Sources: Obama Plays Peacemaker in French-Chinese Smackdown Over Tax Havens

Obama is a Sign of the World Entering Islam

He is a sign that Islam victory awaited. And he was selected with the concept of Islam to become president. Old concept of form from which they have abandoned the concept of Islam that is replaced is that he take and what would he give. Thus, he ignores personality profile and the focus on important national issue for the people of the United States.

"We saw it in the Native Americans, many of whom still struggle to bring back their peaceful, free, and sustainable ways of life."

While Native Americans had no concept of land ownership they did have a concept of territorial rights. They fought wars over territorial rights long before the appearance of the White man from Europe. Some tribes even took slaves as spoils of their victories. And some tribes had a caste system. It may have been a much simpler life, but I wouldn't call it a perfect lifestyle.

"Communities will regulate and organize themselves to provide all their needs and more, and they'll live more fully and freely in the process."

This works fine for ants and other insects. But for humans? Human emotions, wants and needs are individual desires and not collective desires. I'm sorry but unless every individual is completely brainwashed to conform (which in and of itself would destroy any semblance of freedom) I don't see it working. Jealousy is a human emotion. Eventually someone will complain about someone else being treated differently and before you know it the community will no longer work smoothly and turmoil will result. Anger is a human emotion. Eventually someone will express anger over something. In due time that anger will fester and it is inevitable that someone will act on that anger and cause bodily harm or death.

"I'd hate to live my life according to a single idea only to find out in the end it was wrong. What a wasted life that would be."

With all due respect, it sounds like you are already wasting your time on a single idea for all of society.

Now as for the specific context in which you made the comment, I prefer to look at it the other way around. Should it turn out that there is no God then I have lived a good life adhering to my Christian principles--certainly not a waste of life. BUT if I live my life breaking every Commandment and not adhering to God's Word, and then upon my death come face to face with God and discover I must live in Hell for eternity, than that WOULD be a wasted life that I had lived.

Obviously we will never agree on what is best for all mankind. But I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion nonetheless.

"The society that you seem to be advocating has been around longer than mankind itself. You are describing the Ant World. But even that is not "perfect" because the Ant World is part of the larger Animal Kingdom, which is nothing more than the survival of the fittest. And ants have their own natural predators."

An ant? That's what my office managers try to turn me into - a single-minded worker drone devoid of all individuality. You're telling me that a culture lacking property and authority is some kind of brainwashing dictatorship? And survival of the fittest? Isn't that one of the mantras of capitalist competition?

And you're saying we can't survive without property and authority? Then how did we get where we are? The human race is roughly 200,000 years old, and the first civilization (Sumer) didn't appear until like 7 or 8 thousand years ago.

Of course, if you're the young earth type, then this discussion is already over. I respect Christians as much as anybody else, but you just can't reason with "I'm right because the Bible says so."

"The Human Race is incapable of surviving in a system that is modeled after the Ant World. That's because in addition to our Inalienable Rights--Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness--God (I suspect you will now say that you are also an atheist) gave humans the gift of Knowledge and the ability to think and reason. Ants were not given these attributes so they survive well enough--unable to complain--with the tools that God gave them. Inevitably some individuals will decide that they are not happy living like an ant and they will either revolt or leave the community. Either way, there will be millions of other individuals who will join them. And the Human "ant world" system will be destroyed."

No. I'm an agnostic. There are legitimate reasons to consider intelligent design, but anybody who claims to know the truth of creation (religious or atheist) must be blind to the diversity of ideas in the world... or just that arrogant.

And ya... I'm pretty sick of living in the ant world. Sure our demographics are a little better than theirs. We have 1-2% of the population ruling everyone else. For ants it's probably more like .001% (a single queen), but it's still not good enough for me. I know the world can't be perfect, but actively making it worse is inexcusable. I cannot imagine any good reason to support an institution which wastes life, challenges freedom, and promotes inequality.

We CAN do better. I don't even believe we have to go back to the Stone Age. If people stop wasting, hoarding, and laying claim to the earth's resources, and we all exercise freedom from indoctrination and slavery... impossible under Capitalism. Communities will regulate and organize themselves to provide all their needs and more, and they'll live more fully and freely in the process.

There are plenty of examples if you only bother to look. Enough people recognize the potential for such a life and are willing to act on it. We saw it in the American Revolution, the Spanish Revolution, and Greece in 2008. Many places and aspects of the internet operate peacefully and productively by anarchist ideals. We saw it in the Native Americans, many of whom still struggle to bring back their peaceful, free, and sustainable ways of life.

I just don't understand how you can state these ideals of life and liberty, admit to constant horrors enacted by our societies directly counter to those ideals, be shown alternatives which didn't have these problems and upheld your ideals, and continue to shrug it off and support the continued atmosphere of oppression we're all forced to live in. It doesn't make any sense.

"My own personal opinion is that our time here on earth is just a preparation for the hereafter--an eternity WITH God or an eternity FROM God. As humans, we naturally see, hear, taste, touch and smell based on our humanity. All of our thoughts and emotions are based on our humanity. But God sees things from His perspective. And we humans are incapable of understanding His perspective. I strongly believe that God allows tragedies and disasters to happen because He wants us to use these experiences to grow closer to Him here on Earth. And our reward will be an eternity with Him when our humanity is done."

I hope you're right, for your sake. I'd hate to live my life according to a single idea only to find out in the end it was wrong. What a wasted life that would be. Personally, I think it's terribly reckless and tragic to bank the only life we can be sure of on the hunch that there might be something else.

There's good evidence to support reincarnation, but that doesn't mean I'm going to treat death like a reset button whenever I'm frustrated with my situation. This life is the only thing I can be sure of, and I can't possibly justify taking any chance which might waste my life or anyone else's.

