Shortie's idea wouldn't work because of the 80/20 rule, which is known as Pareto's principle. I agree with you on the poor = stupid & lazy. The part that gets me right now is that the government is providing less service and is increasing the tax it collects. This is just a giant subsidy to the lazy-class, and by lazy-class I tend to include government employees and those that receive corporate welfare also. I'd like for there to be just ONE state in the US where there is: - A modest sales tax - No property tax - No state income tax - No public schooling, all just private schooling I would move there overnight without hesitation and I would actively employ people immediately. If a large-scale tax revolt starts, count me in. I want real property ownership again in this country. The laws are crafted right now so that there's always enough of the lazy and poor to mathematically dilute the vote and prevent the respect of property rights. You could argue that we could educate the poor and the stupid, but this class of people can not be educated through reason, only through charisma and mainstream-media style manipulation.
USSR was extremely corrupt. therefore, the country's move to capitalism was doomed. there is not much corruption in US.
A better article. Somewhat dated but so is yours. This one is by a real economist, too. http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4519
Are you American? let me rephrase that Do you live in the US? if so you should be removed from this country by force this idea is about as bad as the idea of electing Osama into orfice in the first place i just cannot understand how people, such as yourself, can even rationalize such completely retarded thoughts. mind boggling
god you are dense. you're describing communism. please leave. I'm not sure what's worse: you endorsing communism or not realizing you are.
i don't know what's it called. it just appears to me that capitalism would be markedly enhanced by a periodic total wealth redistribution. by periodic i mean once in ~100 years. why do you guys object to this? would buffett object? i doubt it. after the great equalization he would probably still have enough money to maintain his lifestyle and play the market.
With Obama & the Democrats confiscating wealth and screwing things up, "nationalize now" and "leave everything as it is" are essentially synonyms. Shortie, you useful idiot !
it's called communism and actually prohibited in US. if you are ever been in communist party and applying for citizenship in US-you not going to get it. once again-re read the history,do us a favor-educate yourself . read about nationalization during Russian revolution in 1917 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA http://www.americanlaw.com/citnat.html then come back to me and explain,why do i, the guy who did not get any vacations for at least 7 years,working 10-12 hours a day,paying almost half of what i earn to uncle sam have to share whatever i have left with this guy- btw-i'm not a native American,not even born here, first generation immigrant, who never receive a dime from uncle sam and never ask for anything. go to fucking china, if you like all that shit. or n. korea..take your friend Barry with you
it is only natural that rich guys who are afraid of competition are totally against total wealth reset. rich guys who are not afraid to compete on fair grounds should not object as much. in fact, i bet guys like buffett or gates would welcome the challenge.
No you misguided soul capitalism would be forever destroyed. Do you even understand why humans compete with each other?