[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Exactly. Not even considering the ethics, from a strictly objective point of view, this could clearly create an incentive for employers to do what they can--hopefully within the law--to limit the life of their employees. That is not the kind of policy that is conducive to a high-functioning society.

And once again. I disagree with you. If they keep the policies even after the employee leaves the company for the tax deduction, and get the money anyway after said employee dies, what incentive is there for trying to kill their own employees, because they'll be needing to file a shitload of paperwork, train new workers to replace the newly dead ones, blah blah blah. They want the most amount of money for the least amount of effort. They're not going to risk lawsuits from poor working conditionsjust to make a few extra bucks through insurance policies

$1:

Which is exactly why we need socialism, IMHO. Which is exactly why we need a government to intrude on the free market and say "Hang on there fellas, you're not gonna be pulling that crap on my watch. We're talking about people here."

Because....why? Governments have the most incentive to killing off specific groups of people, like the old, Natives, and mentally and physically handicapped, because they're a "burden" to the government, through added health care costs, and for the Natives, who knows what else.

And you're making it sound like we have some 1800s capitalist society, where there is absolutely no safety standards or regulation.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

And once again. I disagree with you. If they keep the policies even after the employee leaves the company for the tax deduction, and get the money anyway after said employee dies, what incentive is there for trying to kill their own employees, because they'll be needing to file a shitload of paperwork, train new workers to replace the newly dead ones, blah blah blah. They want the most amount of money for the least amount of effort. They're not going to risk lawsuits from poor working conditionsjust to make a few extra bucks through insurance policies.

That's exactly what they did--risk lawsuits from the to make a few extra bucks. It paid off for a while. Then they lost some lawsuits, so they stopped doing it. Now they're trying to sue the insurance companies who sold them the whole idea to start with, I gather.

$1:

Because....why?

Because why? Because you said this...

$1:

To a company they're just investments. ... You really think a company really cares about the person, or the bottom line? Outside of maybe the local coworkers/boss/employees, the management level really doesn't care, because if they did, they wouldn't be good managers.

I'm a manager myself, and I wouldn't characterize myself that way, but I concede there are plenty who fit that mold.

$1:

Governments have the most incentive to killing off specific groups of people, like the old, Natives, and mentally and physically handicapped, because they're a "burden" to the government, through added health care costs, and for the Natives, who knows what else.

And you're making it sound like we have some 1800s capitalist society, where there is absolutely no safety standards or regulation.

It's not 1800s capitalist society, but it certainly has been going in the wrong direction for some time now. There has been a shift of wealth from the lower and middle class to the upper class. This massive payoff to the banks is just the latest in that trend. As Warren Buffet said "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

Most of the stuff that are in our homes are indeed the products of those 19th century practices. But now it's all offshore, so we don't have to concern ourselves with the low wages, the union busting and the child labour.

Capitalism itself has started to eat democracy. The lobby groups and their huge money and influence have locked Joe Citizen out of the halls of power. It's not even real capitalism anymore. The health insurance industries in the US are exempt from federal antitrust legislation. Halliburton is making untold billions on no bid contracts. It's become a rigged game for the super-wealthy.

And lastly because it just shows an enormous lack of imagination to think that the application of unfettered capitalism to every ill that faces the economy will solve the problem. You'd think, given the recent global economic collapse, that people would remember that.

[commanderkai]

Might as well respond to an old thread about a topic that seemingly was rehashed recently.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

That's exactly what they did--risk lawsuits from the to make a few extra bucks. It paid off for a while. Then they lost some lawsuits, so they stopped doing it. Now they're trying to sue the insurance companies who sold them the whole idea to start with, I gather.

Isn't it the government who "sold them the whole idea to start with" they were the ones who left the loophole open, not the insurance companies. These companies, and the insurance companies that provide these policies are just manipulating a loophole. Why not sue the government to close it or for opening it in the first place?

$1:

It's not 1800s capitalist society, but it certainly has been going in the wrong direction for some time now. There has been a shift of wealth from the lower and middle class to the upper class. This massive payoff to the banks is just the latest in that trend. As Warren Buffet said "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

And that's been in the case in form of government, economic system, and society since the beginning of time. Stop trying to fight against human nature because it'll win over any attempt to stop it. Though, I would like to know, when exactly did the poor and middle class have that much wealth to shift towards the rich? And why do you think that more government will somehow make more money go to the poor and middle classes? Even by your later example, you state that the government is owned by lobby groups, and as such more government will just mean more money to those corporations, or unions, or special interest groups.

