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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (736472)	9/1/2013 5:04:16 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577139

Keynes: "The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoymentsand realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease ... But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessityinto daylight.

To: combjelly who wrote (736472)	9/1/2013 5:28:53 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1577139

>> Concentrating wealth leads to corruption in government. You're making a pretty big leap. Corrupt politicians, like Obama, Pelosi and Reid are what causes corruption in government. Or like many in Clinton's administration, who were about as bad. OTOH, the Bush administration was built on integrity from the top down, and that's why there was no corruption there; it just wouldn't have been tolerated. Obama's first campaign was supposedly run on contributions from "little people". Yet, he is easily the most corrupt president of modern times. So, whether money causes corruption or just takes advantage of it, is a philosophical issue I suppose. The important thing, and what the 17th Amendment screwed up, is that the popular vote infuses elections with corruption because senators have to be somewhat corruptible in order to get re-elected for term after term. I suppose your argument is that the best way to avoid corruption is to make sure no one has money. That's pretty stupid. The best way to avoid corruption is to create a system in which mostly people of integrity become candidates. That is what the 17th did. There were a few bad actors along the way that were able to get through, but nothing like today. Even 30 years ago the Senate didn't reek of the Schumers and Reids as it does today. It just gets worse by the year. You say "take the money out of elections" but I cannot IMAGINE the level of corruption you'd have if the government were involved in the funding of them. It really would be a total disaster.