Where do you stand on economics?

[QUOTE="MRZA"]i believe in the eradication of money and any other form of indirect oppression that had made human life so miserable. hair001

by creating a sense of scarcity within the human mind. It made u think that to live one must own things and in process u either exploit another human being or being exploited by other human being. To live we have to have money to buy things that are "scarce" (food, clothes, etc. they are not "scarce" but cost a lot thus makin g them "scarce")

to get this u work and be exploited, a big chunk of ur life had been taken away, nailed in the office to live. The 21st Century slavery 

[QUOTE="atony12"]i agree with mayor johny i dont think the government should intervene at all because when they do r economy falls and if u havent noticed r economy isnt doin that well right now with oil,the war,and these fricken hurricanesquiglythegreat

I can not believe how right wing you lot are!! Someone suggested cutting all welfare for single mothers and a bunch of people actually agreed with him. Alot of you believe people should be taxed at the same rate regardless of their income??! Christ! ... Remind me never to visit America if this is indicative of popular opinion in the US.Kid-Icarus-

Welfare should not be a lifetime solution.  Yet..generation after generation of the same family live this way...healthy..yes.  Working...no.  I don't believe in welfare.  Assistance to get a job...yes. Of course, the government would need to bring the jobs back to the US that they've allowed to leave for cheaper pastures....nonetheless, that is a better option.  I work for my money...why should I work for them to lay around and watch tv all day?

[QUOTE="hair001"][QUOTE="MRZA"]i believe in the eradication of money and any other form of indirect oppression that had made human life so miserable. MRZA

by creating a sense of scarcity within the human mind. It made u think that to live one must own things and in process u either exploit another human being or being exploited by other human being. To live we have to have money to buy things that are "scarce" (food, clothes, etc. they are not "scarce" but cost a lot thus makin g them "scarce")

to get this u work and be exploited, a big chunk of ur life had been taken away, nailed in the office to live. The 21st Century slavery

by creating a sense of scarcity within the human mind. It made u think that to live one must own things and in process

u either exploit another human being or being exploited by other human being. To live we have to have money to buy things that are "scarce" (food, clothes, etc. they are not "scarce" but cost 

a lot thus makin g them "scarce")

to get this u work and be exploited, a big chunk of ur life had been taken away, nailed in the office to live. The 21st 

Century slavery 

MRZA

Money is necessary to get what you need.  Before printing money...you had the barter system where you traded goods

 to get the things you didn't create  yourself.  Money just makes it easier.

everything is free.imsomebody

The government should provide standardized healthcare, and education.  Eliminate welfare altogether.  Eliminate federal income tax and instead institute a federal sales tax.  Increase tariffs only slightly on imported goods, so as to provide a small incentive to buy from our own economy.  Cut down on the size of our military and invest that money into developing further military technology. End all international bribes and federal aid to other countries.

So yea, I think we need some pretty sweeping changes. 

[QUOTE="MRZA"]

[QUOTE="hair001"][QUOTE="MRZA"]i believe in the eradication of money and any other form of indirect oppression that had made human life so miserable. hair001

by creating a sense of scarcity within the human mind. It made u think that to live one must own things and in process u either exploit another human being or being exploited by other human being. To live we have to have money to buy things that are "scarce" (food, clothes, etc. they are not "scarce" but cost a lot thus makin g them "scarce")

to get this u work and be exploited, a big chunk of ur life had been taken away, nailed in the office to live. The 21st Century slavery

1. About living in the wild, that is exactly what i want to do. but of course the limitation of the free world prevents me

2. Its true that someone had worked for me to attained my neccessity. But, the very same people does not enjoy the fruit of their own labour 

example: many farmers in the under-developed country havent got enough food to eat, or many sweat shop workers doesn't have clothes. The reason for this is that they as workers do not have enough salary, money, to buy their necessity.

If money is abolished, people would work as usual. the main difference came from the reward system. Without money, the reward system would be direct, there would be nothing in between commodities and labour. your reward for labour is simply the labour of others. Example: an engineer would build a hospital and in return he would receive mdeical cares by the doctors and by giving medical cares to the engineers the doctors would have experts to build their houses.

[QUOTE="imsomebody"]everything is free.hair001

They get paid with food, housing and other supplies. Yes it is kind of like slavery except you are not forced to work long hours in terrible working conditions.

