charity and other humanitarian causes.

Their benefits to society should be pretty evident and was not just limited to the rich and powerful.

Not saying everyone does this, but there is something in America that fosters this more than any other civilization. Even other societies have benefited from this, not just ours.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?[/quote]

Gates and Buffet have created arguably thousands of jobs during their lifetime and many millionaires where there were previously none. Those jobs have not only benefited the workers, they have also created a society where luxuries that could only be previously accessible to the rich are now even affordable to the poorest of the United States.

Gates and Buffett have also decided to spend a large portion of their personal fortune to charity and other humanitarian causes.

Their benefits to society should be pretty evident and was not just limited to the rich and powerful.

Not saying everyone does this, but there is something in America that fosters this more than any other civilization. Even other societies have benefited from this, not just ours.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?[/quote]

Gates and Buffet have created arguably thousands of jobs during their lifetime and many millionaires where there were previously none. Those jobs have not only benefited the workers, they have also created a society where luxuries that could only be previously accessible to the rich are now even affordable to the poorest of the United States.

Gates and Buffett have also decided to spend a large portion of their personal fortune to charity and other humanitarian causes.

Their benefits to society should be pretty evident and was not just limited to the rich and powerful.

Not saying everyone does this, but there is something in America that fosters this more than any other civilization. Even other societies have benefited from this, not just ours.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
One, single person with a lot of wealth can wield much more power than a hundred thousand people (or more) with no wealth. I don’t see how that can work out to anyone’s benefit but the very rich/powerful. The wealthier and more powerful these people become, the more they can extract from the country and from the people via regulations and policies that favor themselves over “the masses” and society. How does society benefit from that?[/quote]

Gates and Buffet have created arguably thousands of jobs during their lifetime and many millionaires where there were previously none. Those jobs have not only benefited the workers, they have also created a society where luxuries that could only be previously accessible to the rich are now even affordable to the poorest of the United States.

Gates and Buffett have also decided to spend a large portion of their personal fortune to charity and other humanitarian causes.

Their benefits to society should be pretty evident and was not just limited to the rich and powerful.

Not saying everyone does this, but there is something in America that fosters this more than any other civilization. Even other societies have benefited from this, not just ours.

[Author]

Posts