Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How do you see bus. working under diff. political systems?
#11
MichMan Wrote:Your political and economic views are are shared by millions of ibos and Amway's founders as well.

Here are a few videos from Milton Friedman. He was a Nobel Prize winner as well as a personal friend of Rich DeVos. Milton Friedman has since passed, but in his day, he was a favorite speaker at Amway events. My mother gave me a gave me copy of his book Free To Choose that she got at an Amway convention.

Free To Choose (Vol 1)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU&feature=related[/youtube]

Milton Friedman Tells Phil Donahue Why Socialism Fails
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p31-xQ2Rrz4[/youtube]


MichMan,


Very interesting videos especially the pencil.

Thanks. Big Grin
 Reply
#12
IBOGuy Wrote:
ibofightback Wrote:
IBOGuy Wrote:Although I realize Amway operates in many countries and under very different political systems, I mistakenly assumed everyone who is involved as an IBO thinks as I do, that we and not the government should control our economic freedoms. That it should be us who decides what we keep, and what, and to who we share our time and property with.

This paragraph would indicate you're an anarchist, and believe there should be no government?

If you believe there should be some form of government, then for what purpose, and how does it get paid for?


Quote:Anarchist? :confused: Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Obviously neither extreme is good (total governmental control vs no government).

Stick around you'll learn I'm a fan of Socrates :grin:

Quote:My point here is not to debate which form of government is preferred but rather to advocate that government should be limited in it's taxation and laws so as not to overburden it's citizens, as TB 2 IBO said above and in my reply.

Who gets to define "overburdened"?

Quote:To what degree do you feel a government should tax and pass laws that affect it's citizens?

To the degree to which those citizens allow it - that's what representative government is about.

Quote:If they are helped, it should be to help them become self-sufficient and regain their self-esteem and respect. But they are told they can't and are often just be pushed though the system of welfare assistance being told they can't change.

Who is telling them this? I know of no significant political school of thought that believes this (the second sentence) and certainly no government that operates in this manner.

Sounds more like a cartoon caricature than anything real.

Quote:Regarding limits to ones income. When people talk about passing laws to raise taxes on incomes above a certain amount so as to make it more fair or because they can afford it, that is just plain wrong. It’s a form of penalty that punishes those who did the right things and succeeded.


Here again it often comes down to what's the lesser of two evils. Money is needed to pay for things. A classic example today is the Iraq war. It has cost trillions. It has to be paid for. You either allow the country to fall into a legitimate and serious bankruptcy, or you raise more income. Taxes is really the only tool government has to raise revenue. A very small increase on the very wealthy raises a lot lot more money than a very large increase on the poor and middle class. Unless taken to an extreme to discourage "success", the former is by far the more sensible option economically, and even more so politically - particularly in the current climate where it is very clearly that a significant number of people have done the wrong things, and failed, and yet still received large monetary rewards.

Now, that's likely a minority of those hit by any additional taxes, but governments abilities are limited.

Again, the relative choices are - (a) "penalize" a lot of people a lot or (b) "penalize" a few people a little
 Reply
#13
ibofightback Wrote:Here again it often comes down to what's the lesser of two evils. Money is needed to pay for things. A classic example today is the Iraq war. It has cost trillions. It has to be paid for. You either allow the country to fall into a legitimate and serious bankruptcy, or you raise more income. Taxes is really the only tool government has to raise revenue. A very small increase on the very wealthy raises a lot lot more money than a very large increase on the poor and middle class. Unless taken to an extreme to discourage "success", the former is by far the more sensible option economically, and even more so politically - particularly in the current climate where it is very clearly that a significant number of people have done the wrong things, and failed, and yet still received large monetary rewards.

Now, that's likely a minority of those hit by any additional taxes, but governments abilities are limited.

Again, the relative choices are - (a) "penalize" a lot of people a lot or (b) "penalize" a few people a little


I'm wondering why the idea of REDUCING EXPENSES is not considered.

There is so much waste and corruption in governments. We, in America may APPEAR to be more "civilzed" but the bottom line is that the United States citizens are being taken for a ride just like in an overtly corrupt government.

Being from Illinois, from Cook County (Chicago), I will tell you that my tax dollars are NOT being used for the betterment of my county and my state. And the Federal government (esp. now that we've got the Chicago Machine in there) is the same deal just on a bigger scale.

Do I want to "help the poor?" ABSOLUTELY! However, I am much more willing to donate my money, and have most (usu 95% for good charities) of it go to the people in need, than to be taxed on my money and have a teeny tiny bit go to those of it in need, while the rest go to a select few polititians, and their friends and family who have "patronage" jobs and contracts.

Living right next to Cicero, a freakin' third-world-country-run town and seeing the INSANE abuse of power. Which hooks right in to Chicago, and in to Illinois, and Washington D.C. Having someone close to me who covered that town for three years for the Chicago Tribune and just seeing the magnitude of the corruption...ug. And, of course, this isnt some isolated incident. When you've got big piles of Other People's Money (OPM), which that's what Government is, there is corruption and waste.