Mixed economies are more practical than extreme forms of capitalism or socialism. Elraptor

Agreed 

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]Mixed economies are more practical than extreme forms of capitalism or socialism. Kid-Icarus-

Agreed

I say go one way or the other, otherwise everyone is always complaining.

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]Mixed economies are more practical than extreme forms of capitalism or socialism. imsomebody

Agreed

I say go one way or the other, otherwise everyone is always complaining.

[QUOTE="Artosa"]communism.Def_Jef88

learn what proper communism is before saying that.

and no, russia was not communist, and all the other countries what have attempted communism.

[QUOTE="imsomebody"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]Mixed economies are more practical than extreme forms of capitalism or socialism. MRZA

Agreed

I say go one way or the other, otherwise everyone is always complaining.

I don't agree. Fair social democratic systems like the one in sweden for example are a great example of a sucessful mixed economy. It is perfectly possible to combine parts of capitalism and socialism without swinging significantly either way.

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="Artosa"]communism.Artosa

learn what proper communism is before saying that.

and no, russia was not communist, and all the other countries what have attempted communism.

Listen here you pseudo intellectual...

No. And I don't care how you will use tin foil to change individual incentives.

Also load of crap to the person above me citing sweden. 

They are all the same race.

They have heterogenous tastes and preferences.

They are much MUCH different than any other developed nation.

Using sweden as an example is a poor choice, the country will have to become mixed whether it wants to or not.  

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="Artosa"]communism.Artosa

learn what proper communism is before saying that.

and no, russia was not communist, and all the other countries what have attempted communism.

I personnaly don't think that real communism would work much better than the other kind of communism. Mainly because of the lack of government control and the whole everyone is equal thing.

[QUOTE="MRZA"][QUOTE="imsomebody"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]Mixed economies are more practical than extreme forms of capitalism or socialism. Kid-Icarus-

Agreed

I say go one way or the other, otherwise everyone is always complaining.

I don't agree. Fair social democratic systems like the one in sweden for example are a great example of a sucessful mixed economy. It is perfectly possible to combine parts of capitalism and socialism without swinging significantly either way.

Almost every kind of economy can be successful. Including this one. With mixed economies however there is still poverty and business are not reaching their full potential. Meaning everyone loses.

[QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="Artosa"]communism.Zealot_02_basic

learn what proper communism is before saying that.

and no, russia was not communist, and all the other countries what have attempted communism.

Listen here you pseudo intellectual...

No. And I don't care how you will use tin foil to change individual incentives.

[QUOTE="Zealot_02_basic"][QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="Artosa"]communism.MRZA

learn what proper communism is before saying that.

and no, russia was not communist, and all the other countries what have attempted communism.

Listen here you pseudo intellectual...

No. And I don't care how you will use tin foil to change individual incentives.

People are naturally going to want to help themselves before helping others is most cases.  If people work to help themselves, it has a trickle down effect through taxes, stronger economy, more jobs... thus, it does help the whole of society. 

When people are working for others, just for the sake of society, there is no immediate reward or satisfaction for their work, which would in many if not most cases lead to dissatisfaction with their job, lifestyle, country...

In every case throughout history, standing on one extreme or the other has led to collapse. 

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"]

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]Mixed economies are more practical than extreme forms of capitalism or socialism. imsomebody

Agreed

I say go one way or the other, otherwise everyone is always complaining.

But by that logic, everyone in say, a communist regime, is happy. Which is very far from the truth.

throughout history, standing on one extreme or the other has led to collapse.

guynamedbilly

Exactly, I agree ... People can argue that Soviet Russia, China etc. was not proper Communism and that Proper Communism is different. However proper Communism has been proven to be unsucessful numerous times. It always leads to abuses of power. I do have alot of time for the ideas behind Communism and Socialism, which is why I think a truely moderate, mixed economy system with certain Socialist values (such as the Swedish system, despite its detractors above!) is a much more practical and fair system.

People are naturally going to want to help themselves before helping others is most cases.  If people work to help themselves, it has a trickle down effect through taxes, stronger economy, more jobs... thus, it does help the whole of society. 

When people are working for others, just for the sake of society, there is no immediate reward or satisfaction for their work, which would in many if not most cases lead to dissatisfaction with their job, lifestyle, country...

In every case throughout history, standing on one extreme or the other has led to collapse. 

the reason why we are so successful as a race is bceause of this altruistic nature, if early men hunt fro themselves they would not survive but because they hunt for the society and the society in turn helped him the survival of man become possible.

