Bailout: How Would You Vote?

[Who is like God arbour]

I consider the usual altruism/egoism thinking to be a false dichotomy.

That's another question. I'm sure, you know, what I have meant and there is no real need to debate, if altruism is not only another form of egoism.

When has any advance meant in anything been made that wasn't the result of competing?

When has any advance meant in anything been made without cooperation?
Competition may be a motivator in some cases. But without cooperation, advancement is not possible. That's the basic principle of each society.
And to give a concrete example: CERN. Many experiments and with those, advancement, wouldn't be possible without international collaborations.

What is the goal of the Olympic games?

promotion of international understanding

What is the goal of any sports?

fun, physical training, health

Why give grades in school?

to give an objective estimation of the accomplishments.
A perfect example: in school, they are grades and no ranking. If one becomes in a test a grade, it says nothing about the ranking. All others can have a better or a worse grades. But the given grade alone won't show it.

If you don't compete, how do you know you've improved?

By quantifying and comparing my performance at two different times. Competition won't show, that one has improved because it could be possible, that the competitor has changed for the worse. If at a given time, one is twice as fast as the competitor and at a later time, thrice as fast as the competitor, but the competitor is only a tenth as fast as before, one has not improved although the comparison with the competitor would suggest so.

If by working harder, and by being better then your neighbour or competitor, you do not get a better pay, a better way of life, how many people will then advance?

All people with an ego.

Why else would workforce unions be looked upon with such disdain by a growing number of people?

Because there is a growing number of stupid people?
No really - what has this to do with competition? Workforce unions are a consequence of capitalism. Because labour were treated like scum, they have united to gain strength against their exploiter.

Because a lot of people in the union feel secure in their job security, their way of life, and don't give their maximum effort anymore, i.e., they don't compete.

I would say, that those people are ready to give their fair share. But they are not ready to let themselves be exploited. Other people, who don't have that security are impelled to give more, than they think, they should give for what they are becoming as earning for their work because otherwise they are fired and replaced by another person, who is willing to let themselves be exploited.

That brings an inefficient work force that does little to help improve mankind's way of life or living standard . . .

As long as a labour does not participate adequately in the by themselves created values, the motivation to give more to enhance only the profits of others may be very low. That's why participations are used more and more frequently to create motivation.

[Flectarn]

For the love of god, Robert, and for the appreciation of the fact that your country is not infallible and not the shining beacon of the world, shut up.

What the hell is wrong with you? I made the point that calling a devoutly communist country capitalist was strange (ignoring for the moment the semi-autonomous Hong Kong laxity). Even the US is a mixed economy, but not off in Chinese territory by any means.
[/quote]

so your going to tell me that an avowedly communist country, which isn't by any chance payling lip service to it's ideological past to maintain the legitamacy of the party, has maintained double digit growth rates for 20+ years, attracted more Foreign Direct Investment then any other nation on earth, has the second largest nominal GDP, and has a comperable concentration of wealth to the united states?

[sonofccn]

Gross domestic product per capita and worldwide ranking according to the International Monetary Fund:
Luxembourg (104'673 USD)
Norway (83'922)
Qatar (72,849 USD)
Iceland (63'830 USD)
Ireland (59'924 USD)
Denmark (57'261 USD)
Switzerland (58,084 USD)
Sweden (49,655 USD)
Finland (46,602 USD)
Netherlands (46,261 USD)
As you can see, top ten of the nations , who are making the most GDP per capita, are - with the exception of Quatar - European nations.

I prefer straight up GDP it's makes a more fair side by side comparison considering the population differnces.

And yes, the GDP alone is only helpful, if one wants to compare economies alone. But economy does not become an end in itself. What use has a high GDP? People don't work to heighten the GDP of their nation but to improve their individual standard of living or their quality of life.

True of course but the two goals are not exclusvie and while not at a 1 to 1 ratio and increase of GDP will lend it self to a higher standard of living.

The difference is, that the USA was then neither a military nor economical superpower. The difference between north and south in the USA then was not nearly as big as the difference between east and west in Germany now.

While granted we were not a super power by the 1880's we definatly had muscles to flex and if we had a more militant outlook on life could have been more then what we were then. Second the north and the south post civil war were night and day. The south had virtually no industry worth speaking of. It was a cotton growing only economy based upon slavery which we ended. You add to that any and all damage caused by the war and it was a mess to patch back togather. The fact that we healed it up and prospered, I think speaks plenty.

See above. Chinas economy is still not impressive. They have only a GDP per capita of 16,606 USD. It is still extremely inefficient. But it is growing, what is not difficult. If you are at the bottom, you can only rise. And there is potential. And it could become impressive, if it uses this potential.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. While per the indivial looks good on paper in real world terms the country with a 7 can afford to do a lot more then the country with a 3, if that be space programs or military forces.

We have recoovered. You have mentioned the age of Germany (»This is the econmony that causes Germany to have 10% unemployment(circa 2006 IIRC) stagnated growth, and a GDP a fraction of the size of a country that is younger then some of it's buildings.«). I have merely showed, that the age has nothing to do with Germany's economical succes.

First off the age crack was more of poking fun at the reversal. Two centuries ago....well Europe if not Germany since it wasn't unified yet, were the lords of the manor. Now they have been reduced to going to the UN. Second while we undoubtedly did tremendous damage those weren't nukes we were dropping. I know factories kept producing munitions up to the surrender so obviously some industerial survived. Third if you are recovered, ie back upto and beyond what you were before we blasted you to bits then there is no need to troute it out.

Competition is not the best for mankind. Because while competing, a natural or artificial person will always do, what is it the best for itself, regardless, if that is bad for mankind in the long run.

What is best for the indivial is best for Mankind because Mankind is merely a way of refering to the indivials, all six billion of us. All of us pursuring our own best interests,within obvious some guidlines IE you can't murder a rival etc, will lead to success. Never enslave yourself to nebulas enities such as the STATE or MANKIND. A person is worth far,far more.

Best example is the USA and their effort regarding the prevention or attenuation of the climate change. To not impair the US economy with Climate Change Bills, nothing is done, regardless that, in the long run, mankind will suffer in an extent, that all the economical advancement of the USA from today will become meaningless.

*bangs head against screen* Okay I feel better, let's continue.
Let's skip the whole global warming/global cooling argument because noone ever makes headway. You do realize that even not signing the stupid bill, which would have unfairly allowed places like china and india free hand in polluting, that the US cut it's emissions? Are you also aware that Europe, despite signing the blasted piece of paper, increased thiers?

All have known, that oil is limited. .

Let me guess we have ten years left right? That has only been claimed since the 70's. The 1870's.

But is was used, as if it was unlimited and nearly nobody has thought to invest in the development of alternative energies.

Our goverment has put every advantage, kickback and tax break for develpoing alternative energy. The bottom line is with the exception of nuclear there is no alternative energy. Oil, coal and natural gas is all we have. Also the US is not the world, why can't Germany invent this clean alternative fuel?

Now oil becomes costlier and costlier and we will have an energy crisis. That could have been prevented, if enterprises would have invested in the development of alternative energies - but no, that would not have been profitable enough.

