Why is it that people continue to ignore the heart of the problem with American democracy?

65 posts / 0 new

I haven't followed American politics for too long but in the last few years I've seen a growing disinterest in what Congress does. People are angry at the republicans for taking away our civil rights as well as Democrats for not standing up to them. We can expect a very tough campaign season where Mitt Romney will tear Obama limb from limb in ad after ad. We can expect the AFA to be dismantled with a Conservative Court that is looking to bring us back into the 50s harshly. Sadly, there is no longer an FDR court that was fairly activist to uphold Miranda rights nor check a government that is destroying America with the Citizens United ruling.

But in all of the talks about:

Poor electoral choices...

Campaign Finance Reform...

Judicial Activism...

Healthcare...

War on Women...

War on black men...

War on civil rights...

War on the middle class...

... I haven't heard about the one issue that is prevalent in all of these issues. Not one person is looking to punish the political parties in any particular form. And people aren't not looking into why we desperately need electoral reform. With the Electoral System in play, we are hindered into a two party system. With the First past the post system, we destroy any chance for meaningful third parties to make national impacts in elections. This is not democracy.

http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-electoral-college/

It is not a democracy to have a system where 11 million people can be disenfranchised by living in an area where their vote does not count. This is not a democracy where the minority rules over the majority. It is not democracy that it takes a simple majority to overrule decades of laws that allow banks to rule as part of a totalitarian state.

So how do you punish political parties that don't represent your interests? By voting for the other guy? As we can see, there isn't much choice between Republicans, who represent the affluent, and the Democrats who are not willing to fight against the money for their campaigns. So we basically need more parties. But you can not have more parties gain influence in America with our two party system suppressing democracy.

We need to abolish the electoral college that takes away the ability for better elections.

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

There are two major ways to pick the president that allow third parties extensively. First is just the popular vote. However, I'm not a fan of this system because it is essentially the problem as our Congressional make up; it favors two parties and minority rule. Instead, we should eliminate the electoral college (12th and 23rd Amendments) and install an Alternative voting system. It's much fairer, more proportional and eliminates the gerrymandering and disenfranchisement incentives that politicians will face to try to disparage the vote. Now that we have a better president, perhaps there are ways to punish Republicans for voting against the majority?

Yes, but let's leave the Democrats also until they decide to bulk up. If you have a fairly decent third party in your area, it's time to have a proportion of the vote on the Federal level. This comes up by changing each state to an alternative vote proportional system. We add more electors (538 x 2 = 1076) but half of these electors are brought in by party vote. In other words, in each state, you vote for the party you want in power. Believe you're Libertarian, not Republican? Vote that way. Want to vote for the Justice Party? The Pirate Party? The Green Party? That's who makes up the 538 electors on the other side of the spectrum. Also, with the elimination of the electoral college and its crazy rules, you'll have a much better make up of electors in various views than just two parties trying to decide everything and failing miserably.

So... Can we have a republic democracy without the electoral college? The answer is yes. Australia has a much fairer system. The US has an archaic system set up for a very small country that no longer works for us. If we want to have better politicians, it's time to make them accountable to "we, the people".

Anulap's picture
Anulap
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 4:12 pm

Comments

I have been calling for a meeting around the Pledge of Allegiance and the subject of democracy. I want to make economics subordinate to this question, and I want the idea of governing ourselves separated from the fact that it will never be perfect or self-managing. I am willing to discuss democracy with Americans and entertain some new thinking about how to construct a government.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC: I am willing to discuss democracy with Americans and entertain some new thinking about how to construct a government.

Even with the idea of using the time-tested plan that the USA has used times before to get itself out of overwhelming crisies, we are at a standstill to get anything done.

The normal people in Congress are at a fear freeze. The president...I don't know what is really going on with the President.... i see no way to do anything right now.

