What you're really asking is why do us crazy people live in a capitalist society instead of a communist utopia.

I'm pretty sure if I were living in a communist utopia, I'd give one great big fuck you to everyone else and not do anything.  Which is what most of the homeless people have done even without the lack of incentive to work and aquire things.  The basic premise in behavior modification is that you reward good behavior and punish bad behavior to increase and decrease them respectively.  This works in almost all humans and animals.

The question you have to ask yourself is, are you perfect?  Will you work if you don't have to, or will your behavior need modification?  After you've figured that out, start thinking about what everyone you know will do.

psychoak,

Thanks for your response.

The politicians that are running the show sit around in meetings blowing hot air, making a bunch of extraneous laws so they can substantiate their full time political job that started out as a part time job years ago and that's what it should still be, because unless you're constantly making new laws, there is nothing else to do. Most of those guys already had high paying jobs, now they're just making their money a whole lot easier. That's why they want to get re-elected.

Then you have the people running the stock market, making hundreds of millions for themselves, while playing with other people's money, including 401k retirement funds.

Then you have actual hard working people that are busting their asses at a real job, like EMT - emergency medical technicians - saving lives everyday, they make a whopping 40k a year `reward' money approx. Then you have guys like the coal miners, what do they get `rewarded', about $13.00/hr?

So my point is, the `reward' system is upside down and completely broken. 

As long as there is plenty enough to go around, we might as well make sure everyone is taken care of at a decent level. Then let the super achievers have their Porsche in the driveway.

You're asking me if I'm perfect. Of course not. Would I work if I had 10 miliion dollars? Yes, of course, and so would most other people that I've asked the same question.  

You are basing a lot of your thoughts on how afraid you are that everyone would just sit back and do nothing.

This doesn't need to be some ultimate `Utopia', in order for these things to happen. Most people naturally want to work and feel useful.

I guess I need to apologize for thinking a bit better of you than you do of yourself

One of the several important basic things I learned in the middle of my formal studies was that if you want to have a personal political philosophy, you have to start with your idea of the basic human condition. My view today is much closer to StarMan99's than it is to psychoak's, although I surely have to spend much time raving at the newspapers and C-SPAN.

I say "much closer to" even though I'd prefer to say "the same" because every passing season shows me still more variety in the wonders and horrors our species can create--good samaritans really do exist, and so do people who throw babies against walls. But the main reason I've moved much farther from seeing people mostly as psychoak seems to is that I have enough misery from what I know of "exceptional" people. Coming to believe that *everyone* is total shit seems like a good reason to steal a semi of MREs and go live in a cave with a nearby water supply. At least that would keep one off the danged inner-net.

p.s. psychoak, you take your broad brush too harshly to the homeless, which I suppose is consistent with your larger philosophy. Yes, there are plenty of them who are drunks and/or junkies who just don't want to do anything other than scam and scrounge to get high. There are also *large* numbers of complexly-damaged veterans, plenty of mentally ill folks who were kicked out of public mental institutions by "conservative" politicians, and some plain honest folks who are in a really bad situation.

The trouble is that even among those that would continue to work, many wouldn't work with the same dedication, and there are a lot of jobs that wouldn't get done.  You mentioned miners being paid less than stock traders and executives.  The reason executives get paid so much is because their job is one that anyone would want, but that not many are qualified for.  How many people would work as miners if they didn't need the money?  How many would work at a farm all day?  The pay is the main reason people stay with these low paying and difficult but necessary jobs.  If all of us were wealthy, the workers for these jobs wouldn't meet the demand, because even if we all worked, we'd generally find something easier and more pleasant than those things.

Bottom line: No good paying jobs, no money for homes, cars and extras. Just the essentials, food and clothing. All big businesses will collapse without customers. Businesses are no longer willing to pay their employees decent wages (all the money is going to the top execs.). Every employee is just not a worker, BUT also a consumer/customer!!!

My formal education in politics began and ended with my freshman year of undergraduate university study.  Admittedly, I have neither the time nor resources to diversify my qualifications so far as to include economics or government.  While I am not personally effected by financial crises, recessions, depressions, or otherwise, I would like to point out that the mortgage foreclosure rate does not appear likely to go over 5-6%.  At the point of default, the home in question is repossessed by whatever entity is loaning the mortgage.  My natural distrust of all things bureaucratic does not nurture a paranoia great enough to believe that the US government can somehow misplace the bulk of $700 billion dollars plus interest and the material assets acquired through any buyout plan.

As for the tangent discussion…

No one in my field of expertise does it for the money.  Note: I can use the absolute, because I’ve personally met everyone in my field of expertise.