Dont' even get me started! Smile
 Reply
#14
Bridgett Wrote:I'm wondering why the idea of REDUCING EXPENSES is not considered.


As I was writing that I was thinking "don't forget to mention expenses!" OOpps.

Quote:There is so much waste and corruption in governments. We, in America may APPEAR to be more "civilzed" but the bottom line is that the United States citizens are being taken for a ride just like in an overtly corrupt government.

Being from Illinois, from Cook County (Chicago), I will tell you that my tax dollars are NOT being used for the betterment of my county and my state. And the Federal government (esp. now that we've got the Chicago Machine in there) is the same deal just on a bigger scale.

Well ... one BIG chunk of expenses in recent years has been for the military. Awfully hard in a country like the US to cut back on that, especially when many have been whipped into a frenzy of xenophobic fear ....

Quote:Do I want to "help the poor?" ABSOLUTELY! However, I am much more willing to donate my money, and have most (usu 95% for good charities) of it go to the people in need, than to be taxed on my money and have a teeny tiny bit go to those of it in need, while the rest go to a select few polititians, and their friends and family who have "patronage" jobs and contracts.

Agreed here, this whole "earmarking" setup you have in the US has got to go. Mind you, charities are not exactly fault free when it comes to efficiency either.

Quote:Dont' even get me started! Smile

But it's so much fun!!
 Reply
#15
IBOGuy Wrote:ibofightback,

Interesting.

How do you see taxes and regulation as they pertain to you and your business?


IBOFB, I have often wondered the same thing.
 Reply
#16
ibofightback Wrote:Well ... one BIG chunk of expenses in recent years has been for the military. Awfully hard in a country like the US to cut back on that, especially when many have been whipped into a frenzy of xenophobic fear ....


The military is a great example of the money NOT going where it should go. Our soldiers are treated terribly during and after their service.

And yet we have Senators and Representatives who serve just ONE term and they get a pension and health care for LIFE???

Come on. That is despicable.

ibofightback Wrote:Mind you, charities are not exactly fault free when it comes to efficiency either.


Agreed. And that's why there are third-party evaluators like <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.CharityNavigator.org">http://www.CharityNavigator.org</a><!-- m --> which a person can use.

bridgett Wrote:Dont' even get me started! Smile


ibofight Wrote:But it's so much fun!!


HaHa. Smile Actually, I think the reason why I am so riled up it because I just had kind of a life-changing experience last night. We, as a family, volunteered to pack food that is going to be shipped to other countries. I really had no idea how strongly I was going to be impacted by such an event. And I don't normally do "stuff like that."

But as we were getting orientated and listened to what this organization does, and how they do it, and for SEVENTEEN CENTS A MEAL!!!???, and then doing research last night and today about poverty and hunger and politics, I was...changed.

*This organization uses ALL private distribution chains in order to bypass the corrupt (my word, not theirs) governments who would misuse this precious food.

*The food is for ANYONE in need, regardless of belief system. It's a Christian organization, but they don't make someone hear the Gospel in order to be fed.

*They use volunteers (from any and all belief systems) to bag the food.

*The food is: nutrients--20 essential vitamins and minerals with a veggie-based chicken flavor, dried vieggies, soy protein, and rice.

Now granted, I'm sure that my Nutrilite supplies optimal health, but when you have children who are eating dirt balls and rocks to satisfy their hunger pains because they haven't eaten in three days... :cry:

Anyway, Government FAILS at taking care of its people. They lack the volunteer mentality that it takes to be effective.

There are just far too many benes for politicians, and so their hearts are just not in the right place to SERVE people.

I eat food flown from half-way across the globe. We've got grain ROTTING in silos in Midwest farms. The U.S. government is paying farmers NOT to tend their land in order to keep the cost of grain up. And there's a world hunger problem? You have got to be kidding me!

We CAN feed the world--without the government's help, and in spite of the barriers it creates.

Okay. Let me get down from my soapbox. Blush
 Reply
#17
Bridgett Wrote:There are just far too many benes for politicians ...

Is that short for "benefits"?

Heartbreaking stuff, Bridgett. Sad
 Reply
#18
ibofightback Wrote:A noted atheist speaking at Amway convention? Whatever will we hear of next .... Wink


Amway is full of people of all faiths and no religious faith.

The reason he would be welcome at an Amway convention is because of his belief in the Free Enterprise system... his belief that people have the solutions to their own destiny and that people should rely on their own devices versus waiting for the next government bailout or for the "stimulus" to trickle down to them.
 Reply
#19
ibofightback Wrote:I also want health care to be as efficient as possible, and I believe that for many issues surrounding health the government can do a better job than a private sector, as they're not well suited to a profit-motivated system.

You are correct, they are in the "take money that is meant for one thing, water it down dramatically, and use it for something completely different. Like entitlement programs.