It is frustrating, but at least having an idea instigates a glimmer of hope.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

To eliminate the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. If you want change that actually could happen in months, or a few years at the most . . . The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency. National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659). With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

oldgulph
Joined:
Jun. 2, 2011 8:32 am

The problemk with any Democracy is that the poor (or have nots) and those who feel like they are have nots can vote themselves tax dollars. Look at the situation we now have in the US, where half the population does not pay income taxes (Yes many do pay FICA, but that is separate). You can only go down that road so far before you have real problems.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm
Quote mauiman58:

The problemk with any Democracy is that the poor (or have nots) and those who feel like they are have nots can vote themselves tax dollars. Look at the situation we now have in the US, where half the population does not pay income taxes (Yes many do pay FICA, but that is separate). You can only go down that road so far before you have real problems.

You could also say that the problem with Democracy is that the rich (or have more than they need) can BUY themselves tax dollars. I mean look at the situation we now have in the US, where 1% of the population has more wealth than the bottom 50% of an entire country. You can only go down that road so far before you have real problems.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote mauiman58:

The problemk with any Democracy is that the poor (or have nots) and those who feel like they are have nots can vote themselves tax dollars. Look at the situation we now have in the US, where half the population does not pay income taxes (Yes many do pay FICA, but that is separate). You can only go down that road so far before you have real problems.

You could also say that the problem with Democracy is that the rich (or have more than they need) can BUY themselves tax dollars. I mean look at the situation we now have in the US, where 1% of the population has more wealth than the bottom 50% of an entire country. You can only go down that road so far before you have real problems.

The problem with our democracy is that we have way too many people who still look at our democracy like Mauiman and not enough who look at it like BushWacker does. You can only go down that road so far before you have irreparable problems. No offense Maui, but seeing have-nots as the problem only makes sense from the HAVES perspective. Do you consider yourself a HAVE or do you just aspire to be one and figure voting for rich guys will somehow give you a better chance to be one?

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

When things fall apart and complex systems collapse, you want the expertise of those who have lived with little or nothing and not the weight of those who have depended upon being in the lap of luxury. Mauiman, besmirching his handle, chooses to cast his lot with the rich thinking that they will take him aboard their yachts and that those craft will have all the fuel and food, not to forget the water, they will need to stay afloat until landfall. Good luck to him.

Survivors are a better bet. They will take you in and teach you how to be of use.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

What you say has merit. However, it loses some validity when you factor in the FPTP system that I explain. It will continue to instill a minority rule and absolutely ignores third parties that are not established. The problem of the First Past the Post system can be explained here:

http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-problems-with-first-past-the-post-voting-explained/

What I have been arguing for is an alternative vote system for Presidential elections:

http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-alternative-vote-instant-runoff-explained/

This ensures a majority rules on who is the next president, barring any unfortunate circumstances that would change the number of nominees.

Anulap's picture
Anulap
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 4:12 pm

There is nothing wrong with the system we have. Every 6 years you have a handful of opportunities to vote out all, what is it, 537 people who govern this country. We can do this peacefully and in safety in the richest, most powerful country the world has ever seen yet we only average about 47% turnout in any given year. Even in a Presidential year we rarely surpass 65%. We deserve what we get. Unfortunately.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Wow, I guess I never noticed how much I love the choices we have and all that freedom to repeal what the power of money has established. What a great country, what a wonderful life, and what a fantastic American Dreamworld you are living in. Have another drink of the SOMA and relax your mind and float downstream. . .

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

There is nothing wrong with the system we have. Every 6 years you have a handful of opportunities to vote out all, what is it, 537 people who govern this country. We can do this peacefully and in safety in the richest, most powerful country the world has ever seen yet we only average about 47% turnout in any given year. Even in a Presidential year we rarely surpass 65%. We deserve what we get. Unfortunately.

I am very interested how you can take that stance when there is plenty of evidence that our voting system has the result of instilling minority rule.

Electoral College problems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

First past the post problems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Solutions:

Alternative vote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Mixed Member Proportional Voting for Congress: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&list=PL87DB3F7E8107A4AE&index=6&feature=plcp

So you want to change the system? Change it at the root. A better voting system is the start.