The cost of oil has nothing to do with the amount under the ground. The reasons are numerous, in America's case we simply are not allowed to drill our own for reasons I can not fathom, in another OPEC generaly enjoys higher prices and sees no reason to drill more. Rest asured we have the crude. Next it wasn't a matter of not being profitable enough but a matter of being a deadend. There is no alterantives. Third even supposing the above was true, it would be better for the companies to trip and fall. I mean obviously your talking about the Goverment more or less ordering a free and privatly owned corperation on what to invest it's profits on. The Goverment has no right to do that and a black eye or two is a fair trade for freedom.

Economy is not the start and beginning, the alpha and omega. It is there to serve mankind and not, that mankind has to serve the economy. Not all, what is good for economy, is good for mankind. That does not mean, that economy is irrelevant. But that insight helps to handle economy and to contain it, where it is necessary.

True but when comparing Economic systems the Economy really is the only thing you can compare

[Who is like God arbour]

• I prefer straight up GDP it's makes a more fair side by side comparison considering the population differnces.
  
  
  

  • And yes, the GDP alone is only helpful, if one wants to compare economies alone. But economy does not become an end in itself. What use has a high GDP? People don't work to heighten the GDP of their nation but to improve their individual standard of living or their quality of life.

  True of course but the two goals are not exclusvie and while not at a 1 to 1 ratio and increase of GDP will lend it self to a higher standard of living.
  
  
  

  • Chinas economy is still not impressive. They have only a GDP per capita of 16,606 USD. It is still extremely inefficient. But it is growing, what is not difficult. If you are at the bottom, you can only rise. And there is potential. And it could become impressive, if it uses this potential.

  I'm afraid I have to disagree. While per the indivial looks good on paper in real world terms the country with a 7 can afford to do a lot more then the country with a 3, if that be space programs or military forces.

You can prefer, what you want.

Fact is, that this is not a good base to compare different economies.

China has with circa 1'300'000'000 denizens, circa 3'600 times as many denizens than Luxembourg, which has circa 500'000 denizens. In terms of figures it is possible, that, while one Chinese contributes with 1 USD to the GDP of China, one Luxembourger contributes with 3'600 USD to the GDP of Luxembourg. Both GDPs would be nominal the same. But while the individual standard of quality of life in Luxembourg is higher-than-average, the Chinese people could be impoverished.

And you have to consider, that a large part of the GDP of a nation is directly bound to the number of denizens because it is their consumption through which the GDP is build. That means, that a nation with a high nominal GDP, but a low GDP per capita, has less reserves for non-denizens-consumption projects, than a nation with a high GDP per capita, in which a higher part is not dependable on the consumptions of its denizens.

That does not mean, that such a nation could not accomplish projects, which the other nation could not accomplish. But the accomplishment of such projects means only even less consumption per denizen. In plain language: if in China the GDP per capita is 1 USD, but in reality, China has accomplished non-denizens-comsumption projects amounting to 650'000'000 USD, in reality, each denizen has only contributed ½ USD to the GDP; meaning that their individual standard of quality of life is even lower than the GDP per capita lets one assume.

Or to put it in a question: Where would you prefer to live? In a nation, where the GDP is 2'600'000'000 USD, but the GDP per capita is only 2 USD or in a nation, where the GDP is with 1'300'000'000 USD only half as high, but the GDP per capita is 3'600 USD?

• What is best for the individual is best for Mankind because Mankind is merely a way of referring to the individuals, all six billion of us. All of us pursuing our own best interests,within obvious some guidelines IE you can't murder a rival etc. will lead to success. Never enslave yourself to nebulas entities such as the STATE or MANKIND. A person is worth far, far more.

Your first sentence is so wrong, I don't know, where do start. Have you ever heard the term Rationalitätenfalle (rationality trap)? It's an economy term. A rationality trap describes the phenomenon, that the orientation according to purely individual objectives can lead to adverse outcomes for each and every member of a group.

• Some simple examples:
  
  • arms race: The individual State has an advantage over the rival neighbors, by increasing his arms. But if all states are doing the same, the benefits of higher defense cancel each other out and now all countries are sitting on high, perhaps rising defence costs.
  • Fire in a cinema: From the perspective of individuals, it is rational, to start to move as soon as possible in the direction of the exit before the big rush comes. But if all are doing this, it is precisely why it comes to a blockage of the exits through which then nobody can escape.

The »Braess's paradox« or the »Fallacy of composition« are falling in the same category:

• • Increasing saving (or "thrift") is obviously good for an individual, since it provides for retirement or a "rainy day," but if everyone saves more, it may cause a recession by reducing consumer demand.
  • Another example is the Tragedy of the Commons where an individual would benefit from his unlimited access to a finite resource but the collective unrestricted demand from the whole group would eventually doom the resource through over-exploitation.

And I won't start a debate about oil and its availableness or climate change or the US politic regarding it. You know, what I wanted to express with that example. Maybe my example is not correct in each aspect. But the meaning behind is, what counts.

[Praeothmin]

When has any advance meant in anything been made without cooperation?
Competition may be a motivator in some cases. But without cooperation, advancement is not possible. That's the basic principle of each society.

Cooperation inside groups that were competing against each other.
The race to the moon, the nuclear race, the American gold rush, etc...

Yes, most discoveries were made by more then 1 person, but most discoveries were the result of competition between different groups.

Praeothmin wrote:
What is the goal of the Olympic games?

promotion of international understanding

Really?
Here's what Wikipedia had to say about this:

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was founded in 1894 on the initiative of a French nobleman, Pierre Frédy, Baron de Coubertin. His vision was to bring together amateur athletes from around the world to compete in a variety of events.

That's for the second generation of the games.

Now let's we about the first generation, the Ancient Olympic games:

The Ancient Olympic Games, originally referred to as simply the Olympic Games (Greek: Ολυμπιακοί Αγώνες; Olympiakoi Agones) were a series of athletic competitions held between various city-states of Ancient Greece.

Seems to be that the goal of the Olympics is to compete...

And since international understanding still seems so far out of reach (China's non-respect of human rights, Korea's nuclear tests, Iraq, Afghanistan, all Olympic competing countries), I'm not sure it is the true goal.
Especially now that networks compete to have the distributing contract, sports companies competing to sign the gold medalists for ads, etc...

Praeothmin wrote:
What is the goal of any sports?

fun, physical training, health

And to improve yourself through competition.
I don't know anyone who would watch sports if no competition was present.
How fun would a football match (soccer) if no team won, if the players did not compete, did not vie for first place?
We see this often in All-Stars versions of any sports, where the results don't really matter.
Athletes barely give their 100%, there's no intensity, no thrill.
The athletes themselves feel like it's not really important...

Praeothmin wrote:
Why give grades in school?

to give an objective estimation of the accomplishments.
A perfect example: in school, they are grades and no ranking. If one becomes in a test a grade, it says nothing about the ranking. All others can have a better or a worse grades. But the given grade alone won't show it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.
In school, there are ranks, when you get your report card, and each of your marks are compared to the class average.
We have tried a system with no average and no marks for a while here, where we wouldn't even flunk kids, and what we noticed is that there was less interest, less efforts put in class.
When no rewards are bestoken to the best in anything, humans (the majority, at least) become lazy.