$1:

Most of the stuff that are in our homes are indeed the products of those 19th century practices. But now it's all offshore, so we don't have to concern ourselves with the low wages, the union busting and the child labour.

So what do you want? An unified socialist government to keep everything in check? Because that seemingly has worked in the past, right?

$1:

Capitalism itself has started to eat democracy. The lobby groups and their huge money and influence have locked Joe Citizen out of the halls of power. It's not even real capitalism anymore.

Because there are no union lobbying either, right? Nice try. Unions are some of the biggest voting blocs in the United States, and they are seemingly some of the largest contributors of money to politicians. Lobby groups are not JUST the tools of corporations, but the tools of any organization, be it corporations, unions, or special interests groups

Joe Citizen never was in the halls of power to be locked out of it, and your attempts at populist argumentation isn't helping your case. There was no "direct democracy" for Joe Citizen to have a special voice in Congress or the Senate, outside of the election of those specific politicians.

$1:

And lastly because it just shows an enormous lack of imagination to think that the application of unfettered capitalism to every ill that faces the economy will solve the problem. You'd think, given the recent global economic collapse, that people would remember that.

And with that global economic collapse, you must remember, and seemingly those on the left who seemingly hate corporations, that the government played a very large part within the collapse through legislation, government corporations, and the lack of oversight of those government corporations.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Isn't it the government who "sold them the whole idea to start with" they were the ones who left the loophole open, not the insurance companies. These companies, and the insurance companies that provide these policies are just manipulating a loophole. Why not sue the government to close it or for opening it in the first place?

The government should have certainly closed that loopholes as soon they realized what was going on. But they didn't.

$1:

And that's been in the case in form of government, economic system, and society since the beginning of time. Stop trying to fight against human nature because it'll win over any attempt to stop it. Though, I would like to know, when exactly did the poor and middle class have that much wealth to shift towards the rich? And why do you think that more government will somehow make more money go to the poor and middle classes? Even by your later example, you state that the government is owned by lobby groups, and as such more government will just mean more money to those corporations, or unions, or special interest groups.

Stop trying to fight against human nature? What an odd comment to make. I don't understand that at all. Obvious, ideologically, we are miles apart. I don't think that the application of absolute capitalism to any given situation is the solution to every problem. Nor do I think that government is inherently evil, and sure wish to Hell some of the Adam Smith dialogues would actual read some Adam Smith sometimes. They might find that his position is much more nuanced than is contemporary thinking imagines.

$1:

So what do you want? An unified socialist government to keep everything in check? Because that seemingly has worked in the past, right?

False dichotomy. Socialism works just fine sometimes. Most countries, for example, have not privatized their military. We do OK here with our socialized health are system--most health indicators are very similar to those in the US, who have a much more privatized system. It's not a matter of all capitalism or all communism.

$1:

And with that global economic collapse, you must remember, and seemingly those on the left who seemingly hate corporations, that the government played a very large part within the collapse through legislation, government corporations, and the lack of oversight of those government corporations.

Yes, the government gave trillions to the banks and big corporations--just the people who got us in to the problem in the first place. That's my point.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The government should have certainly closed that loopholes as soon they realized what was going on. But they didn't.

Which, was, probably because A) Some politicians work for or own some of those companies that abuse the system. Or B) Politicians see this as a public boogeyman that they can scare up more support.

I'll give an example, sometime during the 2004 election, a Democrat supported a bill that would reinstate the draft. The left in the United States used said bill to scare up some votes, but when the bill came through, almost nobody voted for it, NOT EVEN THE GUY WHO SPONSORED THE BILL. Aka, a simple political tactic. These very visible loopholes that gain such notoriety which brings votes and political support, even if nobody will ever be done.

$1:

Stop trying to fight against human nature? What an odd comment to make. I don't understand that at all. Obvious, ideologically, we are miles apart. I don't think that the application of absolute capitalism to any given situation is the solution to every problem. Nor do I think that government is inherently evil, and sure wish to Hell some of the Adam Smith dialogues would actual read some Adam Smith sometimes. They might find that his position is much more nuanced than is contemporary thinking imagines.

Did I ever say I wanted absolute capitalism? Did I say government was inherently evil?

No, I said trying to stop the "growing gap between rich and poor" is a futile effort, no matter what you try. The rich have always become much more rich compared to the poor getting rich in little bits and pieces. Creating more government will just make more rich politicians rich than actually making the poor and middle class rich. That's where we disagreed.