Anulap's picture
Anulap
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 4:12 pm

These clips are interesting, but nothing I had not heard of before. I must admit I am intrigued with the idea of voting multiple times and ranking my choices. That being said I must reiterate my position that the SYSTEM, while far from perfect, is fine. Peoples apathy must change.

All systems have problems, small d democracy (a.k.a. my 51% mob trumps your 49% mob), electoral college, parliaments, every form of government has them. If I were black, or a women, or a white male who didn't own property and thus couldn't vote (a system contemplated by some of the Founders) I would be for every remedy up to and including blood in the streets.

Times have changed. We don't have to dodge bullets and bombs the way Iraqis did. We just need to get off our lazy asses and go vote.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Some "systems" have a rash, some have blisters and some are filled with cancer. We get to dodge tear gas and rubber bullets, but also to dodge pr blitz's and "discussions" of economics where nonsense is treated as wisdom. The problems of America are not just about lazy voters who don't. If you think other people ought to be rising up and even be willing to shed blood, you need to be there first. It is not about "them."

Whatever it is that you think "the System" is, to call it fine is absurd. Reforming elections would be a start, but dealing with established power is the problem elections barely touch when they are bought and sold by power. Power is not going to yield to election reform unless we bring the power of democracy with us.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

@DRC Exactly where do think there has been a "system" of government that has cumulatively offered more freedom, both politically and economically than has our's for the last 230+ years? Millions of emigrants have shed blood, sweat, and tears to get here. Were they all wrong?

Dodgeing rubber bullets and tear gas doesn't elect someone who can change the status quo, voting does. Don't break the law - go to the polls.

In any given year only 47 people out of 100 bother to vote. Many of our issues are decided 51% to 49%. This means that if you or I are on the "losing" side of a vote only 23 and a fraction of the people who voted, out of 100, voted with us. And you want to scrap the system because of this?

My sentiments are if you don't like our system move, or better yet, continue to vote and take someone to the polls with you.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

People don't vote because they know the system is rigged by crooks to benefit crooks. Give people credit for being able to recognize reality. The conservatives are actually dumb, so dumb that they really think like that moron Herman Cain as he spoke into a microphone at their convention and proclaimed other people stupid. In the past when someone was caught selling snakeoil they would often get tarred and feathered and run out of town. That, essentially, is what needs to happen to the conservatives of today so they quit bastardizing society.

jmacneil's picture
jmacneil
Joined:
Mar. 6, 2012 6:24 pm

"Tis a great thing to be able to vote every couple of years. One party will give you the choice of voting for Corporate Tweedle Dee and the other party will give you the choice of voting for his twin, Corporate Tweedle Dum.

The Soviets never understood how to make a true democracy. Have a choice. They should have allowed a person to vote for a Blue Party's Communist candidate...or a Red Party's Communist candidate. They too could have had the appearance of a nice little democracy. without the threat of any substantial change ever taking place. LOL

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Our ECONOMIC SYSTEM is the problem. Democracy is a little messy, but it works. Our ECONOMIC SYSTEM which is separate from our political system has utterly corrupted our political processes. We need a conversation about modifying our form of capitalism to reflect democratic principles. If we don't get rid of the corporate structures (or at the very least give people a choice about their working environments) that now have a strangle hold on our democracy we, the people, will never have a chance. Regulation does not work, the corporate structure will simply find a way around them, just like they've shown us their are so very good at.

We need a fundamental modification of our economic system, our form of capitalism. If democracy is good for our political process..... why isn't is good for our economic system?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

The national conversation ought to be about how to have democracy. There is no reason to have "capitalism" be all about dog eat dog instead of the pluralism of comparative advantage and shared gifts and needs. No problem with people earning enough to enjoy, but not sharing "the money" in the economic system does not have to be good capitalism in anyone's mind.