-Dr. B

Bullshit, I've studied the statistics and socialized with the bums myself.  If you want to drink yourself into a stupor every day, your being a veteran is irrelevant.  You're still choosing to drink yourself into a stupor every day.  That you may have more cause to do so than the other 67% of the single male idiots drinking themselves into a stupor every day doesn't change that you choose to do it.  Only 30% of the homeless veterans have ever been stationed in a war zone, and homeless veterans only account for 23% of the homeless to start with.

There is ample care available to them, they flat don't bother to take it.  Now the mental ones you almost have a point.  The problem is your warped history.  Conservative politicians my ass, try liberals. 

Pardon me but more I read you psychoak and more well how I say wish you to meet the situation of those who you describe as lazy ppl. Not everything is in our control and one day something may go wrong and things may developpe pretty quick without you even noticeing it. That day you would be glad to have someone to offer you a hand of help but in your world that help will never come. In your perfect world where every one is happy and where the failure is impossible and where everything depends on your own will the help isn't needed. 

As far as veterans are concerned well know that they fought for your sorry ass so at least you can respect that and stopp by them just to ask them what is wrong or have a chat with them instead assuming that they are all fools because all they do they drik, and you never asked them why they drink. 

P.S.

For statistics my professor used to say us : "Statistics are the best tool of propaganda. You can make them say what ever you want and it will always sound in your favor"

While you're excusing their bad behavior, they're still flushing their lives down the toilet in spite of the helping hands already existing in ample supply.  Blind compassion hurts the targets more often than not.

In the range of categorical statements are refuted by one counter-example, I have here in front of me a wonderful gif, How Our Mail Gets to Us saved from that paragon of communist thinking, Fortune magazine (Despite some searching, I'm not finding the original article) with the budgets, parcels, et al delivered by the top four shipping companies.

I'm sure you will come up with some way of ignoring the objective facts in favor of idealogy, nonetheless on a head to head comparison - Fedex, UPS, and DHL together don't have the efficiency and bang for your buck of the horridly inefficient government run service service.

Although it probably is an unfair comparison - as everyone knows the USPS actually uses magical fairies to deliver and sort packages. Also Orks, Oni, Djinn, Ifrit . . . you know, I'm almost sure this is the plot of an unpublished Tom Holt novel . . .

Jonnan

Yeah - he's that 'special' kind of conservative - "if they're in that position, they must have done something to deserve it". Same kind of conservative that believes in market solutions when people try to deregulate, but when it's his company it's suddenly everyone elses fault.

I'm for a modicum of socialism - for everyone to benefit from. So many don't believe in an socialism at all, until *they* are hurting.

Jonnan

The bailout plan is bad, but for many reasons not understood by the majority of people.  Not only is it morally wrong to give tax payers' money to companies to bail them out, not only is this the biggest intervention in the economy since the great depression, not only is it unconstitutional but --

This fails to address the problem that caused this in the first place.  The problem is NOT the free market gone amuck.  Many democrats and some republicans will try to tell you this.  Neither John McCain or Barack Obama have the first clue about the economy, how it works, and what caused this. 

The real problem is the government's current meddling in the economy.  Unfortunately this century has seen our once great country sullied by the economic policy of one John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas have formed the basis for European mixed economies (socialism).  Namely, the Federal Reserve Bank whose board members are private bankers, has the power to increase or decrease the money supply through a few quite powerful tools.  They can essentially print as much money as they want, greatly inflating the money supply and sending prices through the roof.  This not only destroys the dollar, and taxes the people since the new money they print is offered to banks in exchange for bonds (i.e. the bankers get free money at the expense of the value of dollars EARNED by every humble Tom Dick and Harry).  This really is a tax, and it's an outrage that the value of our earnings in controlled by people we don't even elect.  Taxation without representation.  The constitution doesn't give congress the authority to devalue the dollar and send inflation through the roof, and give another entity free reign to do it.  It's CONGRESS job to coin money and regulate the value thereof (by issuing 1 dollar notes vs 5 dollar notes).

The point is that this meddling, this manipulation by the Federal reserve... by decreasing the interest rate at which banks can borrow from the Fed far below their equilibrium level (since the Fed can just keep printing money and loaning as much money as it wants) they give banks very easy access to credit.  This essentially lets the banks loan out OVER 100 percent of their real assets.  In addition, since the banks have such cheap access to credit, they are less particular about who they are lending to.  The investor, correspondingly, gets money for much cheaper than he should given that in a market that actually reflects on the economic climate of the time money would be more or less scarce based on how much money banks actually had to loan to one another.  That is, the interest rate goes up as more loans are made and less money is left to loan.

The net result is that both banks and investors take more risks with their loaning and investments, respectively.  Risks that they would usually only make if times were good, since by pushing the interest rate so far south the Fed has made bad investments attractive.  They thus create bubbles.  Like the housing and financial bubble.  Combined with the bad loans made by Freddie and Fannie, and you get quite a bubble. 

