Question: People are not allowed to argue against you, but they're allowed to argue on your side?

Perhaps you should limit that for more reciprocity: Either as a 1v1, or allow people to side with xeno, as long as their advocacy is not in conflict with xeno's advocacy.

I am calling Xeno out.

Xeno you fail to respond to other people's post which would prove ruinous to your ideas and philosophies. You appear to have a World View that says you are never wrong, that everyone else is.

So today I am going to shred ALL of your idea's at once, in one titanic post. This is designed to force you to have to achknowledge flaws in your theories. Failure to respond means I shun you, your posts, and responses to your posts for three months.

Your ideals fall into sway with Communism, and that viewpoint REQUIRES the death of many who disagree before the majority will ever agree to your viewpoint. It is this danger which compels me to such a post.

WEALTH
You  believe in equality of wealth. You feel that inequality, aka the rich, creates poverty, starvation, deaths, immoral working conditions, and other 'inequalities'. You propose idea after idea to promote equality.

Your stance on desiring equality in unequivical and unmoving in this regards. You have at times endorsed seizing assets, high taxation, allowing theft from them, regulating incomes, and more.

1) Wealth
Wealth is all assets a person owns, including clothes, food, houses, cars, cash, businesses, and so forth. Wealth is what a person may reasonably pay for an item. It is essential to point out wealth versus cash is  two way different values. Cash makes up much less than 0.01% of wealth, by far, due to everything having a potential value. The vast wealth of much of the world is unrealized as of yet.

a) Inequality in distribution
One of the problems in attempting 'equalization' is regional differences. These differences can be minor, but most are major.

a) Food
Rice, Bannna's, Cat, and Lobster. How do you propose to balance the distribution of rice in the world? Just arranging for equal distribution would cost a lot more oil, logistics, and more to get it done. What about Bannana's? Transporting them to far increases the total that goto waste. So do you ship more to a region expecting such waste? What happens if region A gets more than region B? Cat is eaten in a number of nations. Supposedly it takes like chicken but I cannot confirm nor deny this. Some people, myself included, will not eat cat. Should my rations suffer for this, or will you deny those who love a good pussy their meal? Lobster is not common enough for all people to eat, ergo will you limit each person to a gram every four years? Or will you prevent it from being eaten? Or limit it to area's it is found naturally?

Next will you limit variations to Continents? This would create a difference in them, allowing one to have more than others. Regions? Same problem... some regions will have more than others.

In short equality based on foods is impossible and cannot occur. Do you have a miracle solution for this conundrum?

b) Construction Materials
Some regions are blessed with lots of timber. Some are blessed with lots of marble. Some, not so blessed, make due with bricks. How do you propose to fix the imbalance? Will you ship materials evenly everywhere? If not then some will feel others have more luxuries than they do.

Even lesser materials are a bigger delimna. Oak wood, cherry wood, bamboo... some will have a great desire for these materials, and some will have it in enough quantity for it to be a marginal luxury. How do you resolve the problem of rarity?

c) Regions
It rains in Oregon, a lot. But we have majestic trees, a nice coast line, great mountains, and lots of rivers and streams. It never rains so much in Utah, but they have the Salt Lake, awesome mountains, snowy peaks, and are centrally located. Port Anne Texas is off the Atlantic Ocean and not to far from the Pacifif Ocean. It is next to Mexico, never gets snow, and is great for a tan.

Now the reverse. It is so wet and miserable in Oregon, the roads are windy and trees block your view everywhere. Utah has no real greenery, no Ocean, and you have to drive forever to reach a real city outside Utah. Port Anne is hot, miserably hot. The Humidity never goes away, it smells of brine, and there is no greenery.

People find different regions as different values. But most do seem to like certain regions which is why cities grew there and not elsewhere. These regions can lose their luster with to many living there. Quite a few would like to live in Washington DC for the monuments, many would love California for the climate, and so forth. Fairness in regions is hard to obtain.

Every surfer might want to live on one beach, but thats not possible. So how do you make it fair for them? What about those who want to live on a tropical island? Is Bahama's equal to Guam? Or to the Somoian Islands? So you either have inequality or inequality. Bummer dude?

So what is your answer for location inequality? How do you resolve it?

d) The Famous
There will always be the popular people, and even the famous people. Or do you propose ending music, video, and sports entirely?

Consider Michael Jordan. Lets say he has 48,000,000 fans. He is forced by equality laws to provide each person 30 seconds for a handshake, a hug, or a photoshot and a brief chat or autograph. Every minute he could see 2 people. Do you debate that math? Lets say he can meet people while eating and using the bathroom. So he can meet 120 people an hour. Do you debate that math figure? Lets say he gets 4 hours of sleep a day. Per day he can meet 2,400 people. Do you debate that math figure?  It would take 20,000 days for him to meet them all. Do you debate that figure? It would take 54.75 years for him to meet them all. Do you debate my rounding on that figure?

How do you make equality here? How do you make a star's existance fair for everyone?

2) Taxation
You argue the rich should pay our way since they got the money from others. Others argue the poor should not pay taxes and the rich can afford more. I will actually answer both and challenge both here.

a) Corporate Taxes
The United States has the highest National Corporate taxes in the world. After adding State, County, and City Taxes the median is over 42%.

This leads to many effects and needs sub-categories of its own.

i) Affect World Market
If we assume all labor and production costs are the same, though they are not, then American goods are more expensive by nearly 10% than most other nations.

Lets assume the US and another nation make identical steal beams. Lets also assume shipping is the same cost from either nation. The United States steel costs 10% more. Which nation gets to sell the most Steel Beams?

However this is not the case. Often American Labor costs a lot more as well. So our prices are generally much higher than just 10%. Only two things keeps us in the market place; Higher Technology and Shipping costs.

However where things are equal quality and equal shipping cost we automatically lose. This leads to a) Higher trade imbalances and b) less US jobs.

ii) More Exemptions
GE, despite getting subsidies in the billions and earning the most of any company in the World in 2010, paid no American taxes in 2010.

Intel in Oregon gets tax relief all the time, and frequently subsidies. It got subsidies to hire when they wanted to hire, they got subsidies for not hiring when they wanted to freeze hiring... they are a favored company with a lot of lobbying power.

Higher corporate taxes does not equal higher revenue. Companies can and will leave. Ask Detroit Michigan. Companies also will lobby for exemptions, reductions, subsidies, and other forms of relief.

All to often favored companies, and powerful ones, will get something, while the small and unloved will not. This is in response to the taxation and regulations being to high.

iii) Jobs lost
Some jobs are known as marginal jobs. These jobs exist in good times, but are the first to go in bad. You see every person needs to earn at least 142%, on average, of their total costs (payroll, payroll taxes, equipment costs, etc.). If this was lowered then more jobs could be created that earned a bit less.