I agree that "the stupid economy" diverts people's thinking from how to be a free and self-governing people, but there is also the stupid individualism that pretends we are not in this together. How to be free and together is a different question than we get from the pissed off libertarians and capitalists.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

What gets ignored in all this tyax talk is that consumer capitalism has to create a system with all the money at the top. The meme is tht our economy is 70% consumer driven. I have no reason to doubt that. In every consumer transaction that takes place, money is driven tothe top. That is because the trade is one of something of disappearing value, a consumer good, for something of enduring value, money. With no way to redistribute the valuable stuff with enduring value back down, anybody can see where this ends up. The whine about "redistribution of wealth" is a hollow one, because it is the very essence of consumer capitalism. It is small wonder that the greedy argue for free markets and no taxes.

Everybody gets to vote for what they want. I vote for engineered redistribution of wealth.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Lift all those boats. The only reason we need to talk about "the redistribution of wealth" is that the economy does not do it by itself. They promised it would. Duh.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The only thing a good government is supposed to provide is equal opportunity under the law. They are not and cannot provide equal outcomes or even close to equal outcomes, there will always be rich and poor, not because government has failed but because the people themselves are free to succeed or fail on their own. That is the beauty of capitalism and democracy.

Everyone has the opportunity to vote

Everyone has the opportunity to go to school

Everyone has the opportunity to secede or to fail

It is up to you.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Secede sounds like a good option.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Yup, that's what bossman seems to think money buys him, the right to secede or just suck.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:

The only thing a good government is supposed to provide is equal opportunity under the law. They are not and cannot provide equal outcomes or even close to equal outcomes, there will always be rich and poor, not because government has failed but because the people themselves are free to succeed or fail on their own. That is the beauty of capitalism and democracy.

Everyone has the opportunity to vote

Everyone has the opportunity to go to school

Everyone has the opportunity to secede or to fail

It is up to you.

Kind of. The government's main responsibility is to look after the general welfare and safety of it's citizens. If the government allows a run away free market system with no regulatory aspects in place then a very select few will have all of the power. That is not Democracy. That's dictatorship. Through government regulation and "TAXATION" you can control the gap between the have's and the have nots. That is probably the single most important equation involving democracy. The entire Democrat vs Republican boxing match is ultimately what that is all about. How much of a gap do we allow between Buffets and the laborers of the country and at what cost environmentally do we allow.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
there will always be rich and poor, not because government has failed but because the people themselves are free to succeed or fail on their own. That is the beauty of capitalism and democracy.
This is said as though somebody is arguing against it. It's a straw man. It's an argument against something that does not exist. Nobody argues that there will not always be rich and poor. The only argument is over how poor people should be allowed to be. People will always have the opportunity to find their own place within that range. There's no reason that the have-nots have to be allowed to be have-nothings. We get to decide that. Conservatives don't get to decide that all by themselves. That is the beauty of capitalism and democracy

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Hi, guys! Sorry about not being here for a long time!...

One of the big arguments given by the far right is the issue of "choice." However, what is the use of being able to make a choice if all of the options given within that choice are garbage? Those of us who truly dislike the "system" need to learn to say,"All of the options given that they to offer us are garbage! I choose none of the above!"

Think about it! The far right ethic is that if a choice is "voluntarily" made that it is a good one. But if all that is within those "choices" are options that either enslave us or deprive us, what kind of choice is that?

I choose none of the above!

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

If the conservatives appreciated "the beauty of capitalism," they would want to insure that the economy was stable and not subjected to fraud and bubbles. I don't expect conservatives to appreciate the beauty of democracy because they keep saying such nasty things about a lot of the people and try to keep them from participating. They confuse "economic freedom" with democracy, but also think that it is what "capitalism" is all about. If they appreciated the beauty of freedom, they would want it for all and would not think that slaves, serfs and poor people were truly free and included in the "for all."

I would just like to have conservatives understand economics and/or democracy. What I tend to get is all about how immoral it is for all those other people to demand that they be human beings instead of being able to buy their way out of the human race.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Democracy is about equal access to voting and participation in the system. We already have that in america unless you are in the country illegally or are convicted felons.

