World Politics

[redtreviso]

Again, just because you don't see it does not mean it's not. To follow your logic... when my Dad bought a POS car for me when I was old enough to drive I suppose I should have been taxed on it. Same when he gifted money for me to go to college (and on and on and on). Somehow when he dies it's now a gain? Bull****. It's insidious.

Is that like hypothetical ? You really wanted the turbo model???

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting economic numbers;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/7/government-tax-revenue-growing-2011/

Government tax revenue growing in 2011
Feds still notch 32nd straight monthly deficit

Goodnews/badnews headline

The job market still may be struggling, but wages and salaries are improving, and that helped shrink the federal deficit to $59 billion for May, according to the Congressional Budget Office — the lowest deficit in five years for that month.

Improvement on the trend line.

CBO, in its monthly review of the federal budget, said individual income tax revenue is up $139 billion so far this fiscal year compared with 2010, well outstripping the loss of revenue from the payroll tax cut Congress and President Obama agreed to in December

Cut in taxes resulting in increased treasury revenues??? Can't be...

Overall, basic spending has gone up less than 1 percent, thanks in large part to the spending-cuts bill lawmakers passed earlier this year. But the automatic spending programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which were not part of the spending deal, continued to grow quickly: Social Security by 3.6 percent, Medicare by 3.8 percent and Medicaid by a worrisome 5.4 percent.

More good news/bad news again. Medicaid up 5.4%... (annualized number I assume).

Still, the biggest jump in spending came on interest on the public debt, which is running 16 percent higher this year than in 2010

That's bad news.

With four months left in the fiscal year, the federal deficit stood at $929 billion, or about $7 billion below last year’s record pace. Spending has grown $132 billion in the year to date, while revenues are up $139 billion, which accounts for the slightly improved picture.

To me, this is encouraging. If we had just froze spending to last years levels we would have reduced the deficit by $132 billion. Our economy is crap but revenue still grew by $139 billion. It sure seems like a spending problem to me.

 

[redtreviso]

Scott's superman.. just don't get caught..

""“Cain clearly believes that his pro-business message is what GOP voters want to hear. So much so, in fact, that on Saturday he officially unveiled his candidacy for the 2012 GOP nomination. But scrubbed from Cain’s official story is his long tenure as a director at a Midwest energy corporation named Aquila that, like the infamous Enron Corporation, recklessly drove into the wild west of energy trading and speculation – and ultimately screwed its employees out of tens of millions of dollars,” Mother Jones reports.

According to a massive class action lawsuit against Aquila’s board of directors – including Cain – he allegedly steered employees into heavily investing their retirement savings in company stock, while at the same time shifting their business model from straightforward energy generation to risky energy trading – the kind of corporate greed that infamously brought down Enron, Mother Jones reports. In the suit, it claims that Cain and other top officials violated a 37-year-old federal law that requires employers to responsibly manage the retirement programs for their employees. Their pensions and life savings were lost.

Thus far, Cain has been running as the pro-business candidate who successfully turned around the failing Godfather’s Pizza franchise after working in the corporate offices of the Pillsbury Company. His lack of political experience is always countered by touting his decades’ worth of success in business. Positions at Godfather’s, Pillsbury and his post as chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City are listed as part of his official campaign biography. His part in the major downfall of Aquila – where he was on the board of directors for much of the 1990s and early 2000s – is nowhere to be found.

Yes, it is expected for a candidate to try and hide his skeletons, but he should also expect to eventually be exposed. Herman Cain, you are exposed."""

 

[ChrisE]

Hey Scott, what's going on here?

 

[Anonymous]

Scott's superman.. just don't get caught..

""“Cain clearly believes that his pro-business message is what GOP voters want to hear. So much so, in fact, that on Saturday he officially unveiled his candidacy for the 2012 GOP nomination. But scrubbed from Cain’s official story is his long tenure as a director at a Midwest energy corporation named Aquila that, like the infamous Enron Corporation, recklessly drove into the wild west of energy trading and speculation – and ultimately screwed its employees out of tens of millions of dollars,” Mother Jones reports.

According to a massive class action lawsuit against Aquila’s board of directors – including Cain – he allegedly steered employees into heavily investing their retirement savings in company stock, while at the same time shifting their business model from straightforward energy generation to risky energy trading – the kind of corporate greed that infamously brought down Enron, Mother Jones reports. In the suit, it claims that Cain and other top officials violated a 37-year-old federal law that requires employers to responsibly manage the retirement programs for their employees. Their pensions and life savings were lost.