Sorry if I am losing you, while I am a math enthusiast I do not have a degree. Each of these is concepts I discovered and named on my own.

Some jobs cost more than they earn. Some jobs do not earn anything but have a cost... aka a net entire loss. A security officer for instance prevents loss, but is a drain. A person who examines new regulations is a net loss entirely.  There are many Government positions which are a net loss.

Yes some support jobs are essential, and some safety jobs are essential. However a certain amount of Government positions are neither productive nor essential.

b) Using Tax Money
Solyndria was corruption writ large. The Treasury Department says in March 2009 it got expedited and approved in one day. This despite worries of the market, of the company plan, or of concerns at various agencies. $500,000,000 plus was lost in this. This was one of many useless efforts going on right now.

Misusing Government revenue for fraud and waste is a disaster. Billions go down this hole per a year. To put perspective on that, if after all expenses a job cost $100,000 a year a billion dollars could hire a thousand people for a year. That is not a small company!

Subsidies of any sort create a winners and losers situation. The market is usually best at choosing a winner. The Federal Government is usually a failure.

Some will say it is about jobs. Paris in France tried to protect jobs once. They outlawed railroads going through town to help baggage handlers. Tell me if you would visit a city where your costs are going to double, or a different city if you had to choose?  A lot chose to avoid Paris. For every jon unnaturally saved you have a reaction of a negative sort. Raised prices, reduced customer base, less GDP, and/or something else undesirable.

c) Taxing the Rich
The rich provide jobs. This is without a doubt. Everything they own, everything they do, provides jobs. Without the ability to become rich you have higher cost goods.

The mechanism behind this is larger companies can form more efficient logistics and that competition drives us to do better than others. Remove the ability to be better than someone else and you remove the desire for working harder and/or smarter.

Why be a sewer worker if you get paid as much to be a security guard. Sewer work is smelly, dangerous (bacteria's and molds being one sort), can be uncomfortable (some tunnels are low) and so forth. Why be a truck driver if being  a machinist pays the same. The hours are grueling, the regulations will sneak up on you, it is boring, and sitting nonstop can be bad for your health.

And people can and do earn their pay. Steve Jobs left Apple for a long time. Apple was marginal and getting replaced by Unix and Linux. When Steve came back he turned the company around, in fact he was so successful that very shortly after his death it became the most profitable company in the world with a series of products ANYONE (almost, some remote tribes in India might not have) will recognize by name. iPhone, iPad, iMac, iPod... his legacy will live on. He earned his huge salary.

Others do work that we do not see, and some do work we can see that has failed. Kodak is an example of a failing company. HP is an example of a company taking a bold direction which most cannot see (for the record their atmospheric pressure memory unit is innovative, but I expect IBM to win the memory war with Race Track memory. Here is to huge gambles!)

If you excelled in school, took the right classes (sorry but underwater basket weaving and classes on Marxism automatically disqualify you) you could be earning a few million a year.

You can even make a hundred thousand a year... if fuel prices are in your contract, as an owner operator of your own truck and if you keep your head about you then you can keep most of it as well.

In fact as I have frequently commented there is no guarantees for a landed class of nobility from inheritance here! Most of our millionaires made the cash themselves. There is no problem with wealth generation, only with wealth envy.

To continue the rich do not have a vault like Scrooge McDuck. They have a certain amount of money available but for big purchases they must contact their accountant who will free up cash for them.

Yes I said free up. You see most of their cash is out making more money. CD's are used by banks to hold as collateral for loans. 401k's are invested in the market, stocks the same, other investments might be in partial or full ownership of a business, and so forth.

Then there is standard upkeep, lawns mowing, property taxes, maids, car upkeep, make up artists, web developers, and so forth that they support. Their art purchases also end up supporting artists on the rise. All of what they are is providing jobs, increasing money, and doing it efficiently!

The rich who have failed to do so can be counted as no longer rich as their finances tumble. Take the company that made the Commodore 64. What market do they lead in now? 3DO was a top company in games. What do they have now?

Sadly taxing the rich means they will feel compelled to pass the costs onto their customers. That or they can, and have, move to more friendly regions.

Do not buy into Warren Buffetts lies by the way. His company pays about 40% in taxes moving hus stocks around. He is paying twice on his stocks. He just wants all the little guys who play the market to get discouraged with high taxes.

d) Death Taxes
Might as well toss this in. It is said death taxes hit those who die young, those who did not know their value, and the stupid. The living trust most rich use as a loophole completely sidesteps  the tax.

So why do we have a tax that most commonly hits farmers who did not know their lands values and family homes when auctions find to much value in the possessions during an estate auction?

e) Tax it all high
Ahh the England Model. About the only things they dont tax to death is banks and insurance companies. Well ok their corporate tax is low as well, at least compared to the United States.

However attractive it is to have the majority of all Revenues goto the Government, the Government is the least capable of creating jobs and wealth. Heck their healthcare is notorious for its operation and they just got passed by Brazil even with centuries of a head start. England is a great example of an Empire in collapse due to high taxes.

f) Not taxing the poor
You promote fairness and equality yet you do not support fair and equal taxation.

I was poor, and I stayed poor due to depression for a long time. Many poor just lounge about not trying (I know this from living with others who were also poor). No effort on a daily basis to look for work, no effort to retain a job, and only caring about meeting minimum standards of living according to their view. What a way to live.

Taxing them up's the ante. They need to be more honest with themselves, put more effort out, and strive to retain that crappy job. Yes crappy job. All people start with a crappy job unless they goto school. I pumped gas. I answered phones. I did low level security jobs.

The poor are poor because they don't care to try for higher. Eventually this changes. Most do move upwards... but the time taken before changing is their fault. We should not coddle them or baby them, they shluld not be given extraordinary breaks.

3) The Human Factor
The Human factor is one that few Socialists, Communists, Marxists, or Liberals even consider. The human factor is what lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union, what lead to the end of the Mayflower colony's experiment with Communism.

The human factor is made of several disparate parts, and the existance of it is shown throughout history.

a) Religion
One of the strongest factors is faith. There will always be people of faith regardless of how athiests feel. While you may not understand what drives a person to faith, if you are an athiest, the faithful have, are now, and will always out number you.

In the absence of religion dogma and 'new faiths' start. History supports this as well. Modern day cults shows this point. Those who seek deeper understanding of their belief that something guides them wll be drawn into a religion or will potentially create their own dogma to explain their feelings.

Even within major religions efforts to identify with other dogmas or world views has created different religious sects. While Westerners can readily identify a lot of sects in Christianity such fragmentation exists in Islam as well.

