Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

>
> In recent times, you are mostly right. Failure has to be defined. Some
> stories indicate partial success in some areas (Nicaragua, Cuba) but
> depend on criteria and I would ask if the USA did not do everything to
> inhibit these societies by economic sanctions that they might do
> better.
>
Partial success compared to what?  In all of those instances the
standard of living for the majority is far below what we consider to
be the poverty levels in this country.

> In historical times, the Inca empire (1250-1500 AD) was for 250 years
> a successful stable socialist economy and it ended when the
> conquistadors came (it was warfare, not peaceful commercial
> competition that ended the Inca empire).
>

Even during the Inca empire there were a few very rich who dominated
the people and the remainder served them.

> There is also a history of a few socialist experiments going back
> several thousand years in China but what caused them to end were
> natural disasters like floods and earthquakes.
>
> My "take" on all of this is that "robber-baron" processes will, in the
> end, lead the domination any civilization regardless of what label you
> use to describe it.
>
>
> > If you measure success by all but the elite leader****p sharing in the
> > equal misery as being good, you are more than welcome to it.
>
> > We can agree that tax-dodging isn't right but the use of taxes for
> > redistributing wealth is total bull****. =A0Taxation should be for the
> > sole purpose of providing protection and infrastructure for the common
> > use of all, not for redistribution of wealth.
>
> So, you think we should just let the rich become infinitely rich? and
> powerful?
>

Infinitely is a very vague and undefined term but when you look at the
history of the "infinitely" rich you will find some interesting
contrasts.  Take two of today's richest in the world as examples.
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are consistantly on the worlds top when
it comes to wealth.  Both are clearly rich by any measure but both are
also responsible for forming organizations that employ hundreds of
thousands of people around the world.  Both are also major
contributors to various world causes to benefit those who can not help
themselves.  Buffet has already setup a trust fund that will funnel
his vast wealth into those causes when he dies.  Gates is also
involved in some of the same causes and is using his wealth for good.
They are not alone either.

> Do you not see that this process is leaving greater pro****tions of the
> world's population more impoverished? Most of the new studies are
> showing this. The bottom half of India/China's population is no better
> off now than 20 years ago and some are worse off.
>

I see a world population that is growing far too fast for anything to
keep a large majority of that population from being impoverished.  I
also see that setting up a protectionist government to protect our own
will NOT help end that.  If we were not outsourcing jobs to India and
in the process helping build the economy of India, what do you thing
would be the result?  Instead of the bottom half being impoverished,
it might instead be the bottom 90%.

>
>
> deleted b/c no new discussion
>
> > > =A0The pursuit of happiness
>
> > > > mentioned in the Constitution is not a guarantee of achiement or
an
> > > > equality of results, only the op****tunity to try.
>
> > > Brilliant observation.
>
> > Thank you, I know. <BG> =A0Unfortunately it is an observation too
often
> > ignored.
>
> Fine, but the Consititution was written in simpler times and now with
> a whole lot of laws and enforcement agencies out there, and more
> complicated ways to live (and steal), the Constitution, by itself,
> might not be enough.
>

Maybe not but right now...it is the best we have and we better protect
it.

>
> All I said was about your "op****tunities" statement. If a guy wants to
> take YOUR op****tunity to be a crook, what are you going to do about
> it? Oh, excuse me, but there are a lot of guys out there who consider
> themselves _free_ to do anything they want and a lot of other guys who
> think _freedom_ somehow includes moral, ethical, legal behavior in
> there somewhere.- Hide quoted text -

The one thing that I have been a long term believer in is that along
with every right and freedom outlined in our constitution there is an
implied responsibility that goes along with it.  We seem all to eager
to claim all of our rights but shuck all of our responsibilities.  No,
we don't have the freedom to do anything we want and must take the
responsibility for the moral, ethical, and legal behavior as an
integral part.