Thus far, Cain has been running as the pro-business candidate who successfully turned around the failing Godfather’s Pizza franchise after working in the corporate offices of the Pillsbury Company. His lack of political experience is always countered by touting his decades’ worth of success in business. Positions at Godfather’s, Pillsbury and his post as chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City are listed as part of his official campaign biography. His part in the major downfall of Aquila – where he was on the board of directors for much of the 1990s and early 2000s – is nowhere to be found.

Yes, it is expected for a candidate to try and hide his skeletons, but he should also expect to eventually be exposed. Herman Cain, you are exposed."""

In my best Redtreviso impression, "you and your kind just don't like the color of his skin."

Did I get that about right? Should I insert the picture of some degenerate Klansman for additional effect, or just leave it with the accusation of racism?

I'm new at this rules for radicals stuff so let me know where I can improve.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Scott, what's going on here?

Nice graph Chris. Where's the Dow peak at over 14,000 during the W's term? I didn't see that on your graph.

I usually don't start drinking until 5:00 or so.

 

[ChrisE]

Nice graph Chris. Where's the Dow peak at over 14,000 during the W's term? I didn't see that on your graph.

I usually don't start drinking until 5:00 or so.

I'm sorry, maybe I need to explain. The graph shows points at the end of terms.

 

[redtreviso]

In my best Redtreviso impression, "you and your kind just don't like the color of his skin."

Did I get that about right? Should I insert the picture of some degenerate Klansman for additional effect, or just leave it with the accusation of racism?

I'm new at this rules for radicals stuff so let me know where I can improve.

That's funny I didn't even bother to look , he's black.. but he is a criminal ...get ahead, but don't get caught republican type.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, maybe I need to explain. The graph shows points at the end of terms.

The DJI has gained about 400 points this year to date. Last year it gained about 1100 points.

The DJI fell from it's high of 14,093 in October of 2007 to a low of 6,594 in March of 2009. Over 50%. Some of this was a rebound and would have happened no matter who was in the white house. A 50% reduction of the Dow in such a short period of time was bound to be viewed as a buying opportunity for many.

To be fair, the stock market has performed pretty well under Obama. Too bad the economy has not.

 

[ChrisE]

To be fair, the stock market has performed pretty well under Obama. Too bad the economy has not.

Really? Why doesn't the stock market mirror the economy? Stock prices are based upon their value, realistically per recent past performance or prospectively. Company stock values are basically based upon their earnings, which are based upon the willingness or the ability of the consumer to spend money on their products. The consumer, who drives the economy. Yet you preach that democratic party ideals, which are still basically capitalistic, are hurting the economy but your facts don't line up with the last 20 years in terms of stock market performance that has mirrored the economy.

My question to you is an academic one. You always preach the cut taxes/spending solution to the perceived economic woes of the country. I believe I have asked in here before or possibly elsewhere what the line in the sand is when tax cutting decreases govt. income in your fairy tale land. What is that number? It's easy to squawk "tax cuts!" over and over again yet if the tax rate was zero obviously the govt tax revenues would be zero. What is the magic number in Norquist utopia? Why has the stock market ie economy improved, and improved vastly under Clinton, with no tax cuts and an actual raising of taxes on the wealthy by Clinton? I personally think the economy would still be where it is at or better if Obama would've played hardball and insisted the Bush tax cuts expire. But alas, I opined on that upthread.

Also, there is another line in the sand apparently where govt. spending will hurt the economy, except this again belies the CW about the stock market in a capitalistic society, where the stock market should reflect the overall spending power of the consumer. The consumer benefits from that spending because that money eventually winds up in the pocket of that consumer to be transferred into the economy. Why would cutting government spending on whatever programs improve the economy? Cutting the spending on freedom weapons? Infrastructure? Welfare money that people use to buy their basic needs from a capitalistic enterprise? Why does the money the govt. spend reduce the output of the economy? If all of these things went away would the people on welfare all of a sudden be engineers? Defense contractors would open a bunch of starbucks type businesses instead of making missiles, with their employees ie the spenders in this economy still making the same income?

