Scientists prove even the thought of money spoils enjoyment

They should have included some bums and unemployed people in the research group.

Can you actually picture yourself taking part of this survey?

Don't you hate poorly designed studies?
Did they just forget to interview them afterwards to see what the "picture of a stack of money" actually reminded them of? Like bills to pay, or obligations that could be repaid with that money, or even why the University was raising fees and all they see to got was this lousy chocolate.

And this is why Psych is a SOFT science.

"Can you actually picture yourself taking part of this survey?"

Depends how much it pays. ;)

Based upon these results, then we must develop a government program to take care of people's money so they won't have their enjoyment spoiled.

Based upon these results, then we must develop a government program to take care of people's money so they won't have their enjoyment spoiled.

Sounds good to me. Socialism is the future. A decent credit line for all, as just payment for being alive and obeying the law. Machines can and will- and are- doing our jobs for us. We paid for the Progress and research that made that technology possible by the purchase and consumption of related goods and services. Now we have no hope of reclaiming lost jobs and wages. You conservatives have a solution for that?

I would add that The results were mis-judged. An example is about the subjects who were wealthier had a self-assessed lower level of savoring ability. Maybe they had higher expectations and the low level of the test did not meet them. The judgment that follows about undermined the positive effects of money on their happiness. What! Where did that come from?

The article says that subjects in one group were shown a picture of a stack of money as a reminder of wealth.
Here we go again with symbols. Just show them a stack of 10,000 One dollar bills and let them handle it so that they know it is real. That would really enliven the study. The results of being shown this picture--they scored lower in their ability to savor experiences. Maybe they were thinking about the money. Where they would spend it.

Yeah, sounds like an arbitrary test. I will say though, that I, for one, hate the thought of money while Im trying to enjoy myself. To me, money is a total buzzkill. It evokes the analytical mind while the right hemisphere is having a good time. Kind of like when you are enjoying a brew on the ol' couchski, and your wife wants to talk about bills. You're like- "omg, stfu!"

Based upon these results, then we must develop a government program to take care of people's money so they won't have their enjoyment spoiled.

Sounds good to me. Socialism is the future. A decent credit line for all, as just payment for being alive and obeying the law. Machines can and will- and are- doing our jobs for us. We paid for the Progress and research that made that technology possible by the purchase and consumption of related goods and services. Now we have no hope of reclaiming lost jobs and wages. You conservatives have a solution for that?

Until you run out of other people's money. Then it will just be the happy Eloi and the Morlocks.

Until you run out of other people's money. Then it will just be the happy Eloi and the Morlocks.

Its not 'other peoples money'. Its not YOUR money. Remember when jc was asked if he should pay taxes? He looked at a coin, saw caesars pic on it, and said 'Give to caesar what is caesars.'

The scam is that taxes supposedly pay for everything the govt does. In reality, money is created out of nothing more than Authority. It is given out to banks by this Authority with the stipulation that it be used to fund certain types of projects and industries which in turn create the jobs you now have and I do not. These funded resources can then pay taxes back to the govt to complete the illusion.

The critical part of this study was the relation between excess wealth(more than adequate for simple comfort/financial security) and perceived happiness, because it exposes the question at the heart of the issue:
How much is enough? And hence, why is more than enough desireable, if it doesn't produce a proportional gain in Happiness? Why does the effort to achieve greater happiness by amassing excess wealth create a hole?
The answer is: that hole is an existential one in the spirit, and it cannot be filled with material possessions. Pursuit of Truth, and Compassion and Understanding of and for the World, and the people in it, is what fills that hole.

(cont)
When these institutions or the govt which relies on them runs into debt, the govt can merely print more money to bail them out either directly by just giving it to them as we have seen recently; or the money can flow into general circulation to decrease the value of it, and the debt shrinks proportionately.

In other words, the king decides who gets what and who doesnt, and the dollar bill is his edict. He gave us money to spend on his new robot and computer projects which have matured sufficiently as to be self-supporting; they generate income with the money we invested in them.

Technology that we helped to create now threatens to impoverish us. We deserve a return on that income, even though it is technically the kings. That is the definition of socialism, isnt it? Stealing from the rich to feed the poor? Theyre not even smarter than us; only lucky enough to be born into Royalty.

Its always been this way, but the Prosperity created is unprecedented; we want some.

Money is a way to keep track of the energy people use to reduce entropy (create wealth).
No government is required to create money. Just an agreement among those who want to use they money as to its value. Kings and government who want to skim wealth off of the top need to provide some value for that service: defence, weight standards, etc.
If you want to find your food, build shelter, survive using your own labor and ingenuity, feel free. People learned a while ago it is more efficient to work together, divide the labor into smaller steps, reward people for becoming the most efficient at raising crops or building houses. Nature calls that specialization.
Socialism is state control of your property, including your labor and your life.

The critical part of this study was the relation between excess wealth(more than adequate for simple comfort/financial security) and perceived happiness, because it exposes the question at the heart of the issue:
How much is enough? And hence, why is more than enough desireable, if it doesn't produce a proportional gain in Happiness? Why does the effort to achieve greater happiness by amassing excess wealth create a hole?
The answer is: that hole is an existential one in the spirit, and it cannot be filled with material possessions. Pursuit of Truth, and Compassion and Understanding of and for the World, and the people in it, is what fills that hole.

Who do you want to decide, for you, when you have enough to be happy?

There are many people who love what they do, and they earn a significant amount of money for doing so. Warren Buffet loves investing and creating value. Should people work for free if others are willing to pay?
People value what they must pay for.
In a free world, such individuals are free to donate their fortunes to whomever or whatever the wish. And they do helping millions around the world instead of sending more money to state tyrants.
Check out the story of Chuck Feeney: http://www.atlant...e-living
After 2020, its all gone, though. If more Chuck Feeney's are prevented by law from become wealthy, all will be equal in misery.

Who do you want to decide, for you, when you have enough to be happy?

Aha!

Once again, Mangy seeks to defend his objectivist, greedhead, neocon views by deliberate misinterpretation.
Very simply, Mangy, the INDIVIDUAL decides what is enough wealth- which was quite clear in the context of my post.
What your response makes clear is that the hole of which I spoke is, for you, the equivalent of the hole in your head, which is equivalent to the hole in your ass.
We are all very well aware that you would, if able, arrogate all the wealth of the world to yourself. Greed is not Freedom. greed is, in fact, Slavery.

Who do you want to decide, for you, when you have enough to be happy?

As an illustrious urban wordsmith once said.

Mo' Money, Mo' Problems

Money is a way to keep track of the energy people use to reduce entropy (create wealth).
No government is required to create money. Just an agreement among those who want to use they money as to its value.

Well it ought to work this way, reason says that should work this way if money was a reflection of intrinsic worth. But it is not. Money is a reflection of the power of the Authority who issues it. If that Authority wants to shrink that value to reduce debt then the value of the work you do to earn it shrinks as well, and you have to work harder to afford the things you need. Again, its not YOUR money. The govt tells you what it is worth and by default, what YOU yourself are worth.

The only money that ever had intrinsic value was metal based money.
Fiat currencies have no intrinsic value but are a way of measuring the value of real things.
That government's manipulate the value of fiat currencies to maintain power does not lessen the importance of money in an economy to determine value. Such manipulations will only weaken the economy and the government's power and it's too bad so many people believe that government's can create wealth by printing more money and WANT governments to control money.

Who do you want to decide, for you, when you have enough to be happy?

Aha!

Once again, Mangy seeks to defend his objectivist, greedhead, neocon views by deliberate misinterpretation.
Very simply, Mangy, the INDIVIDUAL decides what is enough wealth- which was quite clear in the context of my post.
What your response makes clear is that the hole of which I spoke is, for you, the equivalent of the hole in your head, which is equivalent to the hole in your ass.
We are all very well aware that you would, if able, arrogate all the wealth of the world to yourself. Greed is not Freedom. greed is, in fact, Slavery.

The individual decides? Are you serious? What kind liberal socialist are you?

What if the money just made them want to be more "efficient"? Then they'd eat faster.

Money, after all, is the carrot that makes us run faster.

The individual decides? Are you serious? What kind liberal socialist are you?

Are you saying that there is someone else that has the authority to decide when you have accumulated enough wealth?

Name this Authority, then.

It is true that there are any number of forces that may prevent you from accumulating what you might consider enough, but that is another story.
Your apparent inability to distinguish between the two is a clear indicator of your general lack.

Are you saying that there is someone else that has the authority to decide when you have accumulated enough wealth?

The president of the USA thinks some people make too much money as do Castro, Chavez and many other socialists.

What if the money just made them want to be more "efficient"? Then they'd eat faster.

Money, after all, is the carrot that makes us run faster.

What if the money just made them want to be more "efficient"? Then they'd eat faster.

Money, after all, is the carrot that makes us run faster.

Too many others prefer sticks.

Are you saying that there is someone else that has the authority to decide when you have accumulated enough wealth?

The president of the USA thinks some people make too much money as do Castro, Chavez and many other socialists.

Typical Mangy tactics.
Since the freemarket operates primarily in the "Free" world, most people would, of course, understand that these comments were addressed specifically to to the state of affairs in that milieu. Again, a distinction that you purposefully ignore, in an attempt to avoid addressing the issue.
The President's opinion regarding who has and has not accumulated enough wealth is entirely beside the point as you well know. Unless he is empowered to act upon that opinion, then your assertion is absolutely meaningless, and, since that is in fact the case, then you have once again affirmed the existence of the hole in your head.

The President's opinion regarding who has and has not accumulated enough wealth is entirely beside the point as you well know. Unless he is empowered to act upon that opinion, then your assertion is absolutely meaningless, and, since that is in fact the case, then you have once again affirmed the existence of the hole in your head.

Obama is a liberal democrat and has a liberal democrat controlled congress, that makes the laws, which Obama signs. He passed a large tax increase with Obamacare. Why won't he act upon his desire to limit people's incomes?
What makes you believe the US economy is free?

