America's aversion to socialism ?

[apeiron]

Representative democracy has trouble in scaling, as one would expect.

Why should we expect that?

Arguably, the US has more cash and more critical mass to get things right if it wanted to.

And if scale is so important, than all Norway-sized countries should look more alike than they do.

Clearly institutional design is the critical factor here. Why pretend that it isn't?

 

[mheslep]

I see Norway has hate speech (Article 135) and blasphemy laws (Article 142) on the books, of all things. More democratic? Give me a break.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitorin.../national_legal_measures/norway/Norway_SR.pdf

 

[mheslep]

Why should we expect that?

Because the larger the extent of a central government the more remote it must necessarily be from the governed.

Arguably, the US has more cash and more critical mass to get things right if it wanted to.

Thus cash is now required to render an effective democracy? Critical mass? Non-sequitor.

And if scale is so important, than all Norway-sized countries should look more alike than they do.

Fallacy. I said: A (small scale) is a necessary condition for B (effective democracy), and not: If A then B will occur, despite all other conditions like a Mussolini or a Mugabe.

Clearly institutional design is the critical factor here. Why pretend that it isn't?

That's hand waiving where you end up at the conclusion you like. Tedious.

 

[apeiron]

I see Norway has hate speech (Article 135) and blasphemy laws (Article 142) on the books, of all things. More democratic? Give me a break.

I think you are confusing democracy with a lack of social constraints. Democracy is about everyone having a fair say in the collective formation of a society's constraints.

In the spirit of maximising individual freedoms, restrictions on actions that infringe those freedoms are going to be necessary.

It seems that the US is indeed be an outlier on the hate speech issue.

There is an international consensus that hate speech needs to be prohibited by law, and that such prohibitions override or are irrelevant to guarantees of freedom of expression. The United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in that under law hate speech regulation is incompatible with free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

It may be a scale thing of course. But more likely it is an expression of citizen preferences. And so evidence of democracy in action.

Don't you think that one of the risks of a strong constitution is that it freezes a society's thinking in time and so might make it difficult to adapt to a changing world?

Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.

New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.

Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.[46][47][48] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[49]

The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[50] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[51] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[52]

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[53][54]

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[55] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[56] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[57]

 

[apeiron]

Because the larger the extent of a central government the more remote it must necessarily be from the governed.

Thus cash is now required to render an effective democracy? Critical mass? Non-sequitor.

Fallacy. I said: A (small scale) is a necessary condition for B (effective democracy), and not: If A then B will occur, despite all other conditions like a Mussolini or a Mugabe.

That's hand waiving where you end up at the conclusion you like. Tedious.

I'm glad you agree with my earlier posts about the need for "decentralised socialism" - the "scandinavian model" I mentioned.

So yes, scale is indeed important. But that can be designed in institutionally. The question would be why the US is not doing a better job of it? An irrational aversion to "socialism" might be a reason?

 

[mheslep]

I think you are confusing democracy with a lack of social constraints. Democracy is about everyone having a fair say in the collective formation of a society's constraints.

I think you confuse democracy with mob rule.

...In the spirit of maximising individual freedoms, restrictions on actions that infringe those freedoms are going to be necessary...

Freedom is not infringed by speech, even offensive speech - absent incitement to violence or harassment. Hate speech and blasphemy laws may start nobly but offer freedom from being offended or insulted. The powerful will inevitably bend the definition of what's hateful or blasphemous to suit their own ends. See Putin's Russia, or Ahmadinejad's Iran.

It seems that the US is indeed be an outlier on the hate speech issue...

The US is exceptional on the issue. Free speech is thin if it excludes that which we would detest.

...But more likely it is an expression of citizen preferences. And so evidence of democracy in action. ...

Citizen's may well prefer extermination of a minority group at a moment in time if they deem their power limitless by means of being the majority. Such has been the case. Mob rule again.

Don't you think that one of the risks of a strong constitution is that it freezes a society's thinking in time and so might make it difficult to adapt to a changing world?