Nowadays, people are brainwashed to believe that this selfish need is important. But once u realise that by working together for the society create

a better result u will see that this notion of selfishness in wrong 

[QUOTE="Lann50"]I'm split, I believe in social programs, but there are instances in which they are taken advantage of, then I'm more of a laissez fairist.MayorJohnny

What kind of social programs? 

I like tax cuts, as long as they don't take away from any of the programs we have in place

[QUOTE="Zealot_02_basic"][QUOTE="Artosa"]

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="Artosa"]communism.MRZA

learn what proper communism is before saying that.

and no, russia was not communist, and all the other countries what have attempted communism.

Listen here you pseudo intellectual...

No. And I don't care how you will use tin foil to change individual incentives.

Whether early man hunted for himself and his family or for the whole of society is pretty debatable, since noone who lived then documented what they did.

But aside from that, in your example, assuming you're correct which again is impossible to prove, food is a very basic need that everyone in society can benefit from.  No matter what else the society has, they will always need food.  Now what about those aspects of society that only benefit a very small percentage of the whole? Such as Neurosurgeon, Snake Charmer, Child Services, etc... They disproportianally affect society, in that they get more out of it than they put into it. 

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="Artosa"]communism.Artosa

learn what proper communism is before saying that.

and no, russia was not communist, and all the other countries what have attempted communism.

There has never been a communist country, and there probably never will be.  In a true communist society, there is no such thing as the state.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

That is how it was taught to me anyway, and that is how I understand it. 

Where do you stand on economics? Are you more conservative or liberal?

 

What I believe:

Tax cuts stimulate the economy.

Tax cuts encourage business expansion and job openings because of a company's savings.

Tax cuts help the middle class. More money in people's accounts means more money being spent, which helps companies and thus means better job security for employees.

Lower taxes actually increase government revenue. More jobs mean more people paying taxes.

The minimum wage should be moderate. If it's designated too high, there will be less jobs available because of business expenses.

Competition raises the minimum wage and keeps product prices in check.

Competition drives the market. Not the government.

 

 

 

 

So, I'm a capitalist and I strongly believe in free enterprise.

MayorJohnny

it could work the same way with higher taxes. you have to realize that the government doesn't use your hard earned cash to throw extravagant crack parties--they use it to pay people to teach children, fix roads, put out fires, etc. those people then go and spend that money on services that businesses provide, giving them more revenue to hire more employees.    

it could work the same way with higher taxes. you have to realize that the government doesn't use your hard earned cash to throw extravagant crack parties--they use it to pay people to teach children, fix roads, put out fires, etc. those people then go and spend that money on services that businesses provide, giving them more revenue to hire more employees.

maximusmmii

The government uses my hard earned cash on worthless social programs that are never implemented properly.  They are merely created in an effort to look like they are actually doing something productive in an attempt to appeal to gullible uninformed voters.

Society is simply more productive when government interference is kept at a minimum.   

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]

throughout history, standing on one extreme or the other has led to collapse.

Kid-Icarus-

Exactly, I agree ... People can argue that Soviet Russia, China etc. was not proper Communism and that Proper Communism is different. However proper Communism has been proven to be unsucessful numerous times. It always leads to abuses of power. I do have alot of time for the ideas behind Communism and Socialism, which is why I think a truely moderate, mixed economy system with certain Socialist values (such as the Swedish system, despite its detractors above!) is a much more practical and fair system.

[QUOTE="maximusmmii"]

it could work the same way with higher taxes. you have to realize that the government doesn't use your hard earned cash to throw extravagant crack parties--they use it to pay people to teach children, fix roads, put out fires, etc. those people then go and spend that money on services that businesses provide, giving them more revenue to hire more employees.

Decessus

The government uses my hard earned cash on worthless social programs that are never implemented properly. They are merely created in an effort to look like they are actually doing something productive in an attempt to appeal to gullible uninformed voters.

Society is simply more productive when government interference is kept at a minimum.

[QUOTE="maximusmmii"]

it could work the same way with higher taxes. you have to realize that the government doesn't use your hard earned cash to throw extravagant crack parties--they use it to pay people to teach children, fix roads, put out fires, etc. those people then go and spend that money on services that businesses provide, giving them more revenue to hire more employees.

Decessus

The government uses my hard earned cash on worthless social programs that are never implemented properly. They are merely created in an effort to look like they are actually doing something productive in an attempt to appeal to gullible uninformed voters.

