Most idiotic assertion of conservatives.

[Lonestar]

Banana's a secret weapon of the Neo-Communists?

Nonsense. Everyone knows it's strawberries.

[Sava]

I always favored grapes myself :P

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Of course you don't think social redistribution is good. Your parents have money and you never need to worry about from where you get your next meal.

Social redistribution is awful. Asher probably has a well off life as I do. But that is no excuse to paint anybody who disagrees with illogical social redistribution as ignorant.

[David Floyd]

Of course you don't think social redistribution is good. Your parents have money and you never need to worry about from where you get your next meal.

And, in reverse, of course poor people favor social redistribution. They see all the money more well off people have, and they get jealous and greedy. They decide there should be a legalized method of theft in place. And then they institute such a method.

And that's why I don't like democracy.

[Giancarlo]

Holy crap, I agree with david floyd... oh my... this is impossible... *runs off shocked*

Yeah sure poor people agree with social redistribution and to back up David Floyd's point look at Chile in the 70s. They got somebody to redistribute land for them, and I acknowledge unemployment fell under the Allende term. But that theft came at a cost and inflation skyrocketed because businesses were all nationalized. Then this major error resulted in one of the most strict and oppressive but economically pragmatic regimes to take power in 1973.

[Sava]

But David, on the flipside, look at how the wealthy make much of their money. I'm not for complete wealth distribution. I simply think that in certain areas like health care, energy, education, and general welfare (job assistance, etc) shouldn't be an area of the economy in which people should be allowed to profit.

Look, Bill Gates, for instance, made his wealth selling an operating system for computers. Do I think some of his business practices have hampered competition? Yes. Should the company be broken up? No. Should he be taxed any higher than he is now? No.

If some guy makes a billion dollars selling some consumer good. He deserves every penny that he makes (past taxes of course). And don't argue against the principle of taxing, especially because it's in the Bible (which you say you cherish as your ultimate source of law and morality). But putting aside Enron's accounting practices, the company itself was based on an unethical principle: energy trading... Energy trading is wrong. Inflating the price of energy for profits is wrong. Why? Because people rely on energy to live. This is the basis for my opinions on education, health care, and energy.

Any time that a sector or industry reaches a point when demand becomes ultimate, I think that capitalism should take a backseat to the need of the people. Not entirely in some instances, like the automobile industry or telecom industry, but definitely in the case of health care, education, and energy.

I see no problem with a laissez faire system of capitalism in consumer goods. Why? Because people don't need designer clothes, huge TV's, video games, computers, jewelery, etc. Supply and demand should dictate prices and the flow of those goods.

But I find it inherently wrong and evil that companies will charge outrageous prices and increase profit margins to obscene levels when, in many cases, people's lives depend on those products.

[Sava]

I think I forgot to mention this. I am against random wealth redistribution and land redistribution. But I also am against the practices of real estate in the US. With a 20 year mortgage, you often pay a total of ten times the value of your land. Interest rates should be much, much lower.

[Giancarlo]

I think the system is fine the way it is... Sava... there is no need to tinker with something that ain't broke.

[David Floyd]

But David, on the flipside, look at how the wealthy make much of their money. I'm not for complete wealth distribution. I simply think that in certain areas like health care, energy, education, and general welfare (job assistance, etc) shouldn't be an area of the economy in which people should be allowed to profit.

Doctors go to school for years, and on average are smarter than the average person. Why shouldn't they make more money than the rest of us? Or another example, energy companies - they provide a service everyone needs, and they compete with each other in terms of price. Why should they be penalized?

I see no reason to penalize someone just because they make more money than I do. It's immoral.

And don't argue against the principle of taxing, especially because it's in the Bible (which you say you cherish as your ultimate source of law and morality).

Actually I believe in keeping religion and government totally separate. What I believe about God has no effect on what I believe is right and wrong in making laws.

Energy trading is wrong. Inflating the price of energy for profits is wrong. Why? Because people rely on energy to live.

So? And in any case, people can live without energy - go back 150 years, before electricity. People didn't die as soon as they were born because of a lack of electric lights. They used candles or sunlight or fire. But, new technology came along, as did people who were able to utilize it to provide a service, provide convenience. I see no reason these people don't deserve every penny they make.

Any time that a sector or industry reaches a point when demand becomes ultimate, I think that capitalism should take a backseat to the need of the people.