I'm not saying that the govt. spending on any of these issues is "right" or in line with what should or should not be the role of the govt. I am putting forth the notion that it is not hurting things as you describe, and neither does economic performance depend on tax cutting. Water always finds its level, and the economy is no different. The BS spewed by wingnuts is nothing more than an end around in class and emotional warfare based upon wealth accumulation, which is contradictory to the basic needs of a civil society in which the earning potential of all people is not equal.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Scott's superman.. just don't get caught..

""“Cain clearly believes that his pro-business message is what GOP voters want to hear. So much so, in fact, that on Saturday he officially unveiled his candidacy for the 2012 GOP nomination. But scrubbed from Cain’s official story is his long tenure as a director at a Midwest energy corporation named Aquila that, like the infamous Enron Corporation, recklessly drove into the wild west of energy trading and speculation – and ultimately screwed its employees out of tens of millions of dollars,” Mother Jones reports.

Screwing employees doesn't necessarily run counter to the Republican model of best business practices.

 

[Anonymous]

Really? Why doesn't the stock market mirror the economy? Stock prices are based upon their value, realistically per recent past performance or prospectively. Company stock values are basically based upon their earnings, which are based upon the willingness or the ability of the consumer to spend money on their products. The consumer, who drives the economy. Yet you preach that democratic party ideals, which are still basically capitalistic, are hurting the economy but your facts don't line up with the last 20 years in terms of stock market performance that has mirrored the economy.

My question to you is an academic one. You always preach the cut taxes/spending solution to the perceived economic woes of the country. I believe I have asked in here before or possibly elsewhere what the line in the sand is when tax cutting decreases govt. income in your fairy tale land. What is that number? It's easy to squawk "tax cuts!" over and over again yet if the tax rate was zero obviously the govt tax revenues would be zero. What is the magic number in Norquist utopia? Why has the stock market ie economy improved, and improved vastly under Clinton, with no tax cuts and an actual raising of taxes on the wealthy by Clinton? I personally think the economy would still be where it is at or better if Obama would've played hardball and insisted the Bush tax cuts expire. But alas, I opined on that upthread.

Also, there is another line in the sand apparently where govt. spending will hurt the economy, except this again belies the CW about the stock market in a capitalistic society, where the stock market should reflect the overall spending power of the consumer. The consumer benefits from that spending because that money eventually winds up in the pocket of that consumer to be transferred into the economy. Why would cutting government spending on whatever programs improve the economy? Cutting the spending on freedom weapons? Infrastructure? Welfare money that people use to buy their basic needs from a capitalistic enterprise? Why does the money the govt. spend reduce the output of the economy? If all of these things went away would the people on welfare all of a sudden be engineers? Defense contractors would open a bunch of starbucks type businesses instead of making missiles, with their employees ie the spenders in this economy still making the same income?

I'm not saying that the govt. spending on any of these issues is "right" or in line with what should or should not be the role of the govt. I am putting forth the notion that it is not hurting things as you describe, and neither does economic performance depend on tax cutting. Water always finds its level, and the economy is no different. The BS spewed by wingnuts is nothing more than an end around in class and emotional warfare based upon wealth accumulation, which is contradictory to the basic needs of a civil society in which the earning potential of all people is not equal.

Really? Why doesn't the stock market mirror the economy? Stock prices are based upon their value, realistically per recent past performance or prospectively. Company stock values are basically based upon their earnings, which are based upon the willingness or the ability of the consumer to spend money on their products. The consumer, who drives the economy. Yet you preach that democratic party ideals, which are still basically capitalistic, are hurting the economy but your facts don't line up with the last 20 years in terms of stock market performance that has mirrored the economy.

So you think the economy is good because the stock market has recovered a good portion of it's drop? Hammer away.

Do you think the economy is good at the moment? What someone or some entity is willing to pay for a common share of company stock does not necessarily have anything to do with, say... unemployment. Look around, other than gold, where is someone going to put idle cash? The bank? Bond Market? Futures?

My question to you is an academic one. You always preach the cut taxes/spending solution to the perceived economic woes of the country. I believe I have asked in here before or possibly elsewhere what the line in the sand is when tax cutting decreases govt. income in your fairy tale land. What is that number? It's easy to squawk "tax cuts!" over and over again yet if the tax rate was zero obviously the govt tax revenues would be zero. What is the magic number in Norquist utopia? Why has the stock market ie economy improved, and improved vastly under Clinton, with no tax cuts and an actual raising of taxes on the wealthy by Clinton? I personally think the economy would still be where it is at or better if Obama would've played hardball and insisted the Bush tax cuts expire. But alas, I opined on that upthread.