Praeothmin wrote:
If you don't compete, how do you know you've improved?

By quantifying and comparing my performance at two different times. Competition won't show, that one has improved because it could be possible, that the competitor has changed for the worse. If at a given time, one is twice as fast as the competitor and at a later time, thrice as fast as the competitor, but the competitor is only a tenth as fast as before, one has not improved although the comparison with the competitor would suggest so.

By comparing your results to your own previous ones, you are, in a sense, competing against yourself.
But there's always the satisfaction, when competing against someone else, to know that you're still number one, even if it's bacause your opponent has changed for the worse.

Praeothmin wrote:
If by working harder, and by being better then your neighbour or competitor, you do not get a better pay, a better way of life, how many people will then advance?

All people with an ego.

The Ego is exactly the reason why we compete against one another...

Praeothmin wrote:
Why else would workforce unions be looked upon with such disdain by a growing number of people?

Because there is a growing number of stupid people?
No really - what has this to do with competition? Workforce unions are a consequence of capitalism. Because labour were treated like scum, they have united to gain strength against their exploiter.

This has everything to do with competition.
What I've pointed out in schools also happens in the work place.
When you no longer feel threatened of losing your job, of seeing someone better getting your job, most people stop being competitive, meaning that they do not feel the need to outdo themselves, to improve.
They feel that it's not worth the efforts.
Yes, unions were usefull in the beginning of the industrialist era, where companies would exploit workers for pennies, make them work long hours, and give their workers absolutely no respect.
But in any industrialized countries, there are laws that already do that, sao that a union is now only a organism that exists only to protect the lazy, the inefficient, the incompetent.
We have many unions here in Canada, and I honestly have to say that, having been a union worker in the past, I certainly never want to be one in the future.
The number of lazy idiots working where I've worked that would've been fired had they not been unionized was staggering.
I don't have a union now, but I feel very certain that, as long as I'm doing my job properly, I should not worry about losing my job.
As long as I do it better then most, I even see results.
I got more responsabilities, more opportunities for advancement, all because I do my best, i.e., I compete with my coworkers.
Competition doesn't have to be destructive, but it is needed for imrpovement.

[Who is like God arbour]

• Cooperation inside groups that were competing against each other.
  The race to the moon, the nuclear race, the American gold rush, etc...
  
  Yes, most discoveries were made by more then 1 person, but most discoveries were the result of competition between different groups.

As you can see, while cooperation is necessary, competition is merely, if at all, a motivator.

The USA and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have both spend enormous amounts to both reach the same goal. But if both would have worked together, as they are doing it now with the International Space Station, they could have at least cut in half their expenses and still could have reached the moon.

The nuclear race is really not a good example because it falls under the already described rationality trap: Both nations have spend enormous amounts only to be able to destroy each other. But their advantages has cancelled each other out because both nations were suddenly able to destroy the other several times and the whole potential was useless because the usage would have resulted in the destruction of the whole mankind. Yes, that is a really bad example to show, how competition is beneficial for mankind.

I don't see, what the gold rush has to do with the benefits of competition. I only see all the crimes, that were c omitted because of greed. But what good for mankind has it done?

• Really?
  Here's what Wikipedia had to say about this:
  
  • • • • The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was founded in 1894 on the initiative of a French nobleman, Pierre Frédy, Baron de Coubertin. His vision was to bring together amateur athletes from around the world to compete in a variety of events.

Really?

And here is, what the IOC has to say in its homepage about this:

• According to the Olympic Charter, established by Pierre de Coubertin, the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

Or what the Olympic Charta has to say about it:

• Fundamental Principles of Olympism
  1. Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
  2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.
  3. The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism. It covers the five continents. It reaches its peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the Olympic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings.
  4. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. The organisation, administration and management of sport must be controlled by independent sports organisations.
  5. Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.
  6. Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and recognition by the IOC.

• And to improve yourself through competition.
  I don't know anyone who would watch sports if no competition was present.
  How fun would a football match (soccer) if no team won, if the players did not compete, did not vie for first place?
  We see this often in All-Stars versions of any sports, where the results don't really matter.
  Athletes barely give their 100%, there's no intensity, no thrill.
  The athletes themselves feel like it's not really important...

Sport is there to be done, not to be watched.

And most sportsmen I know, are doing it for themselves. With whom do you think all those, who are jogging or are visiting a fitness center are competing? And I don't mean those, who are participating at tournaments. Because those, who are participating at tournaments are a minority. And their success has nearly no benefit for mankind.

• Sorry, but you're wrong.
  In school, there are ranks, when you get your report card, and each of your marks are compared to the class average.
  We have tried a system with no average and no marks for a while here, where we wouldn't even flunk kids, and what we noticed is that there was less interest, less efforts put in class.
  When no rewards are bestoken to the best in anything, humans (the majority, at least) become lazy.

It's the first time, I have heard such thing. As far as I know, in most nations (including most European nations), there is no ranking in school. It may be different in the USA or the federal state, from which you are coming. But my argument still stands: With a rank, you won't know, if the pupil is good or bad. Maybe he/she is the one-eyed among the blinds or the cherry on the cake.

• By comparing your results to your own previous ones, you are, in a sense, competing against yourself.
  But there's always the satisfaction, when competing against someone else, to know that you're still number one, even if it's bacause your opponent has changed for the worse.

I'm not competing against myself, I'm trying to get better. That is called ego - another factor of motivation: Do something to better yourself.

I don't argue, that it is satisfying to be better than others. But it is meaningless. There are over 6'000'000'000 humans on that Earth. And that means, that, if one is the best, all the other are it not. Does this make the others bad? No. As long as a person is giving its best to better itself, it has no reason to be sad, if it is not the best because it is impossible, that all are the best.

• The Ego is exactly the reason why we compete against one another...

No. Ego it the reason, why one tries to better oneself.

Only those, who have to define their self-worth by comparing themselves with others, those with a low self-esteem, are in need of competition to find the motivation to better themselves. But what happens with those, if they are already the best or don't have others to compare themselves with?

• This has everything to do with competition.
  What I've pointed out in schools also happens in the work place.
  When you no longer feel threatened of losing your job, of seeing someone better getting your job, most people stop being competitive, meaning that they do not feel the need to outdo themselves, to improve.
  They feel that it's not worth the efforts.
  Yes, unions were usefull in the beginning of the industrialist era, where companies would exploit workers for pennies, make them work long hours, and give their workers absolutely no respect.
  But in any industrialized countries, there are laws that already do that, sao that a union is now only a organism that exists only to protect the lazy, the inefficient, the incompetent.
  We have many unions here in Canada, and I honestly have to say that, having been a union worker in the past, I certainly never want to be one in the future.
  The number of lazy idiots working where I've worked that would've been fired had they not been unionized was staggering.
  I don't have a union now, but I feel very certain that, as long as I'm doing my job properly, I should not worry about losing my job.
  As long as I do it better then most, I even see results.
  I got more responsabilities, more opportunities for advancement, all because I do my best, i.e., I compete with my coworkers.
  Competition doesn't have to be destructive, but it is needed for improvement.