Attempts to stop religious views have been tried. The most successful were fullscale genocides of regions and insertion of people of a different religion into the area. No other method has proved 100% successful at eliminating or reducing religious views (excepting from small cults where such can be brought under control and ended).

While there is religion you will have strife. It may be low key (such as current Protestantism to Catholicism) or it may be tremendous (Armenian Slaughter). This strife can take form in moral superiority feelings to anger and distrust.

b) Hero's, Champions, and those who Excel.
Given a chance people like to excel at something. Chess players like to be better than others, Basketball players want to be proffessional players, a small business man wants to grow his company and a soldier wants to be better than his enemy.

Life is filled with examples of those who push, and those who push harder, I am pushing. Running for office, continuining to train my online activism, driving a semi-truck... I am pushing hard to improve my lot in life and the lot of others.

Apple founder Steve Jobs pushed his lot as well. He started in his garage, and moved up against the odds. He kept pushing.

Remove this ability to be better than others at your, and societies, own risk. This drive when squelched leads to apathy. If you cannot be better, if no one will notice or care, why bother?

c) Families
How do you balance between those who want no children, those who want few children, and those who want a large family? What of those who wish to restrict others and those who get mad at restrictions? Even under the 1 child law in China there were those who tried to have more than one child.

Equality also sounds benign in families sometimes, but some cultures literally see girls as a bad thing. China is a big example of this, though other nations like India, England, and such are certainly up there also. If the skew gets to much how do you provide a wife to every man who wants one? Do you care that some men want a wife no matter what? How is it equality they be left without? I could go on about this, but I hope you get the point here. Do you?

d) Genetics
I am smarter than most humans. My IQ indicates this. The fact I was reading college level books no later than 2nd grade indicates this. That I tested at Senior College level math in 6th grade indicates this. I am not fair for others.

The other side is that sales men are far more glib than me, and there are far more handsome of men than me. How do you propose to make me equal with them? Dumb me down and disfigure them?

EQUALITY CONCLUSION
In conclusion life is not fair, you must try to make your own path and not ask for it on a platter. Those who strive shall reap the rewards of their efforts. Those who moan and groan, and show jealousy to the success of others, shall only know misery.

How, given these unsurmountable conditions, do you propose to make equality happen? Why would you promote death and destruction (the only plausible means to force your standards) upon society? Why do you propose taking away what makes people tick for a standard that cannot last?

PROPERTY
A major issue for you seems to be property rights, trading issues, and such. You are one of the most ignorant and selfish people I have ever seen in regards to property rights. Yet when challenged you ignore the challenges on iit. Well here is the second knuckle of my gauntlet thrown at your face in challenge!

Lets start with the parts that make me grind my teeth and then move on to the ones that makes other people shake their heads in wonder.

I) PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS.
You are an extremist here Xeno, defying even the most ardant of Socialists with your desired policies. You advocate total abolishment of all Patents and Copyrights for the betterment of Society. You fail to listen to anything that shows how stupid that idea is. This challenge is designed to call you out on this.

You like to quote medicine, and how if we allow any company to make medicine then so many things can be fixed. Well let me use medicine.

The MRI device started with an idea. This idea was that certain things could be tracked by giving them markers that would happily attach to the items in question.Minor isotopes were used. In time the clarity using such was dramatically increased. This was not a cheap process, as it took some of the best scientists a lot of time with a lot of materials and a lot of testing just to make the devices, and the progressive increases in quality also were expensive.

However in your world when someone had made it, patented it so they could license it, you would instead have allowed others to just copy one, and then make a cheaper version themselves. All the money the first company put in to make the invention  could never be remade. COULD NEVER BE REMADE!

Now lets say I win the lottery. I could a) Keep it in a pillow case, b) keep it in a bank, or something crazy like c) make a cure for cancer.

Now lets say I did invest to make a cure, and I succeeded. In fact it not only cures cancer but also heart disease and the animals I tested it on all lived at minimum for 50% more longer than the previous records for their species. In short I have a miracle drug.

Better yet I can produce them for a dollar in a factory I can build (my test lab can only produce a few hundred a year), and after packaging and shipping my costs are going to be $5 a pill.

However the factory will cost $500 million and contracts for supplies need up front cash for new customers, fadvertisement costs will be needed, and so forth. This brings it to $10 a pill for ten years. I decide I want to research other things, run for President, buy the best education for my kids, make a Super PAC to support Conservative causes, and more.

I decide to market the pill for $15 a pill and draw up the patent papers and start filling out FDA paperwork. I am about to submit both on the same day and your desired abolishment of Patents happens.

If I try to make it a competitor only needs 1 pill to copy it. They will already have their factory, they will already have trucks to deliver with, they will have a reputation so wont need to advertise, they wont have any upfront costs at all.

I am destroyed, if I had saved my $50 million I could provide for my family, I could invest in an iron mine (you cannot make iron cbeaper than mining it) and I would have been better off.

So I keep the cure to myself while giving it to my family and covertly feeding it to close friends. I never give it out until the law changes.

You have questioned me on this, and cannot understand... you would destroy me in my scenario for no reason. I could have invested in an auto factory and come out better than if I made an invention that saved billions of lives.

But lets put it in easier terms for you than a moral decision. Lets say I won  that $50 million after your law change. There is no incentive for me to research a medicine, so why not just buy a profitable business instead?

Does this not immeadiately show the flaw in your ideal? Can you not admit error finally with this minor change after explaining the other side as well?

Now I need to slam the door shut on price controls, shorting the patent time, and such. For while you took an  extremist view I want to seal this.

A company invests based upon ROI principles and Patents that cost a lot to develope fall into this (ROI is Return On Investment). The amount they will spend is influenced by how long they have for such returns to happen.

If you make the term to short then few will buy because when the patent runs out they can get it cheaper from another company that did not put so much cash and resources into creating the invention.

Price controlling a patent is very dangerous. A company could be in a position to never recoup losses. Other companies will see that and forestall their own planned research programs. The market should determine if the price is low, high, or just right.

So Xeno, given that under your system no one has incentive to design things others can easily steal and then produce at much less cost (because the research costs have to be accounted for) why do you defend this robbery scheme of yours?

II) THE MARKET
You certainly have some unique views here. Zarf has been very much so complaining about them. So I will save him some grief and pound you into submission here as well.

This are is rather large and needs to be broken down into components to address them all.

a) Interstate Commerce
While you have not been active in this area it is important to talk about. The original 13 States wanted no trade barriers between them, so they made the Commerce Clause. This was designed as a Free Trade agreement.

Unfortunately as time went by we saw attacks upon the purpose. Free trade means you can stop trading if you want. But the FDR administration wanted to regulate prices and people keeping products for sale inside a State threatened his plans. So he had the Supreme Court declare with-held goods affected Interstate Commerce.

