[Krivich]

I think that these questions can clarify a question for me because i do not see nothing good in this idea. May be someone can convince me in the opposite.
1. Does it exist the limit of the wealth and must it exist?
2. Where does the wealth originate?
3. The wealth of one is a cause of poverty of other, is not it?

[Cartertonian]

Why not introduce yourself in the lobby, Krivich?

I'm guessing English is not your first language, so you may get more help in re-framing your question once we've got to know you...

[Krivich]

Do you think that my question is unclear? I hope I am right.
I just wanted to understand how much it costs for the man in the street liberal freedom.
I'm sorry for my English.

[Genghis Khan]

Gotta go. I'll try to answer that later in the day or tomorrow.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Your questions seem more about economics than about liberalism. In fact, in the 3 questions in your first post, there's nothing about liberalism at all. And in your second post, you wonder if liberal freedom is connected with a 'cost'. You could have many arguments about that, but quite possibly the answer is that liberal freedom creates conditions that help economies expand. The industrial revolution in the 19th century was a period of increasing liberal freedom, and many countries in the 20th century became wealthier at the same time as becoming more liberal, eg South Korea. Free trade was a liberal policy, not a conservative one. A totalitarian state is not as innovative as a liberal one; though it might be organised more efficiently, if the ruling powers are benign and competent.

[Genghis Khan]

I think that these questions can clarify a question for me because i do not see nothing good in this idea. May be someone can convince me in the opposite.
1. Does it exist the limit of the wealth and must it exist?
2. Where does the wealth originate?
3. The wealth of one is a cause of poverty of other, is not it?

1) Can't say I understand the question. I'm guessing you're talking about unrestrained Capitalism, in which case I would say that Liberals are in favor of Capitalism, while understanding that left unwatched, people do and will get greedy and will do so at the overwhelming expense of others, so some government regulations need to be in place to control them.

2) Well... everywhere. From small businesses all the way to major corporations.

3) Not necessarily. The economy is not a zero sum game. Wealth can be generated from a variety of methods, but it is true to some extent, that if you earn a dollar, someone else may have lost it.

Your questions are way more economical than a liberal vs. conservative argument, so I'm not sure what you're trying to determine here.

[Krivich]

Hi Genghis Khan. Perhaps my question is inapt here, but I thought that the economy defines all. Ideology without the major object is a collection of empty phrases.
Sorry, but I would like to say a few words here and I beg to differ with you.
1) Yes, people get greedy. But no, they won’t necessarily get greedy. Greed can be brought up and developed, but can be suppressed. All is in our hands.
2) So the production is a source of the wealth.
3) The economy is not a zero sum game but the resources are limited. The production is the conversion resources. In the production is participating workers and managers. Shareholders, which is not involved in the production receive dividends. Dividends emerge from the surplus value which is created by managers and workers. Part of the proceeds goes to the workers, managers and shareholders. This part includes a portion of the costs (wages) and a portion of profits (dividends). Dividends can be increased only by two ways: technology development and reducing the cost of wages. {reducing the cost of resources, means of production and maintenance is not possibly, because the resources are limited} The first leads to the loss of jobs, the second to reduce the wage. As a result, the some is richer, the other is poorer.

[DanDaMan]

1) Yes, people get greedy. But no, they won’t necessarily get greedy. Greed can be brought up and developed, but can be suppressed. All is in our hands.

When man fails to put his self interest first he becomes useless and dies.

Honestly...can you care for others for long at the detriment of your own care? No.

[SpecialOlympian]

I agree with DDM. That's pretty much the conclusion I came to after reading the New Testament.

[Genghis Khan]

but I thought that the economy defines all

Maybe conservatives think that. Liberals don't. There is a lot more to life than the economy.

Yes, people get greedy. But no, they won’t necessarily get greedy.

I'll make it clearer - Some people will be greedy. It's not because they're conservatives. It's because they're people, and humans have an unsurpassed ability to rationalize their own greediness at others expense. They will convice themselves that what they're doing is not really bad and that they're actually doing others a favor.

Left to their own, people are not too bright at capping their own want, and if they become financially powerful enough, they will and often do hurt others who do not possess this kind of power.

There's nothing wrong with the fact that some people are rich and some aren't, but there is a sense that this widening of the gap has occurred at a rate that is systemic and must be fixed in some way to try and guarantee opportunity for all, rich or poor.

And no, it does not equal socialism, even though conservatives love that sound byte.

[DanDaMan]

Krivich wrote:
but I thought that the economy defines all

Maybe conservatives think that. Liberals don't. There is a lot more to life than the economy.

Liberals at home still living with mommy and daddy or on some sort of welfare think that.
The rest out of work beg to differ.

There's nothing wrong with the fact that some people are rich and some aren't, but there is a sense that this widening of the gap has occurred at a rate that is systemic and must be fixed in some way to try and guarantee opportunity for all, rich or poor.

And no, it does not equal socialism, even though conservatives love that sound byte.

Tell us.... what other government and Constitution has done better than Americas at that?

[SlipperyPeople]

Krivich, are talking about classical liberalism? Everything you mentioned in the OP seems to relate to classical liberal and its attendant economics. I believe this forum is meant more for modern, social liberalism, and that classical liberalism generally goes in the libertarian forum.

[Genghis Khan]

Liberals at home still living with mommy and daddy or on some sort of welfare think that.
The rest out of work beg to differ.

If you actually followed the rule of: "if you don't have anything intelligent to say, don't say anything at all", you wouldn't be in this forum.

[Rei Murasame]

Tell us.... what other government and Constitution has done better than Americas at that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_ ... t_2009.png

The list is quite long and somehow includes a lot of places in Europe and East Asia.

[Krivich]

Those places in Europe an East Asia exist owing to USA. USA is a hope and a support for them.

[Genghis Khan]

Those places in Europe an East Asia exist owing to USA. USA is a hope and a support for them.

No. On both.

[Krivich]

Why? Why both?

[Rei Murasame]

Why? Why both?

Well, let me choose some of those that rank above the USA on the 'guarantee opportunity' criteria that DanDaMan wanted:

Sweden: Was neutral to you in WWII.

Republic of Slovenia: Only came into existence in 1990.

Czech Republic: Only came into existence in 1989.

Austria: Need I comment?

Republic of Finland: Fought against the Soviets in WWII, later established trade relations with the UK.

Republic of Serbia: Need I comment?

Kingdom of the Netherlands: The first country to become capitalist in Europe.

Canada: Need I comment?

Hellenic Republic (Greece): The USA talks to Greece?

Italian Republic: Need I comment?

ROC (Taiwan): Let's not get into how the USA kisses up so much to Communist China.

Swiss Confederation: Self explanatory.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Need I comment?

New Zealand: Who saw that coming?

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Ironically.

State of Japan: Need I comment?

Republic of the Philippines: Also ironic.


List can go on.

[DanDaMan]

DanDaMan wrote:
Tell us.... what other government and Constitution has done better than Americas at that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_ ... t_2009.png

The list is quite long and somehow includes a lot of places in Europe and East Asia.

I dont think those really compare since America has been the destination of choice for over 100 years.
Unless of course you wanted to make less money and have a nanny state take care of you.

[Rei Murasame]

Why is it that you never have any facts to back up your statements?