Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Revolution! New form of government.: Kleptocracy

  1. Kleptocracy

    3 vote(s)
  2. Monarchy

    0 vote(s)
  3. Republic

    0 vote(s)
  4. "Illigitimate"

    0 vote(s)
  5. Democracy

    1 vote(s)
  1. May 13, 2003 #1
    President Bush is touring the midwest trying to drum up support for his decidedly not "teeny-tiny" tax cut, which includes tax cuts on stock dividend income and raises the amount of money that business can write off from equipment purchases to $100,000 from $25,000.
    Meanwhile, stocks have fallen on average %25, wiping out many family fortunes; and the number of unemployed has swelled by 1.7 million.

    At Enron, managers exploited the ignorance of the employed as to whether the company was solvent or not and pocketed all the value of the pension packages (which were largely invested in the company). Effectively, a few management barons filched the retirement years of the employees.

    The Bush tax cuts come right out of social security.

    What form of government exists in the U.S.A.?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 13, 2003 #2
    This goes hand in hand with economic imperialism, to show that capitalism is a failed system, because it is not self-enclosed. As America's former 'unlimitied' opportunity and wealth start to run out(as in 'permanently owned by fewer and fewer entities) further wealth has to be taken, whether from other countries, or from less powerful members of society.
  4. May 13, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Hehe. Funny post, schwarz. Keep 'em coming.

    Zero, "self-enclosed" doesn't make any sense (redundant?). Do you mean self-sufficient? I'm sure you know that the US runs a pretty large trade deficit - money is flowing OUT of the US, not into it. But we won't ever run out because our economy expands faster than money leaves and faster than the population grows. EVERY segment of the US population is getting richer and always has (over a timeframe greater than 10 years).

    Also, if capitalism doesn't work, could you suggest one that has been shown to work better?

    Zero, one of the most important and taken for granted freedoms in the US is the freedom to LEAVE if we don't like it here. It really seems like you'd be happier living somewhere else. Unless of course complaining is what makes you happy - wait, were you in the Navy?
    Last edited: May 13, 2003
  5. May 13, 2003 #4
    The United States is called A Republic and a Democracy in many of my old and new history books. They aren't so different yet you have two choices. oh well
  6. May 13, 2003 #5
    Upon the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Ben Franklin, "Well Doctor, what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic," replied Franklin, "if you can keep it."
  7. May 13, 2003 #6

    Maybe 'self-contained' would be a better choice of words...the point I was making, that you would probably agree with, is that our economy depends on expansion to sustain itself. There isn't as much room for growth as there used to be...and the line between nations is blurred by multinational ownership of corporations.

    I was in the Marines...and this comment is unworthy of you. Is 'Love it or leave it' some sort of mantra for people who don't agree with me?
  8. May 13, 2003 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'd take that further and say that in order for ANY economy to be considered a success it must constantly be expanding. But I would disgree with the second part - there is ALWAYS room for growth. Growth at its most basic (in a capitalist system) is simply be a function of rpms - how fast the money goes around in a circle.
    No, it really was a legitimate question. It really seems like it is painful for you to be living here. If I were that dissatisfied and I didn't expect a remedy, I might consider moving. The systems you appear to advocate are inherrently incompatible with the American ideal. It just looks like you're wanting something that can't be had here.

    Immigrants come here because they think they can find something better in the US. But people who think they can find something better elsewhere do NOT (generally) leave the US. WHY? I think I may know - people know but they don't want to ADMIT that there ISN'T a (much) better system than the one we have here.
  9. May 14, 2003 #8
    I disagree...the wealth collects in fewer and fewer hands, and doesn't keep moving around.

    And as far as the 'love it or leave it' attitude...consider that I'm treating the US like your ideal economy: there's ALWAYS room for growth!
  10. May 14, 2003 #9
    Of course, Nicool003 is right, it is certainly a Republic on paper.
    A Democracy would do away with the electoral college, and a Monarchy would have the same family ruling for more than a generation.
    Franklin may have meant that any weak Republic can default to Monarchy if the government is unified under one party. That was certainly the situation in Weimar Republic in the '30's.

    In Texas, the Democratic representatives refused to attend senate votes, (which would have redrawn representative districts to exclude their party), and are being hunted down by troopers and bounty hunters.

