comment listing type:
Top New Documentaries Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
comment listing type: Top New Documentaries Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
Digg - US Military threatens to kill pet of StopLoss Soldier (Catsanddogs Talk Post)
VideoSift 2nd Presidential Debate Liveblog Party (Election08 Talk Post)
Amazing cover of Thelonius Monk
The guy sucked all of the life out of Monk's work and turned it into elevator music.
Deregulating the market - case study: Enron & California
And they can, and will, use their obscene profits to undermine any and every effort to shift our energy dollars away from their cash registers.
In the past eight years the oil companies, thanks to the oil men in the White House, have seen both their profits skyrocket and their tax burden lighten.
The free market had little or nothing to do with that.
The "fixed market" did.
II. What is the Philosophical Basis for a Free Market? (Blog Entry by imstellar28)
It should be noted that "the right to life" as I define it, is compatible with helping others, as people who are free to sustain their own life, are also free to choose to sustain the lives of others. However, if you define it as the socialists, you necessarily have to sustain the lives of others not out of choice, but of obligation, which I find to be considerably less noble.
Maybe.
One may be "obliged" to stop at a four-way intersection, or one can be noble and just blow right through, since it undermines his fundamental "right to life."
It would seem to me that adhering to a set of rules that either leads to, or encourages, a stronger, safer society would be far and away more noble than to belly-ache about being "obliged" to follow them.
Tell me...if one of the people in your example scenario has nothing to trade, does he lose his "right to life"?
(good post, by the way)
Steve Martin: Dentist
II. What is the Philosophical Basis for a Free Market? (Blog Entry by imstellar28)
The right to live in a society that can supply its population with sufficient food, clothing, and shelter? A society with sufficient employment, healthcare, education, and retirment for all of its members?
And if they are both based on the human being's fundamental "right to life" which of the two is more noble?
The one that looks out for all of its members, or the one that caters mostly to the few who own the most "capital"?
Economic policy (Blog Entry by jwray)
I am not anti-capitalism. There are obviously many good things about the incentives, dexterity (in the sense of adjusting to new trends or technologies), and innovations that such a system encourages.
But it is not a God, and that's what most right-wing "free market" loons consider it to be. It is not inherently benevolent, and often times, when left to its own set of special rules, we will see the system manipulated from within to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
Socialism is similar in ways, because sooner or later that system is gamed too, but it is not the work of Satan to get together, as a large community on a national level, and set down some centralized plans that will benefit the population as a whole, and not just the handful of people at the top of the economic ladder.
I think a sensible balance between the two philosophies or methodologies is essential, and as it stands right now, in order for our country--if not the world as a whole--to regain its balance, it needs a common-sense approach to introducing more "socialized" methods of achieving common goals.
Fox News Guy
Cenk Uygur discusses the VP debate on CNN
The expectations for her were set so low that any performance short of a catastrophe would have been painted victorious.
That's not a 'tribal' observation; it's the plain fact of the matter.
Palin "takes the gloves off" - and breaks a nail
Cute Criminal
Why the Rich Love McCain's Tax Plan
Just so like you, QM.
That just proves that the richest 20% are being paid too much in the first place.
Deregulating the market - case study: Enron & California
Steller, you are one blind son of (a gun - edited for stupidity).
Documents released Monday by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission revealed Enron Corporation deliberately created real and imaginary shortages during the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, in order drive up prices and reap vast profits in the state’s newly deregulated energy market.
[.....]
Bush administration officials repeated Enron’s claims that California’s problems were caused by the state’s “flawed” deregulation plan—which was not “free market” enough—and strict environmental standards, which limited the construction of new power plants. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney publicly opposed price controls, insisting that any such moves would be a disincentive for power companies to operate in the state.
Several weeks after the memos were written outlining the company’s strategy to manipulate California’s market, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay—the largest single contributor to Bush’s political career—successfully prompted the Bush administration to appoint free-market advocate Pat Wood as the head of the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. Once in place, Wood resisted the implementation of price controls for months while the crisis spun out of control.
World Socialist Web Site
"Country First" my ass.
If You Start Losing, Just Start Lying