Capitalism is an economic system where everyone has equal opportunity to suceed or fail. This system is not.perfect but is better than amything else humans have tried. There are booms and busts however these are made worse by government intervention.

Excuse typos posted from phone

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:Democracy is about equal access to voting and participation in the system. We already have that in america unless you are in the country illegally or are convicted felons. Capitalism is an economic system where everyone has equal opportunity to suceed or fail. This system is not.perfect but is better than amything else humans have tried. There are booms and busts however these are made worse by government intervention. Excuse typos posted from phone

I couldn't disagree more with your second to last sentence. As far as your last sentence goes, I am truly impressed that you are doing this from your phone. It would take me an hour to type in that paragraph. Kudos

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Hmmm. Equal access to voting and participation in the system. That would be revolutionary compared to what the GOPimps and the Supremes have done to voting. No, we don't have that, and we don't have votes counted accurately under the GOPimp pushed voting machines, etc. But, at least the theory of democracy is present here in some elemental and simplisitic way.

On the other hand, with "capitalism" there is nothing inherent in it about "everybody" having anything near to an equal opportunity to succeed or fail. Technically, "capitalism" is about having investment capital beyond one's personal stake in a farm or business, to "invest" in the stock market. But, we will not quibble. Let us include all this small business, family farm and personal career employment in the general theory of "capitalism."

What you clearly do not understand at all is how booms and busts happen and why there is no "natural" stability to "capitalism" unless there are rules enforced by a state to insure that there are not going to be booms and busts brought on by unsound financial practices. Then there is the whole idea of where Commerce and "economics" fit in human life and society. The concept of "economic man" is fairly recent in human history, but not the worship of money and greed. Mammon is an old religion with very bad returns on its promises in terms of humanity. It is right up there with Mars in that regard.

Studies of happiness do not confirm your notion that the "system" of 'capitalism' you describe is better than anything else humans have tried. The social results are not all that great, and the damage being done to the earth is a serious down-side to any notion of wealth and productivity.

The only way to argue that the booms and busts are "made worse by government intervention" is to cite those times when the role of the government has been corrupted by the rich and powerful to take away the function of the state to regulate and maintain fiscal integrity, as in the banking business. Volker is right about keeping investment 'banking' separate from commercial banking, for example.

A lot of money has been spent to produce your catechetical response to these questions by people who have no appreciation at all of what it means to be human and to live in moral relationships with others and the earth. You are not alone, but do not pretend that you really care about that equality of opportunity in either democracy or economics because it comes off as very empty piety.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The construct of who "succeeds" and who "fails" that we are being treated to tells us that, unless you are a business tycoon of some kind, and have the talent and temperament to manipulate economic instruments, there is little hope for success in your future. It is a given that a pitifully small percentage of people can achieve "success" in sports or the arts, or even the manual trades by this definition. It's a sad thing, the lack of choice we have in this system.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Voting machine fraud is a problem on both political parties. The GOP and the supremes have done nothing to voting. The GOP is pushing for people to prove who they are before they vote I believe this to be a good thing. You have to show ID to get a library book from a public library but not to vote in an election. That does not make sense to me.

I can only assume that you mean the supreme court by the supremes you were talking about earlier under the citizens united rule where the supreme court said that corporations being made up of people can use the money those people provide to support a political candidate. They did not say that corporations are people, and they did not say that money is speech. They did say that by taking away the ability of people to unite through a corporation or a union to support a political candidate you are taking away they right to free speech.

capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, if you are involved in a business any business to make a profit you are involved in capitalism. Be it a small business, family farm or a huge multinational corporation if you are working there to make a profit you are involved in capitalism.

Booms and busts are brought about by people playing the system for their own gain this by itself would not happen if people would take the time to look at what is going on around them and avoid the criminals that start and use these practices to get ahead. I do agree that we need some regulation or rules to limit the amount of legal practices that hurt other people. you are free to pursue happiness as long as it does not harm other people. the great depression was made worse and lasted longer than it had to because of government intervention. The current recovery would have been over by now if the government had done nothing, letting the banks fail and reset the system would have allowed the system to recover faster.