"Put simply, a free people work for themselves, not for the government. Barack Obama seems to have a problem understanding that."
http://hotair.com...h-money/

Taxation is not the same thing as an arbitrary, imposed cap on what an individual can earn or accumulate, moron- I mean, Mangy.

Money don't matter 2night
It sure didn't matter yesterday
Just when U think U've got more than enough
That's when it all up and flies away
That's when U find out that U're better off
Makin' sure your soul's alright
Money didn't matter yesterday
And it sure don't matter 2night

Taxation is not the same thing as an arbitrary, imposed cap on what an individual can earn or accumulate, moron- I mean, Mangy.

"The current "millionaire's tax" actually starts affecting people who have incomes over $200,000. High income tax earners would pay more than 13-percent of their salary in local taxes."
http://www.myfoxn...20100526
It does start to limit the income people want to make. If 75% of every new dollar earned goes to the government, why earn that dollar? People like Rush moved to FL to avoid those taxes. Bill OReilly said if taxes were too high, he would self-limit his income to avoid the tax, laying off some people in the process.

If you want to find your food, build shelter, survive using your own labor and ingenuity, feel free. People learned a while ago it is more efficient to work together, divide the labor into smaller steps, reward people for becoming the most efficient at raising crops or building houses. Nature calls that specialization.

I call it communism.

Socialism is state control of your property, including your labor and your life.

Nope. Socialism is the state control by will of the people in terms of resources and productive action distribution. If you're going to use a term as often as you use socialism, you may want to know what it means.

It does start to limit the income people want to make. If 75% of every new dollar earned goes to the government, why earn that dollar? People like Rush moved to FL to avoid those taxes. Bill OReilly said if taxes were too high, he would self-limit his income to avoid the tax, laying off some people in the process.

Two pillars of modern entertainment journalism....
Billy Mays was more factual in 30 seconds than these two are all day long.

Are you even affected by the "Millionaire's tax" Marjon? I am. I can speak to what the immediate economic rammifications will be to me. Instead of getting a fully loaded Audi S8, I'll get an all but fully loaded Audi S8. It's a pittance, and that's only if I can't itemize an additional 4% of my income, which I can.

It's a feel good initiative that will affect less than 10% of the population but produce enough tax money to assist 60% of the population. I don't have a problem paying it, and the majority of my contemporaries don't either

Socialism is the state control by will of the people

That is called mob rule when 51% can take everything from the remaining 49%. It is still state (the mob) control of property.

SH: How many people will vote with their feet and leave? How many businesses will avoid NY reducing the number of jobs in the state leading to MORE tax increases, BOHICA. CA and MI are discovering this the hard way. Bloomberg is afraid increasing NYC taxes as the 'millionaires' will leave and there will no one left to tax.
NJ's governor stated they won't need to raise taxes as they cut their spending.

Marjon,

Aside from the fact you refuse to answer whether you're affected by the millionaire's tax, how much money is enough for you to live comfortably, have a small nest egg to retire on and lead a comfortable standard of living, as well as potentially having a little excess to donate or pass down to your progeny?

What dollar amount per year would that be?

I know what it is for me. I'm affected by the tax, and I'd still want it to pass.

Marjon,

How much money is enough for you to live comfortably, have a small nest egg to retire on and lead a comfortable standard of living, as well as potentially having a little excess to donate or pass down to your progeny?

What dollar amount per year would that be?

I know what it is for me.

Good for you.

I will know when I get there, but every year, the government keeps taking more and more so it is very difficult to plan.

Good for you.

I will know when I get there.

So are you affected by the Millionaire's tax or are you just doing what the Millionaire Elite want you to do by rallying for a tax break for them?

You don't get it because you really are just that stupid. Easily led people, primarily devout American Protestants and Baptists are rallying against a tax that doesn't even affect them. Meanwhile, the people like me who are affected by the tax, who you're content to call an elitist, will pay it so YOU can get better services and benefits.

Yes, our tax system is a mess, and too few people pay into it, but the people who are rallying against the millionaires tax are not even affected by it in a negative way. You don't make more than 200k, of that I'm certain. So jsut who are you working for?

That's right, the Elite, you idiot.

The millionaires tax affects everyone.

"The 10 percent federal luxury excise tax faces repeal this summer, and the boating industry is salivating at the prospect.

The tax rollback promises dramatic employment hikes for South Florida -- as many as 7,000 to 8,000 jobs over the following 18 months, according to industry insiders. "
http://www.access...erk.html
Individuals make much better decisions regarding the money THEY earn than any government can or will.
If you feel the government needs more money, buy a government motors Chevy and donate your savings to the government. I'm sure they will appreciate it.

In NE, if you have not been paying attention, people with less money in their pocket eat out less affecting wait staff and all those 'little' people the depend upon more disposable income.

"A huge percentage of the New York City taxes come from the people that will be fleeing New York. And you just can't do it. It is a horrible thing. I have spoken to literally 25 to 30 people that are now either leaving or going to consider leaving. It is a foolish and in fact very stupid thing they are doing."
http://www.foxnew...,00.html
Drive away all those entrepreneurs who make money and employ people. No effect at all?

Although the sample size seems too small to be scientific, and science deals more in probabilities and evidence than absolute proof, this just seems to affirm that unhappiness can come from either too much or too little. Either being worried about spending, or spending gobs to the point of getting little new and rewarding from it. If I'm ever drowning in money, I hope I have the discipline to become engaged in applying it constructively, to something more than just personal image & luxury.

The millionaires tax affects everyone.

Then why couldn't you post a logical argument to that effect?

People who make over 200k don't eat at a chain restaurant often. Your job at Sizzler is safe, marjon.

Are you going to address my point or continue to wallow in your trough of stupid? Either way I don't care. I'll either get a tax break due to your efforts or I'll get to feed and clothe your family. It's a win win situation for someone who actually pays attention.

Then why couldn't you post a logical argument to that effect?

I did.
If you want to pay more taxes, you are free to do so. Why force everyone else to join you?
I would guess millionaires use a wide variety of services employing hundreds of people. If the government takes and wastes more of their money, even more people will be unemployed.
It affects everyone.
If you don't like being so rich, again, drive a cheaper car and donate more money to the government. MA has a box you can check to pay at a higher rate. Did you check the box this year? It will make you happier. The science says it's so.

If the government takes and wastes more of their money, even more people will be unemployed.
It affects everyone.

How? You have to explain it, not just say it's going to happen with no evidence.

If you don't like being so rich, again, drive a cheaper car and donate more money to the government.

First off, 200k per year isn't rich, it's upper middle class. And if you don't like being so poor, put down the Bible, read a science book and get a better job.

MA has a box you can check to pay at a higher rate. Did you check the box this year? It will make you happier.

I don't pay income tax in MA, however, when I did, I did not check the box because I was making about 80k. So if you'd like to continue down this path how about you answer my question.

If the tax takes from the rich and gives to the poor, there will be more poor feeding money into the economy. Free healthcare frees up over $200 per month for most individuals. They'll spend it, we all benefit.

How? You have to explain it, not just say it's going to happen with no evidence.

Open your eyes. Look around you. Or look at this web site: http://www.cagw.org/
A limited government should provide a structure that protects property rights and facilitates free economic activity. Free economic activity creates wealth as they require a profit to exist. Governments use force to take profits and therefore has no need to be efficient and meet the needs and wants of its 'customers'.
Wealth is created by applying energy to raw materials to create a product or service a customer is willing to pay for. Government can only skim from this wealth and at its best, government enables such wealth creation by protecting the property rights of the participants. When the government rewards people for not creating wealth, the economy begins to fail because wealth creation slows, stops or is consumed.

Would you like to tell me how people are being rewarded by the government to not create wealth?

Perhaps you and I do have some common ground in what we don't like about government.

The role of government is to do for the many what the few cannot do for themselves. They are the bringers of infrastructure (clean water, basic health sevices, roads, judicial process) once they go beyond that point, they have grown too large.

So tell me, what are they doing specifically that doesn't enable personal liberty?

more poor feeding money into the economy.

So?
If the poor obtained that money by creating wealth, then it would help the economy.
Coolidge cut taxes and government spending and the economy boomed. JFK cut taxes and the economy boomed. Reagan cut taxes and the economy boomed.
MI, CA, NY raise taxes and their economies are tankng.
"A people are prosperous to the extent they possess goods and services, not money, Smith declared. All the money in the world—paper or metallic—will still leave one starving if goods and services are not available."
"Money is a good that is used to trade for other goods, and by making trade easier (and more abundant), it is a productive asset."
No doubt, I would be better off (printing real counterfeit money), but others would be made worse off." (This is the same as gov't printing money give to the 'poor'.)
http://fee.org/ar...-wealth/

They are the bringers of infrastructure (clean water, basic health sevices, roads, judicial process)

And they are failing to do all of the above.

That is your fallacy. The role of government is to protect private property rights.

Bush cut taxes and the economy imploded. Hoover cut taxes and the economy imploded.

The amount of taxation doesn't drive the economic impact, the type of taxation does. Some taxes are utterly ridiculous, ie: transportation taxes, carbon taxes, medical device taxes, vice taxes, all improperly designed. The progressive tax system is used to create a base morality within the country. That is what I rebel against, and that should be what you rebel against as well.

A flat tax system where everyone pays based on use and income is what I am a proponent of. That way everyone knows what everyone else pays, and we'll all know that the level of taxation is just and fair. Do you disagree?

And they are failing to do all of the above.

I'm in complete agreement here.

That is your fallacy. The role of government is to protect private property rights.

But that isn't what you're saying or evidencing.

Marjon,

Do me a favor, jsut say exactly what you want, flat out, no quotes or supporting statements.

Tell me exactly what you want government to look like and let's discuss it. Our opinions on the topic aren't that far out of line, we can come to common ground on this.

"President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s"
"Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important."
"If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy."
http://www.herita...ax-Rates

Marjon,

Do me a favor, jsut say exactly what you want, flat out, no quotes or supporting statements.

Tell me exactly what you want government to look like and let's discuss it. Our opinions on the topic aren't that far out of line, we can come to common ground on this.

