It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.
The real purpose of the IMF is to channel tax dollars to politically-connected companies. The huge multinational banks and corporations in particular love the IMF, as both used IMF funds – taxpayer funds – to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It's a familiar game in Washington, where corporate welfare is disguised as compassion for the poor.
I think that's part of the reason why they WANT to keep government poorly run and corrupt - to avoid more socialism which would mean less money for the elite.
Both are tools of capitalism.I notice that many people think these are good things. They are not. Charity and Unions are bad things. Under socialism we will not need them.
Sorry I could not stomach to read the rest of your post.
Originally posted by ColCurious
reply to post by Germanicus
I'm not a socialist, as a center-right-conservative (for german proportions that is) I even oppose socialism, but I can see how you came to your conclusions.
Have you ever read about Wilhelm Röpkes model of a social market economy? You might find it interesting because of the historical context it was born in.
It was designed to aim for an economic order compatible with human freedom and is probably the best balanced system and arguably the most successfull around today.
There is no need for socialism nor unfettered capitalism with this system. Even our most conservative or leftist hardliners wouldn't change it in either direction (well, not much at least) simply because it works.
Ze pragmatic Germans care more about the numbers I guess.
*It certainly has its flaws too and its probably not applicable 1:1 to a vast country like the US.
So anyways I think maybe there is a lot we can agree on too.
Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by Germanicus
An empire is an empire and it's lifeblood is the "value" of the people (in our case, money). So long as you advocate transfusions of this lifeblood into a national system, you are a great servant of the imperial beast. So I will say again that you are missing the point. You cannot effectively pass your responsibility into a commonwealth. Empires are a necessarily failing system. If you don't agree, please give me an example of when the human spirit was satiated by such large systems? And yet, everyone can see that families, friends, these are they who satisfy the desires of our hearts.
Originally posted by Dasher
And I just witnessed a wonderful analog to wisdom - a hummingbird passed his seed to his mate right outside my office window! Life is so gracious and righteous!