Later a judgement declared goods likely to have some interstate trading were wholy interstate goods. Thus California pot growers were regulated as Interstate Commerce and authority for the Federal Government to make arrests was given.

This has been unfortunate on both rulings. Each of the States is supposed to be a cooperating nation unto itself, so denying items to trade should be allowed (if used internally) as well as any State should have the right to decide what is legal and not if the design is to stay in their State.

What the Commerce clause cannot compel is for people to buy something. Nor can it force any organization to purchase something.

b) FREE TRADE
Free Trade is a concept that can work. The principle is the lowest bidder or best product wins. There is problems with the system... China using other nations debts to buy mines, oil wells, and other resources for instance... but the principle is that if your nation costs to much to make a car it can be bought cheapper elsewhere.

If your nation is costing to much this can be due to bad policy such as forced extra pay for people, early retirement policies, paying to much for government programs and the likes.

Free trade is supposed to be uncorrupted trade. Sadly we do see corruption in the form of subsidies for things (such as Mexico subsidizing fuel), some tariffs or restrictions, and the likes. I am ok with not selling a produtct, but I am not ok with preventing your people from buying a product from elsewhere.

Tariffs are a nasty business. If you tariff an outside good you make your people pay more for the good. This means less of the goods will be bought, and the wealth of your nation ultimately suffers.

Free Trade is an ideal where ultimately products will be steered based on cost to the final market, it helps increase competition, lower prices, and more.

However you dont even try to discuss this stuff. Instead your view of free trade is about crushing any business larger than a certain size. However Zarf has asked me not to proceed here because he plans to shred your arguments entirely.

c) Wall Street
To be honest I wanted to type this first. This is one area I feel you, and all 99%ers are messed up at. The market is not a few people, it is most of us. Only the poorest 1% are not in any way directly tied to the market (a guess but a reasonable guess as you will see).

1) Insurance
In England the biggest player for the market is Insurance. They control >50% of the market there. In the United States insurance is one of two major players in the market.

Why do they invest in the market? Well to put it simply... there is only one trillion American dollars in actual circulation (approx, from Department of Treasury figures) and while other equivalencies exist, this is all there is in physical form. The Insurance Industry holds a bare minimum as ready cash. Most of their supply of cash is held on the market in the form of stocks, binds, and treasuries.

The principle is that they earn a bit on their 'cash' while it sits. When a disaster strikes they have a sell off (thus part of why the market crashes on disasters and events with major insurance needs).

Thus every time someone is mandated to have insurance their payments go into the pool, and back out when an insurance settlement is issued. If you ended insurance on Earth you would effectively remove at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the money in the stock market.

2) Banks
You call banks evil, you mistreat them, you enjoy laws which charge them money, and you are all silly here.

Banks keep a small amount of cash on hand, and loan the rest out. Some do invest in the market on behalf of their customers as well. These loans have risk factors. When you make unreasonable demands about loans, dangers increase.

The housing bubble was due to unreasonable demands on banks to loan to risky groups. These loans were guaranteed by Fannie Mae znd Freddie Mac in backroom deals. When the guarantees happened everyone saw money and a rush to sell houses started.

It was a leftist policy that started the whole bubble. A certain amount of loans must be given locally and pressure was made to make a lot of loans to high risk minority groups. All done in the name of equality.

Banks make loans to businesses and to individuals. These can be home loans, car loans, personal loans, lines of credit (aka Credit Cards), business loans, payroll loans, and more.

The loss rate on these loans is the issue. If they can keep it low then they have no need for extra charges and fee's. If they are mandated to take risks which increase their loss rate they need more sources of incoming money. Despite appearances their actual revenue (profits) is extremely small compared to many industries.

Sometimes, as mentioned, the banks invest in the market on a customers request. Though not a major line of business for them it does exist. In these cases their investments can be seen as a different way to bank money. For instance buying gold stocks is one way advertised on radio to protect your money.

3) Retirement Accounts
After insurance the next largest (commonly, there are some nations with exceptions) source of cash into the market is retirement funds. In the United States this is IRA's, 401k's, stock sharing programs, and Pension Funds.

This is the money an average worker, up to upper middle class, has set aside to supplement their Social Security. This is not a mega millionaires club... they have more effective ways to prepare for their retirement (though I note it seems the average 'rich' person works way past the age of 65)

Why do you wish to do these people harm by damaging Wall Street? What is it you, or society, gains in such an action?

4) Stock Brokers and the likes.
Some people, including my own mom, invest in the market for annuities, dividends, or to play the up's and down's. Some directly invest in a company via IPO and new stock sales. These investments allow a company to purchase things, hire people, and grow. Google did a big IPO and used the money they made to make the Droid Operating Software, Google Chrome, purchase Motorola Mobility, and a whole slew of other actions. Their investers make money for having invested, and Google got a huge amount of cash to grow with.

How is the growth of Google, a competitor to Apple, Microsoft, and Yahoo a problem? This company started from three (irc) students at M.I.T. who made a search engine on their own.

Facebook was started by a University student how is this evil corporate in nature?

Some people buy stocks from those who invested in an IPO. They may later sell the stock at a loss or a gain. They may buy another stock brand. They may buy a selection and bet on growing their money via selling high and buying low. They give an avenue for the investor to get their money back out of the market.

Your views on stocks, the market, and investments in companies seems to be one of pure ignorance.

Now there are some companies trying to make money with lightning purchases of stocks and reselling them before most people can recognize something was going on. I have already proposed a mandatory 24 hour holding period on stocks to prevent this..

Closing on the Wall Street I ask... why do you wish to keep the poor from gaining, and why do you plot to destroy retiremnt accounts and force insurance companies to hold ALL of the worlds money with your plans? Why do you continue down the path of ignorance and complain about banks and the money they have, about companies and their investments?

III) PROFITS
If a company cannot profit in your worldview must it then always have losses? I am guessing you would say no because even you cannot be that extreme. But I am sure you are going to say either they must give profits back to the community (typical socialist ideal) or that they should be capped at a specific percentage or a fixed amount (typical alternative socialist ideal).

Your ignorance betrays you here however. There are very few privately held companies of significant size, and most of them are not in the United States (for instance the richest Mexican has monopoly level control of industry and businesses in Mexico. He may be of significant size there, but not elsewhere). Most are owned by stockholders.

Companies need cash and cash equivalents for economic downturns. Perhaps they need to retool, perhaps they got outbid and need to finf a new customer. There are lots of reasons companies keep a lot of stock, bonds, treasuries, and the likes on the side.

They also would like to grow, to payback investors (like Apple's dividend), and maybe even give raises.