The problem is, that if you are constantly exposed to the threat to loose your job, you are constantly experiencing stress, that is bad for your health and will effect the quality of your work. You are not able to give constantly 100 percent and your every day work shouldn't demand it from you.

And unions are necessary because laws don't fix your wage. They may fix a minimum wage but if you are always giving your best - and assuming that this has indeed quality - you are expecting more. But what will you do, if your employer is not willing to give you more? You could go to another employer. But because employers often are also organised in (sometimes only informal) associations, you won't get more from another employer. Your employer has huge profits, but you get only the minimum wage, although your work is far better than the work of all the others, who are also becoming the minimum wage. A union can help you to get your fair share.

And if someone is lazy and does not do, what can be expected from him or her, that is a reason for dismissal, which even a union has to accept. If the unions, you are knowing, do not accept legitimate dismissals, then the union acts stupid. But hey, that is free market economy. Nobody is forced to negotiate with unions as nobody is forced to negotiate with other mono- oligopolists. One could do without whatever such a mono- or oligopolist has to offer. And if not: Tough luck!

[sonofccn]

You can prefer, what you want.

Fact is, that this is not a good base to compare different economies.

Possible but debatble in the best case.

China has with circa 1'300'000'000 denizens, circa 3'600 times as many denizens than Luxembourg, which has circa 500'000 denizens. In terms of figures it is possible, that, while one Chinese contributes with 1 USD to the GDP of China, one Luxembourger contributes with 3'600 USD to the GDP of Luxembourg. Both GDPs would be nominal the same. But while the individual standard of quality of life in Luxembourg is higher-than-average, the Chinese people could be impoverished.

And you have to consider, that a large part of the GDP of a nation is directly bound to the number of denizens because it is their consumption through which the GDP is build. That means, that a nation with a high nominal GDP, but a low GDP per capita, has less reserves for non-denizens-consumption projects, than a nation with a high GDP per capita, in which a higher part is not dependable on the consumptions of its denizens.

I grasp the concept. I really do. The average Chinese citizen has a far lower standard of living then Luxembourg. I simply disagree that it provides an accurate across the board repersenationg for all countries on this world, that small countries possesing relativly small GDPs would benifite more then larger countries.

That does not mean, that such a nation could not accomplish projects, which the other nation could not accomplish.

Yeah. China could curbstomp Luxembourger in any 1 on 1 competition, very very badly.

Where would you prefer to live? In a nation, where the GDP is 2'600'000'000 USD, but the GDP per capita is only 2 USD or in a nation, where the GDP is with 1'300'000'000 USD only half as high, but the GDP per capita is 3'600 USD?

Me? I'd require to obtain for more data on both countries, see first hand both countriess etc, through on that far of a curve I'd most likely choose country number 2. Per capita is just a tool, no more fair then a straight up GDP or ignoring population. To properly judge we need all the contex.

Your first sentence is so wrong, I don't know, where do start.

That I hold people above nameless, faceless gestalt enities? That people are rational, intellegent persons and that left on thier own will generaly make decisions that improve thier situation and by extension others?

Have you ever heard the term Rationalitätenfalle (rationality trap)? It's an economy term. A rationality trap describes the phenomenon, that the orientation according to purely individual objectives can lead to adverse outcomes for each and every member of a group.

I've heard of something similar, Tragdy of the commons where making what appears to be the correct decision is infact incorrect. The perfect example is your fire in a cinema. That however is not really economics more human nature. Humans are not perfect and will make mistakes.

arms race: The individual State has an advantage over the rival neighbors, by increasing his arms. But if all states are doing the same, the benefits of higher defense cancel each other out and now all countries are sitting on high, perhaps rising defence costs.

What is wrong with this? Everyone has peace because noone can defeat each other in combat and assuming all countries are peace loving capitilistic Democratic republics I see no problems allowing a stallmate to continue. It's better then say disarming and then being invaded don't you think?

Increasing saving (or "thrift") is obviously good for an individual, since it provides for retirement or a "rainy day," but if everyone saves more, it may cause a recession by reducing consumer demand.

Luckily not everyone saves at the same time, while some are saving others are spending what they saved be it for a new car, bigger house etc. I suppose you would have the goverment regulate this...for Mankind right?

And I won't start a debate about oil and its availableness or climate change or the US politic regarding it. You know, what I wanted to express with that example. Maybe my example is not correct in each aspect. But the meaning behind is, what counts.

I answered you on that score remember? When I said assuming the above was true? I said the companies deserve to fall on thier face, to get hurt and lose money assuming Peak oil. They would recover and grow on the correct track and all would be well. However let me go even further. You basic idea was that corperations, running for pure profit( as if that is a bad thing but I digress), were pushing a finitive substance because of said profits and would not invest in alternative infinitive substances because of limited profits. It is also your belief that the Goverment body should dictate to the companies to invest in alternative substances. This is correct right? That is what you have been saying correct? Assuming that is true for now let us proceed onward

I submit to you that any Evil-Greedy (TM) capitilist worth his salt would be on the ball on changing trends. If you are making your money off of substance A you better darn well know everything about it including where it's located and it's remaining quanity. Therefore any substance A companies would be the first to know of it's depletion, well before such depletion happened and once again anyone worth thier salt would quickly conclude with substance A profits dropping to zero it would be very benificial to invest into substance B with some of the profits of substance A. This person also would be under the strain to get it to the market either at or just before the depletion to insure maximum profits generated with a captive market before his rivals also start doing it.

On the flip side a well meaning Goverment body, spending your money instead of thier own, might invest in substance C because the head of the commitee home's district stands to benifite from the funding regardless that the substance is a dead end

[Jedi Master Spock]

It is not their responsibility to assure the banks are lending on terms that are profitable in the long run; they enter into the bargain knowing that they get a house out of it, if they can keep meeting payments, or lose the house, if they can't.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. Read carefully.

It is their responsibility, as you say, to not get a loan that they don't think they can repay:

It is the responsability of the person getting the loan to make sure he isn't getting over his head, and to live according to his financial means.

However, their responsibility is only personal. It does not extend beyond the scope of losing money, houses, cars, and/or credit ratings. Such is the limit of their responsibility of the consumer of the loan; they are responsible for whether or not that particular loan gets paid off.

They may easily fail in judgment; circumstances beyond their control can also affect the ability to repay the loan. For example, they may be unexpectedly laid off and be unable to find a replacement job that pays anywhere near as much. They may have a family medical emergency that is a higher priority than keeping the house and more expensive. In those cases, it is easily excusable that they fail to meet their end of the bargain and find they must default.

If it's some fault of their own - failure of a risky investment, getting fired for incompetence - we might blame them more, but still, at the time they signed the contract, they thought they'd be able to manage it. You can blame the homeowner for an individual foreclosure, and banks often do.

In that case, the bank is entitled by the contract to seize the collateral and try to make back the remaining balance on the loan by auctioning it off. It is the bank's responsibility to determine the costs and risks of making a loan, the additional costs if it fails, and therefore, the expected costs associated with that particular loan type.