We don't agree on the fundamental concept of government. How can we obtain common ground when you don't understand the nature of government?
At the federal level, a return to constitutional limits is a start.
NH had a good state legislative model with hundreds of reps paid very little money, and SD legislature meets for 45 days every two years.
Government must be closely monitored, not encouraged to grow, and trust must be earned every day.

Go ahead and take a look at the bills passed under Hoover. He cut the marginal tax rate by about 30% so you're wrong. Stop listening to the Heritage foundation.

Secondly, you, sir, don't know what you want. That much is quite clear. You've effectively stated you want black to return to slavery, the restriction of nontraditional marriage, the removal of employee protections, the destruction of the interstate transportation system, a repeal of all health initiatives including medicare, the removal of checking accounts, credit cards, 401k's and the stock market. All granted by federal economic regulation, none of which is in the constitution.

Anything else you'd like to remove from society? After all, the Constitution is the only law you want from a federal perspective. Don't forget, you'll be freely arming every criminal, terrorist, and immigrant within the borders.

I'm sure that's a bad idea.

"Why had wages not fallen as they had in previous contractions? One reason was that President Herbert Hoover prevented them from falling. He had been appalled by the wage rate cuts in the 1920-1921 depression and had preached a “high wage” policy throughout the 1920s. " (Socialism)
"The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was another piece of Hoover’s strategy. Though there was not a general call for tariff increases, Hoover proposed it in 1929 as a means of aiding farmers. He quickly lost control of the bill and it ended up protecting American businesses in general with much less real protection for farmers."
"Hoover had reduced all 1929 income tax rates by 1 percent because of the continuing budget surpluses. By 1930 the surplus had turned into a deficit that grew rapidly as the economy contracted. By the end of 1931 Hoover had decided to recommend a large tax increase in an attempt to balance the budget;"
http://www.econli...ion.html

"Hoover did intervene after the Stock Market crash, but the acts passed by Congress and signed by Hoover were the worst kind of intervention: they actually exacerbated the problem. The most famous of these interventions was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Raising tariffs was one of the worst things that could be done. Remember, both free market advocates and Keynesians agree that lowering prices would cure a depression, it's just that the Keynesians believe government intervention is necessary. A tariff does exactly the wrong thing by raising prices. "
"Ironically, FDR, the president who implemented so many government programs himself, was elected on a platform of a balanced budget and economic non-intervention. So what did he do upon getting into office? He promptly expanded on Hoover's programs. "
http://www.amatec...iew.html

Secondly, you, sir, don't know what you want.

Follow the Constitution. That is what I want.
Health care, checking accounts, stock markets, roads all existed prior to any federal government regulations.
The government has laws against illegal immigration and does nothing to enforce such laws. Protecting property rights is a government function, controlling borders is a government function. The government has laws, but it is not enforcing them and is trying to prevent others from enforcing the same laws.
Your assertion government is required for people to live and prosper is false.

Do you know what a tariff is? It's a tax on foreign goods in order to coerce people into buying domestic. We can see how well that worked...

Prior to the start of the Great Depression, Hoover's first Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, proposed and saw enacted, numerous tax cuts, which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%. When combined with the sharp decline in incomes during the early depression, the result was a serious deficit in the federal budget.

That's from your own source.

The government has laws, but it is not enforcing them and is trying to prevent others from enforcing the same laws.
Your assertion government is required for people to live and prosper is false.

Well no kidding. When you don't enforce laws in a Republic, which is rule by law, the Republic ceases to exist.

What do you think would happen in this country if the government ceased to exist?

I know what would happen. We'd become Afghanistan. I'd rather not.

I know what would happen. We'd become Afghanistan. I'd rather not.

Where is your proof?
When the Pilgrims landed, their was no government and they created a limited government based upon basic principles of private property and free markets.
Why don't you support a limited government that protects private property rights and promotes free markets?

"Antioch's fiscal woes are standard issue for local governments in California: weak revenue from retail sales and property taxes is forcing spending cuts, layoffs and furloughs.

But cost-cutting measures may not be enough to keep Antioch's books balanced, so its city council is openly discussing bankruptcy."
" bankruptcy has paid an important dividend for Vallejo: It has forced public employee unions to the negotiating table, providing city leaders an opportunity to rein in compensation, which city officials said accounts for more than three-quarters of Vallejo's general fund spending."
http://www.reuter...20100527

Where is your proof?

Name a country with no government that isn't like Afghanistan.

When the Pilgrims landed, their was no government and they created a limited government based upon basic principles of private property and free markets.

40 people is not the same as 40,000, and certainly not the same as 400,000,000.

Why don't you support a limited government that protects private property rights and promotes free markets?

Straw man argument. Show me where I said I don't support individual liberty and property.

You think everyone who isn't exactly the same as you has what you figure to be the worst intentions at the core of their argument. If you were capable of understanding anything that I've wrote, perhaps you wouldn't be arguing my point for me.

You think everyone who isn't exactly the same as you has what you figure to be the worst intentions at the core of their argument.

That is what you do.

Name a country with no government that isn't like Afghanistan.

Afghanistan does have a government. Why is Afghanistan like it is WITH a government?

Afghanistan does have a government. Why is Afghanistan like it is WITH a government?

Afghanistan doesn't have a government, they have a mayor. You're a fool.

That is what you do.

Ha, debating you is no longer leading to productive conversation. We're done, have a nice day.

SH: You think everyone who isn't exactly the same as you has what you figure to be the worst intentions at the core of their argument.

ME: That is what you do.

Ha, debating you is no longer leading to productive conversation. We're done, have a nice day.

Running away after being exposed for a hypocrite?

"“No one has any idea what’s next…the uncertainty of the business climate in America is frightening, frightening to everybody, and it’s delaying the recovery.”"
"As we spoke, scantily clad waitresses in barely-there orange bikinis prepared for one last practice run-through. “They’ll make north of a hundred grand apiece,” annually he says. The jobs pay well, and the tips are great. But wearing those bikinis isn’t easy. “If one of those girls gains two pounds, it goes from being really adorable to not so adorable.” (One other note: he lectures them about wearing hats and sunblock.)"
"“Macau has been steady. The shocking, unexpected government is the one in Washington.” "
http://www.cnbc.c...37392344

Running away after being exposed for a hypocrite?

When a disagreement breaks down into "I know you are but what am I" replies from one of the participants, the discussion has come to it's logical end. You haven't captured me in any sort of hypocritical trap, Marjon, you're trolling. The conversation has come to it's end, thanks for showing us your opinion on the various topics discussed.

You think everyone who isn't exactly the same as you has what you figure to be the worst intentions at the core of their argument.

That is what you do.

You accuse me of doing what you do and then run away after being called out.

The modern nation-state is a very recent invention. It is only ~500 years old.
How did humans survive for over 100,000 years without a goverment?
The western USA in the 1800s offers many examples of how people organized themselves without the 'help' of a coercive state.

The modern nation-state is a very recent invention. It is only ~500 years old.

Ridiculous. Give us your definition for nation state.

Great study but as usual the real picture is more complicated. I suspect something more subtle happening, it's not the notion of money that interrupts real-time savoring. I think it's what money is the place holder for; trying to predict future happiness based on planning strategies that might be bumming people out.

There is also the need to separate out the effect where some people confuse the map for the forest and think money is 'real' so have potent placebo effects.

In the end I think it's a mix of phenomena with the dominant one being thinking about future problems or possibilities can ruin a cup of coffee.

One need only read the comments here to see a lot of coffees were ruined while reading the morning news, especially the article that studied how people felt about money while masturbating or something. Even reading about it in other people effected their momentary enjoyment of what ever they were doing in front of their computers.

Hi guys. It seems to me that you are both *slow* and are completely missing the point.

"Just as the turmoil of the Later Middle Ages had cleared the way for sweeping economic, cultural, and technological changes in Western Europe, it likewise produced significant political changes that led to the emergence of a new type of state in Western Europe: the nation state."
http://www.flowof.../11/FC79

The back and forth between marjon and the skeptic heretic was painful to read. Some folks seem to need for endless turmoil. Being perpetually defeated or rejected doesn't seem to matter. Endless arguing is the need. When caught off guard by the enemy losing, another battle which could never be won would be chosen. This sort of person is his own worst enemy, and because of that, he must fight endlessly. It's pitiful, pointless and ultimately destructive.
It sure isn't creative or conducive to creativity. Even if it suits his personal needs, it makes everyone miserable.
Actually it isn't entirely pointless. The person who battles endlessly gets to blame others for their own failures.

Thid: What this comes down to is the basic fundamental difference between people, power.
A Covey preface to "Servant Leader" describes this as ego vs conscience. It is displayed in the content and in the acts of this 'debate'. I support individual liberty, individual property rights and promote the idea that people should be responsible for their own actions. SH and many others are very quick to defend the coercive power of government over such individuals. What is perplexing is they condemn the coercive power that organized religions once had. But they do support such power when 51% of them wield it. A democracy is 3 wolves and two sheep deciding what's for dinner. In a Constitutional republic, the sheep are armed.
I my many months of such 'discussions' that is the only conclusion I can obtain at this time. Too many people want the power to control others. And because this strikes at the core of some people, irrationality is expected.

Define liberty and rights.

Define liberty and rights.

Why?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
The authors of the Declaration of Independence did not need to define liberty and rights. If you need such a definition I suggest you refer to what they meant by 'rights' and 'liberty'.

Thid: An additional hypothesis based upon observation of atheists, I suspect one reason they oppose religion is most religions define moral standards of individual behaviour. Teens and young adults typically chafe at such standards and many 'adults' today just have not matured and prefer their hedonistic life without consequence.
I seldom observe atheists promoting standards of morality for responsible human behaviour.

Define liberty and rights.

Why?

What does it mean to say that someone has the right to own property? Where do legitimate claims to property come from?

I suspect one reason they oppose religion is most religions define moral standards of individual behaviour.