Unions sometimes show  your level of ignorance. They see their company with some large savings and a CEO earning high pay, and they demand a lot more suddenly. If the company relents then they risk shutdown in an economic downturn. I know of three companies that this happened to. The company normally could have weathered a downturn by having the profit margin as the first line of defense and then the savings as the last line of defense. With nearly no profit margin they had to opt to use the savings immeadiately and were unable to convince the union to take cuts, so they closed.

CEO pay is another bad point for you. Never mind that their pay may be 0.01% of the companies revenue, you think they are over-paid. I some what hashed this out already, but let me push the topic.

A CEO is someone who pushes to get the company a single percentage point more in profits. That is an ambition of many of them. They make the big decisions that can hurl their company into higher profits, more stability, or a downward spiral. Typically if you divided their pay in half, and gafe that extra to employees you would not see large raises. You would count new pennies per hour.

Cutting the pay would attract weaker talent however. This in turn leads to less pay for employees since the company would not do so well business wise. People at the top DO MATTER. This is shown with Steve Jobs, Herman Cain, and Mitt Romney. The difference a good CEO versus an average CEO is remarkable.

So the questions become why would you want higher unemployment, lower wages, and less good products on the market by handicapping corporations?

IV) CASH
You have some awkward stances on cash as well. You at times have promoted a cashless society. There are three ways this could work according to people of your ilk. Barter, Gold Standard, and Electronic.

A) Barter
I drive a semi truck. I get goods at point A and deliver to Point B, C, and D. If barter were in effect I would need goods for fuel inbetween. How can I know what goods they will trade for fuel? How can a warehouse know what goods I need for the barter? How do you barter electricity to everyone?

Bartering results in unequal, undesired, improper goods for everyone to trade around. It virtually shuts down any long distance trade at all unless in bulk and with ownership of fuel stops along the way.

Fruits and vegitables would rot before they could reach the final consumer, other property woule have to be inspected for quality thus reducing their quality.

A person going on a long trip to see family, or moving to a better location, would have to bring a lot of different trading materials, hoping they could satisfy the fuel stops to trade on the way. They may have to stop more often to try more trades until successful.

Bartering in a modern society is quite impossible for all market activities, a majority of market activities, or even a significant minority of market activities.

B) Gold or other Standard
Gold Standards, Bit Coins, or other physical resource materials (ok Bit coins is electronic, but it is 'mined' from special algorithms and therefore new resources of it is probable, let alond possible) are a way some people want to run trade and purchases. The problem is that such materials can suddenly grow in quantity for a select group, then they can swamp the market.

Such fluctuations happened with primitive societies. Some used a shell known as a sand dollar for currency. Imagine when someone found a few hundred shells washed up! Or when someone could not get rid of the ones that were decaying.

Modern society already has seen a bubble in silver recently. I predicted a bubble in gold prior to knowing what is propping it up (survivalists and people worried about the economy are buying real gold for a potential currency later if the dollar crashes, China is buying gold for stockpiles, and more).

Such a bubble can be manipulated to happen as well, since gold is finite, but large quantities exist still yet to be mined).

Other currencies where mining is required is also problematic. And if there truly is a fixed amount of the replacementt item for the dollar... then it is just a new currency in effect.

C) Electronic Currency
BitCoins not with standing there are proposals for an all electronic currency. While this has some merit (credit cards already act as such, direct deposit, online autopayments and online purchasing) the kind you propose seems to be based on a one world currency ideal.

A one world currency is a disaster waiting to happen. The United States is unique in our success with a widely (geographically speaking for our held lands) currency. There is still trouble spots (A person selling a house in New York City can purchase a mansion in Arkansas) but they are less than what Europe is feeling right now. Typically when a nation has a lot of debt their currency is devalued and they can export a lot more.

Under a single currency this is not possible. So then a nation can effect horrible ideas and the only way to save it are bailouts (free money for our bad ideas, yay!) or kicking it out of the currency.

Your single currency rewards bad national behavior and reduces the world stability. How can you justify endless bailouts of nations that hid their true debt behind accounting tricks?

PROPERTY CONCLUSION
You seem to want others properties for no other reason than you dont have the same. You promote policies that will make people have to work til they die, reduces the number of jobs, reduces the pay of the common worker, kills innovation, decreases world stability... and all because you have not tried to get a real job?

What system of yours would work. Honestly think about my comments here and how they effect your ideas. You will find the 99% ideal does not hold up to reality.

How do you propose to replace the benefits banks, Wall Street, and other institutions provide us?

SUPPLY AND DEMAND
While partially covered elsewhere it is my desire to slam this door shut, to educate you on this critical function of economics.

There are precious few things that are not affected by supply and demand. Supply being what is offered from someone or others and Demand being a desired product (or products) by someone or others.

If Demand does not exist then a product does not sell (there is no demand for bacon flavored condoms, therefore they do not exist). Without a Supply demand can never be satisfied.

However not all demands can be met. A tablet pc for $50 and no plan is just not reasonable at this time.

You do not seem to understand that your views cannot affect these market principles. It is not a factor of they could do it if they wanted to... yeah sure all companies arounf the world should go bankrupt to meet your world view *rolling of my eyes*.

Instead why can you not acknowledge that market conditions exist and agree to live with them? For example everyone knows Apple sells their products at a premium. But people still buy, even at the inflated prices. Why do you think that is?

Why do you think AOL is having a hard time with business, or why Kodak is dying a slow death? Could it be from lack of demand on their products?

In closing why do you want businesses to ignore actual market conditions and sell everything at a loss?

POVERTY
A lot of your talking points pivot on the poor, the 'downtrodden' and such. You jcertainly hug the talking points well on this topic.

I was poor. In fact I have been homeless three times. That statistic is one which should make me part of the perpetually poor according to leftist scholars. They are wrong..

I got up from my depression (6 years utterly lost, better part of 3 more years not so well) and I went out and got a job. I went and got a better job. Then I got into trucking, and made a lot of money. After an accident I lost my trucking job, got scammed, quite literally lost almost everything I had (except the stuff my trucking company took their sweet time sending me).

No money, no home, no food, and my bus pass was expiring in a day. Oh and very little in clothes, and a laptop I retained just because I kept it with me.

But a homeless to work program took me in. They said I needed a job in  3 months or else. I had a job in two weeks, and a job starting at $12 an hour (grew to $15 an hour). I got a car because I needed one for work. Since I got the job they were going to allow me to stay for 6 months total. I left after 4 months the most successful person from the program yet cash wise.

I make between $3500 to $4500 a month on average. I broke the pattern of homelessness and own my car outright. I have two $500 suits. I have four working (ok stretching it for one) laptops.