If capitalism is not the best economic system we have tried so far what is? Please provide a details.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Voting machine fraud is a problem on both political parties.
Is it? Who told you this? Do you have evidence of this?
the great depression was made worse and lasted longer than it had to because of government intervention. The current recovery would have been over by now if the government had done nothing, letting the banks fail and reset the system would have allowed the system to recover faster.
What would happen with non-intervention would be a constant progression of booms and busts, whip-sawing people into repeated mortgage foreclosures and job dispacements. The only people who would ride out the storms, one after another, would be those with the capital to survive the busts. The populace would be in a constant state of turmoil and poverty, suitable only as fodder for military adventurism. the business cycles would resemble those during the late 1800s and up to 1930, which most people who are lucid people don't ever want to see again.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
Voting machine fraud is a problem on both political parties.
Is it? Who told you this? Do you have evidence of this?
the great depression was made worse and lasted longer than it had to because of government intervention. The current recovery would have been over by now if the government had done nothing, letting the banks fail and reset the system would have allowed the system to recover faster.
This just isn't true. It's that Von Mises junk again. Nobody believes this junk except a decided minority of Economics crackpots. It is, however, an extremely convenient fairy tale for people who hate Government.

in Las Vegas the voting machines were set up to vote for Harry Reid no mater whom you voted for, his son Rory Reid was the person in charge of the voting machines for the country. he was also running for political office and had the support of the unions that installed and maintained the systems if any problems arose. This is just one case but there are more out there.

there was a depression that had higher unemployment higher amounts of business going under in 1918 or 1919 the government did nothing we recovered faster and had a bigger economic growth than ever before they were known as the roaring 20’s

I do not hate government, I just do not trust government so I want the government as small and as powerless as I can possible get, because as the government grows your freedom and liberty shrinks.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
in Las Vegas the voting machines were set up to vote for Harry Reid no mater whom you voted for, his son Rory Reid was the person in charge of the voting machines for the country.
That story came entirely from the fertile imagination of Rush Limbaugh. Rory Reid had nothing to do with the voting machines in Las Vegas. There is no documented evidence of these faulty voting machines in Las Vegas. Just a story told by Rush Limbaugh on the radio.
there was a depression that had higher unemployment higher amounts of business going under in 1918 or 1919 the government did nothing we recovered faster and had a bigger economic growth than ever before they were known as the roaring 20’s
You really should read some history. Here is a Wikipedia article that gives a list of the recessions that took place in America . Each reference contains a description of the impact and length of each recession. These booms and busts present great opportunities for securities traders who like to long and short the cycles, but nothing but havoc for ordinary people who just want to live their lives and don't want to have to survive by buying and selling stocks.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
in Las Vegas the voting machines were set up to vote for Harry Reid no mater whom you voted for, his son Rory Reid was the person in charge of the voting machines for the country.
That story came entirely from the fertile imagination of Rush Limbaugh. Rory Reid had nothing to do with the voting machines in Las Vegas. There is no documented evidence of these faulty voting machines in Las Vegas. Just a story told by Rush Limbaugh on the radio.
there was a depression that had higher unemployment higher amounts of business going under in 1918 or 1919 the government did nothing we recovered faster and had a bigger economic growth than ever before they were known as the roaring 20’s
You really should read some history. Here is a Wikipedia article that gives a list of the recessions that took place in America . Each reference contains a description of the impact and length of each recession. These booms and busts present great opportunities for securities traders who like to long and short the cycles, but nothing but havoc for ordinary people who just want to live their lives and don't want to have to survive by buying and selling stocks.

The voter machine problem no mater how hard you protest it happened in Las Vegas, there was an investigation and found that only a few machines were effected and were repaired very quickly by outside of the city contractors. The local contractors that set them up were under investigation so could not fix them. The voter machines fell under the supervision of Rory Reid.