The details of the world change, fundamental human rights and human nature do not. Thus a short, amendable, doctrine of limited government describing fundamental rights, such as the US has, is appropriate to a changing world. An example of something not appropriate to the changing world is the attempt at a 300 page EU constitution which tries to protect everything and therefore will protect nothing well.

 

[apeiron]

I think you confuse democracy with mob rule.

Tsk, tsk.

Freedom is not infringed by speech, even offensive speech - absent incitement to violence or harassment. Hate speech and blasphemy laws may start nobly but offer freedom from being offended or insulted. The powerful will inevitably bend the definition of what's hateful or blasphemous to suit their own ends. See Putin's Russia, or Ahmadinejad's Iran.

Don't forget Hitler's Germany while we are discussing the high ranking of Scandanavian and Commonwealth countries here.

The US is exceptional on the issue. Free speech is thin if it excludes that which we would detest.

I think you need to show that the rules as they exist and are enforced in the countries mentioned (Norway and NZ) are restrictive in some worrisome way.

Likewise, does the US regime make people generally happier, less divided, more creative, etc?

As usual, we need to define our goals in terms of measurables to judge the outcome of the various social experiments being run by different countries. Otherwise we are simply hand-waving as you say.

Citizen's may well prefer extermination of a minority group at a moment in time if they deem their power limitless by means of being the majority. Such has been the case. Mob rule again.

Are we talking about Norway and New Zealand again? Or some bogeyman regime that has nothing to do with the Economist rankings of civil liberties in full democracies?

In fact, if you have read the Economist report, you will see that one of the criteria of strong democracy is the ability of minorities to take decisions on the chin. When a party loses, it does not then spend all its energies disrupting the system.

Which may indeed be one of the reasons the US gets marked down of course.

 

[mheslep]

You've ignored some of the contradictions I mentioned and added new ones: If every article in the Bill of rights was only about Federal protection, why would it be necessary to state it and why the inconsistency of only stating it for some rights and not others? For the establishment clause, it seems clearly to be talking about the federal level -- but that makes sense, since many states were founded by religious groups escaping Europe (I live in the Quaker State).

But by the same token, if some rights are intended only to exist at the federal level, why doesn't it say so?

And for the 10th Amendment, if no protections are extended to the state level or reserved for the people, why is this amendment even there? The Bill of Rights can't reserve rights for the people if the states can violate any rights.

And lastly, while it isn't part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights talks about inalienable rights: if the Constitution doesn't mandate their protection at all levels, then they aren't inalienable. ...

Jefferson used the term in the Declaration. I've seen subtantial discussion about the meaning of inalienability in the philosophy journals about just the conflict you describe, but it seems clear to me: Certain rights are granted to each "by their creator", or if you like they are yours by virtue of being human. The fact that someone might deprive you of their agency by force does not make them any less inalienable. Later Jefferson goes on to add the practicality: "to secure these rights, government are instituted among men." - some government, not necessarily the federal government.

Rather than try to iron out the legal details of your points about conflicts in the constitution, I'll draw your attention to some familiar US history. The Declaration conjured up no central government. We find no great cry for additional protection of the rights of individual after the revolution and prior to the Constitution. The thirteen state governments were already in existence to protect the rights of the individual, many of them already having their own bill of rights. The impatience at the time was with the flawed cooperation between the states, not with any need to protect individuals, and this was the reason for the creation of the federal government. Ten years or so after the revolution, the states grudgingly draw up a federal government to fix foreign policy, raise an army and navy, run the post office, and settle disputes between the states with a court system. That's about it. As Madison expressed at the time the concern about the ability to control the government they were creating:

the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. ​

It is clear to me that the enumeration of powers, and all the of the ten amendments were put there to control that government. The central government was needed only to do things of national scope, not because the people needed it to protect their individual rights. That's my take.

 

[Oltz]

Jefferson used the term in the Declaration. I've seen subtantial discussion about the meaning of inalienability in the philosophy journals about just the conflict you describe, but it seems clear to me: Certain rights are granted to each "by their creator", or if you like they are yours by virtue of being human. The fact that someone might deprive you of their agency by force does not make them any less inalienable. Later Jefferson goes on to add the practicality: "to secure these rights, government are instituted among men." - some government, not necessarily the federal government.