My story is no unique. One homeless man made it to be a mega millionaire by buckling down. Others can do the same.

Your poor for life need not be poor. They can seek ways to improve their lot. They can fish in the Oceans, drive a truck, work two jobs, or give plasma. They can save money for an education at a community college, they can go online to the M.I.T. website and take free (though no college credit) classes on anything, they can reduce spending, live with roommates, eat cheap, buy cheaper clothes, and drive a beat down car as well.

But most of  the poor do not stay poor, and most of the poor is unmarried mothers or people who get substantial government benefits from the start with no termination date in the benefits. There is upward mobility you see. People decide they want better, they mature, they get more job experience, they land the better job, they get married (which is a big increase in effectual wealth), they get more education and so forth.

You assume that since there is poor they have always been poor and always will be poor. This is incorrect. People want better for themselves and most will go out and seek better.

However some wont try to be better. Especially drug addicts, especially drunks, especially those who can subsist on government handouts for life.

How can you even act like a teenager straight from college compares to a middle aged person? Check those statistics on poverty and you will see usually they are young and usually they have children and are not married.

DISASTERS
Food is disappearing, global warming, man is polluting everything, we are consuming the worlds resources to fast. Wow you make it seem we will all just die this next decade. Sorry to burst your bubble (well maybe I am not so sorry to burst it).

1) FOOD
There is no world wide shortage of food. The proof is in my job and my view of the farms, distributors, warehouses, and places where food is made into final products for stores. Simply put I as a refrigerated truck driver see all portions of the chain as well as vast tracts of America.

So long as we see as much as 10% of the Oranges from an orange tree be allowed to fall and rot before a harvest there is no shortage. So long as we have bread  going bad in stores and being shipped for disposal we have no food shortage. So long as our government keeps buying cheese and stocking it we have no food shortage. So long as we have more cows than actually needed we have no food shortage. So long as trees are not replaced with food bearing trees we have no food shortage.

The United States is a food basket, and vast tracts of Federal lands go unfarmed. We can build fisheries if desired, new land (top a mountain and fill part of an ocean) if we want, grow in new ways (underground, high rise growing centers, etc.).

What problems there are is with certain corrupt governments withholding food for whatever craptastic idea they have for withholding it. That and N. Korea using primitive labor techniques for farming.

Such issues do not point to a world lack of food, nor to a lack of diversity of food. No they make the point dictators suck.

In fact there is so much waste in the system as to be believed. Food goes bad in the fields, food goes bad in the warehouses, food goes bad in transport (especially in trains), food gets wasted at the canneries, the resteraunts, the places they are made into meals, in the stores and in the homes.

If there was a food emergency then improvements to the logistics side would be the first step. But as it is... it is cheaper to let some of the fruit crop drop and rot than to keep a perpetual harvest going. It is cheaper to assume some loss at various levels than to make sure 100% is going to remain good. It is cheaper to throw out food near an expiration date than to try to get consumers to buy it and eat it asap.

2) Resources
The world has 300 years of oil at current usage levels, and the majority of it is in the United States. That is of course known reserves. I have posted on this extensively, will post on this extensively, and I never lose that arguement. We also have the most coal and natural gas in the world. Enough for several hundred years of each.

So what resource are we running low on? There is only one... Helium. Helium escapes from our atmosphere into space. Once we mine it out of the ground the time until it floats away is almost measurable.

Thats the only resource in danger for the next two hundred plus years. Everything else will be available for us, even if we must work a little harder to get it.

Oh and helium can be manufactored believe it or not. Certain reactors naturally make it as a byproduct of their energy production. So I guess we wont run out of that either.

Instead of fear mongering on this issue why do you not instead propose we use the resources we have and grow our technology to a more acceptable level?

3) Global Warming
By now only the truly ignorant even refers to global warming. As evidence after evidence mounts against the entire idea the intellectuals are now saying no such thing, the evidence does not support that, etc. We, the reistance, are winning on all fronts; the data, the models, the peer review, and credibility.

The global warming side hides data from open review, has never had a successful model, uses tainted data sets, and is made up of a lot of the people who tried to sell us on a new ice age in the 70's. They even have been caught numerous times colluding to falsify evidence, intimidate skeptics, and to destroy the careers of anyone who openly challenges them.

I have posted my evidence numerous times. Even the strongest defenders of climate change can no longer avoid the fact lies have been told on their side. Instead they point at the increased carbon dioxide, talk how it does hold heat, and leave it there.

4) Pollution
You have vaguely said we are polluting ourselves to death when facts show otherwise. Exxon Valdez, the Gulf Spill, and other disasters were supposed to cause decades worth of damage. Not quite true. In fact it was pretty off the mark. These area's have recovered in full and are back to normal.

Superfund sites could be done faster if we wanted to. Instead time is taken to get every last penny out of the effort by environmental clean up companies. Even Nagasaki and Hiroshima are clean and thriving. All stories of permament gloom and doom are just that... fictional stories.

The biggest event of them all, the meltdown of a Ukranian reactor (Chernobyl), brought a lot of short term stuff, but now things grow ever closer to the epicenter, nature is recovering in all aspects. Life goes on.

Considering the evidence how can you say we are polluting our environment beyond restoration?

EDUCATION
This is a topic you seem to love to talk about. You have some way out there ideals on the topic. The most extreme you posited is that companies should pay for the education of their workers. I, in all fairness, blasted you as severely as I could on the topic.

Some companies directly pay for specific, valued, employees in a specific field of study. Some companies offer education benefits as part of the package for all employees (hospitals being a big example) and some trucking companies have schools that you qualify automatically for a loan at to learn to drive and if you work for them for a year they pay a significant portion for you over the year (I went to Central Refrigerated who paid for half of my loan and I paid the other half out of automaticallly deducted payments from my monthly pay).

That said you implied all people should have their education provided by companies with the paid education happening prior to the employee ever working. That would be criminally insane.

A student often changes the minds of their major. This would not work for a company. Some students will be approached by recruiters from companies not paying student costs to work for them when they are done, for a nice hiring bonus, higher pay, or some other benefit.

Some never do well in school, some will quit and seek other employment. In all your plan has more holes than Swiss Cheese on a shooting range!

Then you also proposed a school bailout for students. Your in school because school is supposed to earn you higher pay than not going to school, which means you can pay off that loan and have a better life style than those who did not goto school supposedly.

So that makes you greedy, arrogant, selfish, self centered, and hypocritical. How can you defend your views against this argument? And for those who decided to study under water basket weaving and pole dancing techniques they knew those classes would not get them a job. That is entirely their own fault.

