Yeah Bezos would not be riding in a bus unless he owns the company and has a private bus.

I should also say it's weird, because my "curvycom" Group doesn't have a purpose or a hook line. it's not like it's about "The Culture War" or "Political Correctness" or whatever. It's just a group. about nothing in particular.

Weird............

@curvycom Its your avatar I bet. What are you into? metal? Maybe they are metal fans. hehe In all seriousness not sure what's up.

@KrunoS I don't mind metal : ) but I'm really more into Bach. Though I really like JakeHill of iamjakehill fame these days. Also I'm over 60 years old, although I don't look it. You can blame my Dad's genetics for that, I guess.

As to why I have the hairstyle, that's a long story. You can blame God for telling me to do it.

I did it during the quarantine (It took me 5 months to finish it, due mostly to my incredulous reluctance) (it was also quite labor intensive, although it's much easier to maintain now that it's "done."

@curvycom Ah I see. I would pick you up for a Metal head, but not all is what it seem hehehe. I'm more into power metal myself. But probably don't look it. So there you go.

Cheers!

lol

It's also telling that it's the mayor of Bogota that is purported to have said that. A shining example of a place no one would choose to live if they had a choice. Any choice at all.

Don't forget that United States is not the same as rest of the world. There are many cities where owning a car is not as straight forward or cheap or easy. The fuel for a car has been often much cheaper in United States than in some other countries. So is open terrain. Most United States cities were build when there was already cars around on large open ground, which in Europe and some other places is not the case. Some people are tourists in for example European cities, and if at all available rent a car is more expensive than public transit, especially if you are going from Airport to Hotel. And taxi can be very expensive in some places, much more than public transit. You also might not have have a place to park in some cities, cost a fortune to pay for parking and you are fighting traffic.

So there is arguments to be made for public transportation. As well as for public cars.

@KrunoS good point. we had public transportation in large cities in the late 1800s and early 1900s until cars made it impractical But in such countries where gas and car ownership is expensive, it is basically an artificial yoke placed around our necks by oppressive government that is hungry for taxes. Even in the USA most of the price of fuel is TAX. But in europe the tax on a gallon (or liter) of gas is out of this world! Making a liter there cost what a gallon does here.

I'm happy not to live in the EU where already overtaxed countries banded together to create an even more oppressive layer of taxation with which to yoke its people.

Brexit is only the first crack. The EU is like tying a bunch of boat anchors together and expecting that will help them float.

@curvycomI hope EU does not last. Its artificially made empire of bureaucracy and you know what they say about bureaucrats? They cut the red tape lengthwise.

@KrunoS yup : )

@KrunoS It's funny, I wrote that "Boat Anchors tied together, floaty" line in a school paper back in the late 1990s. I predicted then that it would fall apart. It seems to be doing so.

Which country do you think will leave next? Is anyone making odds on it, I wonder? People do bet a lot of money on just about anything.

@curvycom Which country will leave EU you mean? Hmm, maybe Italy. They have been left behind during their death tool crisis when coronavirus hit. EU left them high and dry and they have migrants issues all over the place. But its a tricky situation. The mafia down in the south likes to be the replacement government and they like human trafficking. The north italy is more inclined to leave, but they need the south as well. So that is a problem.

There are countries like Poland that want to preserve their culture because they know how it is too be under communism, same as Hungary, but for them problem is that many of the young people went to work in various EU countries so they need that back to get the strength of numbers so they can vote leave.

etc. Last time they did a poll on who wants to leave EU, just before corona virus thing, I think Poland was 48% to leave or something like that so that is close. Many countries are sick of EU, but their government by and large like the EU for various political reasons. So its a tricky business, but its like one big pycho family that is tearing itself apart, almost as bad as not-united states. Its toned down bickering but its boiling for a long time now.

@curvycom

I guess that is yet another way to interpret it. To be honest I really didn't expect this to act as a sort of Rorschach test.

@KrunoS
Rorschach test - fitting for that little bit of drivel.

One of the quirks of language is that while a sentence can be grammatically correct it doesn't necessarily express a cogent idea.

@iThink Well I guess we all experience the world not as is, but as we are.

@KrunoS

ah yes - the basic paradox of human existence. Each an individual unto himself yet interconnected in profound ways.

@iThink At the end human nature has the final word.

@KrunoS

is that a redundancy?

@iThink Redundancy? In what context?

@KrunoS

my redundancy comment was tongue in cheek
"in the end" ... "the final say"

sort of like saying we all die in the end...just playing around with the quirkyness of language. Not making negative criticism of your comment at all.

@iThink Fair enough. I was not sure what you meant. Better to ask than to assume, right?

That is yet another way to interpret it. I love it.