So you admit that religions DEFINE moral standards? They don't intuit them from the obvious objective moral truths that are evident simply by existing as a thinking thing?

As a person who does not believe in the existence of God as described in most world religions, I have no qualms admitting that government is a tool through which to enforce moral standards. However, I view the necessary moral standards to enforce as those which are meant to ensure the protection of individuals against other people's actions. eg: government has no business telling people that they can't smoke crack unless they demonstrate a propensity to cause violence when they do so.

So you admit that religions DEFINE moral standards? They don't intuit them from the obvious objective moral truths that are evident simply by existing as a thinking thing?

That was the probable origin. Grand parents and parents attempt to pass on their survival knowledge to their children, who seldom listen.

overnment has no business telling people that they can't smoke crack

Why not? It would irresponsible for a government (or parents) not to provide warnings for dangerous behavior. I agree that acts that injure or violate the rights of others should be punished.
Of course the state should not support those who choose to injure themselves ingesting harmful products or refuse to protect themselves with seat belts or helmets.

They don't have to support them. But they also shouldn't restrict them. In the infamous words of Cartman: "It's my body! I do what I want!"

What does it mean to say that someone has the right to own property? Where do legitimate claims to property come from?

Define property.

They don't have to support them. But they also shouldn't restrict them. In the infamous words of Cartman: "It's my body! I do what I want!"

Conversely, you cannot restrict anyone's right/obligation to attempt to persuade you that you are causing harm to yourself and ask that you stop.
And you can't stop anyone from exercising their right of association. At one time it was called shunning.
States that have geographic features that attract adventurers are now charging them if they need to be picked off the mountain. If you want climb Yosemite or Mt. Rainier, go ahead. If you fall or get caught in a storm, it is not the responsibility of the government to rescue you.

Define property.

Land and natural resources. Not including labor or those things freely given to a person in exchange for that labor.

Conversely, you cannot restrict anyone's right/obligation to attempt to persuade you that you are causing harm to yourself and ask that you stop.
And you can't stop anyone from exercising their right of association. At one time it was called shunning.
States that have geographic features that attract adventurers are now charging them if they need to be picked off the mountain. If you want climb Yosemite or Mt. Rainier, go ahead. If you fall or get caught in a storm, it is not the responsibility of the government to rescue you.

Agreed. On all counts.

The only exception would for your last statement, in the case where a community deems it to be the responsibility of their government to do so. In which case, of course, they would have to pay for such services.

Land and natural resources. Not including labor or those things freely given to a person in exchange for that labor.

I would add people own themselves.

I am curious about where this endless debating springs from. I wonder if it is escapist, like sports are. Y'know, where people get all wrapped up in supporting or dissing teams as if it really mattered. The primary purpose might be to escape one's humdrum life, or to forget about one's personal failures or lack of success. Fans seem to feel like they "are" somebody, simply because they are supporters.
Likewise, supporters of one opinion or another can feel elevated by whatever Super Bowl goal they support. What is distressing is that it means the perfect is the enemy of the good. Making things better is lost because anything less than total victory is viewed as failure.
Where we are ultimately going is emphasized over where where we'd be after small changes. It's a headlong dive into unreality. It is my experience that most things that are worried about don't happen. And even if they do, hand wringing, debating or finger pointing don't get the problem solved.

What is distressing is that it means the perfect is the enemy of the good.

What is 'the good'?
That seems to be the fundamental argument.
To protect individual rights all must agree that individuals have individual rights that supersede group/species rights.
What is more important to you? Getting along or standing up for principles?

If you want to find your food, build shelter, survive using your own labor and ingenuity, feel free. People learned a while ago it is more efficient to work together, divide the labor into smaller steps, reward people for becoming the most efficient at raising crops or building houses. Nature calls that specialization.

Where does the rewarding for efficiency fit into it? That's top down thinking mixed up with cooperative community behavior. It opens the door to inequality, coercion, and discontent.
Read "Ancient Futures", by Helena Norberg-Hodge for an example of a true natural order. ...Harriet

Where does the rewarding for efficiency fit into it? That's top down thinking mixed up with cooperative community behavior.

It is bottom up thinking when expert individuals have a product or service they can sell to meet the needs of customers.
It amazes me how little diners in big cities say in business with so much competition. They do so by providing a niche product and service people can't find anywhere else.
The mitochondria in our cells have unique DNA and specialize in creating energy. In exchange they are protected by the larger cell. Nature abounds with such relationships.
The reward is a more certain path to survival.

What is 'the good'?
That seems to be the fundamental argument.
To protect individual rights all must agree that individuals have individual rights that supersede group/species rights.
What is more important to you? Getting along or standing up for principles?

Highly amusing.

Mangy would like us to think that it believes that people have individual rights, and indeed, that it possesses principles.

The reality is that Mangy believes that it has(or should have) the Right(i.e. "Might") to take whatever it wants, by whatever means are convenient to it, with complete disregard for any others' individual rights, and that that is the greatest good.

Mangy will invoke or arrogate any argument, principle, or even claims of revelatory
"knowledge" to justify its selfish interests.

Mangy's principles consist of the constant application of sophistry to apologize for and defend its pseudointellectual argument that morality consists wholly in Mangy getting what it
wants

Cali: Another data point to support my hypothesis that 'tolerant liberals' are not tolerant liberals when their core beliefs are rationally challenged.

The mitochondria in our cells have unique DNA and specialize in creating energy. In exchange they are protected by the larger cell. Nature abounds with such relationships.

Right, but it has nothing to do with money. Money skews all values. I meant that you seem to be trying to illustrate the validity of a money-based economic structure by the example of natural systems and behaviors. They do not correlate.

Cali: Another data point to support my hypothesis that 'tolerant liberals' are not tolerant liberals when their core beliefs are rationally challenged.

Again- highly amusing.

You must be speaking of some other commenter here than yourself, Mangy, as you, yourself are incapable of developing any "rational challenge".

In fact, if one references the description of the pathology of "rationally challenged' in the DSM-IV, there appears a photo of Mangy.

The mitochondria in our cells have unique DNA and specialize in creating energy. In exchange they are protected by the larger cell. Nature abounds with such relationships.

Right, but it has nothing to do with money. Money skews all values. I meant that you seem to be trying to illustrate the validity of a money-based economic structure by the example of natural systems and behaviors. They do not correlate.

Money is used to measure value. The analogy holds to market niches in nature.

"Concepts of a niche in everyday use, ecology, economics and business management are compared. "
http://www.scienc...c3f4841f

"According to the great evolutionary biologist Dobshansky (1957 [10]), natural selection and with it the evolutionary process result from competition, and “therefore are governed by density-dependent factors”. To this day, the belief of the overriding importance of competition between individuals and species in ecological systems, resulting in equilibrium conditions, is widespread. "
"the fundamental assumptions of classical economics and equilibrium ecology are surprisingly similar. The pillars of the former are competition for resources, the principle of comparative advantage, and equilibrium; the pillars of the latter are competition for resources (struggle for existence), survival of the fittest, and equilibrium. "
http://knol.googl...onomics#

More last word thread hijacking drivel. How the mangy does run on.

More last word thread hijacking drivel. How the mangy does run on.

Do you have something to contribute to the discussion? Obviously, no.

Based on its ratings, I'd say that mangy has been universally deemed as being non-contributory here.

Its last comment only answers its own question, and is by no means contributory. In case it hasn't noticed, discussion ended some time ago.

Now it is just mangy, in an echo chamber, endlessly reaffirming its own assertions.

Based on its ratings, I'd say that mangy has been universally deemed as being non-contributory here.

Its last comment only answers its own question, and is by no means contributory. In case it hasn't noticed, discussion ended some time ago.

Now it is just mangy, in an echo chamber, endlessly reaffirming its own assertions.

What makes science great is that one individual can prove the emperor has no clothes regardless of the majority consensus.

But a surprise awaits mangy: mangy has no intellect, and therefore the state of the Emperor's
dress is beyond quantification, scientifically or otherwise, except by the application of mangy's only tool- to assert and then reaffirm that assertion.

One-trick mangy!

Money is used to measure value. The analogy holds to market niches in nature.

This is getting too difficult to follow. I'll read about market niches. Looking quickly at the abstract that marjon mentioned makes me think we may not be so far apart.
But I hope you'll check out the Ancient Futures book, too.

"...Ladakhis of Little Tibet were a happy people. They had a sustainable traditional economy based on trade and cooperation - not money. One person's gain was not another person's loss. There was plenty of leisure, no hunger or poverty, very little sickness or disease, everyone was valued, there was no pollution and nothing was wasted. "
It was not the absence of money that made them happy.
Free trade using money is no different than bartering, except bartering is less efficient. Free trade with money expands opportunities for trade and allows people to store wealth for the future. Free trade with and without money is win-win. No one loses as both parties trade for something they value more.
Someone said it was the love of money that was the root of evil. It was not money itself.
Eliminating money won't create Utopia.

"...Ladakhis of Little Tibet were a happy people. They had a sustainable traditional economy based on trade and cooperation - not money. One person's gain was not another person's loss. There was plenty of leisure, no hunger or poverty, very little sickness or disease, everyone was valued, there was no pollution and nothing was wasted. "
It was not the absence of money that made them happy.
Free trade using money is no different than bartering, except bartering is less efficient. Free trade with money expands opportunities for trade and allows people to store wealth for the future. Free trade with and without money is win-win. No one loses as both parties trade for something they value more.
Someone said it was the love of money that was the root of evil. It was not money itself.
Eliminating money won't create Utopia.

What a bunch of boojum.
Next time you decide to chase your own backside, mangy, do the rest of us a favor- and disappear up your own hole.

Harriet:
"Like Roddenberry, many thinkers have tried to envision a world in which there is no need for money, no market exchange, and no property. And every one of those thinkers, be they followers of John Lennon, Michael Moore, or Karl Marx, has overlooked one key insight: man’s nature does not change."
"When people try to fulfill their needs, their varying interests, talents, and skills will prompt each of them to concentrate on what he does best. Such differentiation of labor will allow each to use his capabilities in the most productive way possible. Each person will soon see the benefits of trading some of the fruits of his labor for those of another. The way to maximize one’s labor in a world of differing skills and interests is to enter into market exchange with others, offering what one makes or does well in exchange for what others make or do well."
http://www.thefre...rekquot/

mney, money, money mangy.