SECRET TECHNOLOGY
Did you hear the Government bought the patent on a carburator? Actually some say Saudi Arabia bought it, or Ford did, or the inventor died under mysterious circumstances. It was made in the 50's, the 60's, the 70's. The story never grows old, never fails to be repeated endlessly. People will claim they saw it in action when in fact they never did. I have come to the  conclusion these people want to either impress or increase the number of 'believers' so they can get enough people to force the government to end    'the conspiracy'.

I have heard so many variations of the secret technologies as to make a persons head spin. Most of the time it is a Kucinich or Ron Paul follower making the comments.

If I made a device that increases gas mileage significantly the first three things I am going to do is mail a certified mail copy to each family member (with do not open instructions), get a rich friend involved (with nondisclosure signed with a video camera running) and then get a patent started. Then I license it out for $100 a vehicle made with it (and $100 per after market install) and reap the billions of dollars I would make. Yes I said billions. Think on it. There is over a hundred million drivers in the United States alone. Add Europe, add Asia, add S. America, add Canada and Mexico. Every year I would probably earn several billion dollars.

Think my math is wrong? Lets go over it. Assuming a generous 30mpg average and a 20 mile round trip commute, and an average extra 20 miles a week on weekends... a car would consume 4 gallons a week, or 232 gallons a year. At current prices that is $928 a year. A savings of half of that would mean $464 saved. For that they would need a one time (lets assume it lasts a year) purchase of $200 (my mark up plus cost to make it and others markups and costs) each year... they would save $264 dollars and reduce the impact of foriegn oil. But whats more the Government with it's fuel efficiency standards all but makes this a requirement on new vehicles or the cost sky rockets with the penalties.

My invention, installed on all new cars, would reduce the cost of cars by at least $2,000 and allow for bigger vehicles to be sold at even more savings. Every manufactorer would want it. That of course is limited to the US market, but other markets where fuel is much higher (Europe for instance) this would be so cost effective that it would be mandatory for savings.

Who in their right mind would give up on that? And my number is a low number! A person could ask for $500 a license for a miracle fuel filter, carburator, or intake valce system. Before their patent expired they could be the richest person on Earth!

How can you act like anyone would throw that opportunity away (or the fame, or whatever gain they would like from the invention)?

ALIENS
You just recently posted a thread that I barely looked at. I scanned it which means I read at about 3k wpm and an accuracy/understanding rate of about 25%. The thread seems to posit about alien technologies.

Excuse me as I yawn. The nearest stars, out to 16 light years have no planets (or the stars themselves cannot support life). Going further than this is pretty futile, but lets go ahead with the excercise.

A ship traveling at half the speed of light from 20 light years will need 40 years to arrive. That said our two farthest out satelites are near fourty years out. At that speed you would assume they could visit us. If they tried and found a single pebble sized object they would be destroyed.

If they took their time and tried for a hundred years a single pebble could cause significant damage. A storm of pebbles would be a rain of death. Four hundred years and they would have to have mastered a lot of technologies, as well as needing some size for the fuel in any event (a LOT of fuel would be needed to reach said speed and then come to a relative stop, more fuel if you intended to return) and extra space for landers, food growing (what will you eat while you research a species?) and other essentials.

It would not be a small mothership. By definition even with fusion power, near 100% coefficient drives, and a superior building material they would still need something huge. Adding landers or atmospheric craft would only increase the size needed.

And all of this would be for naught if any sort of celestial storm hit them. A mere dust storm would sweep them off course and cost them desperately needed fuel. Contigency planning would only dramatically increase the size of the ship.

But there is more. The likelyhood of a 'species' being anywhere near us is significantly low (like a lot of zeroes after a decimal with a percentage sign at the end). This increases the distance needed to cross and the number of stars to inspect significantly. The odds of that 'species' making it to intelligent is yet another scary low number, thus increasing the distance and so forth.

While if I took an athiest view on aliens as a possibility the odds of them coming here is less than your fictional small black hole we failed to detect scenario.

However your fears are wrong. NASA admitted the United States had the Ion drive in the 50's and the Plasma engine in the 60's. The Plasma engines that scientists not with the government are making today require round spheres to successfully operate.

We have had the technology for 50 years now. We have been hiding other military tech (only wise to do so) as well. I have knowledge the Stealth Fighter was made with carbon nanotubes in the 80's! The tech our government has hidden will cause you to point at fuel filters but then I will say that such a technology as a fuel saver has no military value, would be an export item with a tax benefit, would cement a Presidential run, and more. Ergo it does not exist because no one has announced it when it would be in everyone interest to announce it (except oil companies).

THE RICH
Though aspects of this have been covered the whole of this needs to be sussed out. The rich are there because they earned it, or their family earned it. You propose taxing the rich to death as a way to obtain equality, and as if it would save us from debt.

You are wrong. Taxing the people making the most  money protects the rich from competition. It makes them into a permament 'nobility' class which no one without their blessings will be able to join.

Consider first that all taxes get passed from the rich to the rest of us. They will always make enough to support their luxuries. They have the businesses, they have the stocks and treasuries, they have all the assetd in place and can ride out the increase to the taxes as long as they want.

What high taxes also does is stop the up and comers, the innovators, those meddling kids who would steal customers away and take them for themselves. So besides not affecting the life style of the rich you prevent competition from taking them on. You in effect cement the rich as the only source for goods and services.

Destroying their competition is the best way to keep them in power. So if you want to ruin some of them you need only make the taxes fair for all with no loopholes. This will cause smart competitors to rise up who will earn customers away from the rich and who may cause the abusive people who are rich to fall into bankruptcy.

As stated elsewhere the rich provide jobs, they provide it better than most, a higher percentage of their wealth is involved in creation of more wealth, and the percentage of sitting wealth is far lower than most of society.

But this is dounly so for the up and coming rich, the ones with an idea, the ones hungry enough to do things needing to be done, the people filling a niche everyone else ignored.

Why do you protect the current rich with your tax proposals? Why do you want to destroy those who could do better and cheaper for society?

RECYCLING
You have several themes and loss of natural resources is one of them. You ignore that sometimes it is cheaper not to recycle (glass being the best example. No one wants glass anymore, even those companies which were being offered money to recycle glass have no place to store it, and precious little market to sell it to).

Sometimes it is easier to just not care. If the product gets scarce enough in the future then paid recycling by companies will be very attractive. Until then we have enough iron, tin, aluminum, plastics, and such through better market practices than what you wish to force upon us.

Indeed you are costing the economy money by trying to force recycling upon a society where there is no need for it. You are forcing the consumption of resources for a vain attempt to say there is a problem.

So why do you persist on demanding recycling efforts when they are fiscally and resource irresponsible? Why can you not allow market conditions to rule this?