@KrunoS
Visit truly equal and developed countries... Nordic countries
And you will immediately understand.

@Hanno Understand the quality of public transpiration? Because the rest of it is far from perfect.

@KrunoS
No country or system is perfect.
They Nordic cousins does get a lot right... and public transport especially in cities really works.

@Hanno I would agree about public transport as for the rest of it, not at all. Worse example is Sweden with Finland being close second. Sweden is especially bad. Mixed economy that worked but only because of some specific reasons.

It was not destroyed in World Wars and actually got fairly rich by exporting materials for war machines. Than after WWII it had a head start over other countries, and while its a mixed economy its a pretty swollen welfare state, which worked at first becues the benefits were mostly for the natives.

Than there was rise of feminism which took over everything and imported way more incompatible migrants then they can handle. Now its a weird trans/feminist run country that wants to control every aspect of culture with ideology. And its censoring political dissents. The imported migrants having incomparable values created tension and there is serious rise of crime. The number of bombings and no go zones are more similar to war zone country than well adjusted modern society.

There are more than enough reports on the problems over there but here is just one video from people who live there...

P.S.
Finland has elected young feminist to run its country, so the Sweden syndrome is sure to follow if it hasn't already.

I, as an Adult, have never owned a car. Used my feet and buses for 60 years. You are telling me you really like standing and waiting for the Bus or Train or cattle car, that has it's own schedule, and you are not consulted, so much because it is so clean and so fast and only blocks from where you need to be, is going to be the Rich, the moderately wealthy, heck even the working persons CHOICE? I must say, that is so funny, I have to congratulate you and the Mayor of Bogota, for your sense of humor!

@Machiavelliwar
Surprisingly a large fraction of rich people use the public systems where the public systems work well.
The key is working well... and that is what our Bogota mayor is alluding to.
If the system is rubbish no one wants to use it... and hence not a developed country.
Make the system work well and it will be used.
I spent two years in Belgium with only a bike... best years of my life... however I was single etc...

In heavily populated areas travel by train and bus is actually a lot faster and cheaper and no worries.

@Hanno American Cities I have lived in are large, spread out, and not at all like Belgium. You can walk across Belgium, end to end, I am thinking, in not too many hours.? Am I wrong? You can ride bicycles too in your city. Come to San Francisco, and you will need a motorized bike, for sure! In my cities, it can take an extra hour or more, if you take a bus, rather then drive. You can be in the rain, and you can be in a bad neighborhood. No. This is not for anyone, but those who have to, or are perverse like me and choose it.

@Machiavelliwar
American cities have been designed wrong.... and it will be very tough to get them right again... so I agree with you.
I did use the SAN Francisco train system a couple of times and liked it... however not enough to judge properly.

You really need to plan a city from start for public transportation to work.
They managed it in Europe, however I confess I do not know how to do it in the US.

@Hanno . I listened to City Planners talk about their future cities, in 1962. They based it on what PUBLIC transportation systems became, like BART...... (they meant for the poor working stiff's, but never included that in the discussions.) It was raised rail, with high rise Apartments on the rail line, and walk ways from said high rise living quarters and the trains. I imagine they would have liked to include the Japanese version of "Pushers", who would make certain each car had filled to capacity. If you like this vision, go at it. "You can build it, "but will they come?

@scotirishviet HEhe No worries. It was a complimentary joke. I figured other people will understand the quote from point of view I did, but turned out that there is more than one way to skin a quote, sort of speak.

I figured he said that he said not because of cars in particular but because he was trying to make an argument for the importance of middle class in the country. If there is middle class that is most numerous than poverty, corruption, crime all goes down, statistically and historically speaking. I think he was using transpiration as analogy for something that could be mutually shared.

But its fun because different people are going to interpret it in different ways. To be honest I really didn't expect this to act as a sort of Rorschach test. But to be fair its not a kind of quote that has meaning set in stone either.

@scotirishviet Yeah I'm not a fan of public transportation either, and prefer personal car. Especially with the whole corona virus thing going on.

@scotirishviet I track down the quote: paraphrased from Enrique Penalosa, former Mayor of Bogotá, Colombia

Enrique Peñalosa Londoño (born September 30, 1954, Washington, DC) is a Colombian politician. He was mayor of Bogotá from 1998 until 2001 and elected again in 2015 for the 2016–2019 term.[1] He has also worked as a journalist and consultant on urban and transportation policy. In 2009, Peñalosa was elected president of the board of directors of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), a non-profit organization headquartered in New York. Peñalosa resigned from the ITDP board in 2015 upon his election.

Now it makes more sense why he mentioned transportation.