Society is simply more productive when government interference is kept at a minimum.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="maximusmmii"]

it could work the same way with higher taxes. you have to realize that the government doesn't use your hard earned cash to throw extravagant crack parties--they use it to pay people to teach children, fix roads, put out fires, etc. those people then go and spend that money on services that businesses provide, giving them more revenue to hire more employees.

quiglythegreat

The government uses my hard earned cash on worthless social programs that are never implemented properly. They are merely created in an effort to look like they are actually doing something productive in an attempt to appeal to gullible uninformed voters.

Society is simply more productive when government interference is kept at a minimum.

No, I believe I said I want government influence to be kept to a minimum.  I did not say I want government to cease existing.  The government is important for various reasons such as road building, police and fire protection, the military, and foreign relations, etc.

For just about everything else, the government should just step out of the way and let the free market economy work like it is supposed to.  Of course, this also requires people to educate themselves and to take responsibility for themselves.  This characteristic is something that is severely lacking in modern American society.

No, I believe I said I want government influence to be kept to a minimum. I did not say I want government to cease existing. The government is important for various reasons such as road building, police and fire protection, the military, and foreign relations, etc.

For just about everything else, the government should just step out of the way and let the free market economy work like it is supposed to. Of course, this also requires people to educate themselves and to take responsibility for themselves. This characteristic is something that is severely lacking in modern American society.

Decessus

Minimalism is just not a good philosophy if you've any ambition at all, and this applies to government. And American culture is 'help yourself' which is why we're still a Capitalism while all the rest of the modern world is going Socialist. The free market economy is not some goddamn plan. It's the natural state of the economy, as I understand it. There was no plan. The deal is 'make money'. There's nothing else to it.
quiglythegreat

What is the purpose of government? 

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]Minimalism is just not a good philosophy if you've any ambition at all, and this applies to government. And American culture is 'help yourself' which is why we're still a Capitalism while all the rest of the modern world is going Socialist. The free market economy is not some goddamn plan. It's the natural state of the economy, as I understand it. There was no plan. The deal is 'make money'. There's nothing else to it.
Decessus

What is the purpose of government?

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]Minimalism is just not a good philosophy if you've any ambition at all, and this applies to government. And American culture is 'help yourself' which is why we're still a Capitalism while all the rest of the modern world is going Socialist. The free market economy is not some goddamn plan. It's the natural state of the economy, as I understand it. There was no plan. The deal is 'make money'. There's nothing else to it.
quiglythegreat

What is the purpose of government?

I disagree even with your basic principle that the purpose of government is to help the people.  In my opinion, people should help themselves.  The purpose of the governement should be to protect the individual from circumstances that are beyond the control of any single individual.  It should also foster the growth and development of the individual.

Smart government spending stimulates the economy more effectively than consumer spending.  Smart government spending can generate more jobs, and redistribute wealth more evenly than self-intrested transactions in the private sphere.  It is a myth that, "tax cuts mean job growth."  This statement is only true if you dream of a government that collects taxes, tucks it into a vault, and sits on it like a hungry dragon.  Domestic spending counters this assumption quite easily.

Taxes are needed to more equally distribute wealth, in the form of government services of all types, in a society that is terribly unequal, unfair, and against the best intrests of the common working man.

Competition cripples the market and must be regulated, to an extent, to keep wages at a steady level.

Capitalism brings out the worst in human character.

The minimum wage should be a living wage.  If it's designated too high, small buisnesses might cut back on employees, but most large firms will only feel a soft "peck" into the sides of their disgustingly huge profit margins.  I'm sorry to wreck that 300% profit margin, boss.

I believe that people are naturally self-intrested, greedy, and often dangerous individuals that will do anything to "win" in the competition for scarce resources.   They don't care about the good of other people, ignore the suffering of their fellow countrymen, and neglect individuals who labor hard alongside them to provide Americans with a fair standard of living.

I absolutely hate capitalism, the values it creates, its core ideology, and how it views people. I consider it one of the lowest ambitions and value systems that humans can strive for -- the meaningless pursuit of excessive displays of wealth --  and hope it will become a relic of our greedy, backward, and disgusting time; however, until we can make resources more plentiful, it is a neccessary evil.  We should work together to make resources and a high standard of living so abundant that virtually all humans can enjoy a wonderful life.  Then we can shake off the meaningless and backward chains of capitalism.