The article has to do with the fact that people, while enjoying the state of happiness, experience an immediate and substantial loss of happiness at the MERE THOUGHT of money.

Rather than speak to the (quite interesting) findings of this researcher, mangy instead insists on rhapsodizing about its free market fantasy.

Why is mangy here? Meaningless money, money, money mangy.

access to money undermines a person’s ability to savor the simple pleasures of life,

That doesn't equate to 'happiness'.
As people mature, they tend to find happiness in less hedonistic ways like seeing the children they raised become adults, self-sufficient, having grandchildren and watching them grow and achieve.
I didn't see any measurements of this type of happiness that does require some money to obtain.
Regarding primitives like the Ladakhis, most people who have had the experience of running water and flush toilets, really appreciate them when they are camping.
I don't see too many people living like the Ladakhis even when the have the money and time to do so.

As people mature, they tend to find happiness in less hedonistic ways like seeing the children they raised become adults, self-sufficient, having grandchildren and watching them grow and achieve.
I didn't see any measurements of this type of happiness that does require some money to obtain.

So you've never raised a child, otherwise you'd know it's very expensive to do so. The reason for that expense is the need to work long hours and employ daycare. Many other nations have removed this need and increased happiness across the board regardless of class structure.

Why is mangy here? Meaningless money, money, money mangy.

Which is completely hilarious considering he's a Christian.

Many other nations have removed this need and increased happiness across the board regardless of class structure.

Who raises the children, the state?
Then the children belong to the state?
Why should parents bother with children as they cause so much unhappiness? Parents worry for their safety, worry how to provide food, clothes, shelter, education....

The Greeks were 'happy' until they ran out of other people's money to spend.

Define 'happy'.

So you've never raised a child, otherwise you'd know it's very expensive to do so.

If you have, why did your bother if it makes you so unhappy?

I'll answer your questions after you answer this.

Since you're a Christian and by doctrine shouldn't be enamoured by monetary and material possessions, why do you care?

Why do you think I am? I am not the one who is 'happy' to downgrade his Audi to pay more taxes.

"Voegeli says, the welfare state encourages people "to believe an impossibility: that every household can be a net importer of the wealth redistributed by the government." But the welfare state's problem, today becoming vivid, is socialism's problem, as Margaret Thatcher defined it: Socialist governments "always run out of other people's money.""
"our choice is between government restraint rooted in respect for nature, or government free to follow History wherever government says History marches."
http://www.unionl...84c80abd
I would think that people who respect Nature and value Science could not support a 'progressive' agenda as it is not fact based.

Why do you think I am? I am not the one who is 'happy' to downgrade his Audi to pay more taxes.

Right, so I'm more of a Christian than you are, that doesn't answer the question.

Why are you disobeying dogma, that you say is the perfect word of God, in order to argue about money, which you shouldn't care about in the first place? Basically, you're a hypocrite. You're content to be the moral Christian until someone wants something that you enjoy.

You're a greedy little NIMBYist.

Why do you think I am "enamoured by monetary and material possessions"?

I don't drive an Audi and I am not subject to the 'millionaires' tax.
I am certainly not enamored by material possessions.

I also support the Golden Rule. I don't want people to take my stuff so I don't support the use of force to take other people's wealth. Jesus supported donation of wealth, not confiscation of wealth.

Jesus supported donation of wealth, not confiscation of wealth.

No, he supported poverty Marjon. His followers were to live in abject poverty. They were to give up their treasures on earth in order to accumulate treasures in heaven.

You spend a lot of time talking about people trying to take your wealth to give to someone else, even though that ploy is transparent at best, and insist that people are robbing others of their livelihood. Then you spout off something liek the Golden Rule and insist it's a Christian orgin doctrine.

So what is it Marjon? Pick your dogma. Are you to give up your wealth and be a Christian, or are you to voceferouosly defend your wealth and relinquish your Christian status?

You pick. This is your ideological trap. You've set and sprung it and now you need to make a choice. Adhere to your own doctrine or change your doctrine. I follow what I believe in, why don't you follow what you believe in?

No, he supported poverty Marjon. His followers were to live in abject poverty. They were to give up their treasures on earth in order to accumulate treasures in heaven.

That is what I said, he supported donation of wealth, not confiscation of wealth.
"The Lord entrusts the subjects of his kingdom with gifts and graces and he gives his subjects the freedom to use them as they think best. With each gift and talent, God gives sufficient the means (grace and wisdom) for using them in a fitting way."
http://www.rc.net...bl43.htm
It is not up to you to decide how to use my gifts and talents.

It is not up to you to decide how to use my gifts and talents.

And, apparently, "god" gave mangy the "gift" of hardened, and endlessly justifying, self-interest, to be wielded exclusively for its own benefit, regardless of any external(or, I daresay, internal) costs.

This "god" is Mammon, and this "gift" is the Objectivism of Rand.

But moron mangy doesn't realize that this provides the rationale for others to act the same way toward mangy. Perhaps this explains mangy's inability to attain millionaire status.

Golden Rule, indeed.

"“With low growth, low birth rates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle.”" {aka: happiness}
"Even under the U.S. security umbrella, they proved unsustainable. Why? Because Europeans stopped breeding. "
"in 1964 West Germany alone produced 1.35 million new babies; in 2009, a united Germany managed less than half that—651,000 births."
"Europe’s economic crisis is a mere symptom of its existential crisis: what is life for? What gives it meaning?"
"Government security does not in and of itself make for a satisfying, purposeful life: indeed, the University of Michigan and other studies suggest quite the opposite—that welfare makes one unhappier than a modest income honestly earned and used to provide for one’s family."
http://www2.macle...eques/2/

Caliban: I don't like being insulted so I don't insult. Obviously you must like being insulted, but I won't reciprocate.
I don't want a mob to steal my property so I don't join the mob (majority) to steal others property, even yours.
If you want people to steal your property, post your address so others like you have the opportunity to treat you like they want to be treated.
"Think and Grow Rich" provides the blueprint for gaining wealth. Its fundamental theme is the Golden Rule. Read it sometime.

I didn't know grace and wisdom were monetary Marjon. Last I checked neither Money, nor monetary gifts were part of the Christian ethos.

That's the funny part here, you're not Christian but you fight for them so hard, when the reality is, if you actually acted like a Christian no one would bother you.

How about you saddle up that horse of hypocrisy and ride off onto another forum, perhaps answersingenesis.com would suit your needs.

I didn't know grace and wosdom were monetary Marjon. Last I checked neither Money, nor monetary gifts were part of the Christian ethos.

That's the funny part here, you're not Christian but you fight for them so hard, when the reality is, if you actually acted like a Christian no one would bother you.

How about you saddle up that horse of hypocrisy and ride off onto another forum, perhaps answersingenesis.com would suit your needs.

I don't plan on taking advice regarding religion or economics from an atheist who supports socialism.

I don't plan on taking advice regarding religion or economics from an atheist who supports socialism.

If your dogma was half as good with money as your typical atheist is then perhaps your evangelical leaders wouldn't need so much of it.

I don't plan on taking advice regarding religion or economics from an atheist who supports socialism.

If your dogma was half as good with money as your typical atheist is then perhaps your evangelical leaders wouldn't need so much of it.

Typical atheists are socialists and they love to spend other people's money. But what happens when they run out of OPM?
If the EU is any example, they are not very happy.

Typical atheists are socialists and they love to spend other people's money.

Nice "scientific" generalization there.

Give us some peer reviewed evidence showing that Atheists are socialists. After all, the father of our country, Jefferson, was an atheist. Andrew Carnegie, famous capitalist and corporatist, also an atheist. Ben franklin, atheist, and the father of our pre-reserve monetary system. George Bernard Shaw, another atheist.

Just because we're godless and free doesn't mean we think everything should be for free. You don't know what an atheist is, only what your church told you an atheist is.

"Benjamin Franklin was raised as an Episcopalian but was a Deist as an adult. "
http://www.adhere...lin.html
Is it a coincidence that so many socialists are atheists? No God, no principles, no problems.

" to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule."
"So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideological and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth."
http://www.newyou...ion.html
You seem to be following Lenin's advice.

So you've shown that Leninists, a small sect of communists (not socialists), are all atheists.

That doesn't speak to what the rest of the large body of people who are atheists believe.

You're jsut completely wrong here.

Is it a coincidence that so many socialists are atheists? No God, no principles, no problems.

Is it a coincidence that so many Creationists, like yourself, make shit up? Is it a coincidence that they vehemently rail against all of science? Is it a coincidence that they're all just about the dumbest people you've ever met?

"...has overlooked one key insight: man’s nature does not change."

Marjon, you apparently accept the standard pessimistic view of human nature. I believe a fundamental part of our nature is to cooperate for the common good. Otherwise we would have killed ourselves off a long time ago.

In any case, I'm not advocating for a situation where there '"...is no need for money, no market exchange, and no property."' That wasn't true of the Ladhakis, either.

I don't see too many people living like the Ladakhis even when the have the money and time to do so.

It is not something that can be done in isolation.

The "primitive" Ladahkis actually lived quite comfortably, and their composting toilets are a much better method of waste management than ours. Flush toilets waste gallons of precious fresh water to remove a few ounces of waste, which then go to a huge, smelly, expensive facility that tries to return it to it's clean state.

Sorry, this was a repeat - there was a glitch in the submission process.

I believe a fundamental part of our nature is to cooperate for the common good.

Individuals cooperate because it is in their self interest to do so.
I still don't see many people living with composting toilets. Must be a reason.