Transportation Communism. I used it a lot when I was in school. I tried doing some homework on the 2 hour ride home which would have taken me 10 minutes by car. I made the most of it, but it was NOT fun.

@curvycom There are cities around the world tightly packed on not large piece of land. Most older European cities have a problem of being built before cars, so many streets downtown are very narrow. In such cases public transpiration can be an advantage. Its cheaper and quicker. In Paris for example using underground train I could move around the city with ease, where because of traffic it would be much harder by car. Not to mention that parking spaces are hard to find and costs a fortune to park a car for more than an hour. So in those cases its practical to have good public transit. But given the choice I prefer the car ride . And as a tourist you are often obliged to use public transport anyway.

@KrunoS Cheaper and Quicker on the backs of the taxpayer, you mean. The average fare funding for public transport is 1/4 - and very often much less. The rest is taken by force (taxes) to fund it.

@curvycom Its not all black and white. Your military is founded by taxes, your roads and schools are funded by taxes, your police is funded by taxes etc. Its part of living in the community. Someone has to do it.

The problem is not the taxes, the problem is how the taxes are being used and by whom. We all live in Mixed Economies. If you don't use the public transportation, but you still pay for it, I can see how individual level that is frustrating, but what if in the community there is less pollution and noise because there is less cars, and benefits tourism that benefits the city. Ultimately that city might have more available jobs and booming economy and not everyone drives or can drive.

I'm not like you. I'm ok with paying my contribution as long as it used for the good of the community and not for funding corruption.

@KrunoS yes, good point, of course... OUR military does the job of all of Europe's anemic military which helps them to afford their socialism. If such countries had to to undertake their own defense, then Marxist programs that waste money would be the first to go. Or maybe the last? Under true socialism even food is optional. It was okay for 100 million people to die under chinese comunism. No problemo. The more "Mixed" an economy is, the more food becomes optional.

@curvycom "OUR military does the job of all of Europe's anemic military which helps them to afford their socialism." I cannot agree with that. American military is the left over build up, first after WWII and later during cold war. The standing armies have become something that costs a fortune and does very little good to both American citizens and even less so to the rest of the world, especially Europe. Europe had its wars long before United States existed and the reason why there is less build up of military is because of the terrible cost it exacts.

America has over 700 military basis around the world that cost a fortune and they are not for defense they are for maintaining America interest in places where it has no interest to be in. As for Marixts programs, look for schools where the indoctrination begins and it started in American Universities BTW before it spreed like a virus. Perhaps you are not familiar with history.

BTW there is no true socialism. No country exists that is socialist in entirety. There re few places like North Korea that has its own thing going. But that is an exception not a rule.

Today, most economic systems can be considered mixed economies, as it is hard to find pure capitalist or pure socialist (or communist) countries – with few exceptions as mentioned. In a mixed economic system, the government has limited power but it is allowed to create regulations aimed at preventing market failure.

Mixed economy vs market socialism

Mixed economy and market socialism are very similar economic systems built on a combination of capitalist and socialist policies.

* In both systems, government and private companies are involved in the economic sphere – however, in market socialism the government plays a bigger role;
* In both cases, the government interferes in the economic sphere to promote and achieve social equality – yet, this tendency is stronger in market socialism;
* In both systems, private and public sectors work alongside – although private property is more protected in mixed economies;
* In both cases, the government can interfere with subsidies and can nationalize private enterprises; and
* In both systems, the government can act to protect citizens and prevent the abuse of monopoly power.

Despite the similarities, mixed economy and market socialism mainly differ on the degree of interference of the government in the economic sphere. The government plays a bigger role in market socialism, while it mainly acts as “safety net” in the case of mixed economies. Moreover, private property is protected in mixed economies whereas common/cooperative/public ownership remains one of the main features of market socialism. Both systems allow for competition among enterprises but, in market socialism, firms are not (or in very few cases) privately owned.

Summary

Market socialism and mixed economy are two economic models that combine elements of both capitalism and socialism. The capitalist perspective prioritizes private property and advocates for a free market where the capital can flow freely. Conversely, socialism strives for an economic system entirely controlled by the government. In socialism, the state should own all means of production and should redistribute the wealth among all citizens in order to eliminate inequalities. Which never works.

While market socialism and mixed economy have similar starting points and have many features in common, there are few important differences between the two:

* In market socialism, firms are partially or entirely owned by the state but are allowed to act in a competitive market economy, whereas, in a mixed economy, private property and private firms are protected but work alongside the government; and
* In market socialism, prices are determined by the government and the goal is to achieve market equilibrium while, in a mixed economy, prices are determined by the market’s shifts – although the government can intervene to “protect” citizens and prevent economic inequalities.