What exactly do you mean when you say the "need of the people"?
What you are saying is, basically, that one group should be forced to give up their property - robbing them, essentially - in order to make things more convenient for another (larger) group.

But I find it inherently wrong and evil that companies will charge outrageous prices and increase profit margins to obscene levels when, in many cases, people's lives depend on those products.

Could you operate an EKG machine? Could you perform open heart surgery? No? I didn't think so. Obviously it takes a special level of skill to do things like this, and people had to go to school for years in order to achieve this level of proficiency. They deserve every penny they make.

[David Floyd]

But I also am against the practices of real estate in the US. With a 20 year mortgage, you often pay a total of ten times the value of your land. Interest rates should be much, much lower.

The simple solution there is to not borrow money - pay cash for everything.
You may find that inconvenient, but banks also find it inconvenient when people default on loans. They can't just hand out free money and say "pay me back when you get a chance".

[Sava]

#1 I'm not talking about doctors and nurses making money. I'm talking about the drug companies and medical suppliers that routinely have 2,000% profit margins on drugs and medical equipment that is essential to peoples' lives. I think that making money needs to take a backseat to saving lives. But then again, we all know how much you seem to value human life in regard to gun control

#2 I have no problem with people borrowing money. I have a problem with the way interest is calculated. I think that there should be a flat interest rate that is applied to the total amount of money paid to cover a mortgage.

For instance, paying ten times the amount of the value of your house seems wrong to me... doesn't it seem wrong to you?

I've got no problem with credit card interest. If you spend beyond your means, you deserve being in debt.

Fez, think outside the box. If homeowners can pay off a home loan in five years without yearly compounded interest, then they have more money to buy consumer goods. This = BIGGER ECONOMY, higher productivity, and a more efficient economy. IMO, any wealth that sits in the pockets of the CEO's of investment banking companies is money that could be in the economy, working for the people.

Don't worry guys, once you take some economics courses and actually learn about the flow of money, or become actual homeowners yourselves, you'll understand my points better.

[David Floyd]

I'm talking about the drug companies and medical suppliers that routinely have 2,000% profit margins on drugs and medical equipment that is essential to peoples' lives.

Again, what's wrong with this? Nothing in life is free, and some things cost more than others. Business is about making money, and prescription drugs, for example, are something that people have to buy. I guess you're option is to make your own, or not buy them, but I see nothing inherently wrong with a 2000% profit margin, or even a 20000% one.

For instance, paying ten times the amount of the value of your house seems wrong to me... doesn't it seem wrong to you?

No. Again, if you don't want to face these interest rates, don't borrow money.
One thing you have to realize, too, is that banking is a business. Banks are in business not only to save YOUR money, but to make money of their own. This is primarily done through loans. There is nothing wrong with making money, but if you personally don't like the way loans work, then live in an apartment until you can save enough money to pay cash.

[Sava]

David, David, David... I can understand your lack of knowledge on these subjects because you are a college student with little experience in the world.

Millions of seniors are on a fixed income because they cannot work. When they did work, they weren't paid enough to save for retirement. Now, they have a choice... pay for drugs, or die... hmmmm great choices huh? With a fixed income, many seniors have little money to spend once they get past living expenses. For many middle-class seniors, they have to go into debt just to pay for drugs to live.

Let me get this straight. You see absolutely no problem with a business man inflating prices just to increase profit margins in these situations?

Capitalism survives because it's basic premise is sound. The trade of goods based on supply and demand. But when demand is fixed at such a high rate, the market should naturally reflect that in a drop in prices. The problem is, companies get together and parallel their prices. Drug companies agree not to lower their prices to a certain degree so everyone can make money. This is no different than a monopoly. Except instead of one company cornerning the market and exploiting consumers, you have three or four little companies doing it. I'm trying desperately to explain this to you, but you don't seem to be understanding this. The general business-man mentality of supply and demand and competition is sound. And I get the feeling that you believe in these ideals. Which is good. But what isn't good is that you don't see what is going on... or... you do see what is going on, but you agree with the selfish pigs perpetrating this fleecing of wealth. It's no different than stealing. And you can bet there is a special place in hell for these bastards.

[Sava]

Banking isn't a business, it's a way of life. The government used to sell land to people. Then rich banks came along, borrowed money from the government, and bought land with that money. When basically all the land was bought, they cornered the market, and now hold America hostages with their interest rates. You can either choose to be homeless. Or pay these rates.

[KrazyHorse]

The banks don't own even close to all of the land in the US...