Rather than try to iron out the legal details of your points about conflicts in the constitution, I'll draw your attention to some familiar US history. The Declaration conjured up no central government. We find no great cry for additional protection of the rights of individual after the revolution and prior to the Constitution. The thirteen state governments were already in existence to protect the rights of the individual, many of them already having their own bill of rights. The impatience at the time was with the flawed cooperation between the states, not with any need to protect individuals, and this was the reason for the creation of the federal government. Ten years or so after the revolution, the states grudgingly draw up a federal government to fix foreign policy, raise an army and navy, run the post office, and settle disputes between the states with a court system. That's about it. As Madison expressed at the time the concern about the ability to control the government they were creating:

the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. ​

It is clear to me that the enumeration of powers, and all the of the ten amendments were put there to control that government. The central government was needed only to do things of national scope, not because the people needed it to protect their individual rights. That's my take.

Agreed

 

[DoggerDan]

I agree, too, Oltz and mheslep. Our government was never meant to be more than a cooperative collective between the states for very limited purpose.

If you look at the EU, that's very similar, whereby the individual states retained the full authority of their statehood: "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 independent member states." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union By comparison, our own Constitution delegated very limited powers to the federal government, reserving all other powers to the state or to individually to the people.

We'll see how that experiment is going 217 years from now and compare it with how we're doing today.

Meanwhile, our government has been corrupted nearly since its inception by federal power-grabbing, often leveraged by threats to the states of reduced or eliminated government money, such as highway funds or disaster recovery aid, if a state doesn't knuckle under.

 

[MarcoD]

I agree, too, Oltz and mheslep.

Well, I agree too. We ended here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_Elenchi" reason.)

 

[russ_watters]

I see Norway has hate speech (Article 135) and blasphemy laws (Article 142) on the books, of all things. More democratic? Give me a break.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitorin.../national_legal_measures/norway/Norway_SR.pdf

Meh - the "democracy index" is so subjective it isn't worth getting upset about. For example, it downgraded France and a couple of others due in part to dissent. But free exercise of dissent is, to Americans, one of the highest/most sacred manifestations of Democracy!

They also put some weight into voter turnout. Voter turnout can be low for several reasons, not all of them bad. But regardless of the reason, choosing not to vote could still be seen as exercising a freedom (see: dictatorships with 100% voter turnout). I see nothing inherently undemocratic about it.

What tickles me is to see the socialists/communists all in a twitter about "The Democracy Index" while simultaneously saying government ownership/control is such a positive thing. By scoring in such a way as the acknowledged most socialist countries are most "free" it almost seems designed to prove that in practice socialism = freedom. I suppose perhaps it's a matter of connotation: "freedom" has a very positive connotation, so it must be made to apply to one's favored political/economic system.

 

[russ_watters]

Jefferson used the term in the Declaration. I've seen subtantial discussion about the meaning of inalienability in the philosophy journals about just the conflict you describe, but it seems clear to me: Certain rights are granted to each "by their creator", or if you like they are yours by virtue of being human. The fact that someone might deprive you of their agency by force does not make them any less inalienable. Later Jefferson goes on to add the practicality: "to secure these rights, government are instituted among men." - some government, not necessarily the federal government.

It appears to me that the idea was important enough to put in a Bill of Rights to secure those rights.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree, too, Oltz and mheslep. Our government was never meant to be more than a cooperative collective between the states for very limited purpose.

I might say "originally", but I wouldn't say "never". Originally, we had the Articles of Confederation, which failed and were replaced.