The two theories also have many aspects in common:

* They both combine elements of capitalism and socialism;
* They both strive for balance between governmental involvement and free market economy;
* In both cases, the government acts to regulate and limit the expansion of the free market;
* Both theories have been criticized by both capitalists and socialists (for different reasons); and
* In both cases, the government should provide macro-economic stability.

Therefore, the main difference between market socialism and mixed economy lies in the degree of governmental involvement – which remains bigger in market socialism as the government owns many firms, sets the prices, acts to eliminate social inequalities, intervenes to prevent the abuse of monopoly power and monitors the allocation of resources and wealth.

True socialism as you like to call it is something that cannot function and really was never achieved or can be achieved. Virtually every modern country has to some extent government control and free market. For various cultural, historical, economic, geographical reasons the ratio will vary.

The real problem west has is the universities that have acted as unelected political institutions and indoctrinated students in ideologies that are more like religion than anything and that is what got out in the wild as activism and finally we see the country wide consequences of it. But Mixed economy is what is needed because you can't deal with everything with only free markets. You don't want fireman not stopping by your burning house because you didn't pay subscription model, do you?

@curvycom Addendum to wars in Europe: Thirty Years’ War via History.com Editors, 2009

The Thirty Years’ War was a 17th-century religious conflict fought primarily in central Europe. It remains one of the longest and most brutal wars in human history, with more than 8 million casualties resulting from military battles as well as from the famine and disease caused by the conflict. The war lasted from 1618 to 1648, starting as a battle among the Catholic and Protestant states that formed the Holy Roman Empire. However, as the Thirty Years’ War evolved, it became less about religion and more about which group would ultimately govern Europe. In the end, the conflict changed the geopolitical face of Europe and the role of religion and nation-states in society.

Legacy of the Thirty Years’ War

Ultimately, though, historians believe the Peace of Westphalia laid the groundwork for the formation of the modern nation-state, establishing fixed boundaries for the countries involved in the fighting and effectively decreeing that residents of a state were subject to the laws of that state and not to those of any other institution, secular or religious.

This radically altered the balance of power in Europe and resulted in reduced influence over political affairs for the Catholic Church, as well as other religious groups.

As brutal as the fighting was in the Thirty Years’ War, hundreds of thousands died as a result of famine caused by the conflict as well as an epidemic of typhus, a disease that spread rapidly in areas particularly torn apart by the violence.

Historians also believe the first European witch hunts began during the war, as a suspicious populace attributed the suffering throughout Europe at the time to “spiritual” causes.

The war also fostered a fear of the “other” in communities across the European continent, and caused an increased distrust among those of different ethnicities and religious faiths – sentiments that persist to some degree to this day.

Sources

“The Economist explains: What happened in the Thirty Years War?” Economist.com.
Catholic Encyclopedia. “The Thirty Years War.” Newadvent.org.
Sommerville, J.P. “The aftermath of the Thirty Years’ War.” Wisconsin.edu.

First Picture: The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 (164 by Gerard ter Borch

Second Picture: The Great Miseries of War or The Miseries and Misfortunes of War

Les Grandes Misères de la guerre (French pronunciation: [lɛ ɡʁɑ̃d mizɛʁ də la ɡɛʁ], The Great Miseries of War or The Miseries and Misfortunes of War) are a series of 18 etchings by French artist Jacques Callot (1592–1635), titled in full Les Misères et les Malheurs de la Guerre. Despite the grand theme of the series, the images are in fact only about 83 mm × 180 mm each, and are called the "large" Miseries to distinguish them from an even smaller earlier set on the same subject. The series, published in 1633, is Callot's best-known work and has been called the first "anti-war statement" in European art. It can also be considered as an early prototypical French comic strip, within the text comics genre, since the illustrations are accompanied by a descriptive text beneath the images.

La Pendaison (The Hanging) by Jacques Callot, 1633 - etching 8.3 cm × 18 cm (3.3 in × 7.1 in) the 11th and most famous plate in the series.

Off course after that came French Revolution, Napoleon, WWI, and WWII and Europe decided to try something else than open war for a while. Until they decided they want to kill each other again.

@KrunoS more socialism, less food. More food, less socialism. Took only one line to write that.

@curvycom That is your opinion. Do you have any way to prove it?

@KrunoS Marxist shills landed in our academia in 1914 with the frankfurt school. But none of these details are important. Collectivism = Poverty. More Socialism, LESS FOOD. In north korea they eat their babies. or worse.

@KrunoS I'm glad I don't have to take public transport anymore. It sucked when I was younger. It would suck even harder, faster, and longer, now.

@KrunoS 200 million starvation deaths fairly well prove it for me. But you are right it is just my opinion. Why you seem to care so much about my opinion is a bigger question.

