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.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (46097)	6/17/2013 12:14:31 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 85487

we had white chains gangs and blacks and indians own slaves "and women and blacks could not vote " and the first thing women voted for was prohibition, which rat thinks was a puritan thing

To: koan who wrote (46097)	6/17/2013 1:05:35 PM
From: Brumar89	4 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Little Joe Thehammer TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Socialism is the greater economic failure. It's only free market capitalism that has pulled people out of poverty, long the common lot of mankind. The good thing about capitalism is it gets selfish people to do something for the greater good of society .... in your case, to bring together buyers and sellers of real estate. Take a bow, capitalism – nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years, thanks to markets And liberals are horrified by this. Mark J. Perry \| June 1, 2013, 11:19 am From an editorial in the current edition of The Economist, “ Towards the End of Poverty“: The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) —such as cutting maternal mortality by three-quarters and child mortality by two-thirds—will not be met, the aim of halving global poverty between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early. The MDGs may have helped marginally, by creating a yardstick for measuring progress, and by focusing minds on the evil of poverty. Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution. The world now knows how to reduce poverty. A lot of targeted policies—basic social safety nets and cash-transfer schemes help. So does binning policies like fuel subsidies to Indonesia’s middle class and China’s hukouhousehold-registration system that boost inequality. But the biggest poverty-reduction measure of all is liberalizing markets to let poor people get richer. That means freeing trade between countries (Africa is still cruelly punished by tariffs) and within them (China’s real great leap forward occurred because it allowed private business to grow). Both India and Africa are crowded with monopolies and restrictive practices. Many Westerners have reacted to recession by seeking to constrain markets and roll globalization back in their own countries, and they want to export these ideas to the developing world, too. It does not need such advice. It is doing quite nicely, largely thanks to the same economic principles that helped the developed world grow rich and could pull the poorest of the poor out of destitution. aei-ideas.org

To: koan who wrote (46097)	6/17/2013 2:15:53 PM
From: sm1th	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 85487

You need to learn some history. We did not do well without socialism for 150 years. People died by the side of the road and we had abject poverty and indentured servitude. The old and infirm suffered greatly and few were educated. Especially old women. If the US was so horrible, why did millions give up everything they had to come here? The New Deal pulled millions of suffering women out of poverty. And it did not cost us anything to do that for them! To liberals, everything is always free. Socialism is choking the life out of what used to be the most productive, dynamic economy in history. You prefer everyone to be miserable than to allow inequality.