@Sir Bayer

Money =! Quality of life. The USA ranks just as low/lower on the Happy Planet Index then Egypt. Because it's citizens are generally; unhealthy, and always worried about getting there next fix. Money can't buy you happiness so a person can still be unhappy with lots of money. (For reasons I can go into further if you like.)

However within Egypt the wealth is spread out disproportionately which means that large percentage of the population do not have the finances to solve the problems presented to them.

Starving, Not enough money to buy the food they need. They to look to the rich government where most of the wealth is concentrated to find an answer. None came, food prices went up.
Uneducated, they don't have the cash to put their kids into private school if the public school system is bad. But more importantly the public school system now costs a good chuck of money. People once again look to those with money for a solution to a problem and this time they only further the problem.

Answer: In this case courtesy of the wonders of right wing economics the people do not have lots of money, and they have a poor quality of life. The fault must lie with those who the wealth has found it's way too, and the Government for allowing this to happen.

On a side note. Yeah I'm only 17. I don't think that makes my view any less valid. Perhaps I am less informed then some who have had more time to see others types of these issues. However because of that I may also be able to bring fresh ideas to the table. Age is important however I think that both the old and the young have something important to contribute.

Additionally once someone gets around to answering my query from my previous post about right wing economics I will relate this all back to the initial discussion.

I agree with Tolstoy. I am a little disappointed that he didn't realize my valid points are valid but he is right. I will be looking into Damains posts in a second.

"How can anyone support right wing economics when it lets so many people suffer time and time again?"
We suffer because we are not right wing enough.

Why do we suffer because we are not right wing enough? Which right wing is the right right wing?

Fasces, why do you think that?

In ever case where we have had a right wing economy think 20's America we have had wealth concentrate at the top and humorously trickle away from the bottom. Leading to the great depression.

Even more prominent was the perfectly Lassize Faire economics of the industrial revolution where we had an exploited worker class and a new rich class that just kept getting richer on their misfortunes.

Final example. The modern third world. Here we have corporations continuously exploiting the land and the people of these nations for profit.

Three examples of where being right wing has only allowed more suffering which could be prevented by less focus on profit and more on the worker.

The situation in industrial revolution Europe only improved when the government intervened and put in wage laws, and workers rights.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Tolstoy is correct that the fact that Fasces is even engaged at all puts him far above the average person in the country.

That's more of a criticism of the average person in the US rather than a compliment towards Fasces. The difference is the same reason I, as a leftist, hold fellow Socialists to a much higher standard than dissolute right wingers. In the same vein, I hold people who are involved to a much higher standard than Joe Shmoe Sixpack, regardless of age.

If you're going to play the adult game, you have to put together an adult argument. With facts to back it up. And if you're suggesting a radical departure from the way that the developed world does business (Fasces advocating his fascistic oligarchical utopia), the onus is on you to prove you case, not for us to prove it wrong.

The people are the source of national sovereignty. This is demonstrated by the simple fact that if the people don't cooperate, the State cannot function. I doubt anybody would make the argument that Egypt under the current protests has a functioning state apparatus.

As a result, regardless of your desire to apparently act out the role of the parental figure (which amuses me that a young man would want to act out the role of a parent writ large), the people obviously don't agree. And since the national sovereignty flows from the people.... Mubarak, to dip into a bit of Chinese history, has lost the mandate to rule.

What you're reminding me of is how one's attitude about a particular topic changes as one gains more knowledge. A beginner tends towards humbleness, because they know they don't know anything yet. A journeyman thinks they know a lot more than they actually do, (since they know so much more than they used to), and tends towards arrogance (you see this in undergrads a lot). A master tends towards more humbleness, because they know enough to know how narrow their knowledge really is.

You think that ignoring the people's will is the best way to bring them happiness. I would hazard a guess to say that your fellow countrymen would disagree, along with the citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, the entire post-Warsaw Pact.

"And if you're suggesting a radical departure from the way that the developed world does business (Fasces advocating his fascistic oligarchical utopia), the onus is on you to prove you case, not for us to prove it wrong."

A fascistic oligarchy isn't too far from what really does exist in the developed world if you scratch the surface just a little bit. Or do you really think that you as the typical American voter has as much political power with your one vote every 2 years as do the Chairmen of the Boards of GE, Lockheed-Martin, or ExxonMobil? Political elites in any society - even a 'democratic' one - are always more powerful than the PoliSci textbooks ever let on. Whenever wealth can be gained from manipulating the levers of power, those levers will always fall into the hands of people willing to abuse it. The main difference between Egypt and America is that our angry mobs on the National Mall tend to go home when their state-issued protest permits expire at the end of the day instead of hanging around for weeks as the Egyptians are doing.