Debtors messed up. That's nothing new, and a debtor defaulting usually doesn't cause the failure of a bank. People have been defaulting on mortgages since they were invented, and were tumbling neck-deep into debt even back when debtors' prisons were all the rage - but the scope of their responsibility is personal.

The bank shoulders all of the responsibility at the next level, which is where we see the problem start getting ugly. The debtor is responsible for whether or not the loans are paid off; the banker is responsible for whether or not the thousands of loans it issues are, on average, profitable, and profitable in each category.

Among other things, banks began to base their calculations on the ability to package up and sell off their bad loans.

Nobody's putting a gun to anybody's head and forcing them to spend more then they earn or can reimburse.

Of course not. But it's the greater foolishness, and the greater failure, to be the one who keeps giving them money knowing they are unlikely to repay it.

And, in most cases, pure greed. Credit card companies make very little money off of perfectly responsible companies. The maximally profitable customer for a loan or credit card is the one living slightly beyond their means, who must keep juggling debt and is chronically late on payments, accruing a little extra interest and late fees. There's little loss in the customer who pays every single payment on time or early, but not nearly as much profit, either.

[2046]

so your going to tell me that an avowedly communist country, which isn't by any chance payling lip service to it's ideological past to maintain the legitamacy of the party, has maintained double digit growth rates for 20+ years, attracted more Foreign Direct Investment then any other nation on earth, has the second largest nominal GDP, and has a comperable concentration of wealth to the united states?

High growth? Foreign investment? GDP size? Wealth?

None of those have any bearing on the question of their economic system.

I will grant that they are much less communist than the party name would suggest (to the chagrin of some Maoists), but they hardly qualify more than the United States as a haven of economic freedom . . . not that we're that great at it, but still.

Maybe in a few years I'll be able to agree with you, though, if this frightening freakshow gets her way.

[Who is like God arbour]

• Yeah. China could curb stomp Luxembourger in any 1 on 1 competition, very very badly.

And what good would it do? The people in China wouldn't live better from it.
Remember: Economy is not an end in itself.

• • Your first sentence is so wrong, I don't know, where do start.

  That I hold people above nameless, faceless gestalt enities? That people are rational, intellegent persons and that left on thier own will generaly make decisions that improve thier situation and by extension others?

Let me refresh your memory: Your first sentence was:

• • • • What is best for the individual is best for Mankind because Mankind is merely a way of referring to the individuals, all six billion of us.

• • • • • • That's why I have asked, if you have ever heard the term Rationalitätenfalle (rationality trap)? It's an economy term. A rationality trap describes the phenomenon, that the orientation according to purely individual objectives can lead to adverse outcomes for each and every member of a group.
            • Some simple examples:
              
              • arms race: The individual State has an advantage over the rival neighbors, by increasing his arms. But if all states are doing the same, the benefits of higher defense cancel each other out and now all countries are sitting on high, perhaps rising defence costs.
              • Fire in a cinema: From the perspective of individuals, it is rational, to start to move as soon as possible in the direction of the exit before the big rush comes. But if all are doing this, it is precisely why it comes to a blockage of the exits through which then nobody can escape.
            The »Braess's paradox« or the »Fallacy of composition« are falling in the same category:
            
            • • Increasing saving (or "thrift") is obviously good for an individual, since it provides for retirement or a "rainy day," but if everyone saves more, it may cause a recession by reducing consumer demand.
              • Another example is the Tragedy of the Commons where an individual would benefit from his unlimited access to a finite resource but the collective unrestricted demand from the whole group would eventually doom the resource through over-exploitation.

• I've heard of something similar, Tragedy of the commons where making what appears to be the correct decision is in fact incorrect. The perfect example is your fire in a cinema. That however is not really economics more human nature. Humans are not perfect and will make mistakes.

That's funny. I have always thought, that economics is done by human beings and that it is their greed and ruthlessness, that is especially promoted in a capitalism economy, which promotes competition, that leads to the disadvantages, the whole majority of mankind has to bear for the good of a minority.

• What is wrong with this? Everyone has peace because none can defeat each other in combat and assuming all countries are peace loving capitalistic Democratic republics I see no problems allowing a stalemate to continue. It's better then say disarming and then being invaded don't you think?

Wrong with this is - among other things - that, as you have said yourself, humans are not perfect and will make mistakes. What would have happened, if such a mistake, a wrong decision, would have resulted in the obliteration of mankind?

Instead of an arms race, as recent history has shown, diplomacy and cooperation is a better way to resolve misunderstandings and sort out differences. But that is a lesson, the USA has, as it seems, still to learn.

• Luckily not everyone saves at the same time, while some are saving others are spending what they saved be it for a new car, bigger house etc. I suppose you would have the goverment regulate this...for Mankind right?

Ever heard of the Long Depression or the Great Depression?

• I answered you on that score remember? When I said assuming the above was true? I said the companies deserve to fall on thier face, to get hurt and lose money assuming Peak oil. They would recover and grow on the correct track and all would be well.

The problem is, that not only the company will have problems, but the whole economy. The whole industry depends on energy - and oil is predominantly an energy carrier. If there is no oil and no ample alternatives, not only the oil company will suffer, but the whole industry and with it the whole economy and, when it comes down to it, innocent people. That's the problem in a globalised economy, as you are seeing in the current financial crisis. According to you, the banks should go down and the state is not supposed to help them. But that would mean the collapse of the whole banking system. That would be a catastrophe for the whole economy and could result in the insolvency of your employer and you, although you have nothing to do with the decisions, that were made by some bank manager, could loose your job. And that wouldn't only happen to you, but to millions. Please explain me, how that can be good for mankind.

• However let me go even further. You basic idea was that corperations, running for pure profit( as if that is a bad thing but I digress), were pushing a finitive substance because of said profits and would not invest in alternative infinitive substances because of limited profits. It is also your belief that the Government body should dictate to the companies to invest in alternative substances. This is correct right? That is what you have been saying correct? Assuming that is true for now let us proceed onward

No, that is not what I have said. I don't think, that the Government body should dictate to the companies to invest in alternative substances. I think, that the companies should do it by themselves and that they should cooperate when doing it. That does not mean, that they should agree to research only one alternative. But it is better, when they are cooperating and thus sharing their expenses than if each company is doing research alone and in the end all companies are doing research parallel in the same field because they are thinking, that it is the most promising. If they are sharing their funds, it is easier possible to do research in different alternatives and still save money.

• I submit to you that any Evil-Greedy (TM) capitalist worth his salt would be on the ball on changing trends. If you are making your money off of substance A you better darn well know everything about it including where it's located and it's remaining quantity. Therefore any substance A companies would be the first to know of it's depletion, well before such depletion happened and once again anyone worth their salt would quickly conclude with substance A profits dropping to zero it would be very beneficial to invest into substance B with some of the profits of substance A. This person also would be under the strain to get it to the market either at or just before the depletion to insure maximum profits generated with a captive market before his rivals also start doing it.

That assumes, that a manager acts long-term logical. The problem is, that investments in the research for an alternative are bringing profits only, when the alternative is needed. A manager who knows, that there is enough for substance A until he retires, will not see any reason to reduce the digging of said substance, what would reduce the profits of the company and invest the so saved money in research, that will not result in profits while he is in office.