I don't really know, do you? Conversely, how much should government grow each year? 5%, 8%, 12% or more?

The correct tax percentage is somewhere between 1 - 99%

I'd advocate that we scrap the tax code, settle on a number everyone can live with, try and enact some fiscal discipline in govt, eliminate all deductions... I might even look at a national sales or VAT tax with a zero income tax. The more you consume the more you pay in taxes. My big thing is the tax rate must be where private enterprise can thrive otherwise what are we really talking about?

Why would cutting government spending on whatever programs improve the economy? Cutting the spending on freedom weapons? Infrastructure? Welfare money that people use to buy their basic needs from a capitalistic enterprise? Why does the money the govt. spend reduce the output of the economy?

Right now cutting spending is necessary because we are gave nearly 5 trillion in national debt held by other countries. Our debt service is up 16% over last year. That's significant. We can't keep adding a trillion a year to our debt forever without serious consequences (Greece).

If govt spending was a good thing, as Nancy Pelosi believes (iirc, "we get the biggest bang for our buck with unemployment checks" or some such drivel), then why don't we spend twice as much? Or, if we are to go backwards 1.5 trillion per year why don't we just eliminate income taxes on the first $100,000 earned for this country's workers?

Why is it you believe the govt can spend you money more wisely than you can?

You asked a bunch of questions, I probably didn't answer them all but I gotta run. I'll pick this up later.

 

[knewcleardaze]

The DJI has gained about 400 points this year to date. Last year it gained about 1100 points.

The DJI fell from it's high of 14,093 in October of 2007 to a low of 6,594 in March of 2009. Over 50%. Some of this was a rebound and would have happened no matter who was in the white house. A 50% reduction of the Dow in such a short period of time was bound to be viewed as a buying opportunity for many.

To be fair, the stock market has performed pretty well under Obama. Too bad the economy has not.

Anyone have an idea of what the socioeconomic demographic is of those invested in the market?

 

[redtreviso]

Screwing employees doesn't necessarily run counter to the Republican model of best business practices.

Scott would fit right in proudly I bet.

 

[redtreviso]

10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cuts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDC8pmfmYc4

 

[redtreviso]

t-annie was 9 years old

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201106060029

 

[rhubroma]

What nobody seems willing to address is that in the capitalist countries, be they given a more (as in Europe) or less (as in the US) social imprint, their economies are malfunctioning and these states are living far, far above their means.

No more is this the case than in America, which has the largest national debt (both in absolute terms and in relationship to the GNP) of them all, even if the beyond the Atlantic counties are each struggling to maintain parameters of decency in accordance with EU policy.

The lifestyle of living on credit, which America has been both the chief global exponent and incarnation for the past several decades, led to the last bubble that burst at the financial markets, because the simulated phantom wealth that those markets created in no way found its corollary in reality based on the actual wealth of individual earnings.

This, to me, seems to be the failure of capitalism, while that its praxis has been not only allowed to go on for so long by government, but has actually been fanatically supported by the political class; is indicative of how any rational criteria being applied to the so called economic models, to the so called financial data and so called consumer projections, was never viewed as a necessary virtue, let alone civic ideal of the governors as their responsibility to the governed. Rather what we have gotten appears more as a bunch of soothsayers trying to predict the future, complete with magic spells and potions more befitting of the age of Macbeth than one of science, reason and democracy.

What is totally lacking in this economy and in this world is any principled model of well being that isn't exclusively wrapped up in market numbers and spread sheets and portfolios. And thus one in which actual need vs. mere desire has at least some relevance, instead of being entirely irrelevant in a system condemned to the folly of eternal economic growth.

I don't have the necessary background and preparation to be capable of analyzing all the economic data, though this is perhaps why in my ingeniousness I can pose the fundamental question that begs to be asked: namely, what does the eternal quest for economic prosperity mean in the long run (or perhaps even in the short term) for the future of civilization and the planet? And how does the production of more monetary wealth, but also debt, that seems to govern the economic course and its developments, relate to, help or not help, the real human dimension of the social problems that collective society must face in the chaotic world of today?

