I'm not saying its "bad" for someone to try to help out their kids. Just like it isn't bad for a fisherman to fish on a communal lake. The problem is that when everyone does it, at some point the lake runs out of fish, and everyone suffers.
Sure if everyone did it you would have no fish, but not everybody can do it because not everybody has the skills and knowldedge or the resources to buy the equipment. Also note everybody is entitled to eat fish. So somebody with the skill saves or borrows to buy the gear from someone who has the skills to make fishing poles or nets or boats or employees people to do other things and so on....but at the end of the day those with the least skills generally don't eat fish - I don't see the problem.
Although I guess you are saying it is ok for some people to have more fish but not too many fish, but what also I think you are saying is that every one is entitled to have some fish regardless of skill or resources. Although I would argue, as I already have, that anybody can fish - a string and a hook is easily attainable.
But those problems wouldn't have happened in the first place if the regulations put in place after the Great Depression hadn't been rescinded in the first place. The big banks could have never become so big in under pre-Regan/Clinton laws.
I agree - repealling Glass Steagal, which happened under a dearly loved democrat who helped sway the current election, was a big mistake.
Politicians have no clue - they are either career politicians and never really worked or they are ridiculously wealthy people (by earning it, marrying into it, or inheriting it) - they can't solve anything.
What do you propose in its place? Anarchy? A benevolent dictator? Direct democracy?
[/quote]
Definitely not those things...but I don't have an answer. Although I posted elsewhere that changing term limits to be more inline with economic cycles and reduce the perpetual campaigning......presidency should be a single 6-year term (enough to implement its platform and see it through but not so long that that we have to live with it). Change the house from 2 year terms to a single six year term. Senate already does six year terms but they can be reelected forever so it should be capped at two 6-year terms. I think this would allow enough turnover so money and buying votes is less rewarded but still allows for some seniority and wisdom along the way.
Yes, and many of the countries have market economies, similar to our own. Their decision to try to make trade even freer between them all by adopting a common currency meant that the downfall of any one affected the others more. The whole global downturn was led by the US is 2008.
The common currency made it easier to trade and harder to deal with issues...but it is not the heart of the issues. The issues are due to constantly expanding entitlements and social programs and funding them with ever increasing amounts of debt (sounds familiar)...Germany has faired well due to its fiscal discipline and if it wasn't as strong as it is the whole Eurozone would have collapsed already. The difference between the Eurozone and the US is we still have time to address it and we have a more flexible and dynamic economy that can bounce back if the politicians ever get out of the way (not because of ideology but because of constant uncertainty). Even if we go off the fiscal cliff it may cause some pain and a recession but if that stands as the new way we will all adjust and figure it out. Problem is that politicians like band aids and not cures (whether that be medicine or amputation).
Exactly!! This is why I used it as an example. You've always implied (or stated outright) that conditions like that would stifle innovation, investment, and production, which would retard the growth of wealth and the end result would be everyone, both the rich and the middle class, would suffer. And yet, here this place is, not just hypothetical but actually existing, and it has exactly the sort of system you think would be terrible, yet it has consistently had a higher standard of living for its middle class the the US for at least as long as comparisons have existed.
And like I mentioned to Jamesqf, the US has higher oil production than they do, so, if their economic sucess doesn't count for that reason, neither does ours.
Yes condtions like that would stifle our economy - Norway is not a comparable example. They don't produce or create anything...they harvest natural resources. Yes the US is the 3rd largest oil producer but oil production in the US per capita is about 30 barrels/1000 whereas in Norway it is over 550 barrels/1000 so quite a difference and that extends to other natural resources as well.
Norway is more akin to Alaska, if it were an individual country.