Buying and selling of stocks is a good idea for everyone, if you have a pension plan you are involved in the market even if you do not like it.

you can not legislate the boom bust away just like you can not legislate the poor away

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
The voter machine problem no mater how hard you protest it happened in Las Vegas, there was an investigation and found that only a few machines were effected and were repaired very quickly by outside of the city contractors. The local contractors that set them up were under investigation so could not fix them. The voter machines fell under the supervision of Rory Reid.
When I Googled "Rory Reid voting machines", I got pages and pages of articles using this meme from rightwing blogs only. Wouldn't you expect to find something like this in the legitimate press?
Buying and selling of stocks is a good idea for everyone, if you have a pension plan you are involved in the market even if you do not like it.

you can not legislate the boom bust away just like you can not legislate the poor away

Most investment professionals want a certain amount of stability in the markets. Corrections are normal and expected events. Repeated catastrophic crashes are not. You absolutely can legislate those away. Once again, you really ought to do some reading and observe the behaviors of the markets during periods of substantial regulation as compared to periods of lax regulation. Nothing you have told us changes the fact that a lot of people get hurt while a few people get very wealthy when regulation of the markets is lax.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
The voter machine problem no mater how hard you protest it happened in Las Vegas, there was an investigation and found that only a few machines were effected and were repaired very quickly by outside of the city contractors. The local contractors that set them up were under investigation so could not fix them. The voter machines fell under the supervision of Rory Reid.
When I Googled "Rory Reid voting machines", I got pages and pages of articles using this meme from rightwing blogs only. Wouldn't you expect to find something like this in the legitimate press?
Buying and selling of stocks is a good idea for everyone, if you have a pension plan you are involved in the market even if you do not like it.

you can not legislate the boom bust away just like you can not legislate the poor away

Most investment professionals want a certain amount of stability in the markets. Corrections are normal and expected events. Repeated catastrophic crashes are not. You absolutely can legislate those away. Once again, you really ought to do some reading and observe the behaviors of the markets during periods of substantial regulation as compared to periods of lax regulation. Nothing you have told us changes the fact that a lot of people get hurt while a few people get very wealthy when regulation of the markets is lax.

Try harry reid voter machines the local vegas paper comes up and some national ones too.

When there is more regulation growth is slower. The rich still get richer but the middle class and the poor stay about the same at best. Losen the regs and allow people to take some risks the poor and middle class can than move up the ladder without having the government on their back as well.

Posted from phone

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

We have seen how "well" that has worked, so we think you are nuts. Deregulating the banks has been a disaster. Period.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

We have seen how "well" that has worked, so we think you are nuts. Deregulating the banks has been a disaster. Period.

the amount of regulations did not cause this problem the lack of regulation enforcement did, berney madouff is a prefect example.

I guess you are not going to answer my earlier question. that is ok it just tells me that capitalism is the best system that humans have tried to date.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

It is hard to follow the irrationality and contradictions that you post. Democracy is about having a government, not just letting commerce run amok. Beyond the lack of enforcement, taking away the wall between investment banking and commercial banking was a huge disaster. It is not even a deep issue about the problematic nature of "capitalism" or "economic man" as the way to conceive what being human is all about.

We have government to insure that freedom and justice are for all rather than for those with the power to rule over others. That is the point of democracy and "power to the people" rather than the tyranny of the rich and powerful. If you want a tiny little government, you have to get rid of the big concentrations of power and most of all Big Money. I want a government big enough to hold Commerce and other powers accountable to the people. What you are for is nuts. You hate government and democracy in one.

The problem of the nature of money is a separate issue where you show no inkling of awareness. I would suggest David Graeber and DEBT, but it is a big book with challenging ideas.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I am for freedom for all, I am also of equal access given to each person under the constitution for governing the republic we live in, one-person one vote. Power to the people is fine as long as it does not result in tyranny over some to the benefit of others, just the same as you have to watch tyranny of the rich over the poor which is more a myth than the previous. Rich people are not tyrants they cannot force you to do anything they do not have the monopoly of force that the government does.

