As for gullibility, a corporation or organization full of professionals dedicated to writing and understanding a deep layer f rules a regulations is a bit of an advantage. Do you think that all of the Americans and people around the world that lost their homes to banks that were saved by their tax money were more gullible than the banks that they were forced to save?

Your ideologies are blinding you to the fraud.

One more thing, have you ever lived anywhere other than the U.S.? Most Americans have lived such culturally secluded lives that they have no reality to compare other than that in which they were born to so for them it's easy to say "This is this best country in the world" As they often say because that's what they are always told and they have no experiences to show them differently.

'If not for them children would still be working 12 hour shifts in a dangerous factory while the rich just followed their "rights" to be rich.' - i think you will find the in the UK at least Coal mine owners were worried that all the kids they had working in their mines were getting sick and not growing into strong health adult coal mine workers - this was the major push to actually get something done about child labour laws (of course the liberals supported the move, but it was when it started costing people money that things changed)

"The majority of the advances in computer, robotic, and most other cutting edge technology have come from either America or Japan." dare i cough *bullshit* all i know about is nanotech research in Dublin but i am sure the Europe has contributed a huge amount in terms of R&D in the past decade - also the cutting edge is a cool phrase, usually talking about swords and what not (because whoever has the best cutting edge wins in a fight!)

@ CK- ok, answering these in order of ease.

No, I have not lived anywhere else. I would like to, but as I'm just a poor college student, it's not a reality yet. I don't believe America is the best country in the world; what I do know is that I would prefer capitalism over socialism. I'm sure that socialism could be made to work, but I still like the idea of capitalism better, because it allows for more freedoms.

I am not blind, or am not willingly blind at least. I will listen to arguments and watch debates, in hopes of learning more on a topic which I know I am not fully educated in. Do I have more to learn? of course, and I am willing to look at any material that you present me with.

"If you walk down my street and I take you money are you so gullible as to walk down my street? Don't you know that this is my street?"
heh, do you really not see the difference? or are you just arguing for arguments sake?

"Do you think that all of the Americans and people around the world that lost their homes to banks that were saved by their tax money were more gullible than the banks that they were forced to save?"
I'm not sure I understand the question here. In this case it is less about gullibility and more about stupidity. The people were living life-styles that were not consistent with their incomes. I don't believe that the banks should have been saved at all; I am all for letting a business fail, and in fact believe that it is crucial to the success of a free market.

"Let me ask you this. Where are the majority of American Engineers that make these advancements coming from? I know where you're going with that statement I think. You want to imply that it's the wealth over everything market that makes this possible but without the better educated socialists doing the discovering America couldn't discover most of it's discoveries"

You do indeed know where I am going, because it is a common argument made for capitalism. Yes, American education isn't great. But the fact that these engineers ARE coming to America shows that our economy rewards those with ideas the best. Our economy is inducive to new ideas and developments.

"You want to imply that it's the wealth over everything market that makes this possible but without the better educated socialists doing the discovering America couldn't discover most of it's discoveries. As for Italy's technical discoveries in the last 25 years I'll get back to you on that in a minute. (I'll just add that it was an Italian that "Discovered America)"

I know that both Italy and the rest of Europe have made advances, and I apologize for sounding so pro-American/ anti-your country, it was not my intention, nor do I feel that America is really any better. The majority of these European countries that have made advances have at least some of the same free market ideas, it is just seen to a greater extent in America and Japan, which is why I used them for my examples.

@Orthaic- great example with the coal mine owners. I am unsure what side of the argument you are on, mixed capitalism/socialism? :D

looking back at a few older posts I skimmed over.

Ck, "You're middle class income is jelly beans to those folk. They convince you that your pennies are under attack but really it's theirs that make the difference. The middle classes little part is nothing."

I know that my money is not at risk. As a middle class college student, I have a ton to gain from the current system. I am getting my college paid for in part with both federal and state taxes. I get cheaper health care because of the fact that I am going to a state university. And I'm sure there are other benefits that I am overlooking. Just because I am doing better under this system does not make it right though. As a white male, I would do great if the country reverted to all of it's policies from the 19th century, but I don't see people fighting for that.If we continue to raise taxes the rich, what is going to stop them from simply leaving?