Quote:i've developed this perspective from investigating (and living!) under different systems. The US system, primarily private sector, is one of the least efficent health systems in the world. It costs more per capita, for poorer health outcomes. Countries with more socialised systems (and few, if any, are entirely government controlled) spend less money and get better results.
Yup, and that is why leaders from around the world often come to the US for their medical treatments..especially surgeries, because we have a poor health care system Rolleyes

Quote:Why on earth many on the right oppose this is beyond me. It seems to me to be little more than blind ideology for the sake of ideology. It's beneficial to me personally, and my family, to have society as a whole healthier. It's beneficial to me as a business owner to have society as a whole healthier - there's less employee time lost to illness, and a more productive workforce in society as a whole increases wealth, thus increasing the market for my products and services. And the data indicates it's cheaper and gets better results to let the government handle it.
Now, by society as whole...you are referring to the overall outcome of such a system. You mean, weeding out the ones that "should not" get the help...like the really sick or elderly. Or how about creating such a system as to completely undermine any private supplemental coverage, because the cost is sky-high for such a service, as well as being taxed on it. Thus creating less incentive for doctors to perform because their pay is capped by the government, thus doctors leave the country to find better incentives, thus creates extended wait times and the furthering of sick people. But, so long as we are "as a whole" a healthier country...that is all that matters...even if we have weed out 15-20% of the population.

Quote:Details aside, the only reason to oppose a decent level of government health case is ideology - essentially the belief that those than can't afford decent health care are in that position through their own fault and "deserve" to suffer.
I have never heard any say that people "deserve" to suffer, in this context. Details aside???? Sorry chum, that is where the debate lies. As we spoke about before...this socialized healthcare may work for smaller populations, but on a large scale...forget it.

Quote:However ... nobody who understand the modern economic systems thinks it's a good idea to let these institutions collapse either. Funding them or supporting them in someway is the lesser of two evils ... and by a VERY significant margin.
Yes, it is called bankruptcy. The laws are there. This could have been achieved months ago and without the probable loss of billions of dollars to the tax payers.

Quote:If you oppose the bailouts , you need to remember who first began them - the very right Bush administration. That should give you pause to think that perhaps they "knew" something you don't, and put ideology to one side, not because they suddenly all became Marxists, but because they could see no other solution.
Try again, been in the works since Jimmy Carter, as well as the lack of recognition of the competition increases over several decades and allowing the status quo to continue (at least where car companies are concerned). BTW...Bush was not 'very right".

Quote:The discussions we've had on these forums indicate to me purely that there's a bunch of folk who put ideology ahead of all other concerns. It doesn't matter if government run health systems get better health outcomes at a better price than the private sector - government should be as small as possible (drowned in the proverbial Grover Norqist bathtub). It doesn't matter if the collapse of the big car manufacturers or banks could lead to the collapse of the entire US economic system - failed companies should be allowed to fail, to hell with the consequences.
It is not ideology, and what overly flexible and willy nilly leftists do not take into account is the math and long term repercussions of future generations their short term, quick fix decisions will have.

Quote:If you don't believe in such rigid ideology, then I think if you step back a little you'll find the "differences" in position are much smaller than you think. Nobody of any consequence believes people should share their hard earned rewards with people who are not willing to work - that's a bizarre caricature of "the left" created by some on "the right" Nobody believes governments should be running car companies - again a silly caricature of "the left" promoted by the right (including our friend MichMan on this forum).
When you believe and take a look at the laws in our country and realize that they provide and protect for ALL companies both small and large. When you look at our country, you realize we do have basic forms of health care for those that can not afford it. Heck, hospitals all across the country often take HUGE losses because they will treat people who can not pay, thus placing the burden on tax payers anyways.

It isn't that we need more legislature for new programs or czars all over the place, what is needed is a fundamental look at the laws that currently exists and get this....USE THEM!

Think about it...no government bailout of GM.....GM's stock drops significantly...GM files for bankruptcy protection...another company buys a majority share in GM. GM kicks out ridiculous salaries and benefits brought on the the bureaucracy of labor unions...gets back to regular rates and even perhaps partial pensions or a more structure 401k plans...turns out profitable cars (may be the ones they already are making)...thus turns a profit...and low and behold...happy days are here again. Without the taxpayers owning 70% of GM and with little hope for repayment...because all the same "overhead" is still in place. :beee:
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#20
Bridgett Wrote:Anyway, Government FAILS at taking care of its people. They lack the volunteer mentality that it takes to be effective.


I think you'll find most democracies do a great job of "taking care of its people" (though that term sounds a little paternalistic in my view). The countries that don't usually don't have a functioning government or have an incredibly corrupt one that doesn't even closely represent the will of the people.

Quote:I eat food flown from half-way across the globe. We've got grain ROTTING in silos in Midwest farms. The U.S. government is paying farmers NOT to tend their land in order to keep the cost of grain up. And there's a world hunger problem? You have got to be kidding me!

protectionism in farming is a huge problem, imo. The US and France are two of the worst offenders.
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)