Individuals cooperate for a number of reasons- some of which are altruistic in nature.
Quite a laugh to see mangy label cooperation a virtue when practiced for mangy's benefit, and dismiss it as mere necessity when engaged in by others.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

ndividuals cooperate for a number of reasons-

And self interest is one.
How do you separate altruism from self-interest?
"It seems that many helping behaviors could be considered as benefiting the person who helps because it is likely that the person who helps another person will experience the joy of helping others. Thus, it may not be possible to completely separate selfish motivation from altruistic motivation in many situations. "
http://www.psycho...ion.html
What socialist or atheistic acts are pure altruism?

And what xian, capitalist acts are pure altruism? Are you saying that only a xian capitalist can act altruistically?

More mangy moron hypocritical sophistry.

And what xian, capitalist acts are pure altruism? Are you saying that only a xian capitalist can act altruistically?

More mangy moron hypocritical sophistry.

You asserted altruism as a reason for people to cooperate. As you support socialism and atheism, why make such an assertion?

Individuals cooperate because it is in their self interest to do so.

Their true self-interest is fundamentally also their common interest. Personal desires are not fundamental.

I still don't see many people living with composting toilets. Must be a reason.

It's interesting that you keep going back to the flush toilet. In a way, it's a good illustration of how dealing with the unintended consequences of one "improvement" necessitated a monster infrastructure to support, and mitigate it.

Our "progress" has largely been a series of fixes for individual glitches, most of which don't work very well except in a limited way, or for a limited number.

Today, the way forward may well be by going back; learning some lessons from a population that thrived for centuries on marginal land by living within the limits of what was given.

You asserted altruism as a reason for people to cooperate. As you support socialism and atheism, why make such an assertion?

Ah- so mangy asserts that atheism and socialism are INHERENTLY altruistic. Thanks, mangy!

One supposes, then, that xianity/capitalism must LACK altruism. How very sad and unfortunate for mangy.

Today, the way forward may well be by going back; learning some lessons from a population that thrived

Maybe you need to define 'thrive'. Survival is 'triving'?
In nature, thriving usually means growing.

"Egghead economists may judge economic progress in all sorts of ways, but to the man and woman on the street, the only thing that matters is jobs.

And if the billions of dollars being spent on the economic stimulus are not producing those jobs, then they are contributing to a toxic byproduct: debt. Enormous, dangerous, economically counterproductive national debt."
"But a report showing essentially no private-sector job growth links the worst fears the Europeans are facing - unsustainable debt - with a growing concern here that the nearly trillion-dollar federal stimulus package has failed to accomplish anything more than add to this country's debt."

Read more: http://www.azcent...q5Zml6LN
Socialism did not increase prosperity in the 30s and it will not now.

Read more: http://www.azcent...q5ZTEI66

You asserted altruism as a reason for people to cooperate. As you support socialism and atheism, why make such an assertion?

Socialism and atheism are both altruistic things Marjon. Christianity by no way, shape, or measure has altruism on lockdown. Secondly, aside from the fact that you don't know what altruism is nor what socialism or atheism are this may be wasted on you.

Socialism by design requires altruism. Without altruism, socialism doesn't function. Charities are socialist. They function on taking from those who can give and redistribution of those assets to those who need them. Now Christianity isn't socialism because they use conditionals on their charity. To receive charity you must be a convert or claim christianity. This is effectively extortion. That's something you're against, aren't you?

Atheism doesn't require altruism however just like Christianity there are "good" atheists and "bad" atheists. The "good" atheists are, by nature, altruistic.

Socialism and atheism are both altruistic things Marjon.

What a joke!

The "good" atheists are, by nature, altruistic.

This statement has no basis in science as it cannot be falsified.

"Christian giving is not merit-giving. It is not something I do that so pleases God that it prompts Him to get into action. Our giving does not make merit-points with God. We cannot buy spiritual favors with God. No one can buy their way into life or into heaven or into God's good favor. No one can "pay off" their guilt of sin and self-concern with guilt payments. "
"Neither is Christian giving to be conceived merely as altruistic benevolence."
"Christian giving is the grace of God functioning in and through a Christian, the givingness of God expressed in the character of a Christian. "
http://www.surfin...p-1.html

To receive charity you must be a convert or claim christianity.

That is a false statement.

"Coercive redistribution is intuitively appealing: what better way to help the poor or
advance equality than to take from those who have and give to those who have not?"
"While the recipient of government
largesse will see his consumption possibilities increase in the short run, the first-order
effect of redistributive coercion is to increase uncertainty. Redistribution signals that the
state cannot (and will not) credibly commit to respect for and maintenance of property
rights. This will decrease the present value of potential investments and, at the margin,
lead to lower levels of investment. Lower investment entails a reduction in the rate of
economic growth and a potential reduction in future consumption possibilities for
everyone."
"Second, higher marginal tax rates—which are necessary if we are to effect a
redistributive policy—will retard economic growth. High marginal tax rates on labor will
reduce one’s incentive to supply labor services.
http://mises.org/...olar/Car

Socialism and atheism are both altruistic things Marjon.

What a joke!

Then refute it.

The "good" atheists are, by nature, altruistic.

This statement has no basis in science as it cannot be falsified.

Neither does anything else that's labeled with the term "good" as good is a subjective experience.

Why don't you lay out what you consider to be Good qualities and let's see if I can find an atheist who fits them.

Then refute it.

I did. See previous post.
You differentiated 'good' and 'bad' atheists. You define 'good' and 'bad'.

Then refute it.

I did. See previous post.
You differentiated 'good' and 'bad' atheists. You define 'good' and 'bad'.

So you're saying that my definition is the same as yours. Then why did you call it a joke?

Then refute it.

I did. See previous post.
You differentiated 'good' and 'bad' atheists. You define 'good' and 'bad'.

So you're saying that my definition is the same as yours. Then why did you call it a joke?

Your definition of what?

"Socialism isn't based upon altruism. "

"In a socialist society, there will be no money and no barter. Goods will be voluntarily produced, and services voluntarily supplied to meet people's needs. People will freely take the things they need."

Is this your view of socialism?

"People are different and have different needs. Some needs will be more expensive (in terms of resources and labour needed to satisfy them) than others."
{Some are more 'equal' than others?}
http://www.worlds.../faq.php

It is interesting how they gloss over this part: "democratically and cooperatively, ". 'Democratically' is majority (mob) rule. If 49% don't cooperate, how will the 'problem' be handled?

What God said in 1 Samuel 8: 11-20. Their is no need for government if they follow God.
The only successful socialist societies have been monasteries because they are all volunteers and follow God.

Maybe you need to define 'thrive'. Survival is 'triving'?
In nature, thriving usually means growing.

"Usually" means not always, and that's true. Overgrowing is not good.

Also, I did not say "survive", because I meant that they did more than that. What they produced in excess of their needs they bartered, or sold for non-essentials, and they enjoyed far more liesure time than we do. Winter was a time for visiting, feasts, and festivals.

Certainly they had to be hardy, but perhaps our lifestyles are too easy for our own good. (By easy, of course, I mean not physically rigorous.)

In any case, this no longer has anything to do with the article, which I found rather unconvincing. Certainly, for me, looking at a pile of someone else's money evokes a far different emotion from knowing I have it in my pocket. ;o) ...Harriet

our lifestyles are too easy for our own good.

They got that way by someones desire to improve upon composting toilets. (My grandparents did not have a flush toilet or running water until 1965. They were happy when they did.)
Our lives are 'too easy' because people were not satisfied with the death, disease, starvation people faced.
Because of those who came before, you have a choice to accept or reject an 'easy life'. Your grandparents and great ....grandparents had few such choices.

someones desire to improve upon composting toilets. (My grandparents did not have a flush toilet or running water until 1965.)

I used an outhouse when I was a kid, too. Outhouses are not composting toilets. There's a vast difference between them.
And, of course, flush toilets were/are much appreciated. But they introduced a host of attendant problems.

Our lives are 'too easy' because people were not satisfied with the death, disease, starvation people faced.

Guess what, lots of people still face those things, and not because they are primitive, but because the self-sustaining systems they used to have were destroyed. Usually through western-style "developement", (Making our lives easy), or other meddling by dominant world powers.

you have a choice to accept or reject an 'easy life'. Your grandparents and great ....grandparents had few such choices.

"..for our own good" is all I said. We have to exercise.

Guess what, lots of people still face those things, and not because they are primitive,

They face those things because they suffer from tyrannical, corrupt, socialist governments that limit their economic growth.

They face those things because they suffer from tyrannical, corrupt, socialist governments that limit their economic growth.

I don't think we inhabit the same universe.

They face those things because they suffer from tyrannical, corrupt, socialist governments that limit their economic growth.

I don't think we inhabit the same universe.

I agree. I live in the real universe.
Every third world country I can think of has a despotic corrupt government that doesn't protect property rights and allow their people the opportunity to acquire wealth.
See for yourself: http://www.herita...ing.aspx
And here: http://www.transp...09_table

They got that way by someones desire to improve upon composting toilets. (My grandparents did not have a flush toilet or running water until 1965. They were happy when they did.)
Our lives are 'too easy' because people were not satisfied with the death, disease, starvation people faced.
Because of those who came before, you have a choice to accept or reject an 'easy life'. Your grandparents and great ....grandparents had few such choices.

Then why wouldn't you want to share that happiness with the rest of the world? Don't you see how utterly selfish you are?

They got that way by someones desire to improve upon composting toilets. (My grandparents did not have a flush toilet or running water until 1965. They were happy when they did.)
Our lives are 'too easy' because people were not satisfied with the death, disease, starvation people faced.
Because of those who came before, you have a choice to accept or reject an 'easy life'. Your grandparents and great ....grandparents had few such choices.

Then why wouldn't you want to share that happiness with the rest of the world? Don't you see how utterly selfish you are?

It has been shared with the ROW.

It has been shared with the ROW.

So either you're saying that all of the world is quite capable of using flush toilets and don't because they choose to live in their filth, or you're saying something that has zero to do with the rest of your postings.

Clarify.

I agree. I live in the real universe.
Every third world country I can think of has a despotic corrupt government that doesn't protect property rights and allow their people the opportunity to acquire wealth.