@curvycom If you are referring to various examples of communism and its derivatives I would agree. I'm very much anti communist. But mixed economy is not the same thing, I find it strange that you managed to link public transpiration to millions of people dying, but ok. If that is your opinion.

@KrunoS Yes, as I said in another reply, that is my opinion. 200 million starvation deaths fairly well prove it without any help from me. And as I also mentioned, what is a more interesting question is why you are so concerned with my opinion--more so, it seems than with any other on this thread, perhaps?

Things are as they are. We live in mixed economic systems; that is also true. I like life best when they are less heavy handed. The lighter the better. I like to keep as much of my own money as possible. I like spending my own time in my own pursuits. I don't like other people spending my money for me in ways they think are best. I prefer to live in a small town for that very reason.

I go to where the oppression is the least. So do most other people. That is why they leave their countries and come here, or other places that have a lighter hand on the whip.

That, really is my only point. I prefer my freedom. I prefer not to sacrifice freedom for convenience as much as possible.

AND I HATE FUKKEN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. (It's also a vagrant distribution system--another problem I have with it) If you love transportation socialism, then great. God love ya. We won't be riding together though.

@curvycom Why do I care about opinions, because its a discussion forum. I would not be here if it was without any debate or discussion. I might as well go on twitter.

You speak of freedom, but what about duty as citizen. About contribution to the society? If someones or your car breaks down, or is stolen and you need to go to work. If you are disabled and can't get a licence to drive, such as a blind person. Or you are tourist. Or too old or too young. All good arguments for public transit.

off course you have a choice and you choose not to drive in it, perfectly reasonable argument. But that there should not be any, not good arguments. And millions of people didn't die because of public transpiration. lol You are making a pretty big leap of faith there my friend.

I guess at the end I'll take a bus home and you will take the car home. Viva la liberty. Hehe

@KrunoS haha, its just the way my mind works! Still I would venture to say that no. Or rather YES: They are the same thing. Just in varying degrees. In Soviet Russia you could still, for example, take a breath without express permission, so you had SOME freedom, right? You could engage in commerce, for example you could sell you body for a bag of millet.

I tend to see all governments as different degrees of the same thing. In the US, we have a tiny piece of paper with 10 lines on it. It's the only difference between the degree of freedom we still have and the oppression of other places I'd rather not be living in anyway.

Especially if I can't drive my own car--or afford to do so.

@curvycom Well I mean paper is paper, its the culture of people who care for it that matters. In United States it seems to me that there are no longer United....states, just states. Democracy only works if both sides agree on the outcome, which does not seem to be the case in the states. One side clearly does not accept democratically elected president and tried everything to undermined the process. And we have seen in recent times especially with the riots, blatant moral policing, disregard for cultural architecture and weaponizing corona virus to break constitutional rights of citizens.

I don't like the governments any more than you do, but one is needed and if you don't place interest in it, it will become interested in you. Privileges of citizenship come with duty and responsibility. And many have forgotten that and have taken their freedoms for granted, forgetting inconvenient fact that freedom is not free.

You speak of Soviet Russia, I agree. But you guys in America are well on your way to become Soviet States. And its because people took proverbial cars and thought that their freedom is always going to be there. No need to think about community. Just give me more freedom. But less responsibility.

I am anti-communist, but I'm also not in favor of system that forget their freedom is something very precious that requires constant vigilance to protect. If they forget it, communism and its derivatives will take over. I truly hope that does not happen. The swollen American military helps with foreign policy but one should keep now both eyes on domestic policies.

Maybe its because America didn't have experiences of WWII on its own soil or other major wars that it has to have one to understand the precious thing it does have. Maybe the riots on the streets will remind some people in America that its time to stop watching TV and start reading history books to understand who the enemy is and how to fight it.

But that is just my opinion off course. We are after all in a place where opinions are shared.

@KrunoS that's really my only point. I prefer places that offer more choices. I never signed a contract, however. This idea of implied duty makes me uncomfortable. That said, though, I understand that I may be required by my government to provide (very inefficiently) for others. I have little choice in the matter. I prefer the hand on the yoke around my neck to be as light as practical. I'm not sure how things are there where you live, but here, the yoke could be lighter in my opinion, still it is acceptable.

I firmly believe that your primary duty is to yourself, and the people you choose to help. Those you love.

No I also believe that there was a full on Marxist attack of the USA in all possible ways (except militarily) that is why we may turn into a Communist Shithole.

The rest of you best hope we don't though, because then there will be no place for you to run to anymore.

