whillice

You claim that capitalism has lifted people out of poverty, and while this is true to a certain extent, you completely forget the portion of the market forces that always wants to "optimize" worker pay (ie, make it lower) to make the company more profitable. Furthermore, while technology will increase overall worker pay, machine efficiency and greater automation means less workers are needed to do the same job. This creates more competition for jobs, driving wages lower. It's a mixed bag, at best.

Capitalism is based on greed, and a machine is best defined by that which it is designed to do. A corporation is designed to maximize profits, not to be an engine of social responsibility and a pillar of the community. Some corporations are, yes, but many aren't. So when you rely on greed and self-interest as the fuel of a capitalist machine to dictate the "optimal" distribution of society's resources, you shouldn't be surprised when socially irresponsible and unjust outcomes occur.

Gates's Third-Way is not a panacea, as it relies on people becoming so rich that each marginal dollar they can earn becomes so meaningless that they are willing to give the majority of their increase away. I'm very glad that he is being responsible with his blessing of wealth and he stands as an example for others to do the same (I'm looking at you, Rex Tillerson). But compared to traditional classical capitalism, it certainly can't do any worse. posted 07/01/2008 at 17:27:35

Party on Bill!
Party on Hillary!!

Now we just need John McCain asking "Do I make you horny, baby? Ya!!!"

But seriosuly-- why would hillary drop out? She knows she can win by virtue of the superdelgates even though the electoral math is against her, so her best shot is to make Obama so toxic that they have no choice but to vote for her at the convention. This is why she piles on with the "I would go to a different church" (that and she's tied of the Bosnia sniper fire story) when anyone who actually knows what it is to belong to a church and a congregation knows you just don't up and leave because someone said something screwy. But I guess to think that Hillary is somehow understanding of issues of faith is a little too much to expect... you have to actually have a soul in order to worry about saving it. (ha ha) posted 03/27/2008 at 00:14:00

Great. Who gives a flying HUG? What happened to the Constitution which states very explicitly that we cannot have a religious test for office, which means NO MATTER HOW ABSURD, WACKY, OR CONTROVERSIAL YOUR RELIGION IS, IT SHOULD NOT MATTER IN YOUR QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, the idea that a politician should interfere with the ecumenical policies and doctrines and dogmas of their own church is CONTRARY TO THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. What more do we want from Obama? He said he completely disagrees with the statements-- do we want him as President of the United States to be calling his church leader and telling him what to put in his sermons? Would John Kerry have called the Pope? What about Rick Santorum? What about Mitt Romney?

One of these days we'll remember the Constitution and forget this nonsense...... posted 03/21/2008 at 16:17:39

Wow. Isn't that the obvious headline?!

NEWSFLASH: Poor people have less money than rich people, study shows

BREAKING STORY: Poor more likely to be economically disadvantaged and unstable.

Sheesh. Simple math:

If I make 10,000 a year and suddenly that 10,000 only bought what 8,000 did last year, that really sucks for me. But if I make 10,000 a day-- no biggie. Sure I have less money, but I'm not going to stop consuming.....

posted 03/21/2008 at 01:00:11