Hahahahahahaha @ Einstein calling me "son," appealing to authority (haha he's a security expert too!), then referencing a video game on economics as the basis for this appeal!
This shit is priceless.
Free markets don't make the rich "struggle," Einstein. They change who the rich are. Yes, the beneficiaries of statism and corruption as a source of wealth could be said to "struggle," but to sum them up as representative of "the rich" and to sum up free markets as causing "the rich to struggle" is overly simplistic and completely misses the points to be made on the topic. (Namely, that free markets reward the productive over the connected and the criminal, to the benefit of all.)
You_Fool,
You're referring to things like the Federal Reserve robbing people and government corruption as "low taxes." They're not the same thing. You're as clueless as Einstein.
You're just embarrassing yourselves. If you literally cannot discriminate between "printing money to devalue the earnings of the poor" and "low taxes," are you really equipped to discuss or debate anything on a politics forum? Let me save you some time: No. This is a pitiful level of exchange. I might as well declare that you're obviously 100% proven wrong because South Korea is doing far better than North Korea.
Well, that would actually be more rational than the logic you just assaulted us with.
"and have none of the benefits of a well run state, i.e. good education and health care at a reasonable price. "
The notion that government dependency leads to a prosperous people is the most laughably absurd thing I've ever heard. I really wish I was a Native American!
Free markets result in better healthcare than any state run care. That's a fact. You can squabble about pricing if you don't understand what's wrong with America's healthcare system all you want (blaming it on the free market), but there's no dispute that it offers the best care on earth. The point being, a "well run state" provides subpar health care, rationed, and you praise it.
Similarly, the best education systems are handled locally. Any reference to national numbers ignores the fact that America is not as [relatively] Homogenized as many European nations, and certain delinquent segments of our population bring our numbers down dramatically when measured on a national level. The point being a "well run state" on a national level provides no special boon to education that cannot be handled competently on a local level at less cost and more control to the very parents whose children are being education. The point being, nationalized education programs are inefficient, inflexible, and provide no advantages over locally controlled education. And you praise them.
I wonder if you have literally any bases for your claims whatsoever. State-run healthcare and education are better why, because you say so? You have nothing but politicized studies, and every time I point out how they're politicized you suddenly have no more to say and go away. I'm sorry that I'm more familiar with the numbers that you falsely think back up your claims than you are?
Try to explain to me how lower taxes cause the poor to become poorer. You made the claim that low taxes cause the poor to "get poorer faster." Please explain to me the mechanics by which lower taxes cause the poor to lose money; please explain to me the mechanics by which higher taxes cause the poor to have more wealth.
You go on to claim that two fallacious statements equal out and become valid reasoning. I rest my case?
It's just bizarre reading you guys post because you don't know what you're talking about--you obviously don't care to learn about the topics you have strong views on. You vaguely reference studies you've never even read the abstracts of. It's weird.
Einstein: The WHO stopped doing a healthcare ranking by country because it was such rubbish. Their standards of measure were poor, and their "availability" measure was inconsistent between nations (e.g. not taking into account availability to the poor handled on the state level in the USA, which is the majority of it).
You_Fool: Have you ever recalculated the numbers of average standard of living in the USA without the tens of millions on welfare who're happy to remain on it for generations? Suddenly the few European nations which barely edge out American average incomes including those deadbeats don't look so hot. Comparing national American averages, including this deadbeat population, to national averages of much smaller and more culturally homogeneous European nations isn't good science.
While it's sad that such trash exists (created by, in large part, government), its existence greatly reduces America's national numbers. The fact is, the rest of the American population averages significantly more than the national average including these people. And it's more than any nation in Europe averages. And, on top of that, it would go a lot farther if we weren't a nation in decline being robbed via the constant inflation of the Fed. How's the Euro doing anyway?
Nobody's gonna learn anything from your discourse so long as you're being dishonest or don't care to learn about what you're talking about yourselves.
[I wish I could obey forum rules]