    "We'll smoke 'em out" says He, was He really talking about al-qaeda?
  11. May 15, 2003 #10
    There are several rebuttals to this.
    1) Not being complacent with the government does not mean that you think that you can find something better elsewhere
    2) You assume that it is "painful" for someone to live here just because he has problems with the way things are done, which is incorrect.
    3) I haven't seen Zero advocate anything "inherently incompatible with the American ideal"...maybe with your ideals, but that's another thing.
    4) People often complain because they care...and want things to change, not because they want to run away.
    5) I have never taken comparative government or studied societal differences in different countries in much detail, so I don't have much of a basis to make a comparison. It seems that most Western European countries have a pretty good thing going for them...anywhere from slightly worse to a little better.
    6) People have attachments to the places and people that they know, and it generally takes A LOT for a person to expatriate.
  12. May 15, 2003 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Historical facts say you are wrong. Once more: EVERY income group is increasing. Even the poor are getting richer.

    That is certainly true. But what you are looking for here is something that was never intended and will never happen.

    Zero has denounced capitalism. Capitalism is an essential part of America.
    I certainly agree. I have stated previously that most western countries have very similar government/economic systems.
  13. May 16, 2003 #12
    I would counter that only increased economic imerialism keeps American capitalism afloat...and while the poor may be getting 'richer', they are not doing so easily, but by working more hours...and the rich are increasing their wealth at a much faster rate. The ratio between executive and worker pay has gone from 40:1 to 200:1 in the last 20 years...so my argument still stands.
  14. May 16, 2003 #13

    That's just flat wrong. Unemployment up 2.4x106 since 2001. Under Clinton, lower income groups grew slower than higher income groups, but at least had jobs. Now those jobs are gone, because the moneyed class can invest in CDs and yachts and belch Pinot Nior and whatever they do.
  15. May 16, 2003 #14


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    But as noted earlier, net wealth is flowing OUT of the US, not into it. So that would make it negative economic imperialism.
    Historical, schwarz. You can't get good history from inside a cycle. Compare dates at least 10 years apart. And you'd be surprised about how bad it is on the downslope of this cycle - its nowhere near as bad as you think it is.

    Historical Income Statistics
    Last edited: May 16, 2003
  16. May 16, 2003 #15
    The historical facts should be comfort to those who were planning on retiring on the dough they lost in the market since 2001, eh? Instead of unemployment benefits and health care, unemployed workers can enjoy tax breaks on their stock dividends.
  17. May 16, 2003 #16
    It's called a republic. We are represented by the government. The running of the government in a rational manner is in your own interests, since it is you that the government represents.

    Say class warfare again, and count thyself as another moron. You are the government! Period! Why do you believe, incessantly, that the federal government can spend your money better than you can? Why do you believe that it is the government's responsibility to assure your own welfare? Why do you believe that it is the governments responsibility that no one should be richer than you, nor that you should be richer than anyone else.

    WTF is wrong with you? This is the land of the free. This is the place where you can be a total badass and have it actually mean something! This is not some social country where you can sit on your ass all day and collect free government money. This is not a communism where excelling as a human being will gain you nothing in comparison with the most insufficient moron around! We make life worth living just by being us. What do we need with government anyway? Support a defense force. Yes! And umm......well.....wtf else do we actually...really need?

    Why must we be taxed so heavily? Why must we be taxed for production so heavily? The whole formation of the US was because of excessive taxation! And here you are, but 200 yrs later professing some sort of twisted longing to be taxed even more? WTF, I mean, seriously, WTF is wrong with you?
  18. May 17, 2003 #17
    Look, Ganshauk, if you don't believe in the ideas of society and community, you can always become a hermit. For the rest of us, who choose to live in a society, we also choose to pay taxes, because what is good for the society is eventually good for the individual as well.
  19. May 17, 2003 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, actually it should be a comfort. Because anyone who has invested based on stock market history is doing just fine. There are specific and well established guidelines for investing. And they WORK if you follow them. The problem is that many people invest irrationally and don't follow the guidelines.
  20. May 17, 2003 #19
    Well, except for when you invested based on the advice of professionals who intentionally lied to you to line their own pockets...or if you invested in the company you worked for over 30 years, based on fudged financial reports.
  21. May 17, 2003 #20
    No, its not right that Enron bosses walked off with the filched loot. It is unethical.

    Fact is, somebody pays for the deficit, and its not the people who rang up the tab.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Revolution! New form of government.: Kleptocracy
  1. Australia's government (Replies: 12)

  2. Iraq's government (Replies: 22)

  3. Government spending (Replies: 40)