 

[Naty1]

Why aversion to socialism:

(a) look at the history of socialism, hardly encouraging,
(b) Obummer,
(c) profit motive produces better results,
(d) American is a republican form of government,
(e) Americans favor liberty over all,
(f) Socialism saps individual inititive (but stimulates sale of Vodka),
(g) Americans are winners (well, we will be again after November 2012)

 

[WhoWee]

Why aversion to socialism:

(a) look at the history of socialism, hardly encouraging,
(b) Obummer,
(c) profit motive produces better results,
(d) American is a republican form of government,
(e) Americans favor liberty over all,
(f) Socialism saps individual inititive (but stimulates sale of Vodka),
(g) Americans are winners (well, we will be again after November 2012)

Here's some background music for you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuPJzzcV6jA

 

[ginru]

I like what someone mentioned on here a while back, essentially saying that socialism works best under a family model, in which there's the highest degree of trust and cooperation amongst people for sharing resources. I don't think we're very good at things related to family trust and cooperation as for many Americans, individualism outweighs group conformity.

Also, it seems many socialist movements make the mistake of trying to take over a national government to force the system on a large number of people that don't share the trust necessary to support it. Perhaps the system is best suited to working within a smaller group of devoted members (religious order, fraternity, cult, village, etc.) and should only start as grassroots movements that focus mostly on incentive-based methods.

Of course the overall struggle is in finding the ideal balance between cooperation and competition, but our culture is much more geared for competition. I think it would take a serious cultural shift for socialism to be embraced on a large scale here.

 

[mheslep]

I like what someone mentioned on here a while back, essentially saying that socialism works best under a family model, in which there's the highest degree of trust and cooperation amongst people for sharing resources. ...

One of the first things observed about a family is small size; a family must necessarily be so. It seems to me that one of the first things necessary then for redistribution of, well, anything is a small government. Socialists ought to be looking to abolish the federal government and falling back to state and local governments with a loose association as in Europe. Perhaps that is why the welfare state has not been always disastrous in Europe (Greece aside) and where particularly mistaken parts of the welfare state have been rolled back. When mandated by the US federal government (Medicare, Medicaid, Aid to Families, etc) across 300 million socialism does have an egregious record - poor service, or dependency, or cost explosion, or all three.

We don't see socialists looking to reduce government though, which is why I believe socialism is really about power and control, the age old two step.

 

[dacruick]

We don't see socialists looking to reduce government though, which is why I believe socialism is really about power and control, the age old two step.

socialism imlpies a larger and more involved government. It implies higher taxes, and therefore a more complex governmental infrastructure to properly distribute those funds.

I don't have too great a grasp on US politics (I'm Canadian), but I don't think socialism fits the culture. However I do believe that the US government is too right wing, mostly in terms of the banking system, or lack thereof. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that unregulated banking is a terrible idea.

 

[Naty1]

Whowee: and some for you here, from England:
game,set,match!




World power swings back to America

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...44646/World-power-swings-back-to-America.html

The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so, the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy. Manufacturing will have closed the labour gap with China in a clutch of key industries. The current account might even be in surplus... ...The "shale gas revolution" that has turned America into the world’s number one producer of natural gas, ahead of Russia...

US will also be connected via a major new pipeline to Canada, also an energy exporter! Things are about to change! Together with North Slope Alaska oil, we'll be good for another 200 years. Time for economical energy alternatives to be developed.

 

[Naty1]

I don't have too great a grasp on US politics (I'm Canadian)... You don't need to be a genius to figure out that unregulated banking is a terrible idea.

US banks are massively regulated...via Dodd Frank financial regulation, for example...up to 7,000 pages and still being expanded I think.

What your post misses is that the US subprime mess was a result of intentional legislatition by Chris Dodd (CT),Barney Frank (Mass) (two of the most liberal kooks in the US Senate) Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to FORCE banks to lend to those who could not afford them...those loans were transferred to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Government sponsored entities now in government receivorship) where US taxpayers now foot the bill and all this was enforced by the FHA and lawyers who sued banks that did not make sufficient such loans...like Barak Hussein Obama when he workd for the now defunct ACORN!

True, several big financial instutions piled on and issued complex packages of these loans commonly referred to a derivatives...Ratings agencies also capitulated and did not do their jobs.

From what I have heard Canada has made better progress so far in backing away from the Nannie state that has the US...so you are doing better...we'll catch up next administration!