That's also a problem of the current western economy: The pursuit for fast profits. I don't know, what the media in the USA are reporting. But in Germans, that is diagnosed as one primary cause of the current financial crisis.

• On the flip side a well meaning Government body, spending your money instead of their own, might invest in substance C because the head of the committee home's district stands to benefit from the funding regardless that the substance is a dead end

No system is perfect. But in such a system, check and balance is possible and such wrong decisions are easier to prevent than in a company, which nobody controls.

[sonofccn]

And what good would it do? The people in China wouldn't live better from it.
Remember: Economy is not an end in itself.

Well in real world terms it means that barring outside interfernce china would absorb Luxoburge but we have strayed off hte point. I never wanted to compare Europe vs China I merely brought it in as an example of a large GDP with a large population. An example that per capita is not everything, atleast not in real world terms. I never quesitoned Europe lives better then the average China citizen. I don't consider China a leading example of countryhood or a paticulare effiecent creation. So let's drop the china example and move back to the US comparison.

Let me refresh your memory: Your first sentence was:
What is best for the individual is best for Mankind because Mankind is merely a way of referring to the individuals, all six billion of us.

Yes. There is no "Mankind" in any meaniful sense, and I believe free people making thier own decisions will ultimatly lead to the best results. That doesn't mean mistakes won't be made however.

That's funny. I have always thought, that economics is done by human beings and that it is their greed and ruthlessness, that is especially promoted in a capitalism economy, which promotes competition, that leads to the disadvantages, the whole majority of mankind has to bear for the good of a minority.

1.Free market is no more prone to human error then any other form so claiming that humanity makes mistakes and therefore free market is at an disadvantage is a mistake.

2. You have yet to prove Free market causes more disadvantages then other systems.

Wrong with this is - among other things - that, as you have said yourself, humans are not perfect and will make mistakes. What would have happened, if such a mistake, a wrong decision, would have resulted in the obliteration of mankind?

You can't get ride of risk, so yes there is a chance someone could start nuclear holocaust. The alternative would be to invite the invasion of less friendly nations so which is more preferable to you? The slight risk of total destruction or the very likely risk that should you disarm you will be conqured?

Instead of an arms race, as recent history has shown, diplomacy and cooperation is a better way to resolve misunderstandings and sort out differences. But that is a lesson, the USA has, as it seems, still to learn.

To quote you there is so much wrong with this I don't know where to began but I'll attempt.
1.I have news for you. Most nations on this world are run by evil men and just as you could not reason with Stalin or Hitler you can not reason with the leader of N. Korea or Iran without the threat of force.

2. The latter half of the 20th century and the early 21th have blanantly shown that diplomacy is virtually useless, N. Korea develped nuclear weapons and Iran is running headlong towards them.

3. The only reason the world is stable as opposed to it's normal state which is chaotic is because the United States spends a large,through in my opinion not large enough, amount of cash to maintain the greatest army Earth has ever seen and uses it for the improvment for all.

4. Germany could learn a lesson from the US, as could the rest of Europe, and start building armies again. Okay the United Kingdom does have a decent armed forces, so to be clear I'm not refering to them in that statment through they could undoubtably build a larger one.

Ever heard of the Long Depression or the Great Depression?

No I had not heard of hte long Depression, I thought all economic problems were refered to as Panics before the 30's era. Yes I have heard of the great depression through it was not caused by people saving and not spending as far as I know. However what is the point? Free market isn't perfect and yes you have down cycles, some quite sever but I don't see what this proves.

The problem is, that not only the company will have problems, but the whole economy. The whole industry depends on energy - and oil is predominantly an energy carrier. If there is no oil and no ample alternatives, not only the oil company will suffer, but the whole industry and with it the whole economy and, when it comes down to it, innocent people.

Yes. You would have another Great Depression, fortaunces would be lost and people will suffer but they will survive and prosper. Just as people lost, from the rubble new fortuances will be made. I didn't say I wanted this to happen only that if the worst came to worst it owuld be better for people to be burned and learn thier lesson and grow up then being babied thier entire lives by nanny goverment.

That's the problem in a globalised economy, as you are seeing in the current financial crisis. According to you, the banks should go down and the state is not supposed to help them. But that would mean the collapse of the whole banking system. That would be a catastrophe for the whole economy and could result in the insolvency of your employer and you, although you have nothing to do with the decisions, that were made by some bank manager, could loose your job. And that wouldn't only happen to you, but to millions. Please explain me, how that can be good for mankind.

It would be better in the long run because the system would have been corrected, the mistakes,human error eliminated in the only fair and unbias way. Yes it would be bad, and no I don't wish it on anyone but in the long term man would survive and prosper off of the incident.

No, that is not what I have said. I don't think, that the Government body should dictate to the companies to invest in alternative substances. I think, that the companies should do it by themselves and that they should cooperate when doing it.

You do realize in this case your in the govermental role and telling the companies what they should do, invest in alterantive fuels, and get angry that they are not doing it. You believe you know what is better for them then they do, a most curious form of thought. So I have to ask, what would you do to encourage this investing in technolagy companies have discarded as a waste of time.

But it is better, when they are cooperating and thus sharing their expenses than if each company is doing research alone and in the end all companies are doing research parallel in the same field because they are thinking, that it is the most promising. If they are sharing their funds, it is easier possible to do research in different alternatives and still save money.

In this case the company would be lossing money since it would get less profits,therfore less incenitive to create. Ergo a nation that favors/forces this will almsot certainly lag behind in development of whatever the companies were supposed to invent be it a new fuel or a whatever.

That assumes, that a manager acts long-term logical.

If he didn't his company would collasp and would be absorbed by bigger better companies.

The problem is, that investments in the research for an alternative are bringing profits only, when the alternative is needed. A manager who knows, that there is enough for substance A until he retires, will not see any reason to reduce the digging of said substance, what would reduce the profits of the company and invest the so saved money in research, that will not result in profits while he is in office.

Since most owners of companies want it to continue after them, being the best that they could be, that alone would be enough to entince someone. Then there is also VP's who would then become the manager after the previous one left. It would be in thier best interest to invest in substance B to reap the windfall of thier foresight.

That's also a problem of the current western economy: The pursuit for fast profits. I don't know, what the media in the USA are reporting. But in Germans, that is diagnosed as one primary cause of the current financial crisis.

It is a factor don't get me wrong. People saw an opertunirty for profit and went for it, then the bubble popped. This problem was however caused by Banks being forced to perform actions that went against the profit motive, namely giving loans to people who could not pay them back. The banks, and other people, should not have exploited it but the goverment should have kept it's nose out in the first place.

No system is perfect. But in such a system, check and balance is possible and such wrong decisions are easier to prevent than in a company, which nobody controls.

You are correct, no system is perfect through you seem to require Free market to be. To move on you are suggesting that the Goverment body would be the more effiencent choice due to checks and balances. I'm afraid that just can't work. The goverment is a bloated, ineffecient, unfocused mess facing a multitude of problems. The commitee has no actual investment in what they are doing, it's not their money their spending. So they have no incentive to be effiecent because there is always more tax dollars to spend.