Unfortunately, within the capitalist system, the working class is at a natural disadvantage in the competition for survival.  They find themselves bound by strict moral codes, which are cemeted in law, that prevent them from forcibly taking and redistrubting wealth when the upper-classes of society seek to deprive them of the fruits of their labors.  In a classical economy, the upper-classes have complete power over wages (wages are not "flexible" as so many developing economies depict every day) and had the power to, quite literally, work a person to death.  If we truely wish for a free economy and market, we should not bind workers to government-sanctioned moral laws.  A knife or gun could easily solve unethical treatment of workers in the work place.  But, most of us value human life, and the sanctity of life suggests that we should embrace a more plausible alternative. 

Labor has such little power under the classical views of Economy that humans appear little more than replacable machines to be used, exploited, and sacraficed as if they were cheap piles of equipment.  Government must exist to provide power for those who find themselves exploited and bound by moral laws at the same time.  Government must also prevent the greed of the few from exploiting and enslaving the labor of the many: supporting unionization, progressive taxation, and ensuring breaks, paid holidays, workers comp, unemployment, etc -- are only a list of a few things that Government must do to ensure a high quality of life for the working class.

The free economy cannot function in the long-run.  As the great 20th century English Economist, John Maynard Keynes, argued -- "in the long run, we're dead."  Wage-price spirals can absolutely cripple an economy, and without stimulating aggrate demand, the economy can operate at an ENORMOUS level of unemployment and poor PPP for a very-very-very long time (Great Depression is a wonderful example). People are so self-intrested and short sighted that the government must meddle in the affairs of an economy, if simply to ensure economic prosperity.

Smart government spending stimulates the economy more effectively than consumer spending. Smart government spending can generate more jobs, and redistribute wealth more evenly than self-intrested transactions in the private sphere. It is a myth that, "tax cuts mean job growth." This statement is only true if you dream of a government that collects taxes, tucks it into a vault, and sits on it like a hungry dragon. Domestic spending counters this assumption quite easily.

Taxes are needed to more equally distribute wealth, in the form of government services of all types, in a society that is terribly unequal, unfair, and against the best intrests of the common working man.

Competition cripples the market and must be regulated, to an extent, to keep wages at a steady level.

Capitalism brings out the worst in human character.

The minimum wage should be a living wage. If it's designated too high, small buisnesses might cut back on employees, but most large firms will only feel a soft "peck" into the sides of their disgustingly huge profit margins. I'm sorry to wreck that 300% profit margin, boss.

 

I believe that people are naturally self-intrested, greedy, and often dangerous individuals that will do anything to "win" in the competition for scarce resources. They don't care about the good of other people, ignore the suffering of their fellow countrymen, and neglect individuals who labor hard alongside them to provide Americans with a fair standard of living.

I absolutely hate capitalism, the values it creates, its core ideology, and how it views people. I consider it one of the lowest ambitions and value systems that humans can strive for -- the meaningless pursuit of excessive displays of wealth -- and hope it will become a relic of our greedy, backward, and disgusting time; however, until we can make resources more plentiful, it is a neccessary evil. We should work together to make resources and a high standard of living so abundant that virtually all humans can enjoy a wonderful life. Then we can shake off the meaningless and backward chains of capitalism.

Unfortunately, within the capitalist system, the working class is at a natural disadvantage in the competition for survival. They find themselves bound by strict moral codes, which are cemeted in law, that prevent them from forcibly taking and redistrubting wealth when the upper-classes of society seek to deprive them of the fruits of their labors. In a classical economy, the upper-classes have complete power over wages (wages are not "flexible" as so many developing economies depict every day) and had the power to, quite literally, work a person to death. If we truely wish for a free economy and market, we should not bind workers to government-sanctioned moral laws. A knife or gun could easily solve unethical treatment of workers in the work place. But, most of us value human life, and the sanctity of life suggests that we should embrace a more plausible alternative.

Labor has such little power under the classical views of Economy that humans appear little more than replacable machines to be used, exploited, and sacraficed as if they were cheap piles of equipment. Government must exist to provide power for those who find themselves exploited and bound by moral laws at the same time. Government must also prevent the greed of the few from exploiting and enslaving the labor of the many: supporting unionization, progressive taxation, and ensuring breaks, paid holidays, workers comp, unemployment, etc -- are only a list of a few things that Government must do to ensure a high quality of life for the working class.

The free economy cannot function in the long-run. As the great 20th century English Economist, John Maynard Keynes, argued -- "in the long run, we're dead." Wage-price spirals can absolutely cripple an economy, and without stimulating aggrate demand, the economy can operate at an ENORMOUS level of unemployment and poor PPP for a very-very-very long time (Great Depression is a wonderful example). People are so self-intrested and short sighted that the government must meddle in the affairs of an economy, if simply to ensure economic prosperity. 