@curvycom Well I mean "I firmly believe that your primary duty is to yourself, and the people you choose to help. Those you love. its hard to argue against that. But on a larger scale your nation is still made up of people like you. You are still a democracy. You are still included into the process. If you want someone else to do everything for you, you can go to someplace like North Korea. But there is not much personal freedom there. So if you want freedom on personal level, well you will have to at least to some extent contribute to the nation or the nation will be taken over by those who want only power and than you have no choice in the matter.

We all like privileges and not responsibility, but that is not how it works. Freedom is not free I'm afraid. You know how everyone like to say "Its not my job" when they see something that they know should be fixed. Eventually it stays unfixed. Because everyone is busy doing their thing. Little by little the other side, the Marxist side comes and says, I'll do it. But not before I tear everything down first.

@KrunoS I hesitate to answer this wall of text. But I will address one idea. I do not agree that paying some taxes for essential government services is "mixed economy" There has to be some government, and some services which make sense to fund publicly. But for example, Hong Kong, before its British treaty with China ran out, thrived with a mere 10% tax. Which seems pretty reasonable. They were able to fund all their (vast) infrastructure with just 10%. And to be fair, God asks for no more than that either. We should probably follow His example. : ) if possible. And if not, we should at least attempt to make the yoke or the hand on the whip--or whatever metaphor you like--as light as possible.

@KrunoS Well that's the truth of it. I can't really argue with any of that.

@curvycom Hong Kong is not a great example. Don't forget its not a country. Its a city port. Which was largely built by British as a trade and financial center, and there is lot of tax collecting you don't see. You know, you have a nice bar there sir, it would be shame something happened to it.

They don't have to protect their borders, they don't need a military, they don't need to build huge expensive infrastructure over vast area, they have limited number of people, a lot but compared to 1.5 billion mainland China or 300 million USA on much much large area, its not that large. They also had special protection from country like Britain which had its citizens payed for it. There is also local investment in this community that because its fairly small made sense for private affairs, It also had special strategic location because it was link to west and east via export routs. .

Like I said earlier there are historic, cultural, geographic, religious and other reasons why in mixed economy one country will lean more on social side and other on the free market side. You can't use example of one country, or city as it were, ignore all the critical factors that made it possible and claim that as general idea that can be transplanted anywhere else.

@KrunoS fair enough, but I was simply citing one case. 10% seems a lofty goal but one worth aiming for. I don't love government so much not to think it's worth a try.

@KrunoS certainly if we take a particular country and slash taxes and regulations (at least to some degree) then we get an explosion of commerce which probably benefits everyone.

Heck, they're doing it even here, and it made a huge difference until the corona thing hit. And even now, we're bouncing back pretty fast.

For my birthday, I want the vaccine to be ready. I'm sick of the whole virus lifestyle.

@curvycom Yeah, but government looks at you and says that cheapskate, he only gave us 10%. It a relationship between tax payers and tax collectors. You have to pay someone for protection. And its a kind of racket game in many cases. You pay government to use the police to protect you. If you don't pay the government, lets say you are criminal, than you pay other criminal organizations for them to protect you. And they don't take no 10% from you. They take so much it makes your nose bleed.

Or you can be large corporation or billionaire and pay for private protection with private security and keep your bank accounts in Panama. But when you have that much money you also have to protect yourself from your own family, long lost relatives etc.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Even if you are Al Capone or Scarface, you are still going to be in trouble because the top spot where you don't pay taxes and you collect taxes is very desirable by the competition so you have to fight them for the top spot.

I think paying a bit of taxes and exchange it for peaceful life is not that bad. But if you want to pay less you have to pay more with something else. Its just the way game is played. No free lunch. Everything has a price.

@KrunoS also you just used My own argument for how Europe can afford more socialism to justify Hong Kongs existance. Oops. : ) you like to speak in absolutes some times: You can't, etc. You can etc. so I'll do the same: You can't have it both ways. As far as applying one example to other cases. I can do so. And I did. You may bicker with the details, but the fact that something exists means it can exist which implies it can exist elsewhere if the conditions are right.

Dude, I've been up all night. I have to go to sleep. I'll catch up with you tomorrow, if the thread is still going on.

@curvycom Sure. Have a good night.

@KrunoS I am responding to statement of my fellow American on our Military presence in Europe and your number of 400 military bases in the world. Not to mention Aircraft carriers and Subs that cruise the world's seas! Thus giving many Countries more to spend on their own Social Support programs. As we withdraw our troops, It will be interesting to see, who has been waiting for such a power vacuum, to pounce on a neighbor, or push former allies to rethink their alliances. Once the full cost of having treaties of mutual protection and the cost of their share of a military, Europe and Eastern Europe will be responding soon. We shall see, if Big old Self centered America is just Helping it's self, or has acted as a limit on the wars in the world. There will Always be wars....China has given us a new template, for what maybe our Future wars. ?? As we bring Manufacturing back to our Country and neighborhood, we will not be so dependent upon trade lanes being keep free of War Lords. Perhaps we can be the hired Armies the way the Swiss were for many many years.?