"It implies higher taxes, and therefore a more complex governmental infrastructure to properly distribute those funds."

The term you seek is "freeloaders" like Castro's friends, Ghadaffi's friends and tribe, Chavez's friends, Putin's friends,etc,etc,etc

 

[mheslep]

You don't need to be a genius to figure out that unregulated banking is a terrible idea.

US banks are massively regulated...via Dodd Frank financial regulation, for example.

dacruick - Yes US banks are heavily regulated, and were before the financial crisis. I'm curious, could you identify any particular source for that view, or is just a general take from the general media?

 

[mheslep]

US will also be connected via a major new pipeline to Canada, also an energy exporter! .

The http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/188893-overnight-energy" has not yet been approved though I expect it will be. However, if Obama is reelected I think it will later be killed or slow walked to death.

 

[Naty1]

Perhaps that is why the welfare state has not been always disastrous in Europe (Greece aside) and where particularly mistaken parts of the welfare state have been rolled back.

You are aware that southern tier European Union countries are going under, right?..
Portugal, Italy, Spain besides Greece...Canada has supposedly rolled back such stuff and seems to be recovering. Without Germany, of all countries, the EU would be no more.

 

[WhoWee]

dacruick - Yes US banks are heavily regulated, and were before the financial crisis.

A brief historical perspective:
http://www.whatcausedthehousingbubble.com/docs/12.pdf

 

[dacruick]

US banks are massively regulated...via Dodd Frank financial regulation, for example.

What your post misses is that the US subprime mess was a result of earlier efforts of Chris Dodd (CT)and Barney Frank (Mass) (two of the most liberal kooks in the US Senate) to FORCE banks to lend to those who could not afford them...those loans were transferred to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Government sponsored entities now in government receivorship) where US taxpayers now foot the bill and all this was enforced by the FHA and lawyers who sued banks that did not make sufficient such loans...like Barak Hussein Obama when he workd for the now defunct ACORN!
From what I have heard Canada has made better progress so far in backing away from the Nannie state that has the US...so you are doing better...we'll catch up next administration!

Hmm thanks . I definitely know that I have a lot of misconceptions and maybe when I used the word regulated it didn't embody what I meant to say. Canada has 7 or 8 banks countrywide and it seems to be a more organized and more easily managed banking system when compared to the US. I do understand that the US has 10 times the population of Canada, but with this market volatility and globalized economies I don't understand how private banking is a solid infrastructure for the future. The truth is that our right wing government in Canada is pretty far left of the Obama administration and I don't see why our cultures have such distinct differences. Americans have what I would call a vivid understand of freedom, and with this comes a certain amount of entitlement (Which is ironically where I think this occupy wallstreet thing comes from). I watched some clips from the republican debate and some of the main focuses were to get government out of the lives of its people. I find this concept weird on a macro scale. With the increasing complexity of markets and social systems how can this be a good plan? And I know that I'm missing something because 50 million Americans vote republican, but what is it? Is it that the state has power over that type of thing so the federal government leaves it up to them?

I am also very sorry to anyone if my generalizations were offensive. I don't mean to be that way, I just can't tippy toe around all of my words and still get my point across effectively.

 

[mheslep]

You are aware that southern tier European Union countries are going under, right?..
Portugal, Italy, Spain besides Greece...

I'm aware the PIGS are in trouble, but I don't know that they "are going under." I don't think anyone else does either.

 

[mheslep]

A brief historical perspective:
http://www.whatcausedthehousingbubble.com/docs/12.pdf

Why not give the link some introduction? That 1998 article from Tabarrok focuses only on commercial versus investment banking and Glass-Steagall.

 

[WhoWee]

Why not give the link some introduction? That 1998 article from Tabarrok focuses only on commercial versus investment banking and Glass-Steagall.

At the top of page 2 in my link it states "At the most basic level, it is clear that many securities (stocks and bonds) are less risky than are loans. Security investments are also liquid and publicly observable. Liquidity let's banks quickly rebalance their portfolios to avoid runs, and public observability improves the efficiency of bank monitoring by depositors and bond holders. Even if all securities were riskier than all loans, forbidding banks to invest in securities could increase bank risk because of the benefits of diversification".