Don't make assumptions or state my ideology when you're not even sure what it is. I might miles apart, but those miles aren't along some straight line between more socialism, larger government, and inherently evil corporations, and what you think I believe. Then again, maybe my summary of your political beliefs are off as well, but I don't think I ever stated I wanted absolute cap

$1:

False dichotomy. Socialism works just fine sometimes. Most countries, for example, have not privatized their military. We do OK here with our socialized health are system--most health indicators are very similar to those in the US, who have a much more privatized system. It's not a matter of all capitalism or all communism.

No, actually it wasn't. I did ask what you want. And I'm well aware that socialism or social democracy can work. But you're the one who stated that 19th century capitalism exists and produces a great deal of the consumer products we enjoy, and that you find that wrong. Now, unless we somehow force those nations to change their economic and labor policies, how do you want those 19th century standards in developing countries changed?

Edit: Just thinking...I can't even think of a 19th century capitalist state who privatized their military. Even when capitalism was in its heyday the military was still a government operation. Police as well.

$1:

Yes, the government gave trillions to the banks and big corporations--just the people who got us in to the problem in the first place. That's my point.

And the government is recreating the same legislation that created the original problem. If it's too much government, or not enough, or too much regulation or not enough, doesn't seem to matter when both sides keep continuing the same cycle.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Which, was, probably because A) Some politicians work for or own some of those companies that abuse the system. Or B) Politicians see this as a public boogeyman that they can scare up more support.

I'll give an example, sometime during the 2004 election, a Democrat supported a bill that would reinstate the draft. The left in the United States used said bill to scare up some votes, but when the bill came through, almost nobody voted for it, NOT EVEN THE GUY WHO SPONSORED THE BILL. Aka, a simple political tactic. These very visible loopholes that gain such notoriety which brings votes and political support, even if nobody will ever be done.

I don't disagree with any of that. What I can't see is why you support this as a successful way of doing business.

$1:

Did I ever say I wanted absolute capitalism? Did I say government was inherently evil?

No but so far Walmart is blameless and the government is responsible for the whole mess. Implying that if the government just got out of the way, everything would be fine. Standard neo-con philosophy.

$1:

No, I said trying to stop the "growing gap between rich and poor" is a futile effort, no matter what you try. The rich have always become much more rich compared to the poor getting rich in little bits and pieces. Creating more government will just make more rich politicians rich than actually making the poor and middle class rich. That's where we disagreed.

No that's not true at all. During the Industrial Revolution and the labour movement, the rich got less rich, and the poor got less poor. You think there was a middle class in Dickensian England? Human rights laws and the labour movement created the middle class. In my opinion, keeping human right and labour laws strong will preserve the middle class. Again, that's probably a fundamental ideological difference between us.

$1:

Don't make assumptions or state my ideology when you're not even sure what it is. I might miles apart, but those miles aren't along some straight line between more socialism, larger government, and inherently evil corporations, and what you think I believe. Then again, maybe my summary of your political beliefs are off as well, but I don't think I ever stated I wanted absolute cap

I make assumptions based on your comments. Besides I was referring ton general neo-conservative philosophy, not necessarily your viewpoint.

$1:

No, actually it wasn't. I did ask what you want. And I'm well aware that socialism or social democracy can work. But you're the one who stated that 19th century capitalism exists and produces a great deal of the consumer products we enjoy, and that you find that wrong. Now, unless we somehow force those nations to change their economic and labor policies, how do you want those 19th century standards in developing countries changed?

What I want? I like capitalism, but I also think workers have to protected from rapacious companies. Capitalism is so voracious that it will eat itself. It is a legitimate role of government to act as a check on rampant capitalism.

$1:

Edit: Just thinking...I can't even think of a 19th century capitalist state who privatized their military. Even when capitalism was in its heyday the military was still a government operation. Police as well.

I could be wrong but I think Rome tried it in the latter years--they had chiefly a mercenary army. It didn't work that well. If the enemy had more money, they'd switch sides.

Cheers--I'm done (though I'll read your response). Good debate as usual. You're a able foe in the debating arena!

[Zipperfish]

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't disagree with any of that. What I can't see is why you support this as a successful way of doing business.

Read a book called "The Other Europe" which discusses Eastern and Central Europe before the fall of the wall. Some of the most interesting chapters was how the Soviet and Eastern European governments kept propping up inefficient factories in ways you wouldn't even imagine in Canada and the US.

Is our system successful? No, but apart from things like the bubble bursting last year, the economy runs well enough. Are there things I take issue with? Of course, like the 19th century labor practices in Vietnam, China, and Indonesia, but I also have some optimism that in time, conditions will get better. Having a 19th century economy is better than having absolutely no economy, and sooner or later, those millions of workers in those countries will do exactly what our forefathers did here.

