🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mark Richards" <markrichards8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D5BD6A7.56723355@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> >
> > The US is a sovereign nation and could nationalize all of business, so
> > why do you suppose that it doesn't?
> >
> > Laws, maybe?
>
> The original reference was to European ownership of the mineral wealth of
Zaire. If
> that's true, the Zaire government could take it over just like Mugabe is
doing in
> Zimbabwe.
>
> But the Zaire government isn't. So two possibilities come to mind. Either
Europeans
> don't really control the minerals or the Zairean government thinks it best
to leave
> things alone.

I thought I settled this with the links to two articles, which I posted
previously. Zaire (now called Congo) has been ruled since its independence
by whoever is backed by the US and Europe. There was an opposition
candidate, who wanted to loosen ties with the West, but he died under
mysterious circumstances.

>
> >
> > >And the Federal Reserve was created to prevent the boom-and-bust cycle,
and
> > >we had the Depression 16 years later.
> >
> > And no Depressions since - 60 years without a depression is an immense
> > amount of time compared to what went on before.
>
> It was sold to the American people as a stabilizer. But instead of
eliminating
> recessions, we have come to accept them as an ordinary part of the
business cycle.

Are you kidding me? Business cycles are a way of life; they've existed for
as long as free enterprise has. Did you know that once in Holland, there was
once a boom in tulip bulb prices that led people to invest in them
irrationally? Some tulip bulbs were going for the equivalent of $100. Then,
the prices collapsed and Holland sunk into a depression.

> > >> Furthermore, I contend that individuals, left to their own devices,
are
> > >> generally too greedy to be very good at charity. While you and all
your
> > >> friends may be decent and giving people, the vast unwashed would
rather buy
> > >> more crap on the Home Shopping Network than help their fellow man.
> > >
> > >We have the Red Cross, United Way, and Salvation Army, among others,
all
> > >supported by donors. Whenever a disaster happens anywhere in the world,
we
> > >are quick to send relief. And this is all for people we don't know and
will
> > >never meet. Don't you think we would respond even better if the needy
> > >individuals were right in our own town?
> >
> > While those worthy organizations do a lot, their aid is hardly a drop
> > in the bucket compared to the cost of major disasters.
> >
>
> Social programs sound great in theory but they're counterproductive in
practice.
> Suppose there was no welfare. In your town a man needs $300 a week to feed
his
> family. He can only find a job paying $200 a week. He should take that
job, and his
> neighbors should contribute the other $100. So the theory is that if we
create a
> governmental organization to collect donations from everyone, the money
will be
> available as needed. But in reality, the man receives $300 whether he
works or not,
> so he can't be expected to take the $200 a week job and esentially work
for free.
> So what would have been a charitable gesture of $100 per week to help a
man who was
> doing the best he could instead becomes a $300 per week subsidy to a man
who
> doesn't try at all.
>

Suppose that man, along with the millions of others who are locked out of
the economy by narrow-minded people, decide to riot and burn down the city
where you live.

> Very soon, the recipient changes from feeling grateful to feeling
entitled, and the
> giver feels mugged instead of generous. It's a rotten deal all the way
around.
>
> Mark
>
>