Second the aformentioned corruption of pursuing dead ends for personal gain,providing no service but exploiting the common man, which once again he is selling your money not his so why should he care.

Third goverment is much more concerned with "instant profits" then companies and since perform very few duties that can be rated and weighed like a company does panders to the voting public to win votes. So they can pursue a dead end just like before but this time becuase people want/think it's the correct path. To restate myself the commeetie doesn't care, it is not there money they are spending, and those involved get reelected for it.

An example of both cases would be the Corn biofuel stupidity. The world couldn't grow enough corn to fuel America's current demands let along any growth yet we embarked upon it because... well no there was no rational reason for this.

The goverment has limited accountablility. It's hard to displace politicans who promise the moon and the stars and who always place the blame on never having enough funding. A case would be the US's public education system. A corrupte, nigh useless institution that has reduced public schools to free baby sitting services for kids ages 5-18. The response? Politicans clammor for even further funding despite the ungodly sums already spent per student.

The company spends it's own money. If it follows the follows the populare but useless idea track it will cease to exist and it's owner will end up in a cardboard box under the freeway. Since he does not want this he must always invest in the profitbal line. The option that promises him survival and he must do it constantly, forever until the end of time unless he wishes to perish. That is checks and balances.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I'm sorry, but I feel like I ought to butt in here.

1.I have news for you. Most nations on this world are run by evil men and just as you could not reason with Stalin or Hitler you can not reason with the leader of N. Korea or Iran without the threat of force.

I would count about 196 de facto independent countries in the world. I really don't think you could pick out one hundred of those and label their leaders "evil men" defensibly. I doubt you could pick out more than a dozen national leaders that "can't be reasoned with." You hear a lot about countries that other countries are busily condemning.

2. The latter half of the 20th century and the early 21th have blanantly shown that diplomacy is virtually useless, N. Korea develped nuclear weapons and Iran is running headlong towards them.

I think it's pretty clear this is because of failure to use diplomacy rather than failure of diplomacy.

I can think of exactly one country that dismantled a nuclear program as a result of military action: Libya. And it wasn't military action directed towards them, so I suppose you could call that "diplomacy" of the crude sort. Of all the military actions started since 1945, I can think of precisely two that were started against a power with nuclear weapons...

1973: Yom Kippur War, at which point Israel probably had nukes, although they've been tight-lipped about them. I'm not sure Egypt, Syria, and Iraq's leaders believed Israel had nuclear weapons at that point in time.

1982: Falklands war, starting with the Argentinians picking a fight with the UK. This was a low-level conflict rather than a full-scale war, and I doubt Argentina wasn't planning on winning a shooting war with Britain; simply try and pressure Britain through diplomatic circles to give up the islands rather than engage in a shooting war.

Considering the number of wars that have happened since 1945 (a fair number much bloodier), it's no wonder that North Korea's leadership concluded that owning a nuclear weapon was one way to avoid pre-emptive attacks by the United States. Perceived military threats have generated most of the world's nuclear programs, and accelerated the largest of them.

[Cocytus]

Instead of an arms race, as recent history has shown, diplomacy and cooperation is a better way to resolve misunderstandings and sort out differences. But that is a lesson, the USA has, as it seems, still to learn.

To quote you there is so much wrong with this I don't know where to began but I'll attempt.
1.I have news for you. Most nations on this world are run by evil men and just as you could not reason with Stalin or Hitler you can not reason with the leader of N. Korea or Iran without the threat of force.

2. The latter half of the 20th century and the early 21th have blanantly shown that diplomacy is virtually useless, N. Korea develped nuclear weapons and Iran is running headlong towards them.

3. The only reason the world is stable as opposed to it's normal state which is chaotic is because the United States spends a large,through in my opinion not large enough, amount of cash to maintain the greatest army Earth has ever seen and uses it for the improvment for all.

4. Germany could learn a lesson from the US, as could the rest of Europe, and start building armies again. Okay the United Kingdom does have a decent armed forces, so to be clear I'm not refering to them in that statment through they could undoubtably build a larger one.

Okay, this is what is wrong with so much of our current foreign policy. "Improvement of all" is propaganda, pure and simple. The Iraqis have gone from fearing that the Baathist police will take them to the torture chamber to fearing that they'll get blown up on the way to the bazaar. Real improvement there.

Wind the clock back to 2001. We had elected what was arguably the most militarily experienced administration yet. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell. And yet, here we are. If our military is so all-powerful, why don't we just roll into North Korea and shut down Yongbyan ourselves? Why didn't we roll into Georgia to defend it? Because, despite our enormous military budget (some 600 billion dollars, larger than the next ten spenders put together) our military isn't implacable. And all the countries that stand up to us have a deadly trump card: insurgent warfare. As advanced as our technology is, our tactics have remained largely unchanged since World War II. We don't know how to fight guerillas. And bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Ahmadinejad, Somali pirates and Russian oligarchs all know that. So, if military power can't do the job with them, what's left? Diplomacy.

If anything, the first years of the 21st century have proved that military power is virtually useless in a new order where insurgents armed with homemade bombs and 50-year old Russian antipersonnel equipment can resist the most advanced and powerful military in the world. And the whole world has seen that message. Ahmadinejad knows he can't defeat the US or Israel in a conventional war. We'd stomp the Revolutionary Guard flat, as would Israel. It's what comes AFTER that that stumps us. Bush knew how he'd wage the Iraq war's first few weeks. "We defeat Saddam's army" and THEN WHAT? See, I agree fully with the idea of the War on Terror, but its execution has been, in a word, pitiful. If we'd have given our soldiers training in the customs, culture, and language of the Middle East, they could look like everyone else, speak like everyone else, and follow our enemies wherever they choose to run. But as it stands, our threat of force no longer carries any weight. If we're to maintain our way of life, we don't need MORE military, we need properly trained military. The circumstances of warfare have changed, and our methods must change with them. People who believe they're unstoppable invite others to prove them wrong.

[Praeothmin]

Praeothmin wrote:
JMS wrote:
It is not their responsibility to assure the banks are lending on terms that are profitable in the long run; they enter into the bargain knowing that they get a house out of it, if they can keep meeting payments, or lose the house, if they can't.


Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. Read carefully.

It is their responsibility, as you say, to not get a loan that they don't think they can repay:
Quote:
It is the responsability of the person getting the loan to make sure he isn't getting over his head, and to live according to his financial means.

However, their responsibility is only personal. It does not extend beyond the scope of losing money, houses, cars, and/or credit ratings. Such is the limit of their responsibility of the consumer of the loan; they are responsible for whether or not that particular loan gets paid off.

They may easily fail in judgment; circumstances beyond their control can also affect the ability to repay the loan. For example, they may be unexpectedly laid off and be unable to find a replacement job that pays anywhere near as much. They may have a family medical emergency that is a higher priority than keeping the house and more expensive. In those cases, it is easily excusable that they fail to meet their end of the bargain and find they must default.

If it's some fault of their own - failure of a risky investment, getting fired for incompetence - we might blame them more, but still, at the time they signed the contract, they thought they'd be able to manage it. You can blame the homeowner for an individual foreclosure, and banks often do.