And who props up the worst of them?
"A false realism as well as moral insensitivity characterizes American policy toward Third World dictatorships. There is a disturbing tendency to view such regimes in caricature, regarding right-wing governments as valuable friends whose repressive excesses must be ignored or excused, while perceiving leftist insurgent movements and governments as mortal threats to America's national interest, justifying a posture of unrelenting hostility."
by Ted Galen Carpenter
www.cato.org
But you're probably talking about the few who are struggling to nationalize their assets in order to keep from being exploited by globalization.

And who props up the worst of them?

I don't disagree. Much propping was done to prevent even worse governments.
Since the cold war ended, such propping has been much reduced.
But the point still remains, people in turd world countries are poor because of corrupt governments.
Prime examples exist in Dom. Rep. and Haiti.
Mexico nationalized its oil industry. How has that helped their citizens? Same for Venezuela.

Clarify.

Clarify what 'happiness' should be shared?

This is interesting:
"While doing research on the subject through Water.org, I came across some interesting data that said that girls in third world countries who have access to clean, private and working toilets, have less children."
http://twilightea...res-how/

"Lack of efficient and accountable local governments and municipal authorities has been the most common barrier to progress."
http://esa.un.org...guide_en[1].pdf

Clarify.

Clarify what 'happiness' should be shared?

Seeing as the only happiness we're talking about is the happiness that your parents felt when they received an easement to their lives I think you can determine what I'm talking about and stop doing your silly little troll dance.

Clarify.

Clarify what 'happiness' should be shared?

Seeing as the only happiness we're talking about is the happiness that your parents felt when they received an easement to their lives I think you can determine what I'm talking about and stop doing your silly little troll dance.

Demand precision and give none? You waste many words saying nothing.

Demand precision and give none? You waste many words saying nothing.

Rather than gloss over the whole conversation jsut a few short scrolls up for you I'll gloss over it so you can prove that you're an idiot yet again.

You state that your parents became happier by receiving the easements that welath and technology have brought them. I asked you why you wouldn't want to share this experience with the rest of the world, you said it has been shared.

My responce outlines that it has not, so I'm asking you to clarify how the happiness and easements afforded to your family have been shared with the rest of the world. You're being vague when given explicit requests. Why does this have to be so difficult with you?

The secret: free markets, hard work and limited government.
But the ROW already knows that.

Earlier: "In a socialist society, there will be no money and no barter. Goods will be voluntarily produced, and services voluntarily supplied to meet people's needs. People will freely take the things they need."
I was raised on a dairy farm so I know a bit about milking cows. In the socialist utopia, farmers would raise all the crops, milk all the cows, raise all the food they could so others could stop by and take some? If the dairy farmer spends all his time milking cows, he will only have milk to eat as he has no time for anything else. So he must then cut his production to meet his family's needs so he has time to take wheat from the wheat farmer. But the wheat farmer only has enough for his family so the dairy farmer must spend more time raising wheat for bread and chickens for eggs. Such farmers will have nothing for the city socialists to take.
What utopia!?

If the dairy farmer spends all his time milking cows, he will only have milk to eat as he has no time for anything else. So he must then cut his production to meet his family's needs so he has time to take wheat from the wheat farmer. But the wheat farmer only has enough for his family so the dairy farmer must spend more time raising wheat for bread and chickens for eggs. Such farmers will have nothing for the city socialists to take.

This is the dumbest hypothetical analogy I've ever seen. It's called technology. Do you think that there are several billion dairy farmers out there milking cows manually to supply the world with milk and bartering with the several billion wheat farmers of the socialist nations of the world? No, because if that were the case one of us would probably be milking a cow right now.

The study above shows that you're wrong in your determination of what makes people happy. The statements of your fellow man show you're wrong. Just admit it.

Socialism works thusly in the modern world.

A governing body, government/church/dictator/senate/committee get statistics on the nation's productivity and needs. Using this data they establish baseline living conditions that ALL people will receive regardless of need or want. The governing body will then provide the baseline through donation/taxation/charity/and production.

That's socialism, that's what it does, that's all. If you don't like anything about socialism Marjon, the US is not the country for you and hasn't been since 1789.

Socialism works thusly in the modern world.

A governing body, government/church/dictator/senate/committee get statistics on the nation's productivity and needs. Using this data they establish baseline living conditions that ALL people will receive regardless of need or want. The governing body will then provide the baseline through donation/taxation/charity/and production.

That's socialism, that's what it does, that's all. If you don't like anything about socialism Marjon, the US is not the country for you and hasn't been since 1789.

It has been tried and it has failed every time because the governing body has no way of measuring value. Even the Soviets figured this out.

The study above shows that you're wrong in your determination of what makes people happy.

What makes people 'happy' can be determined by their actions in the real world.
You socialists are wrong because you fail to acknowledge the real world, or as some call it, nature, and fail to respect your fellow human beings as individuals.

Do you think that there are several billion dairy farmers out there milking cows manually to supply the world with milk

No, there are now very few dairy farmers who use machines to milk cows 24/7 to provide the milk, cheese, butter, whey,... that people want. They are very efficient because they are paid money for their products so they may use that money to buy the things they need produced by other, very efficient producers.
So, SH disagrees with the world socialists vision of no money and no barter?

It has been tried and it has failed every time because the governing body has no way of measuring value. Even the Soviets figured this out.

Do you like Medicare?
Are you a fan of the fact that there is a highway system there for you to use?
Do you enjoy the fact that there's an educational system that you can use to keep your kids current in the fields of math, science, and gives them the basic skills needed to survive in the modern world?
How about the laws that prevent the electricity, water, oil, and gas companies from denying you service if you have a young child in the home?

That is all socialism and we've been living under it for a long, long time. Socialism is a mainstay of the American civilization, and currently a mainstay of the global civilization. The Soviet Union was Communism, communism is not socialism. Please try to keep your statements relevant and to one post. This isn't your verbal diarrhea dumping ground.

What makes people 'happy' can be determined by their actions in the real world.
You socialists are wrong because you fail to acknowledge the real world, or as some call it, nature, and fail to respect your fellow human beings as individuals.

So is it more respectful to let someone starve to death because they lost their job, or do you think they'd prefer a sandwich?

So, SH disagrees with the world socialists vision of no money and no barter?

That is Utopian socialism, a very very small piece of socialism. Technologically we're not there yet, primarily because of people like you.

So is it more respectful to let someone starve to death because they lost their job, or do you think they'd prefer a sandwich?

It is when you create a government program that enables those individuals to stay unemployed.

That is Utopian socialism, a very very small piece of socialism. Technologically we're not there yet, primarily because of people like you.

This will never happen in a real world as long as people are respected as individuals and have liberty to be responsible for their own actions.
Your vision is the same as God's. Are you sure you are an atheist?

It is when you create a government program that enables those individuals to stay unemployed.

That wasn't the question. If they had a program that allowed them to stay unemployed then they probably wouldn't be starving to death.

This will never happen in a real world as long as people are respected as individuals

You mean like the people making slave wages in the Free Market, right?

and have liberty to be responsible for their own actions.

So when did socialism remove the rule of law and personal accountability? Last I checked that is specifically what corporations are built for.
" Corporations are a beast by which one main gain personal profit while ignoring personal responsibility" - Meander

Your vision is the same as God's. Are you sure you are an atheist?

"Primates often have difficulty imagining a Universe not guided by an angry alpha male". Good work, monkey, you prove the quote correct.

SH: How many starving people could you feed if you didn't drive an Audi?

SH: How many starving people could you feed if you didn't drive an Audi?

Considering where I live, probably none. But since I work on systems that enable the biotech and agricultural industries to thrive I'd say driving my Audi I feed somewhere in the millions of people right now.

Let's say I bought a different car, some cheap piece of junk Focus or othersuch. I bought my car for 45k, the Focus right now would cost me about 10,000. So how many do you think I could feed for 35k? Not too many considering I'd spend more time in the repair shop with the Ford and burn more gasoline causing more problems for everyone on the planet.

SH: How many starving people could you feed if you didn't drive an Audi?

Considering where I live, probably none. But since I work on systems that enable the biotech and agricultural industries to thrive I'd say driving my Audi I feed somewhere in the millions of people right now.

Let's say I bought a different car, some cheap piece of junk Focus or othersuch. I bought my car for 45k, the Focus right now would cost me about 10,000. So how many do you think I could feed for 35k? Not too many considering I'd spend more time in the repair shop with the Ford and burn more gasoline causing more problems for everyone on the planet.

How can you support socialism?

Socialism's cool. No money and no reason to buy lots of crap you dont need. Calorie restriction is very good for you.

Socialism's cool. No money and no reason to buy lots of crap you dont need. Calorie restriction is very good for you.

Who says you don't need?

How can you support socialism?

Because I've actually lived under it and know what it's like.

How can you question it when you're ignorant of what the term means?

In Germany I drove a Mercedez, In the France I drove a Mercedez, in Canada I drove a Chevy Lancia(what a piece of junk that was) and only because the price of better vehicles was excessively steep. Marjon, I'm not sure what your knowledge of Socialist countries is but the whole "Red Menace" and Breadlines concept really only holds to the urban areas of Russia and then only during the winter.

Part of the reason the Soviet economy was so bad is because they were so technologically backwards due to their resistance against US technology.

So what exactly do you think happens under a socialist regime?

Part of the reason the Soviet economy was so bad is because they were so technologically backwards due to their resistance against US technology.

So what exactly do you think happens under a socialist regime?

Economic collapse. It is happening right before our eyes, Greece, California, even Germany is having problems.
The Soviets copied as much technology as they could from the USA. Their problems was central planning. How to determine what to produce. Central planning can't get the immediate feedback needed to make those decisions. Free markets can and do. Every time you purchase something at Wal Mart, it is recorded and if the store needs more, orders are placed and trucks are soon on their way. Toyota practiced something similar, just in time (JIT).
Something else that happens is shown in "The Lives of Others".
In the early 80s Finland heavily taxed cars for personal use. Taxis were not so they had very nice taxis: Volvo, Saab, etc. Market distortion is what happens.