@Machiavelliwar Perhaps. Future is uncertain. Trump seems to be far more likely to pull back troops than Obama or Bush was. So will see. The problem is that military - industrial complex Eisenhower warned the people is very profitable on its own even if wars are lost, as long as the wars are fought.

Maybe propping the American people for the potential treat of China is just another way to justify another "Iraq" and another inflated military budget. As long as there is a "treat" which we can't measure there is no limit to how much we have to spnd.

Our country spends more on defense than all of the other 18 members of NATO, plus China, Russia...

“U.S. military spending, which consumes half of all discretionary spending, has had a profound social and political cost. Bridges and levees collapse. Schools decay. Domestic manufacturing declines. Trillions in debt threaten the viability of the currency and the economy. The poor, the mentally ill, the sick, and the unemployed are abandoned. Human suffering is the price for victory, which is never finally defined or attainable.

The corporations that profit from permanent war need us to be afraid. Fear stops us from objecting to government spending on a bloated military. Fear means we will not ask unpleasant questions of those in power. Fear permits the government to operate in secret. Fear means we are willing to give up our rights and liberties for promises of security. The imposition of fear ensures that the corporations that wrecked the country cannot be challenged. Fear keeps us penned in like livestock." ― Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class

@Machiavelliwar
On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces. Eisenhower, a retired five-star Army general, the man who led the allies on D-Day, made the remarks in his farewell speech from the White House.

Here's an excerpt:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

Since then, the phrase has become a rallying cry for opponents of military expansion. As NPR's Tom Bowman tells Morning Edition co-host Renee Montagne, Eisenhower used the speech to warn about "the immense military establishment" that had joined with "a large arms industry."

Eisenhower gave the address after completing two terms in office; it was just days before the new president, John F. Kennedy, would be sworn in. Eisenhower was worried about the costs of an arms race with the Soviet Union, and the resources it would take from other areas -- such as building hospitals and schools. Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.

Bowman says that in the speech, Eisenhower also spoke as someone who had seen the horror and lingering sadness of war, saying that "we must learn how to compose differences not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."

Another concern, Bowman says, was the possibility that as the military and the arms industry gained power, they would be a threat to democracy, with civilians losing control of the military-industrial complex.

In his remarks, Eisenhower also explained how the situation had developed:

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."

The difference, Bowman says, is that before the late 1950s, companies such as Ford built everything from jeeps to bombers -- then went back to building cars. But that changed after the Korean War. Bowman says that it's important to note that during the Cold War, the U.S. military didn't draw down its troops like it did after World War II.

"It kept a large standing army after the Korean War (1950 – 1953)

"So [for] a company like Ford, going from cars to jeeps is one thing; cars to missiles is quite another," Bowman says. In an effort to control the expansion of the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower consistently sought to cut the Pentagon's budget. The former general wanted a budget the country could afford, Bowman says. He upset all the military services with his budget cuts, especially the Air Force.

Citing another quote from Eisenhower -- this one from another speech on military spending -- Bowman says, "The jet plane that roars overhead costs three quarters of a million dollars. That’s more than a man will make in his lifetime. What world can afford this kind of thing for long?"

But, Bowman says, it has only become more difficult to control the size of the nation's military industry. First, "there are only a handful of defense giants," he says, "which means you can't shop around for a better price."

And companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are also adept at both lobbying and marketing to promote their interests. Bowman says, "they also spread the jobs around the country, to lock in political support." Gates has also discussed the difficulty of cutting military spending:

"What it takes is the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices -- choices that will displease powerful people both inside the Pentagon, and out."

Bowman says that some industry observers believe that "the one thing that could create that political will is the nation's huge deficit." Only that might force cuts in the overall defense budget.

In his final speech from the White House, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned that an arms race would take resources from other areas -- such as building schools and hospitals.

"You have to realize this is one of the great presidents, great military leaders, on his way out the door at the end of his second term. He says, "By the way, watch out "for the military-industrial complex."

People know that he invented the phrase "military-industrial complex." But very rarely do you see the whole thing and realize how utterly strident his warning was. I think it's one of the most profound statements ever made by an American president." - Why We Fight (2005)

That statement, spoken just days before Eisenhower left office in 1961, was his warning to the nation. At the time, the United States was sitting atop a huge military establishment built from its participation in three major wars. This buildup led Eisenhower to caution against the misplacement of power and influence of the military.