And here is where you lose me, "I'll now try my best to refrain from going into the N.W.O. and the plot for world domination that is currently being waged against us by the Federal Reserve, World Bank etc. under the guise of groups like the Trilateral foundation etc. under the leadership of Rockefellers, Rothchilds etc being fed to the public by Bush's, Obama's, Brown's etc."

On the one hand, you are touting the advantages of socialism, but here you seem to actually get it. The government is corrupt. More corrupt then any business will ever be, so why would you want to give them more power? At least in a free market, if there is a corrupt business, then it is a lot easier to get rid of then the entire governmental institution would be. You appear to be anti-fed, but who do you think is going to run everything?

Ok, I didn't read through all of C-K's ridiculous posts yet, but it seemed like the basic idea was that rich people in capitalist systems got their riches by scamming dumber people. Are you kidding me? The majority of rich people who did not inherit their wealth built it by either providing valuable goods and/or services or by making smart investments in people who provide valuable goods and services. Do you really think you can make any money at all in an economy without catering to the demands of the masses? It's not a scam if they voluntarily exchange their money for your goods and services because they wouldn't do it if they didn't think it was worth their money. I'm against defrauding someone of their property, and that constitutes a violation of their property right, but you can't just make a huge blanket statement and say that successful entrepreneurs are just tricksters. Jesus, try starting your own business and tell me how far you get on your misguided view of the world.

Or have I misinterpreted you and you just like imbuing your rhetoric with hyperbolic absurdities?

But how do they know what they are better off buying? i mean advertising is just a form of brainwashing so the corporations (ie the Rich and powerful) are just scamming people with shiney labels and catchy logos...

yay even another topic change

"We still have filthy rich folk who live like royalty but only small royalty. Therefore we have less poverty."

Good god what a horrific fallacy. It's as if you believe the universe magically endows everyone with $80,000 per year and the only reason some people have more and others have less is because some people take it from them. Wealth has to be created, it does not just exist to be distributed. Some people create more value than others as judged by the purchases of their peers. Gah, this makes me so exasperated that even economic liberals are letting this guy say these things and represent them. I don't have time for this right now, I've got too much work. There are respectable arguments for socialism, many of them simply based on a different moral framework than my own, which I can accept. Your arguments, however, are just plain horrible. They're filled with so much hyperbole, fallacious reasoning, a complete lack of microeconomic understanding, and anti-American vitriol; frankly, it's astounding.

Pleaaase, Jamie come back! I like you mooooore!!!

@Hunter: you said
"@Orthaic- great example with the coal mine owners. I am unsure what side of the argument you are on, mixed capitalism/socialism? :D"

i'm not on anyone's side, both sides make mistakes, neither is the ultimate single idea which will make everyone happy and we can all live in a utopia - If i have to pick a side it is my own side, I believe we should use the best tools we have; Sometimes that means democracy, in other places that is less useful.

Ugh. I've probably been a bit too hard on C-K. To be fair, I'm pretty stressed out right now.

orathaic, if people want to buy it because the advertising adds value to their product, then that's their perogative, not yours. Who decides what is "better off" if not the individual? Anyways, it's not as though people wouldn't spend money on stupid shit if it weren't for advertising. So much money is spent every year on people just trying to seem cool. But hey, people want to be cool.

"Sometimes that means democracy, in other places that is less useful."

That's a good point. I feel like people often take it for granted that democracy is necessarily the best political system out there. It varies case by case.

"But how do they know what they are better off buying? i mean advertising is just a form of brainwashing so the corporations (ie the Rich and powerful) are just scamming people with shiney labels and catchy logos..."

What kind of products are you talking about here? For cheaper products (clothes/food) you are able to make your own decisions. Didn't like that brand of chips? then buy a different one. So you can trial and error your way into finding a something that you are satisfied with

And as for bigger products (houses/cars) if you are buying it based solely on a commercial, then you are dumb. I believe most people will research what they are buying, and with the internet all that info is readily available. heck, I will almost always check out a gaming forum before buying a video game, and that is a much cheaper example.

I understand that advertising does work, every blue moon when I buy an energy drink, I go with NOS because the bottle looks cool, but I'm not going to buy a product that I don't enjoy just because of it.

"If you consciously DECIDE to buy a shamwow for $20 or a new car for $20k then it's your own fault for doing so. How is that stealing? The same would apply to making any uneducated purchase. The unfair advantage would be what, that you are gullible?"