That was then - this is now:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45015743?__source=google|editorspicks|&par=google

"Why Don't We Know More About Bank of America's Derivatives?"

"Last week we learned from Bloomberg News that the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) had been fighting over whether or not Bank of America should be permitted to move a big book of derivatives from its Merrill Lynch subsidiary to a commercial banking subsidiary backed by the government.

What derivatives? What are they worth? Why is the FDIC so adverse to this transfer? Why is the Fed pleased with it?

We have no clue. No one is saying a word. Bank of America won't discuss it. The regulators are keeping officially mum."

***********also this:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/301...atives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval

"Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval"

"Bloomberg reports that Bank of America (BAC) has shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivative obligations from Merrill Lynch and the BAC holding company to the FDIC insured retail deposit division. Along with this information came the revelation that the FDIC insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion.

Derivatives are highly volatile financial instruments that are occasionally used to hedge risk, but mostly used for speculation. They are bets upon the value of stocks, bonds, mortgages, other loans, currencies, commodities, volatility of financial indexes, and even weather changes. Many big banks, including Bank of America, issue derivatives because, if they are not triggered, they are highly profitable to the issuer, and result in big bonus payments to the executives who administer them. If they are triggered, of course, the obligations fall upon the corporate entity, not the executives involved. Ultimately, by allowing existing gambling bets to remain in insured retail banks, and endorsing the shift of additional bets into the insured retail division, the obligation falls upon the U.S. taxpayers and dollar-denominated savers."

 

[WhoWee]

Btw - this is the latest news - ironic?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/10/merrill-lynch-warns-of-another-u-s-debt-downgrade/

"The United States is in for another credit downgrade by year’s end if Congress fails to agree on a long-term plan to tame the nation’s $14.8 trillion debt, Merrill Lynch warned.
In a research note, the Bank of America unit predicts that either Moody’s or Fitch will move to downgrade the U.S. AAA rating. Standard & Poor’s cut the nation’s bond rating in August, causing the stock and bond markets to swoon, after months of bickering by Congress on how to best reduce spending and cut the deficit. The United States spends about 40 percent more annually than it collects in taxes.

“The credit rating agencies have strongly suggested that further rating cuts are likely if Congress does not come up with a credible long-run plan” to cut the deficit, Merrill’s North American economist, Ethan Harris, wrote in the Friday report. ”Hence, we expect at least one credit downgrade in late November or early December when the super committee crashes.”"

 

[NRGisMATTER]

When rich and powerful people control the economy, they swing it into their favor to make more miney and become more powerful which always ends up screwing the middle and poor classes. Happened since civilizations began and problems still continue.

 

[mege]

When rich and powerful people control the economy, they swing it into their favor to make more miney and become more powerful which always ends up screwing the middle and poor classes. Happened since civilizations began and problems still continue.

So, Bill Gates is rich at your expense? Or did you have zero benefit from his company's inventions?

 

[ThomasT]

So, Bill Gates is rich at your expense?

Sure. Who do you think is paying for Microsoft's software?

Or did you have zero benefit from his company's inventions?

I like most of Microsoft's software. That is, I think it's good stuff. It works.

What's not to like is maybe some of Gates'/Microsoft's business practices.

So, I gravitated toward the open-source Unix based stuff. It actually works just as well, even better in some respects.

 

[Oltz]

Sure. Who do you think is paying for Microsoft's software?

I like most of Microsoft's software. That is, I think it's good stuff. It works.

What's not to like is maybe some of Gates'/Microsoft's business practices.

So, I gravitated toward the open-source Unix based stuff. It actually works just as well, even better in some respects.

Then you Must think Steve jobs was pure evil (I am anti Apple because of the controlling nature of the products they provide)

 

[ThomasT]

Then you Must think Steve jobs was pure evil ...

Why would what I wrote make you say that?