We talk so much about numbers, not enough about the human condition.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

There is no defending the stock market, or overall economic trends during the Bush Presidency, no matter how one wishes to spin it. Bush cut taxes, most of which went to the wealthiest under the presumption that it would make the economy grow. It did not. Then he, with help from the Democrats, spent money like no tomorrow on wars, then bailouts, and so on. Not one time in there did the Republicans show any concern for the deficit or debt.

Sadly, the Democrats are no different. Anyone remember the singular theme the Democrats ran on in 2008 to take the House and Senate? It was a strategy that worked in droves: Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Once in office, what did they do? Agree to virtually every single piece of war funding legislature the Bush administration wanted.

Kind of begs the question who's money is it? CTJ seems to think wealth belongs to the govt.

How are you defining "wealth", or how one deserves it? Because they made use of society, even the government. to insure they got it all, and the poor people got nothing, and had the efforts of their labor taken from them by the owner of the company? All while happily taking advantage of frequent tax breaks for themselves, plus making use of education, road, utilities, law enforcement, clean air, water, etc.

By your comments, I suppose in your world it doesn't matter how people get their money, it's theirs and the government should get none of it to use for anything. People can pay for their own damned education, police, fire, health care, clean air, etc. And if they can't afford it for whatever the reason: Not born with it, not ruthless or vicious enough, not colluding with the government, handicapped, ***, etc. Well that's too damned bad. The wealthy can lived in walled off neighborhoods protected by armed guards, while everyone else lives in extreme poverty.

What a wonderful society you must envision.

 

[rhubroma]

There is no defending the stock market, or overall economic trends during the Bush Presidency, no matter how one wishes to spin it. Bush cut taxes, most of which went to the wealthiest under the presumption that it would make the economy grow. It did not. Then he, with help from the Democrats, spent money like no tomorrow on wars, then bailouts, and so on. Not one time in there did the Republicans show any concern for the deficit or debt.

Sadly, the Democrats are no different. Anyone remember the singular theme the Democrats ran on in 2008 to take the House and Senate? It was a strategy that worked in droves: Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Once in office, what did they do? Agree to virtually every single piece of war funding legislature the Bush administration wanted.



How are you defining "wealth", or how one deserves it? Because they made use of society, even the government. to insure they got it all, and the poor people got nothing, and had the efforts of their labor taken from them by the owner of the company? All while happily taking advantage of frequent tax breaks for themselves, plus making use of education, road, utilities, law enforcement, clean air, water, etc.

By your comments, I suppose in your world it doesn't matter how people get their money, it's theirs and the government should get none of it to use for anything. People can pay for their own damned education, police, fire, health care, clean air, etc. And if they can't afford it for whatever the reason: Not born with it, not ruthless or vicious enough, not colluding with the government, handicapped, ***, etc. Well that's too damned bad. The wealthy can lived in walled off neighborhoods protected by armed guards, while everyone else lives in extreme poverty.

What a wonderful society you must envision.

Yes, that's the crux of it. Well thought out and stated.

 

[Anonymous]

There is no defending the stock market, or overall economic trends during the Bush Presidency, no matter how one wishes to spin it. Bush cut taxes, most of which went to the wealthiest under the presumption that it would make the economy grow. It did not. Then he, with help from the Democrats, spent money like no tomorrow on wars, then bailouts, and so on. Not one time in there did the Republicans show any concern for the deficit or debt.

Sadly, the Democrats are no different. Anyone remember the singular theme the Democrats ran on in 2008 to take the House and Senate? It was a strategy that worked in droves: Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Once in office, what did they do? Agree to virtually every single piece of war funding legislature the Bush administration wanted.


How are you defining "wealth", or how one deserves it? Because they made use of society, even the government. to insure they got it all, and the poor people got nothing, and had the efforts of their labor taken from them by the owner of the company? All while happily taking advantage of frequent tax breaks for themselves, plus making use of education, road, utilities, law enforcement, clean air, water, etc.

By your comments, I suppose in your world it doesn't matter how people get their money, it's theirs and the government should get none of it to use for anything. People can pay for their own damned education, police, fire, health care, clean air, etc. And if they can't afford it for whatever the reason: Not born with it, not ruthless or vicious enough, not colluding with the government, handicapped, ***, etc. Well that's too damned bad. The wealthy can lived in walled off neighborhoods protected by armed guards, while everyone else lives in extreme poverty.