"...the peril of arguing with an idiot. It is very likely that you will win, but if you do win, no one cares. You've just beaten an idiot..."

You're right Tolstoy re there being an oligarchy, but the difference is that he advocated such an arrangement. I, and I assume JK, don't (but I accept it is there).

lol jack klein you are so right.

there was a few months there where i was like "i'm a fascist"

and my cousin, who is younger than me, is on the same path. i think he has already grown out of it though.

if anyone remembers theophilus' crazy rhetoric, that was my cousin

i used to think total state control was the best option. lol. i'm not really sure... why... per se. mostly because i think of people as stupid farm animals who need controlling.

that part i haven't rescinded, but the difference is that i realized that even a statist government would be staffed by stupid farm animals, so it doesnt really work. the only way to prevent getting boned by a state full of stupid people is a vibrant democracy.

idk. so on that front i've mellowed out significantly, and i think we can expect the same from fasces once he goes to college.

then again in the college co-ops you do have actual anarchists and communists... which is funny. but like.... idk. with most people, they grow out of it.

oh and yeah, no need to mock someone on account of their age though. please don't read my post with that intention, i'm being sincere.

"Fasces, why do you think that?

In ever case where we have had a right wing economy think 20's America we have had wealth concentrate at the top and humorously trickle away from the bottom. Leading to the great depression.

Even more prominent was the perfectly Lassize Faire economics of the industrial revolution where we had an exploited worker class and a new rich class that just kept getting richer on their misfortunes.

Final example. The modern third world. Here we have corporations continuously exploiting the land and the people of these nations for profit.

Three examples of where being right wing has only allowed more suffering which could be prevented by less focus on profit and more on the worker.

The situation in industrial revolution Europe only improved when the government intervened and put in wage laws, and workers rights."
I am not in the mood to explain why your wrong, but from my understanding of economics the freer the markets (in most cases) the freer the citizens.

"lol jack klein you are so right."
No he's wrong.

"there was a few months there where i was like "i'm a fascist"

and my cousin, who is younger than me, is on the same path. i think he has already grown out of it though.

if anyone remembers theophilus' crazy rhetoric, that was my "
I was fascist 3 years ago. Now I am oligarchic meritocratic.

"i used to think total state control was the best option. lol. i'm not really sure... why... per se. mostly because i think of people as stupid farm animals who need controlling."
I never thought the state should have complete control, that communism not fascism.

"that part i haven't rescinded, but the difference is that i realized that even a statist government would be staffed by stupid farm animals, so it doesnt really work. the only way to prevent getting boned by a state full of stupid people is a vibrant democracy."
OR you could just leave it to the intellectuals

"oh and yeah, no need to mock someone on account of their age though. please don't read my post with that intention, i'm being sincere."
That was the basis of Jacks arguement from the tiny bit that I read before loosing interest.

"I am not in the mood to explain why your wrong, but from my understanding of economics the freer the markets (in most cases) the freer the citizens. "

Sigh. Look if you don't want to explain your views your better off not even replying to me then just repeating the same rhetoric over and over again.

Because as far as I see it the culture of consumerism is the complete opposite of a free people. It's based on the idea of slaving away at a job so you can buy more stuff that you don't care about all that much and a watch TV which tells you to go buy more stuff.

There really isn't a free populace. I won't argue that the totalitarian control exercised in Russia led to a free populace either. But hell neither did the totalitarian regime in Germany where sure there was government pressure on the companies but so long as they didn't betray Germany they could operate pretty freely. Though the populace was pretty free.

Were as a society where people aren't as stuck in the work buy sleep cycle is a freer society because they have more time to develop their life the way they want too. In Europe where moderate left wing fiscal policies are more common the people have more holidays, and shorter work weeks. Which gives them more time to express themselves. The reason for this shorter work is because of the union culture there and the lack of concern that if they work less they might die due to a lovely social net.

The result of these policies is a freer happier populace. As one can attest the European life style is much more laid back then the North American one.

Well, you can advocate fascist control all you want. So far, we've got a pretty high batting average for a fascist government to cause its population to be unhappy, and result in overthrow of said government.

I'm not judging your ideas half as harshly as history has.

@Faeces

Two of your examples are not of right wing economics failing. They are examples of society forgetting to practice fiscal conservatism and spending more than they can afford. If people could just do that, and not spend more than they earn (besides the stuff you take out mortgages for) then our economy would be in much better shape

"Well, you can advocate fascist control all you want."
I have said thousands of times that I am against fascism. I believe that the people deserve to be freer. Freedom to do what they want (as long as it doesn't inflict upon the rights of others), however I don't think that they deserve to decide who the leaders of the government are.

The one responsibility the government should have is to protect its citizens.

