Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockid who wrote (24724)	10/22/2004 2:00:16 AM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

It is tempting to believe that social evils arise from the activities of evil men and that if only good men (like ourselves, naturally) wielded power, all would be well. That view requires only emotion and self-praise----easy to come by and satisfying as well. To understand why it is that "good" men in positions of power will produce evil, while ordinary man without power but able to engage in voluntary cooperation with his neighbors will produce good, requires analysis and thought, subordinating the emotions to the rational faculty. Surely this is one answer to the perennial mystery of why collectivism , with its demonstrated record of producing tyranny and misery, is so widely regarded as superior to individualism, with its demonstrated record of producing freedom and plenty. The argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. And the emotional faculties are more highly developed in most men than the rational, paradoxically or especially even in those who regard themselves as intellectuals.

To: stockid who wrote (24724)	10/22/2004 11:24:43 AM
From: deeno	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

ot "You are trying to distribute future wealth creation more evenly. Get it? " lets see by taking wealth from people that are GOING to get it and distributing to people that are not going to get it. Sounds a little like taxes on people that make a lot of money and giving it to people that dont make a lot of money. which would be a little like taxing the "richer" more successful part of the population and distributing it to the "poorer" part of the population. You cannot "distribute" without taking away from someone, or something that is financed by someone.

To: stockid who wrote (24724)	10/23/2004 2:35:45 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

I'm reading a small book, "Capitalism a very short introduction" by James Fulcher right now. It's a great compact history and description of capitalism. It's made me realize that capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. are just where we currently are in the evolution of social economics. They aren't the end of the line by any means, the be all and end all of social economics. One thing the little book brought back to me was that, at one point in the evolution of capitalism, child labor was where the lowest labor costs were! I recall in my childhood in the 50's, reading about how "cybernetics" (robot-computer melding) was going to reduce the need for work to such an extent that the big problem would be how to spend our oppressive leisure time!