What a wonderful society you must envision.

There is no defending the stock market

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Bush cut taxes, most of which went to the wealthiest

Bush cut taxes for every tax payer. As a percentage, the lowest brackets received the highest cuts. That is a fact. If the tax plan had eliminated the lowest bracket and reduced the top margianl by 0.5%, that would have reulted in the "wealthy" receiving a larger cut in real dollars. So what? Those who actually pay the bills don't deserve to participate? Ok man

Then he, with help from the Democrats, spent money like no tomorrow on wars, then bailouts, and so on. Not one time in there did the Republicans show any concern for the deficit or debt.

This is all true but I'm wondering this; if you think the Bush admin spent money like no tomorrow then what cliche would you use to describe the current admin?

How are you defining "wealth", or how one deserves it? Because they made use of society, even the government. to insure they got it all, and the poor people got nothing, and had the efforts of their labor taken from them by the owner of the company? All while happily taking advantage of frequent tax breaks for themselves, plus making use of education, road, utilities, law enforcement, clean air, water, etc.

When I talk about wealth Alpe I'm talking about you. The money you earn. Who does it belong to?

When the CTJ talks about tax cuts COSTING the govt money they have it completely backwards. When has the left ever considered that tax increases COST the citizenery? For the 10,000th time, I acknowledge the need for govt. I enjoy roads & law enforcement & defense (etc.) same as you so you can stop with the hyperbole. What we are talking about is the size and scope of govt, both federal and state.

Do you think the govt is well run? How big should the govt be? How much should govt spending grow, year over year? Should the govt ever budget within it means? Should all private wealth be confiscated, or just most of it?

By your comments, I suppose in your world it doesn't matter how people get their money, it's theirs and the government should get none of it to use for anything. People can pay for their own damned education, police, fire, health care, clean air, etc. And if they can't afford it for whatever the reason: Not born with it, not ruthless or vicious enough, not colluding with the government, handicapped, ***, etc. Well that's too damned bad. The wealthy can lived in walled off neighborhoods protected by armed guards, while everyone else lives in extreme poverty.

This is unfair. This is not my position and you have bumped around here long enough to know it.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, that's the crux of it. Well thought out and stated.

Not to mention unfair and inaccurate.

 

[Anonymous]

[/B]
Anyone have an idea of what the socioeconomic demographic is of those invested in the market?

To determine this would be quite an undertaking. Perhaps there are statistics out there but I have no idea where to find them.

Consider there are huge institutional investors such as CalPers (California Public Employees Retirement Sysytem) that has much of it's 200+ billion dollars invested in various securities. I'd imagine they have membersip in every race, creed, religion... same with other institutional investors. BGI has something like 3 trillion under management with around 2,800 clients.... but the "clients" are sntities such as the US Federal Employees 401(k) plans. I'd imagine the socioeconomic cross section would be quite wide.

 

[rhubroma]

Not to mention unfair and inaccurate.

You obviously had a late night yesterday.

 

[redtreviso]

. If the tax plan had eliminated the lowest bracket and reduced the top margianl by 0.5%, that would have reulted in the "wealthy" receiving a larger cut in real dollars. So what? Those who actually pay the bills don't deserve to participate? Ok man

They do a lot of participating in not paying taxes..Keeping the Cayman Island banks busy..

 

[rhubroma]

That's right the super rich get to open bank accounts in the various fiscal paradises of the world, by contrast the middle classes and the poor have to pay down to the last cent.

The problems of corruption and government, while real and urgent, can not be made into an excuse to promote unbridled individualism. Otherwise democracy will truly have served at nothing, except for allowing the elected officials to set an agenda that is catered to the desires and the appetites of the wealthiest class.

Thus in regards to who should hold ownership of all the earnings, Alpe summed it up perfectly. Since no man is an island unto himself and the individual doesn't live in a vacuum, part of his earnings by law are given up to the state. Now I realize that's a dirty word to Scott, however, it must be thought of as a just tribute back to society for having made it possible for him to do his business in the first place. That he doesn't see it that way and has no taste for the collective, is a banality we all know, but the threat of a world in which the haves live barricaded behind guarded walls and the poor constantly move about looking for prey, may not be scenario limited to the least developed countries in the future.