FoamingPanda

If people are naturally self-interested, greedy, and dangeous like you claim then how is the government, which is made up of people, going to affect anything in a positive manner? 

regarding taxes... those who have the most, owe the most back to the society that allowed them to have the most in the first place... and those who don't have the most are right to demand it...

doesn't it bother you that 85% of the wealth in this country is owned by 1% of the population ??? don't give me that "hard work makes you rich" crap.. if it was true, then the poor sot unloading 80lb sacks of concrete all day would be the richest guy in town, but that just aint true... its people who have access to (or transact in) large sums of money that they can skim (legally) that become the wealthiest...

there are people living within 10 miles of my house who will earn more in 1 year from interest from their savings and investments than I will make my entire life from my salary (and many of you would probably consider me "rich")...

society has a strange way of deciding who wins...

regarding taxes... those who have the most, owe the most back to the society that allowed them to have the most in the first place... and those who don't have the most are right to demand it...

doesn't it bother you that 85% of the wealth in this country is owned by 1% of the population ??? don't give me that "hard work makes you rich" crap.. if it was true, then the poor sot unloading 80lb sacks of concrete all day would be the richest guy in town, but that just aint true... its people who have access to (or transact in) large sums of money that they can skim (legally) that become the wealthiest...

there are people living within 10 miles of my house who will earn more in 1 year from interest from their savings and investments than I will make my entire life from my salary (and many of you would probably consider me "rich")...

society has a strange way of deciding who wins...

1fast6

I agree with this philosophy totally. People fall into the trap of assuming that hard work is what makes a person rich, when in reality, it is more often the ability to take advantage of other peoples' efforts that makes a person wealthy. The rich in society don't work very hard by comparison to the people they are paying very little to do the hard work for them. When you understand this, you begin to realize why it's so common to find immorality and shady dealings amongst the ranks of the enormously wealthy. These are people who live to exploit; any act that enriches them is not considered immoral, provided they can get away with it. So despite the fact that they make far more than they could ever need, they hide their money from taxation by both legal and illegal means, perform illegal insider trading, lie about company profits in public sources, and do anything else they possibly can to satiate their interminable desire to have more money. And when they get into trouble, they try to buy their way out of it, rather than admit their wrong-doing and face the consequences.

I think Foaming Panda put it best - capitalism inspires the very worst in humanity. It's no surprise that it is such a successful economic system, because it is beautifully tailored to our natural, animalistic instincts. But to say that these instincts should be encouraged without guidelines is, as far as I'm concerned, incredibly foolish.

Like many others here, I believe a mixed economy is the most successful one we can employ. Progressive taxes that allow individuals to make more than their peers through their efforts without becoming enormously and ridiculously wealthy will ensure that the profit motive continues to exist, but does not end with the vast majority of a country's wealth being controlled by a tiny percentage of the population. Left to their own devices, the wealthy are not generous enough to sustain an acceptable quality of life for those who are not wealthy. There have been (and are) a number of exceptional philanthropists in the world, but they are far outnumbered by the wealthy individuals who could care less if their workers can pay for their children's surgery or not. So tax them to the hilt. Make it impossible to earn many millions of dollars a year, when one needs only a small fraction of that to live a perfectly happy, reasonable life.

I'm 15, therefore I am ignorant and have no stand on economics.  :| 

If people are naturally self-interested, greedy, and dangeous like you claim then how is the government, which is made up of people, going to affect anything in a positive manner?

Decessus

Corruption will always be present in the government, just as it is in business. But to some extent a government can be held more accountable to the people than a company can, because the politicians' jobs depend on satisfying the majority of a country's population. Which do you think is more likely to invest in society's welfare - a private corporation or an elected government? I should think the answer should be clear. Are you disputing that people are naturally self-interested, greedy, and dangerous? If so, how do you explain the capitalist philosophy, or crime for that matter?

I think everyone should be taxed 15% regardless of income. Making people with more money pay higher percentages is simply stupid.Def_Jef88

Oh yes, that makes perfect sense. Let's take $3000 away from that person making $20, 000 a year, struggling to pay his rent, so that a person making $10 000 000 a year can be left with $8, 500, 000. After all, we wouldn't want his family to have to use the same jewel-encrusted silverware for more than a month or two. :|