Orlando theme parks start targeting the super rich

Yes, because there are only two options - wealthy people-subsidized handouts and people creating nice rags-to-riches stories, and nothing in between.

See, this is why whenever a buzzword like "socialism" is mentioned, it's so infuriating. To people elsewhere in the World, they see the result of unbridled capitalism (just pull yourself by your bootstraps there, son, and things will be comin up roses!) in the US, and fear it the way we fear unbridled communism elsewhere. God forbid we could actually create an comprehensive system that encompasses elements from various governing methods.

But it was not my intent to take this conversation political. Now back to your regularly scheduled... haikus or whatever. :)

Same thing happens in "actual" socialism, except that the results are not immediately obvious to those paying more.

Perhaps, but you appeared to be using it in the sense of "I have to pay for poor people", not the sense of "Sweden has a perfectly reasonable economic system."

this is why whenever a buzzword like "socialism" is mentioned, it's so infuriating

...says the person who mentioned it.

djDaemon said:
Nah, not really. It's forcing the "big guy" to realize that hoarding his wealth creates a funnel of wealth away from the masses. And that ultimately leads to the "big guy" having an insufficient number of "little guys" to sell his stuff to.

That asssumes it's a zero-sum propostition. It is if you keep handing the wealth back and forth. It's not if everyone is forced to contribute and handle themselves.

If you're going to have to "force" anything (and I think that's a very telling word), it seems entirely backwards to force the "big guy" who is productive to give up his earned funnel of wealth than to force the "little guy" to realize that not producing is creating a funnel of debt towards the masses.

(seems like the masses get f'd from both ends, huh? ;) )

Seriously though, I think I get it. Not everyone can be the big guy, though. It's technically impossible. You need big guys and little guys and medium guys to make it all work and flow. And yes, that means somebody has to be the little guy. Someone will probably not get ahead no matter how hard they try, but the answer hardly seems to artifically make it so everyone is the middle guy.

God forbid we could actually create an comprehensive system that encompasses elements from various governing methods.

Agreed. So long as it's choosing elements that make sense, work well and don't compromise more important elements.

As to which elements those are or what the greater goal may be is up for debate. ;)

You drummers would have been lucky to have someone like me around as a front man. I'd lug all your stuff around for you, in my Ford Explorer, and I'd help you set it all up. I'd even recruit a few people, who just couldn't get enough of me, to help. :)

You know, I got to thinking; I've spent about $2,500 in the last few years on music equipment, counting software. That number floors me.

Umm..the socialist stuff is breezing just over my head. Either that, or I just don't have an interest about it anymore. I'm pretty confused on the subject of weather or not the USA is changing for the worst. I'm kind of tire of hearing that we are all doomed (EVERYBODY PANIC!).

LostKause said:
I'm kind of tire of hearing that we are all doomed (EVERYBODY PANIC!).

You and me both, buddy. I'm absolutely tired of it.

Brian Noble said:
...says the person who mentioned it.

My mention of it was satirical.

Lord Gonchar said:
...I think that's a very telling word...

Not when you consider that, more often than not, people look out for themselves at the expense of others. This isn't to say that people are horrible or whatever, but that given the choice between long or short-term gain, people will choose the short-term gain, because it's more tangible.

Not everyone can be the big guy, though.

Of course not, and I'm not suggesting that. There will always be relative wealth, and I recognize that as a necessary element to motivation.

But that doesn't mean there's not still a cycle at work. And yes, passing money through that cycle is, itself, productive.

So long as it's choosing elements that make sense, work well and don't compromise more important elements.

As to which elements those are or what the greater goal may be is up for debate. ;)

Eh, sorta. We've done a pretty substantial "free market" experiment in this Country (and elsewhere), and found that it simply does not work. We've done extensive "trickle down" experiments in this Country, and have found that it simply does not work.

We've seen socialism work elsewhere. Hell, we've seen it work here.

Yeah, I saw stellar examples of socialism at work. Like the people who'd show up to the collectives (yes, that kind of socialism) drunk off their asses and promptly fall asleep beneath a haystack. They were also the ones who brought suitcases to fill with whatever was being harvested that day to take home. They knew they were entitled to their share of the production, even though they contributed little or nothing in the way of work.

I remember the days when those Shure microphones sold for only $50. Somebody's making money, aren't they?

djDaemon said:
We've done a pretty substantial "free market" experiment in this Country (and elsewhere), and found that it simply does not work.

We've seen socialism work elsewhere. Hell, we've seen it work here.

I suppose it depends on what qualifies as 'works' in that context.

But isn't that just another way of stating that it's a matter of opinion and up for debate?

You say it doesn't work. Others say it does. My guess is that both are right to some degree, the difference comes in the quantification of the goal.

Maybe it's not that one 'works' and another doesn't? Maybe we just have different goals?

My mention of it was satirical.

Yes, I understand that. But, you're still the one who mentioned it, so decrying the mentioning sounds, at best, disingenuous.

Not that I mind---I'm a commie pinko limousine liberal---but you can't simultaneously stir the pot, complain that the pot has been stirred, and expect that no one will notice.

djDaemon said:
We've done a pretty substantial "free market" experiment in this Country (and elsewhere), and found that it simply does not work.

When did that happen? By my estimation, it mostly works, and we spend a disproportionate time trying to fix the parts that don't.

The unregulated free market does not work. A regulated free market isn't really a free market at all, in the libertarian sense. Yes, it "mostly" works, when you add elements of economic control (i.e. forcing companies to care about their employees, the environment, the socioeconomic well being of the system, etc.).

I didn't say it should be unregulated. Are you really going to get into an argument of semantics? That's the problem with most of what people call "libertarian" is it's made into this idealistic absolute that is not realistic.

Who's arguing? I was explaining my statement, since I wasn't clear enough at first.

And I'm in no way a libertarian.