@Hunter49r, It may not be stealing in the sense that we're used to thinking of stealing (physically removing something from a person without their consent)... however, if you sell something claiming it is better than it is then you are deceiving the potential customers... i.e. you are lying. There is, of course, truth in advertising laws... I'm not sure how some ads stay on the air considering that fact ("male enhancement" ads, for example)... my conclusion is that such laws are rarely if ever enforced. Certain types of deception may not be technically illegal (pairing of images suggesting something nonverbally, for example) - but that doesn't make it right... it doesn't make it an honest way of earning a living. Amway, for example. Anyone making a living off Amway is essentially selling two things: a get-rich-quick pyramid scheme, and pretty typical cleaning products (sold as if they're the best thing since ever) that can be bought for much less at your local discount retailer. Amway is not honest. People who sell Amway are both suckers making people up the chain money for doing nothing and are tricksters providing no real benefit to those they sell to. They do not earn their money honestly. Might be legal, doesn't make it ethical... doesn't mean that they aren't taking your money under false pretenses... To me, taking money under false pretenses is exactly what Bernie Madoff and Michael Milken before him did. They got prison terms. Where is the difference between them and Amway or Shamwow or "male enhancement" pills, etc.? To me the only difference is who they defrauded... Since Madoff and Milken defrauded the rich, they got slammed, hard. Who cares if you defraud the poor, the elderly, the senile, the young and innocent, the middle class, the average Joe? They deserve it (apparently). The poor deserve to be poor, the rich deserve to be rich. Defraud a rich person you are clearly a criminal - because the rich person *earned* their money. Better not tolerate theft from the rich - they are the "pillars of our society". Defraud a poor person and you can laugh about it... the fools!

I don't expect major changes in the law... the poor will probably continue to get defrauded legally... but can you honestly say that businesses that do that (and it is a minority of the businesses, no doubt) have *earned* their money?

...oh, and yes, I've given up my credit cards (and recently paid them off) and am switching to a credit union. ...but it was an expensive lesson.

I'm with you on the importance of food, KaptainKool.

We have our own allotment garden where we grow a lot of our own vegetables. It's very rewarding too. We grow enough potatoes and onions to last us the whole year (and we give about a third of them away, too) as well as about 30-40% of our other veg, and some fruit.

@crispminis. I didn't say they were tricksters and that the rich get their money in this way. It was hunter that said something similar to that and I was arguing the difference between tricking and taking. He said if he can take you money because he's smarter then that's alright but it's not ok for me to take his money if I'm stronger. That was the whole point of all that.

@ C-K: "He said if he can take you money because he's smarter then that's alright but it's not ok for me to take his money if I'm stronger"
I don't think I said it exactly like that, lol. If it came across like that, it was unintentional. I was just trying to establish that there was a difference between taking someone's money and them giving it to you. I was responding to one of Dexter's posts, so don't blame me. :-D

@ Dexter- From Wikipedia, "Madoff's plea allocution stated he began his Ponzi scheme in 1991. He admitted he had never made any legitimate investments with his clients' money during this time; instead, he deposited the money into his business account at Chase Manhattan Bank."

There is a big difference here. With a Shamwow (lol, I guess this is the example we will stick to?) you are getting the product that you expected for your money. It might be less efficient then you imagined, but the producer is still giving you what they promised. Madoff looks like he was just pocketing the money, instead of investing it. This is more like you ordering the shamwow (or Viagra) and just getting an empty box.

off topic- I have a pretty romanticized view of con-artists (due to books/movies) and I say if you can get away with it, then go for it. But if you don't get out when you have the chance, then you are gonna pay, one way or another. Madoff should have made off (lol, sorry) with the money and moved to some Foreign country when he had the chance. :D

@ Hunter49r: "you can get away with it, then go for it"

This is no different from saying that if I can get away with breaking into your house, beating you unconscious, and stealing all your valuables, and get away with it... then it's perfectly ok to do so.

