We have a dynamic economy. In the past 150 years, we've gone from an agrarian society, to an industrial society, to a service society to a technological society to a knowledge society. Previous generations made the transition from one economy to another; why is this generation unable to do so? It's not easy, one may not succeed, but one should at least try. And I think family farms are great, but if they can't compete against agribusiness, then they should sell. Remember, creating subsidies for these farmers simply results in higher food and energy prices for everyone else. Pulling yourself by your bootstraps doesn't mean striking it rich; it can mean just putting a roof over the head of your family and food on the table. However, there is dignity in all work and providing those things for yourself is so much better for your self-worth than getting a check from the government. You seem to want to pretend that taking care of others who choose not to take care of themselves is the compassionate thing to do. I disagree. I think the truly compassionate thing to do is to incentivize people to improve themselves by making our social safety net so bare bones (food, clothing, shelter) that's it's difficult for people to live on it for more than brief periods.
To say people don't try I think is unfair. And to think that everyone can just make a "transition" is way too simplistic. People are complex. Many people don't want to leave the job their family has been doing for generations to go work in a cube or to work at mcdonalds. To expect people to give up their livelihoods and work a job that devalues work (for the good of corporate profits and the availability of cheap stuff) is unrealistic. Wait, are you talking about family farms or agribusiness? Remember, it's agribusiness that is receiving huge subsidies so that we can continue to run our economy and food system on corn. It's one of the most backwards and unsustainable industries we have in America, and we are paying right into it. I'd be all for providing subsidies for small farmers and taking them away from huge agribusiness. I can't think of a better way of providing jobs for rural folks who don't want to have to move to the city and work at Wendy's while at the same time helping an unsustainable and harmful sector of our economy move forwards. In saying these kinds of things, it seems you might have the benefit of being detached from the situation. If you worked in manufacturing and after seeing your job shipped overseas, what would you do? Go and work 3 minimum wage jobs to feed your family? Or work one and get government assistance? Nobody really wants to not have a job and get free shit from the government, especially not the folks who lost their jobs due to American business being allowed to circumvent labor and wage laws by shipping American jobs overseas. Those folks want their old jobs back, not to go and be a cubicle dwelling computer monkey. Yeah, that might incentivize people, but it will also kill a bunch of people too. But I guess, survival of the fittest right? For me, this all comes back to the fact that working in a service economy is almost traumatizing for some people. Some people just want to work with their hands, do something of quality, get the job done and be proud of their work. The whole incentivization thing really means, "How can we make people think that they have to work the way we want them to?" We don't want the American people to work manufacturing, agriculture or even many tech jobs anymore. We have cheap and/or slave labor overseas to do that. Or we've got machines to do it for us. There's no pride in quality anymore, there's no pride in making something unique when you can just buy one at IKEA for fractions of its true cost. You want to talk about taking responsibility? How about not basing our entire economy on unsustainable consumer goods shipped in from overseas? That's irresponsible. How about keeping jobs in America and paying for the full cost of something as dictated by our laws, instead of using foreign labor and circumventing those laws? Are those laws meaningless? Apparently so. That's irresponsible. People don't want to work not because they are lazy or irresponsible, but because ultimately they are wasting half of their day chasing the dream of somebody else. /off topic black Friday rant But really, I see your point. If you read what I just wrote above, you'll see that I don't have too much trust in the system, even if people weren't using welfare and it were working at full efficiency. So, I don't care if people take handouts. It's just the fiddlers playing as the ship sinks.
We'll simply agree to disagree. I think people are more resilient than do you. It's the false crutch of government assistance that has crippled them.
I used to think the way you do. However, all data point to those policies not working. At some point in time, you have to change your approach.
"Those policies" have never been attempted (EDIT: unless, of course, you're talking about social safety nets.) And I hope I never change my belief in what the right thing to do is just because our ineffective government can't figure out how to do it.
Leftist policies have been tried all over the world. When they fail, the common complaint is that "we didn't do enough of it". You can't go against human nature, and human nature is generally self-interested.
I'm not talking about "leftist policies." I agree human nature is generally self-interested. And we go against human nature constantly by living as equals in society. What goes on behind the scenes in our culture and our social psychology is what actually effects people's actions. That's what I'm interested in changing, and the politics of today are not a powerful enough tool to do so.
I used to say stuff just like this in college to get laid. It's deep, man! Let's go behind The Man to beat The Man! Sure, it's pie-in-the-sky bullshit, but it does sound cool while smoking a bowl or downing some beer with some hotties.
You were that guy? Bummer. I don't need to be fake to get laid and I actually believe in what I'm talking about. Hopefully you figured your life out.
Didn't realize that businesses need to stay loyal to their country that gouges them; just to save jobs. Sorry we aren't communist. Corporations aren't bound by our government to stay in business. If they are being raped; then move. Instead of making the businesses keep jobs; how about have the federal government do things to keep businesses in USA.
So a company should choose to stay in a less profitable area? What is the point of opening a business if not to make profit? Should corporation profits be capped? At what amount?
Sounds extremely communist to me. If the government will be the only good source of decent working income; then you are tied to only do what government tells you to do. We become employed by the country; instead of corporations. How free are we then?!
I just, wow. How does this country "gouge" them? We are clearly the leader of the world in business freedoms. Companies are not being "raped," they are being regulated. Good to see you throw that term around so easily. Like what? The reasons they go overseas is because they can have the kind of labor that we have outlawed here. So apparently you're in favor of sweatshops, no minimum wage, and in some cases, straight up slave labor. In America. Awesome. No? I guess we'll just continue to lose our jobs to the Chinese. Jesus. Yes. All corporate profits above what will buy the CEO a bowl of gruel and a framed picture of president Obama shall hence forth be commandeered by the government. /dismissive wank Guys, guys, guys. This is what's wrong. Look how quickly you guys devolved into McCarthyism. Do you remember what I was even talking about? People over profits. Communism? Killing freedom? No. Get a hold of yourselves. Big business cannot continue to pretend like they have no influence over society. Because they aren't government, they can throw their hands in the air and just say that they making as much money as possible-- that's the goal of a corporation. To make a profit. But the truth is, they have more influence on society than government. Hell, they influence the government at every turn. They become politicians. They bounce between federal jobs and boardroom jobs with impunity. These people are running shit, and they have a free pass in the form of the business which is protected by the cult of capitalism. And here we see it. Someone on a message board says, "Hey, that's kind of fucked up that businesses can leave entire sections of our economy in ruins just to make more money by circumventing our labor laws." And what happens? Just look at your responses. I'm not saying cap profits. I'm definitely not saying we should be communist. I'm saying HEY LOOK AT THIS PROBLEM WTF. Hey America, let's talk about our problems instead of ignoring them. Turn off the fucking television.
Ok now we can agree, the average business, or even "big " business is at the mercy of the gov, these are the guys that keep the wheels on the buss BIG business, now they scare the hell out of me. They do dictate policy. I also feel that like the seperation of church and state, there needs to be a division between political office and business, battles should be fought in courts or by ballot, not lobbied for.
obama said he would get lobbyists out of washington, what a load of shit that was fact is, you cant really stop someone from putting up a billboard in support of a candidate they like, or a thousand prime time commercials, or a bunch of mailers...and alot of this money is coming from big business
hmm yeah , but these "super pacs" are a new thing. these need to be stopped. there should be limits on what a business can contribute public unions need to be limited in political power and what they can contribute could be one way to control what they spend, dont let it be tax exempt...if one can not deduct it ...well..
i read somewhere that of the 300+ million karl rove collected, 1.8% went to a winning election, maybe that will persuade some people to not bother