$1:

No but so far Walmart is blameless and the government is responsible for the whole mess. Implying that if the government just got out of the way, everything would be fine. Standard neo-con philosophy.

I never believe having government getting out of the way will work either, because if there was no government, it'd be anarcho-capitalism, and that just screams stupid. I'd much rather have a more efficient government. A "smaller" government that makes things simple for everyone. Tax law is thousands of pages long, and it creates numerous loopholes that individuals and companies exploit for their own benefit.

If we create a more efficient, streamlined government, it'll become "smaller" (as I, and others have used) and not only will things become simpler for everyone, be it those in power or those without. A smaller, more efficient government could actually work productively, and maybe work together better without needing to go through a few layers of paperwork and bureaucratic handling.

That's what I believe. Will it happen? Probably not, but I can dream, eh?

$1:

No that's not true at all. During the Industrial Revolution and the labour movement, the rich got less rich, and the poor got less poor. You think there was a middle class in Dickensian England? Human rights laws and the labour movement created the middle class.

I say the middle class was formed when the merchant classes began to appear across Europe after the Medieval era. Even so, those human rights movements and labor laws did have an impact. But, I don't think the rich became less rich, they were just as rich, and they were still making plenty of money, while the poor became richer a bit faster.

$1:

In my opinion, keeping human right and labour laws strong will preserve the middle class. Again, that's probably a fundamental ideological difference between us.

I can't agree. Labor unions went from representing their workers to representing whatever special interest or political movement was occurring. Union leaders are now political power brokers in government who take money away from those blue collar workers you think are protected.

$1:

I make assumptions based on your comments. Besides I was referring ton general neo-conservative philosophy, not necessarily your viewpoint.

Maybe, but it's better to make that distinction. It'll save the "?" movement I get when I'm trying to think back on when I said that.

$1:

What I want? I like capitalism, but I also think workers have to protected from rapacious companies. Capitalism is so voracious that it will eat itself. It is a legitimate role of government to act as a check on rampant capitalism.

I'll agree to that, but the government has become a part of the problem, and their checks and balances just add to previous checks and balances and thus the whole system becomes a mess.

$1:

Cheers--I'm done (though I'll read your response). Good debate as usual. You're a able foe in the debating arena!

It was fun, no doubt. Have a good weekend Zip

[CanadianJeff]

My biggest question and I think the number one grounds for an employee to sue over this:

"If the company makes money when I die doesn't that destroy any incentive they would normally have to comply with my right to a safe workplace?"

"If I have been putting my safety in the hands of those people who took advantage of it without my consent or knowledge don't I have a right to be compensated?"

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I haven't seen it yet. I just heard about the dead peasant thing at the pub. Kind of blew my mind. I like capitalism, but it has to be contained and controlled.

No doubt, uncontrolled capitalism invariably morphs into robber barons and monopolies, which screw over everyone but the very wealthy. A little government regulation now and then can be a good thing.

[CanadianJeff]

The key then boot is now and then. Too much government regulation both hurts the economy and the people.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I haven't seen it yet. I just heard about the dead peasant thing at the pub. Kind of blew my mind. I like capitalism, but it has to be contained and controlled.

No doubt, uncontrolled capitalism invariably morphs into robber barons and monopolies, which screw over everyone but the very wealthy. A little government regulation now and then can be a good thing.

So let's ignore the fact is was an overbloated tax code that created this loophole in the first place?

[Brenda]

I think this is disgusting. IMO, NO ONE should be able to take out a life-insurance but yourself (or as a parent, take one out on your children), with someone on it who gets the money when you die (other than suicide). When your kids die, you get paid, when you die, your kids or spouse get the money, or it pays your mortgage.

But an employer??? Fuck no.

[Brenda]

commanderkai commanderkai:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I haven't seen it yet. I just heard about the dead peasant thing at the pub. Kind of blew my mind. I like capitalism, but it has to be contained and controlled.

No doubt, uncontrolled capitalism invariably morphs into robber barons and monopolies, which screw over everyone but the very wealthy. A little government regulation now and then can be a good thing.

So let's ignore the fact is was an overbloated tax code that created this loophole in the first place?

Fix the damned hole. It's disgusting and it sounds like China.

[Newfy]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So since these parents weren't big corporations the question now becomes we're these parental "Dead Peasant" Life Insurance Policies anymore fair than an employer looking out for his company?

Absolutely not. Parents doing that is also completely immoral and disgusting.

When did we all become dollar signs?

And that's why it's illegal in the UK for parents to take out insurance policies on their children.