MASS PRODUCTION
You have a variety of big leaps here. One thing you and others quote is Ford trying to produce vehicles his own employees coule buy.

Mass production keeps prices down, severely so. However a dynamic of mass production is that it is done by the companies and corporations you hate... large ones.

You see the high tech age requires skilled workers. It is easier to hire and train in larger numbers. It removes the problem of not knowing the value, or lack thereof, of your product as well (imagine 10,000 small businesses making tablet pc's.... which one would be decent, which one crap, which one awesome. Imagine also the problem with app development as well!

The world runs easier, more productive, less wasteful, with mass production of certain items. This is an unavoidable aspect of a modern society, a welcome aspect at that!

Now to Ford again. His idea was to mass produce. The effect of producing in bulk was that anyone could own one. However he had to become a large business to do so! Additionally his efforts meant he had the entire market for a while.

His company obviously grew under his plans and fairly well, and he earned money, so he was making a very nice profit margin to boot. Probably Ka guess) he earned 5% which is just rocking by todays standards.

The point being he set up his family and himself with his innovation. He became wealthy beyond most peoples dreams with it, and he had the right to be so due to his success!

How can you say we would be better off with tens of thousands of competing computer makers, differing softwares, and a total lack of compatibility between them all? Why would you force consumers, aka the average person, to pay higher prices for a potentially crappy product? Why would you force society to take a step backwards?

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Where do you see Personal Responsibility. To me I see you acting as if there is no need for this. I see you thinking the Government needs to nanny us on everything and that we should not be held accountable for our own actions.

You certainly act like a 99% believer, and they think their student loans should be forgiven. You also seem to treat your desire to steal games and software as something that you should not be accoutable for.

Should it be ok for me to take the device you post to the internet with? Oh but you have a line on that... "I am just trying it out" or "I would not have paid anyways so they are not hurt" or some similar excuse.

As for the college loans "it is not fair my masters in drama cannot land me an upper middle class salary". Not his fault at all to you is it? That he could have studied business, engineering, science, technology, or just math is besides the point to you huh? It was his choice and now the rest of us are responsible for it?

Heck in that worldview I could hack your computer, make it destroy itself, and then fall back on the lack of personal responsibility. Nor should I be held responsible if I knock up a hundred ladies... after all it is for society to help them.

Those people in Louisiana who did not flee when Katrina was coming... they thought the same as you. Not their responsibility to get themselves out, the Government would. Of course they got all pissy when that did not happen, even so much as to ignore that for political reasons a Governor and a Mayor refused to take Federal and Private help.

But apparently you are to weak to have responsibility for yourself. Do you know the last social group that had no self responsibility? Well not a social group so much as slaves. A slave just did as he was told, giving everything to his master.

Why do you advocate a slow descent into structured slavery? Why do you advocate policies which are destructive, costly, and wrong? Do you not see your own responsibility in spreading such evil stuff everywhere?

CONCLUSION
This is it. As much of your ideas and ideals laid down and challenged in no holds barred level combat versus them. I intend to convert you.

However I expect you to weasel out somhow. "Your on ignore, sorry", "tl;dr" or by focusing one one (or a few) of the arguments and fixating on them.

I do not expect you to admit your wrong anywhere, your world view prohibits this. I do not expect you to change, your world view prohibits that. No.. what I expect is for you to have no case, demonstrate it with a poor answer, or a lack of an answer, and for the forum to move on.

To be blunt you have never had a hard time replying in large manners. Your quantity does not lack, your quality does. Your brainwashed of course. The true believer in something so wonderous sounding as to be dreamed of, and how dare reality interfere! Breaking you from that would require a true reward and punishment cycle, in a pyschological hospital, so you can assure your mentor(s) I failed to convert you.

I have laid it all out for you, as much as I could think of (of your views). Can you defend them, can you defeat my arguments? Or for the first time will you admit defeat?

Again I expect you to weasel out. You always have from the strongest arguments and have always focused on the weakest.

Zarf:

Xeno has a history of hiding from making answers to the stronger arguments. That is why I am being exclusionary.

They can post if they desire, but my right not to answer also exists.

I will willingly take all comers. I just do not want spam attacks upon me giving Xeno a way out. Today I wage political war and I want no distractions on the main front..

I will keep up with any challenges in new threads as they come which is a fair alternative. I am not being prejudiced against anyone in an extreme except my ignore list.

Don't worry Xeno. His arguments are basically:
1) I make statistics up and assume things to be true
2) I use tactics such as Ad Hominem attacks, logical fallacies in order to sound convincing
3) Thus, I must be correct

While I consider whether or not to participate in this thread, I'll pose one response:

Einstein wrote:

"Your brainwashed of course. The true believer in something so wonderous sounding as to be dreamed of, and how dare reality interfere! Breaking you from that would require a true reward and punishment cycle, in a pyschological hospital, so you can assure your mentor(s) I failed to convert you."

The only thing I may be brainwashed or irrational about is my belief that it is possible for there to be mutually beneficial solutions to social problems; that neither the poor, the middle class, nor the elite needs make concession to the others for there to be increased dignity, justice, economic opportunity, AND economic prosperity for all.  This is a core belief that I have.  Sometimes, I admit, I have been discouraged by what I see in the news and in the world, and have from time to time strayed from this position and thought that concessions may be needed to be made by the elite (at least temporarily) in order for dignity and justice to be restored to the poor and middle class.  Certainly, it would never be the poor and middle class to have to make concessions.  This I would find repugnant, due to the extent of the concessions they have already been forced to give.

If in my belief that there is a better world to be had, one which is more dignified, just, and prosperous for all, you, Einstein, are also brainwashed in your belief that such a better world is not possible.

No I believe in a better world Xeno. But I need people who are wrong to concede that before I can show them a world where no one wants. The idea is to alien.

Please do work out the arguments here, all four posts.

How about working from top down

Xeno 3/4 of this stuff is stuff I posted ruinois to your ideals in other threads.

Please do nott distract yourself.

I got one.  An old inflation argument between you and myself a few months ago. 

http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=145540&p=3

You'll notice a big debate between you and myself on ideal inflationary policies, halfway through which the argument is abruptly ended because the series of arguments I placed were left unanswered by you and when I called you on this... the response was not an effort to rectify the issue, but a simple "Well, I've made my point, Zarf."

> Einstein wrote:

> The reason I will not cite other threads is because I feel it is a distraction technique. I have thrown down my gauntlet. I have my arguments up against yours.

I am a politician, and you are playing in the big league now.

No more distractions Xeno, just start to make your case or concede defeat.

Being a politician does not mean that you necessarily understand the issues. In fact, if you're a republican politician I would say that would actually degrade your credibility. With knowledgable polymaths such as Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, and Rick Perry how can you go wrong?