Fifty years later, the United States is engaged in two wars abroad, and some say Eisenhower's warning still holds true.

Eisenhower's warning was all the more powerful coming from a five-star general.

"The feeling among Eisenhower's allies was that Eisenhower had said something that in one way or another would undermine the position of many political allies that he had," David Eisenhower says.

Those allies worried that Eisenhower's words would be used against them, particularly as the Vietnam War began. Had the president handed antiwar activists a slogan they could use to oppose the conflict? David Eisenhower contends his grandfather was not concerned with the political fallout.

"I have immersed myself professionally for many years in the Eisenhower papers," he says. "I know how his mind worked. I know what his habits of expression were. This is Dwight Eisenhower in the farewell address, and he speaks the truth."

Though most people remember Eisenhower's speech for its warning about the growing influence of the Pentagon, David Eisenhower says the president had another message.

"Eisenhower's farewell address, in the final analysis, is about internal threats posed by vested interests to the democratic process," he says. "But above all, it is addressed to citizens -- and about citizenship."

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals," Eisenhower said in his address.

@Machiavelliwar As Eisenhower warned, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft. The cost of one modern, heavy bomber is this: a modern, brick school in more than 30 cities."

@Machiavelliwar On the dangers of being an invading military force and fighting war on two fronts.
One in the battlefields far away, and the other close to home on in the news.

"It is a fallacy that prolonged war will weaken an occupied enemy.

It most likely will make your enemy stronger. They get used to the deprivation, and they adapt and respond accordingly.

In the background image of [News reporter on the TV: "The explosion occurred in one of Manchester's heavily Asian neighborhoods."]

While here at home... with every death reported... ...we have to deal with a public-opinion trajectory that slides rapidly...

...from supportive to negative to downright hostile. "

― Ed Hoffman char. played by Russell Crowe in Body of Lies (2008) a Ridley Scott film.

War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures. – Ron Paul

“Some day there is going to be a man sitting in my present chair who has not been raised in the military services and who will have little understanding of where slashes in their estimates can be made with little or no damage. If that should happen while we still have the state of tension that now exists in the world, I shudder to think of what could happen in this country.” ―Dwight D. Eisenhower

2021 US Defense Budget Overview

@Machiavelliwar Why Does US Military Equipment Cost So Much Money?

@KrunoS . This was an America that did not realize it had become the Giant in the room. The world now had to worry about the Giant stepping on and crushing them. Eisenhower was a man of his times, when We fought a war, we then reforged our guns into plows. After Korea, and the Atomic Bomb.....America was a Very Reluctant and possibly Dumb Giant. We (Eisenhower and our Civilian Controlled Military) did not try to create an Empire. Our Politicians and newly created intelligence state actors said our good intentions were enough, to act in the world for good! This was the Public myth. (The building of a very large industry just to make arms, was a money maker for Companies and Lobbyist and a way to keep allies and enemies under control!) We became an Empire over that period, WITHOUT Public agreement. But, we were So Big And so Powerful, and so rich, compared to the world, we sneezed, and the world caught cold! The decent America lost control of it's own destiny, simply by winning. It would make a good Greek Tragedy! (Personal note: I have known very big strong men, who lived in fear of some one trying to take them on, and in defending himself, he might kill someone. It makes many of them too meek, and unable to defend themselves! ) We are no longer the reluctant Giant, but "the people" want to be him still. Our Opposition both loves our power and has worked to give it all away.( My cover name is Machiavelli war for a reason. )

@KrunoS I did, kind sir, and now I am awake again. Thank you very much.

@curvycom 'morning. And welcome back. Hehe.

@Machiavelliwar Yes I guess you are right. After the collapse of the last villain (Soviet Union) America took its place in many people's eyes.

@KrunoS , they cost so much, because government is the most expensive way to do anything, one. And two, when you are General Motors, you make millions of cars. The Army makes small amounts for it's needs. The law of mass production, and it's cost reductions, let GM reduce it's costs with the next million cars. That is also a rational for the government to recover some of it's costs by selling to other Countries. Some were hoping to reduce cost of producing only one piece at a time, with 3D printing. It has not worked so far. Though Boeing uses 3D printed parts.

@KrunoS . In 2014 the percent of Military to GDP, was approx. 20%. Except in WWII, I do not think it has ever been 50%. Did you find a year for that %?

@Machiavelliwar Did I quoted 50% somewhere? I can't seem to find it.

What the other way?

Not if your time is worth anything at all!

@Machiavelliwar It is said that "Time is money." but in fact, time is worth much more than money. You can get more money. If you are clever and resourceful, you can get a lot more money, but you can not get more time. Not one second. So any time you save by driving yourself is a very real value. Very concrete. Great point you just made above.