In that case, the bank is entitled by the contract to seize the collateral and try to make back the remaining balance on the loan by auctioning it off. It is the bank's responsibility to determine the costs and risks of making a loan, the additional costs if it fails, and therefore, the expected costs associated with that particular loan type.

Debtors messed up. That's nothing new, and a debtor defaulting usually doesn't cause the failure of a bank. People have been defaulting on mortgages since they were invented, and were tumbling neck-deep into debt even back when debtors' prisons were all the rage - but the scope of their responsibility is personal.

The bank shoulders all of the responsibility at the next level, which is where we see the problem start getting ugly. The debtor is responsible for whether or not the loans are paid off; the banker is responsible for whether or not the thousands of loans it issues are, on average, profitable, and profitable in each category.

Among other things, banks began to base their calculations on the ability to package up and sell off their bad loans.
Quote:
Nobody's putting a gun to anybody's head and forcing them to spend more then they earn or can reimburse.

Of course not. But it's the greater foolishness, and the greater failure, to be the one who keeps giving them money knowing they are unlikely to repay it.

And, in most cases, pure greed. Credit card companies make very little money off of perfectly responsible companies. The maximally profitable customer for a loan or credit card is the one living slightly beyond their means, who must keep juggling debt and is chronically late on payments, accruing a little extra interest and late fees. There's little loss in the customer who pays every single payment on time or early, but not nearly as much profit, either.

I see what you mean.
Agreed, then...

As you can see, while cooperation is necessary, competition is merely, if at all, a motivator.

I agree it is "only" a motivator, but for a lot of people, it is an immense motivator...

I don't see, what the gold rush has to do with the benefits of competition. I only see all the crimes, that were c omitted because of greed. But what good for mankind has it done?

I never had it had anything to do with the betterment of mankind, it was only another example of competition.
Although you could say that this gold rush did indeed open some American frontiers, allowed people to dream of bettering their lives either by finding gold and getting richer, or opening their own businesses and profit from others' (newfound) riches...

And here is, what the IOC has to say in its homepage about this:
According to the Olympic Charter, established by Pierre de Coubertin, the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.
Or what the Olympic Charta has to say about it:
Fundamental Principles of Olympism
Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.

The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.

The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism. It covers the five continents. It reaches its peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the Olympic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings.

The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. The organisation, administration and management of sport must be controlled by independent sports organisations.

Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.

Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and recognition by the IOC.

OK, good definition.
Now, let's see how it is applied today:
Athletes compete against one another, in front of many people, and the best of them get great financial rewards which allows them to improve their situation.
Which is why most Olympic athletes today cheat and use drugs to improve their performance.
If athletes really were only interested in bettering themselves, then why would they need to use drugs?
Why do we even have competitions at all?
Why are all sports competitive?
Why not practice all sports by our lonesome, run the 100 meter dash by myself and have my results compared only to my previous ones?
Competition, that is why.

People don't just want to improve, and better themselves, they all want to be the best they can, and they find out how good they are by competing against other athletes.
Competiton can also be friendly, but it is there nonetheless.

Also, WILGA, what in the modern Olympics does anything to, for example, "promote a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity"?
How can athletes doping themselves help "create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles"?
If there was no competition, then those lofty ideals might be indeed followed, but alas, it is not the case in our society.
In fact, I'm pretty certain it wasn't even the case when the Olympic games were first created.

And most sportsmen I know, are doing it for themselves.

And most sportsman I know do it because they like the competition, so you're right, they're also doing it for themselves.
Again, if most sprinters don't want to compete, then why are they even running against other people?

With whom do you think all those, who are jogging or are visiting a fitness center are competing?

You got me there (I also go to the gym to stay in shape)... :)
But, if we looked at their motivation for going there, I'm sure we'd find some form of competition somewhere.
For example, I have a friend who goes to the gym to get in shape for his health, sure, but also, and in equal parts, to be better at softball and be able to compete more efficiently.

who are participating at tournaments are a minority.

Tournaments, perhaps, but competitive events?
Nope.
All team sports are competitive sports, all Olympic sports are competitive sports also...
Or else, we'd give medals to all the athletes who improved their personal results, not just the best three in each event.

But my argument still stands: With a rank, you won't know, if the pupil is good or bad. Maybe he/she is the one-eyed among the blinds or the cherry on the cake.

No, with a rank, you will know exactly how good he is, for this very reason:
He has a rank, and can be compared to the other students.

It's the first time, I have heard such thing.

Well, we'll leave at that then, since our school system is so different from one another.

As long as a person is giving its best to better itself, it has no reason to be sad, if it is not the best because it is impossible, that all are the best.

While I agree that not everyone can be the best, almost everyone is happy when they learn they are better then others.

But what happens with those, if they are already the best or don't have others to compare themselves with?

They compete to see how long they can be on top, for example, Lance Armstrong.


As for the union problem, you're right, unions in America are stupid.
As I said, they were usefull in the past, but no longer.

Look, I agree the drive to compete isn't the best human trait, but it is nonetheless a human trait found in the majority of humans, to different levels.
It drives us, it pushes us to do our best and beat the rest, as they say...

[sonofccn]

would count about 196 de facto independent countries in the world. I really don't think you could pick out one hundred of those and label their leaders "evil men" defensibly. I doubt you could pick out more than a dozen national leaders that "can't be reasoned with." You hear a lot about countries that other countries are busily condemning.

Fine you nailed me on an exageration. The point remains there are evil men in power and the bulk of the world either doesn't care or sees it as a benifite.

I think it's pretty clear this is because of failure to use diplomacy rather than failure of diplomacy.

How many deals did we make with Korea? Didn't they promise not to do it and then behold they went ahead and did it.

I can think of exactly one country that dismantled a nuclear program as a result of military action: Libya. And it wasn't military action directed towards them, so I suppose you could call that "diplomacy" of the crude sort.

Works better then a UN resolution :) If you want to call that diplomacy I have no qualms with it. I have nothing against diplomacy just people who think eveyr problem can be solved if we just ask nicely enough.

Considering the number of wars that have happened since 1945 (a fair number much bloodier), it's no wonder that North Korea's leadership concluded that owning a nuclear weapon was one way to avoid pre-emptive attacks by the United States. Perceived military threats have generated most of the world's nuclear programs, and accelerated the largest of them.

You are defending N. Korea? A two bit piece of {CENSORED} nation that is in dire straights but chose to develop nuclear weapons. You can not see the problem with a dictator possing nuclear weapons?

1973: Yom Kippur War, at which point Israel probably had nukes, although they've been tight-lipped about them. I'm not sure Egypt, Syria, and Iraq's leaders believed Israel had nuclear weapons at that point in time.

1982: Falklands war, starting with the Argentinians picking a fight with the UK. This was a low-level conflict rather than a full-scale war, and I doubt Argentina wasn't planning on winning a shooting war with Britain; simply try and pressure Britain through diplomatic circles to give up the islands rather than engage in a shooting war.

I'm not sure of what you are trying to show. I used N. Korea and Iran nuclear goals as an example of what diplomacy,minus the threat of total obliteration if one did not comply, resulted in. The same can be expected over any peace treaty, negoations, etc.