My wife has started watching Oprah on the DVR... which means I have started watching at least some of it (actually some is surprisingly good... but I do feel somehow less manly admitting that :-)... anyway, there was a program on about pedophiles... and the point was made that molesting a child is raping a child... Molest, creepy as it sounds, somehow sounds less violent than rape. Indeed usually molesting involves manipulating the child, "grooming" them, so that they end up either feeling trapped into the sex act or actually liking it on some level (which causes huge problems down the road - including guilt)... the point is, that the child would not have chosen the sex in any normal circumstance. Manipulation and "grooming" (that's what they call it) is the rapist mentally/emotionally forcing themselves on the victim. Stereotypical rape is physically forcing themselves on the victim. The point is that that is an artificial distinction. Force (violence), dishonesty, and a disregard for the child are all still involved. ...it is a distinction without a difference. This serves as an analogy for the distinction between physically forcing money from someone and mentally/emotionally manipulating them into giving you money... both are violent, dishonest, and mean-hearted acts - and the distinction carries no real difference. The victim may have shown poor judgment, but that is not an excuse. The victim of a mugging may have shown poor judgment to walk in a "bad neighborhood" alone at night but that does not excuse the mugger... the victim of a fraud may have shown poor judgment in believing the claims (whether direct or inferred) made by a con-artist but that does not excuse the con-artist.

"off topic- I have a pretty romanticized view of con-artists (due to books/movies) and I say if you can get away with it, then go for it."

To be honest, I share some of this sentiment (thanks to movies - primarily "The Sting")... but I don't think it should apply to the real world... for one thing, in The Sting, the "victim" clearly deserved it (much more, actually) - it was a case of getting a dose of his own medicine. The reality is much more grim. Semi-senile and trusting and lonely pensioners getting duped from their rent money for stupid stuff - like really expensive meat delivered to your door, or Shamwows that according to the ad are virtual miracle workers for cleanups - nothing else like it (blah, blah).

@Jamiet99uk, that sounds incredible. How much area do you have for your garden? I'm stuck in an apartment now, but if I ever get a yard, I definitely want to go the garden route.

"This is no different from saying that if I can get away with breaking into your house, beating you unconscious, and stealing all your valuables, and get away with it... then it's perfectly ok to do so."

If you can get away with robbing a bank, then go ahead. But, at the moment, it is illegal to steal money, while it is not illegal to sell someone an expensive shitty product. So you are a lot less likely to get away with it, and the punishment will be severe if you are caught (especially if you mug someone). But I don't think that fraud should be legal, and I realize that it looks cooler in the media then it is in reality... just like smoking. :D

lol @ Oprah. One of the benefits of being single is that you don't have to watch shows like that. :D
I think comparing rape to theft is a bit far for the purpose of this conversation. And the difference with the two examples given is that you aren't a 5 year old that isn't capable of full thought processes. A kid doesn't understand everything that is going on around him/her, while the majority of adults can figure it out if they wanted. You have a fully developed mind, and you also have the perfect research tool at your disposal (the internet, which is also readily available at local libraries). A quick google/yahoo (privatized business? ;-D) search shows me that the shamwow is not all it's cracked up to be and that pills for old men (... ok, I was afraid to look that on up, lol).

But how do they know what they are better off buying? i mean advertising is just a form of brainwashing so the corporations (ie the Rich and powerful) are just scamming people with shiney labels and catchy logos... </sarcasm>

in case that wasn't clear; i may have hit poe's law...

ah, online sarcasm, so hard to spot. :D

I'm an environmental consultant - if I advise someone to do something regarding environmental work, that person is trusting me as the expert. People also are aware of the concept of "truth in advertising" so they trust where they have no expertise... and where they should not be expected to have expertise (can't be an expert in everything). Yes, you can look things up on the internet (and I do, many times) - but a lot of people don't... a lot of people don't even have a computer or don't have broadband making such searches impractical. ...and this is another case where the poor are at a disadvantage - which is taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. The educated and successful (people like us) do fine, the uneducated and poor continue to be uneducated and poor because, in large part, they have people taking advantage of them while they are vulnerable... and because poverty is a vicious cycle. While the rich... they can afford tax lawyers and money managers and such that put in the time to efficiently maintain and increase their wealth... Since the rich wield enormous power through people they can employ they can continue ensuring that their wealth is protected and increased - with not necessarily much effort on their part. Once they are rich, it snow balls. Life in a capitalist country is a bit too much like a Monopoly game... and you don't even have to have monopolies per se... but if you don't have property, you get in a death spiral of paying rent, fees, fines and never getting "ahead" and never being able to buy property, etc.