I understand that you would like to see the government limit how much people can make and how much people can accumulate. The accumulation of wealth is evil under Says law but so is the average persons retirement accounts, because under says law products are purchase with other products. Therefore, all money in profit would have to be immediately spent on more products this includes your wages, savings, and capital gains from reinvesting in your company.

I want a government that is small government that is kept under a strangle hold of the people. This allows the government to accomplish the 18 jobs it was assigned under the constitution and nothing more. Bernie madoff and investment bankers like him only got away with their ponzi schemes because regulators looked the other way. People had been reporting Bernie madoff for years with no one ever looking into the allegations. That is a lack of enforcement not a lack of regulations.

You can have regulations that prevent commerce from running amok as you call it with out having a huge over powering government that takes freedoms and liberty in order to accomplish the task

and still no answer to the question what is a better economic sustem than capitalism?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Workingman,

Pardon me for barging into your discussion, but I would like to ask a question about your question...

You ask if there is a better economic system than capitalism. Better for who?... Your priorities and the priorities of other people on this site are very different, which would result in different answers to the question,"Is there a better economic system than capitalism?"

A better, more focused question of,"Is there any better economic system than laissez faire capitalism?" would put it into a sharper, more relevant context.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm
Quote micahjr34:

Workingman,

Pardon me for barging into your discussion, but I would like to ask a question about your question...

You ask if there is a better economic system than capitalism. Better for who?... Your priorities and the priorities of other people on this site are very different, which would result in different answers to the question,"Is there a better economic system than capitalism?"

A better, more focused question of,"Is there any better economic system than laissez faire capitalism?" would put it into a sharper, more relevant context.

my question goes back to a point I had made earlier where I said that capitalism is a system that allows everyone to suceed.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Workingman,

You have a point, because I would like to succeed... To answer your question honestly, I would have to say "capitalism," but definitely not laissez faire capitalism. Laissez faire capitalism is more of "buyer beware" economic system where if a person gets defrauded by someone else, its "tough luck" on all the victims involved. Now with capitalism, an economic system based on self interest and competition, I would like to play in a way where the self interest is not contemptuous of others and the competition is not based on cut-throat anti-competitive practices such as corporate espionage, etc.

Actually, I would like a system based on barter and direct trade goods-for-goods, myself. However, the problem with a strictly barter based system is that is difficult to carry around all the material one can use to trade with.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

@workingman

There are better systems than capitalism. You need aspects of socialism that allows unions or people that aren't in positions of power to bring up new businesses. Startups are the driving force of an economy. To ignore that is to ignore what allows our country to prosper.

Anulap's picture
Anulap
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 4:12 pm
Quote Anulap:

@workingman

There are better systems than capitalism. You need aspects of socialism that allows unions or people that aren't in positions of power to bring up new businesses. Startups are the driving force of an economy. To ignore that is to ignore what allows our country to prosper.

Starting a small business is part of capitalism, under capitalism there is nothing stopping you from forming a union. You do not need to force economic slavery under the guise of socialism and say its good for us.

Posted from phone.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

You guys need to stop trying with workingman. He has no concept whatsoever as to economics or Democracy. At one point I thought that he did but he keeps proving me wrong. I give up.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

You guys need to stop trying with workingman. He has no concept whatsoever as to economics or Democracy. At one point I thought that he did but he keeps proving me wrong. I give up.

democracy is a rule of government one person one vote, the power is in the hands of the people....

economics is the monitary system that measures the econimic output of the country, state, person.

under democracy you can effect economics with laws and or regulations.

in the U.S. we practice capitalism a form of economy this allows everyone to have an equal chance at sucees.

in the U.S. we are a constitutional republic, that is we are represented bu elected officals that try and ensure equal protection under the law and equal opportunity.

when you tie both of these systems together you have freedom for all and economic opportunity for all.

what do you think I have incorrect?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

You have it incorrect the difference of capitalism and crony capitalism as well as communism and socialism for starters...

Anulap's picture
Anulap
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 4:12 pm

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system