Economic collapse. It is happening right before our eyes, Greece, California, even Germany is having problems.

Last I checked everyone is having a big case of economic collapse brought on by the free market speculation and lack of regulations of derivatives in America.

Toyota practiced something similar, just in time (JIT).

Ah yes, good ole socialist Japan, or didn't you know that Japan is a socialist country?

In the early 80s Finland heavily taxed cars for personal use. Taxis were not so they had very nice taxis: Volvo, Saab, etc. Market distortion is what happens.

Finlandia, home of the TEKES, which gave rise to the most powerful mobile electronic company in the world in the early 80's, Nokia. Nokia alone was responsible for over half of Finland's economy. Then when they took that giant black eye in 87 (due to US market interference on motorola's behalf) they started to crash. Couple that with the UN quotas on logging (again thanks US) and you can see why.

Why are all of your examples jsut utter propaganda? Been listening to Beck a lot or just don't care to follow your source?

The collapse of Greece and CA are due to too much government spending and not enough free market wealth creation.
Some socialists are not stupid and understand that free market capitalism is required to create wealth. Their challenge is know how hard can they squeeze before killing the golden goose.
Parasites survive by not killing the host, but they don't strengthen the host either. The host must expend more energy to feed the parasite (socialists).

Propaganda (?): "Greece has a malfunctioning fiscal system in which the shadow economy is estimated to be roughly 20 to 30 percent of the reported economy and tax evasion may run at $30 billion a year. Simply collecting taxes that are legally due would help bring Greece’s books into balance, yet even this simple remedy does not appear imminent. "
"As the World Bank index suggests, government funds are often spent hindering production rather than supporting it. "
http://www.nytime...iew.html

Propaganda (?):

Yes, propaganda. You cut and paste articles written by dubious or uneducated sources and have little to no understanding of the source material. Nothing you've supplied to evidence your point has a source that can be followed back to it's origin without excessive work, which leads me to imply you're typing random buzzwords into Google and looking for paragraphs on blog posts that support your stance.

There's a reason why those aren't sourcable, because most of them are jsut Beck parrots and CATO wannabes who suck the corporate teat, like you, and have no idea what half the terms they decry actually mean, again, like you.

Here's a counter example of your "word salad" based attack.

Parasites survive by not killing the host, but they don't strengthen the host either. The host must expend more energy to feed the parasite (corporatists).

See, this isn't fun anymore, because unlike you, I actually put effort and thought into what I say.

See, this isn't fun anymore, because unlike you, I actually put effort and thought into what I say.

Could have fooled me.
You agree with socialists and atheists. Give them some credit.
If I agree with someone, and they say it better than I, I give them the credit.

dubious or uneducated sources

You asserted Greece was not a basket case due to excess government spending (socialism). Support your assertion instead of ridiculing a NY Times source.
I am having much enjoyment watching liberals fling insults instead of rational arguments.

Could have fooled me.
You agree with socialists and atheists. Give them some credit.
If I agree with someone, and they say it better than I, I give them the credit.

So Marjon, you require agreement before you'll even consider the information. That's why you're so often wrong.

You asserted Greece was not a basket case due to excess government spending (socialism).

Care to show me where I said anything about Greece?

If anything I think Greece is having problems because they don't know how to count.

Greece's current financial mess unfolded when the newly elected socialist government revealed in October that the country's deficit was far larger than the previous, center-right government had let on--nearly 13% of GDP.

From: http://www.time.c...,00.html

So it appears the free marketeers, you know, the government actually running Greece prior to the election of socialists in October, LIED ABOUT THE MONETARY RESERVE. [tbc]

[cont]

Now doesn't that just toss a wrench into that example.

So effectively you're completely unable to come up with a single sourced rebuttal to anything I've said in this chain.

The socialists are fixing the problems brought on by the free market in Greece. Come up with some more examples so I can shoot those down too.

I'm far from a socialist, however I recognize the concept for what it is and see the potential benefit of it if we can ever get to that point. Problem is, jackass, under-educated people, like yourself, prevent us as a species from technologically advancing fast enough for this to become a reality.

Too bad for you guys, we have the internet now. Free speech will be the downfall of your religions, excesses, misinformation, and shoddy educational standards. Oh the times, they are a changin'

The socialists are fixing the problems brought on by the free market in Greece.

How? By spending other people's money?
Please keep reinforcing the theory of why liberals insult.

I'm far from a socialist

Is this why you insult and rant? You keep lying to yourself?

How? By spending other people's money?
Please keep reinforcing the theory of why liberals insult. Is this why you insult and rant? You keep lying to yourself?

Nice attempt at dodging the fact you've been proved wrong at every statement.

Marjon, I insult you because it's the only language you understand. You attempt to insult our intelligence by posting comeplete drivel and I produce the facts, refute your argument, and project my opinion of your statements upon your identity. Want me to stop? Then stop asking for it.

"After two decades of Socialist rule, Mr. Karamanlis was elected in 2004 promising to restore faith in government. '
"Mr. Papandreou said he would bring in well-regarded financial experts from abroad and vowed to increase meritocracy in a system still dominated by political patronage."
http://www.nytime...ece.html
'Dominated by political patronage'
'20 years of socialist rule'
"So what's the problem in Greece?
Years of unrestrained spending, cheap lending and failure to implement financial reforms left Greece badly exposed when the global economic downturn struck. This whisked away a curtain of partly fiddled statistics to reveal debt levels and deficits that exceeded limits set by the eurozone."
http://www.cnn.co...dex.html

I produce the facts,

What facts?
"The 20th century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to. In America, the feckless insatiable boobs in Washington, Sacramento, Albany and elsewhere are screwing over our kids and grandkids. In Europe, they've reached the next stage in social democratic evolution: There are no kids or grandkids to screw over."
"Greeks in the public sector retire at 58, which sounds great. But, when 10 grandparents have four grandchildren, who pays for you to spend the last third of your adult life loafing around? "
"The problem is there are never enough of "the rich" to fund the entitlement state, because in the end, it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate."
http://www.washin...//print/

Greece didn't have economic maladies of this nature until the onset of false accounting begin in 2004 under the right-center party. The Hellenic congress is not akin to the US congress. Minority party, and opposition parties don't determine executive and legislative initiative in their governmental system. It's more similar to the UK in practice.

Seeing as you know nothing of Greek government, one must ask, is anything you say not completely suspect on the topic?

And with this post I'm done with this article. Feel free to get the last word Marjon, no one is really interested in your fallacies any longer.

"According to these estimates two southern European countries, Greece and Italy,
have an underground economy almost one third as large as the officially measured
GNP"
"The phenomenon is especially profound in Greece,
which might be the consequence of long overdue policy decisions and the lack of
analysis of the relationship between shadow and official economy."
"The best policy to reduce corruption could be a sharp reduction of the effective
control that government has over the Greek economy in a lot of aspects like spending
and taxing activities and, especially, in economic regulations."
http://www.google...jBxJp3qQ
Greece had this problem long before 2004. In 2004, attempts were made to expose the corruption and SH blames those trying to fix the corruption.

Greece had this problem long before 2004. In 2004, attempts were made to expose the corruption and SH blames those trying to fix the corruption.

Aided and abetted by the ever faithful, ever truthful, and ever ready to take a profit-regardless of consequences- GOLDMAN-SACHS, who were happy to assisst with accounting schemes to keep loans to fund the deficit spending habits of that regime out of the public's knowledge.

Your whole gig is nothing but holes, Mangy. this isn't in any way a surprise, since you, also, are a hole.

Greece had this problem long before 2004. In 2004, attempts were made to expose the corruption and SH blames those trying to fix the corruption.

Aided and abetted by the ever faithful, ever truthful, and ever ready to take a profit-regardless of consequences- GOLDMAN-SACHS, who were happy to assisst with accounting schemes to keep loans to fund the deficit spending habits of that regime out of the public's knowledge.

Your whole gig is nothing but holes, Mangy. this isn't in any way a surprise, since you, also, are a hole.

Your unsupported assertions and insults compared to a published journal paper?
Paper.

Your unsupported assertions and insults compared to a published journal paper?
Paper.

I repeat- mangy, meaningless noise blowing out of a hole. Your statements are holes, supported by holes, uttered by a hole.

"The reason Libs are using insults and illogic is to shut down public debate."

Mangy spends SO much time in the Quote Mine
-another hole to blow noise out of!

"The reason Libs are using insults and illogic is to shut down public debate."

Mangy spends SO much time in the Quote Mine
-another hole to blow noise out of!

One more data point. Thanks.

One more data point. Thanks.

Mangy wouldn't know a "data point" if it fell in the hole with mangy.

One more data point. Thanks.

Mangy wouldn't know a "data point" if it fell in the hole with mangy.

Another one. Thanks.

If mangy collects enough "data points", perhaps there will be sufficient to make a little arm chair for the mangyhole, from whence to emit noise.

If mangy collects enough "data points", perhaps there will be sufficient to make a little arm chair for the mangyhole, from whence to emit noise.

One more.

Soon, mangy will be able to settle into his new datapoint armchair and blissfully emit noise from the mangyhole.

What the hell are you people flaming about?? Grow up!

What the hell are you people flaming about?? Grow up!

It is interesting how the editors keep allowing posts with insults as the sole content.
It continues to support the theory that 'liberals' use such tactics to stifle debate.

"Debate" can be stifled any number of ways, in your case, for example, by posting endless mined quotes, and assert/reassert posts. Should I characterize those methods as "conservative", or just "mangy"?

"Debate" can be stifled any number of ways, in your case, for example, by posting endless mined quotes, and assert/reassert posts. Should I characterize those methods as "conservative", or just "mangy"?

Debate implies an attempt to discuss an issue and not to insult an ridicule.
In my experience, when such tactics are employed, the debate is over as the insultors can make no argument and simply become irrational at having to reconcile their false world view with reality.

Then why did you insult the collective intellect of the readers by never coming to a point or having an argument of your own?