MordinSolus

Did I mention Objectivism? No. If you would like me to put words in your mouth let me know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia

Estonia (relatively) recently adopted policies supported by Milton Friedman. Along with that and being freed from the USSR, Estonia's economy is growing rapidly. Estonia adopted a flat tax rate that has been decreasing steadily over time. Estonia has extremely low public debt, free trade, a budget surplus, and had, in 2011, 5x the GDP growth of other EU countries (although they recently adopted the euro :( ). Estonia is doing quite well compared to the rest of the EU, despite all their damn economic freedom.

Regardless, how is "not many have tried it, therefore it doesn't work" an argument? On the other hand, one doesn't have to look very far back in history to see where too much government involvement into the economy (and therefore every day life) leads.

Then let them be obese. It is not my responsibility to make sure other people don't get fat. We shouldn't stifle innovation (if that's what you're getting at) because we're scared that people will get.. even more fat.

And isn't obesity more about diet than it is exercise anyway?

Can you provide a single example of such a country?

Regardless, free-market capitalism is not predicated on freedom from government intervention; in fact, a government is necessary in order to protect the freedoms of the individual. That should be the purpose of the government: protecting the freedom of its citizens. Creating an environment that allows voluntary trade of goods and services to exist. Not picking winners or losers. Not imposing regulations that create monopolies. Not encouraging bad behavior by banks. Not rewarding bad decisions by auto manufacturers. Not being in bed with unions and corporations alike.

Here's how I think about it: What can one corporation do to a person? Not much. What can one government do to a person? Take away his freedom, imprison him, and / or kill him. Would I rather have flawed, power abusing individuals the power to impose their will over an entire country, or just their company? Would I rather centralize power in a way that is not accountable to anyone, or would I rather have power be decentralized and much more accountable to me?

No one is arguing for no government. But we are looking at the present state of affairs and the reasons we got here, and then looking at the past and seeing what happened then and why... and we're realizing that, for the most part, more government is bad.

So you're saying that the government, either knowingly or unknowingly, made decisions that, in the long run, adversely affected its citizens? No kidding.

<3 Keep fighting the good fight. We need more people thinking like you.

> (because capitalism clearly failed /s)

BTW I was just poking fun at people who think that the Great Depression was a result of unbridled capitalism instead of bad government policy.

> capitalism begets conglomeration

Not if the state actually does it's job. For a free-market to exist the state must necessarily prevent anti-competitive practices.

In the U.S., unfortunately, the notion that social democracy is necessary arose during the great depression (because capitalism clearly failed /s) and resulted in the New Deal, which was, of course, socialist policy. It was that which started our slow and steady path towards heavy government involvement into the economy and, as a result, corporatism.

Essentially, the problem is with the government, not Apple. I don't dislike Apple for what they are doing; they are doing what any self-interested company would do.

This is a false dichotomy. On the whole, our economy isn't hurt by sending manufacturing overseas. If it costs less to produce a product overseas than here, then the price for that product will drop. Lower cost of product means higher standards of living for everyone. Why do you think so many people have smartphones? How many do you think would have smartphones if they were manufactured here?

On top of this, the number of jobs is not a fixed number. The workers who lost their jobs in manufacturing can be more productive in other jobs, which benefits everyone. Also, money people save by purchasing cheaper products is money that can be spent elsewhere, increasing demand for other goods and thus supply, which means more workers in other areas. By only looking at the smaller picture losses (manufacturing jobs), you're missing out on the larger picture gains (greater productivity, higher standards of living).

To me, this has nothing to with with how much anyone else is paying. If I pay 20%, and someone else who makes way more than me pays 15%, I don't care. I would prefer

It's about what we're doing with the taxes. If the government could guarantee that all new revenue generated by tax increases would go directly to knocking down the deficit, I would be all for it. However, this would never happen. If taxes go up, then spending will probably go up, putting us (all taxpayers) further in debt. This is simply unsustainable and unfair to future citizens. I just don't trust the government to do good with more revenue.

If that were guy A's money, that would make sense. But it is not guy A's money.

If guy A takes money from guys C - ZZZZZZ in order to give that to guy B, without setting many restrictions or even punishing guy B, and guy B spends in on crack and hookers... we blame guy B? Sure, guy B was a scumbag, but guy A was the one who took and misappropriated the capital in the first place. Not to mention the actions of guy B that led up to his needing money were actively encouraged by guy A.

Why, then, do we not blame the government instead of Wall Street?

I don't quite understand the 16 character password limit.

We need better teachers AND a better system AND better parents. We can't just put all of the expectations on the teachers and expect any sort of change. We do need teachers who are willing to be tough (like it sounds like your mother was) yet caring, but that requires a system that rewards teachers not based on seniority but on merit (sorry unions) but also doesn't encourage teachers to artificially raise grades or teach to specific tests. This means we'd have to invest more in evaluating progress in students, instead of just throwing standardized tests at kids. We also need parents who allow teachers to be tough (no complaining because your kid fails!) _and_ who are supportive yet disciplined back on the homefront.

How does that make his statement misguided?

Even if I accept your premise that every single other print publication has declined as well, that doesn't make his statement any less true. The statement was only about Time.

And I certainly don't accept your premise.

(cadaddadadddar life)

Nutella

4-5 months to reset your tolerance? How many times / how much per week do you drink in the following 7-8 months? That seems like quite a long time.