Translation:  this is all false wealth.  Of course it will fall.  It doesn't really exist.  Houses, for example, are far overvalued.  By continuing to try to prop up the bubble they've created (with the bailout and even more printed money) the government just makes assets even more overvalued and continues to propagate bad loans.

I mean, people took out loans using imaginary, temporary increased perceived market value on their homes as collateral.  That means they owed more than they bought their house for.  When these unnaturally high house prices fell, their houses were worth far less than their loans and the only smart thing to do is default. 

The translation is that this is all the government and their monetary policy's fault.  And by continuing to attempt to prop up false wealth they make the eventual inevitable market correction even more extreme since assets are even more overvalued.

The solution is to let the market readjust and abolish the Federal Reserve since putting our monetary system under the control of the very bankers that can profit most from this control, and then trusting them, not auditing them, and not even electing them is disastrous, immoral, and unconstitutional.  And it prevents market participants from correctly judging the true market conditions.

The bailout bill, in addition to continuing to try to prop up imaginary market values, also rewards bad business and therefore makes these businesses less efficient and frugal.  Namely, rewarding people whose businesses failed can do nothing but teach them that if they fail again all will be fine.  Bad, risky investments, as well as inferior service, are suddenly not so costly when big brother's got your back.

Jonnan, you're a moron.  I mean that in the best way possible.  This is, by far, your dumbest attempt at an argument that I've seen.

Comparing the post office total operations to pure package shipping operations...  Wow, the post office is more efficient by item!  Maybe that's because nearly every item is... junk mail?

In 2007, they lost 5 billion dollars!  Everybody cheer for the efficiency of your tax dollars!  If they can't compete, by golly they'll fucking compete anyway and hose us for the remainder through the backdoor.

It's illegal for anyone but USPS to ship a letter for less than three bucks, it's illegal for them to ship it for less than twice the competing USPS price.  They also aren't allowed to use the mail boxes.  OMFG THEY'RE CHEAPER!!!!

I tell you what, you find direct comparisons on package shipping that proves they make more money for less and I'll shut up.  Otherwise, please try to avoid dropping your readers I.Q. levels any further.

Well put vxt22!

psychoak, remember one ststement. "Don't argue with a fool as others might not be able to tell the difference..."

Your statements are sound, but I see your IQ dropping with each rebuttal.

I'm just saying, don't let yourself get dragged down!!!

No, No, wait a second . . . Nope, actually,  turns out I'm not.

Wow - and all these years I assumed that I had to deal with spammers because email was cheap and easy for them to send through - but I should be *thanking* spammers, because thats what *makes* email cheap and easy!

Well, at least now I know exact where Psychoak has been getting the drugs he's on - it's G3n1rIk V1@GR@, which he buys out of gratitude for spammers making e-mail efficient!

Or - wait, I have another idea, and I'm just spitballing on this - is it possible mass mailing uses the U.S.P.S. because it's actually a quite cheap and efficient way for large amounts of mail to be sent from one party to another?

So, by paying a cost of slightly under three package deliveries from the nearest competitor in my taxes, I get access to a service that deliveries packages for 4338% of their package/revenue efficiency.

Wow - that hurts almost as much as being called a moron in the best possible way. Not quite as much, but, really nearly almost as much!

Just how many anomalies do you have to pickup before you hit 4338% efficiency anyway? Come to think of it, I didn't even know they had survey modules on postal delivery trucks - must be what the extra 5bc pays for.

So, your complaint here is:

a.) that they are bound by law (I'm unfamiliar with it, but will grant it for purposes of argument) to not drop below a price that the cheapest competitor is over by a factor 166%, which you claim the U.S.P.S. is no more than 50% of? Because, this is an argument that in some way could be worked out to be in your favor, if only I were imaginative enough. Somehow.

And
b.) that the U.S.P.S, unlike every other company in the world, has an established infrastructure that they have developed over time - that they don't let their competitors use? Forgive me if I'm wrong - but is Fedex allowed to pick stuff up and drop it into the UPS drop off points or vice versa?

Gee, if only the resources developed at public expense could be used for free by private companies for their profit, they would be just as efficient as the Postal Service. And I thought you didn't believe in socialism - you're just fine with companies and stockholders getting money from the public dole - it's just people benefiting from the government you hate.

Well, gee, knowing how you hate those 'objective' things like facts and figures, I would go find something where libertarians 'proved' how inefficient the U.S.P.S. is that completely ignored all that annoying 'reality based' stuff in favor of something 'truthy', but those commie pinko liberals Fortune magazine printed out this beautiful chart that shows the exact figures that one could use for, say, a direct comparison between the four largest package delivery services in the world, and you know how sensitive they are - so instead I'll work with those.

Jonnan