"I'm not judging your ideas half as harshly as history has."
Given that I have explained why history as actually supported my ideas in 6 different threads now, I will refrain from answering.

"@Faeces

Two of your examples are not of right wing economics failing. They are examples of society forgetting to practice fiscal conservatism and spending more than they can afford. If people could just do that, and not spend more than they earn (besides the stuff you take out mortgages for) then our economy would be in much better shape"
This directed at me? I have always supported right win economics so why would I give examples to them failing?

I think it was directed at me.

The fact that he used mistook you and my is rather ridiculous as our views are dead opposite.

On that note though I feel that your drawing incorrect conclusions from the evidence presented.

Which two examples do you feel are and example of people spending outside of their means. The 20's for sure, Modern economic crash as well.

However the conclusion isn't that people are spending outside of their means. The conclusion is that the fundamental flaw of the right wing economic theory is that the balance of wealth is way off. Money flows from the poor to the rich through big businesses, and not much flows back to the people through their jobs. The money that they get back goes straight back into the system to buy new products put out by these companies. If the CEO's accepted huge pay cuts and gave higher salaries that wouldn't be a problem.

But frankly the economy isn't what is important. What is important is quality of life.

Now to relate this all back to the central topic. Mubarak you have suggested is a benevolent dictator who has done everything he can to improve the lot of the Egyptian people. However from 2007-2009 the quality of life decreased across Egypt. Hardly a success of him part. What he has done is focus on the good of corporations and the economy without care for the people.

"The one responsibility the government should have is to protect its citizens. "

I'm curious how you reconcile this with your previous statements that some people don't deserve food and education.

How does education protect people?

How can you not envision it not protecting people?

An educated populace is more aware of it's rights, so they are better able to protect themselves from abuse of authority.

Additionally it makes it easier for them to obtain jobs and provide for themselves and their familes. Hence protecting them from starvation and poverty.

Guess if you decide that protecting doesn't include abuse of authority, starvation, poverty.

Then sure it doesn't protect them from anything.

Damian, he doesn't have an issue with authority "abusing" anything. He said earlier that the Egyptian protesters should (and I paraphrase) shut up, go home, and be thankful they have such an enlightened despot as Mubarak, instead of standing up for what they want.

I'm getting strong hint of Social Darwinism from Fasces.

An educated populace is also better able to participate in the free market. If you're not able to understand basic math, you can't truly be a participant in a free market. And if a number of your citizens cannot participate in the free market, is it free?

He asked how education protected people. I showed him how. He might not think its an important thing to protect people from. But it does show the importance of education.

I'm getting a bit of that myself. However it seems to be economic Darwinism. Because he suggests that he desires an oligarchic meritocracy. (Something which might be a good idea if there was a good way to decide how someone is worthy of holding a top spot) What you suggest is that education for everyone is not important. If you truly want a state ruled by the intellects isn't it important to give everyone the chance to learn and grow. Some poor lad/lass might not be able to afford schooling but might end up the next intellect if allowed to learn.

Even if you don't support the development of new intellects, a state education can be very important in helping brainwash the populace to believe the garbage your spewing.

(I disagree that anything short of complete propaganda would convince your Egyptian kids that what their leader was doing was for the good of their country. However you said the reason for the uprising is because the population doesn't know any better. perhaps that's because the government decided it didn't want to teach everyone any more.

damian, from what you've said, I think that the only problem you have with the systems of government and economics is that unethical people are at the head of them. Its the corruption of power that I think you are really upset with, as well as the people of Egypt, instead of the method of government itself. Most people don't care how they are governed as long as they are governed fairly, equally,and efficiently. IMHO a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. Sadly, there isn't really a historical example of it though

"Fasces, why do you think that?

In ever case where we have had a right wing economy think 20's America we have had wealth concentrate at the top and humorously trickle away from the bottom. Leading to the great depression.

Even more prominent was the perfectly Lassize Faire economics of the industrial revolution where we had an exploited worker class and a new rich class that just kept getting richer on their misfortunes.

Final example. The modern third world. Here we have corporations continuously exploiting the land and the people of these nations for profit.

Three examples of where being right wing has only allowed more suffering which could be prevented by less focus on profit and more on the worker.

The situation in industrial revolution Europe only improved when the government intervened and put in wage laws, and workers rights."
There's a fourth example: Post-"communist" USSR--the GDP fell rapidly.

"An educated populace is also better able to participate in the free market. If you're not able to understand basic math, you can't truly be a participant in a free market. And if a number of your citizens cannot participate in the free market, is it free?"
No, an uneducated populace is easier exploited by the "free" market.

Furthermore, one could say the same about nearly all economic systems. A smart person could prevail in feudal areas, right? They'd have the patronage, right? It's the same thing--except the judge is now the noble rather than the advertisers