"The only free society is one which abolishes both (property and authority), and don't try to tell me that such a thing is impossible or has never existed. Indigenous cultures operated without these ideas for roughly 98% of human history, and some still manage to do so today, though authoritarian and property-oriented cultures which are inherently imperialistic have largely eradicated them."

The society that you seem to be advocating has been around longer than mankind itself. You are describing the Ant World. But even that is not "perfect" because the Ant World is part of the larger Animal Kingdom, which is nothing more than the survival of the fittest. And ants have their own natural predators.

The Human Race is incapable of surviving in a system that is modeled after the Ant World. That's because in addition to our Inalienable Rights--Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness--God (I suspect you will now say that you are also an atheist) gave humans the gift of Knowledge and the ability to think and reason. Ants were not given these attributes so they survive well enough--unable to complain--with the tools that God gave them. Inevitably some individuals will decide that they are not happy living like an ant and they will either revolt or leave the community. Either way, there will be millions of other individuals who will join them. And the Human "ant world" system will be destroyed.

My own personal opinion is that our time here on earth is just a preparation for the hereafter--an eternity WITH God or an eternity FROM God. As humans, we naturally see, hear, taste, touch and smell based on our humanity. All of our thoughts and emotions are based on our humanity. But God sees things from His perspective. And we humans are incapable of understanding His perspective. I strongly believe that God allows tragedies and disasters to happen because He wants us to use these experiences to grow closer to Him here on Earth. And our reward will be an eternity with Him when our humanity is done.

"Many of the "10 more people" exhibit intregrity, dedication and sacrifice much in order to provide for their families. For many, the sacrifices they make is reciprocated by the love they receive from their children. That love is HARDLY "never achieve anything.""

When they get to see their children... if their children don't spite them for never being around... if the experience of growing up practically without parents doesn't leave them emotionally dysfunctional...

"Life is not fair. If it was there would be no physical or emotional pain, there would be no sickness, there would be no death. So the best we can do is live our lives in spite of the hands we are dealt."

Yes. Those things are a given. This is why life should be cherished and equally valued, because we all face those realities (I was about to say equally, but I changed my mind). Instead, 90% of the world is forced to spend the majority of their lives scampering to support their lives - never truly living.

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.

"In a Free Society under Capitalism and the Free Market, those who are dealt--metaphorically speaking--lesser hands CAN improve his or her lot in life, and possibly improve the chances that his or her children are dealt better hands, through hard work and determination. Individual entrepreneurship thrives!"

Just because a handful of people manage to improve their status doesn't mean it's possible for everyone, or even possible for many. Remember that if you're not wealthy, you're forced to live your life according to rules written by the wealthy for the sake of reinforcing their status. You also seem to be speaking from a very American perspective. America is the most powerful nation in the world, and it's no surprise that we enjoy some social mobility. In most other places, attempts to improve one's social status are frequently met with violence, such as death squads in South America.

Take it even one more step further and consider that it takes a measure of selfishness to accumulate wealth. Seriously, when 10% of the world's population owns 85% of the wealth, how does that top 10% live with that knowledge? I make less than 30k/yr, and I have trouble supporting two kids in a 3 bedroom apartment. Then I think about the fact that something like 5 1/2 billion people have it worse than me! I still haven't figured out how to live with that! It's incomprehensible! I KNOW I'm not better than all those people. When I think about it, desiring more for myself is like spitting in the face of all those people, and it's really really hard for me to respect anybody cold-hearted enough to actually want to get rich.

"In a Socialistic Society the government uses social welfare programs to promote universal employment and health care. It is nothing more than pure wealth redistribution--punishes success and promotes complacency. There is little incentive for individual entrepreneurship."

Am I really expected to believe that taking some resources away from a handful of selfish people who have more than they could possible need in several lifetimes of extravagance and giving those resources to a majority of people who cannot even afford their basic necessities is punishment?!?!

"A Communistic Society has a similar economic system of a Socialistic Society but adds political control. The Party controls nearly all aspects of (in theory) a class-less society, with everyone being equal and all property is owned by everyone collectively, not by individuals. The people are slaves of the Party. Individualism is practically non-existent."

FYI, I'm not communist either. So I won't even bother critiquing this, since we're in agreement.

"In a Totalitarian Society the regime in power controls every aspect of public and private life. The regime deals the hands and determines who will succeed in life and who will be slaves to the regime."

Isn't this what I've been describing as the end result of any advanced capitalist society?

"IN SPITE of the faults it may have, I prefer a Free Society under Capitalism and the Free Market. I believe an individual has the God-given right to self-determination."

Faults? I think the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of millions (by impoverished denial of food, shelter, and medical care or overwork or war for profit or I could go on) and economic subjugation of billions (wage slavery) should be seen as more than merely a "fault" of the system. I guess the saying is true. "The death of one is a tragedy. The death of a million is just a statistic."

You and I must have very different definitions of freedom and self-determination, because I don't see either of these as features of a system which inherently promotes inequality and the conversion of human lives and life's necessities into commodities.

And FYI, I don't support any of the systems listed above. I'm an anarchist. I'm against all systems of social hierarchy or illegitimate authority. The core of all of society's flaws can be traced back to the concepts of property and authority, which are interdependent concepts and inherent in all of the systems you listed.

Property is authority, and authority is the means of defending property. This applies to any society which recognizes either concept. The only free society is one which abolishes both, and don't try to tell me that such a thing is impossible or has never existed. Indigenous cultures operated without these ideas for roughly 98% of human history, and some still manage to do so today, though authoritarian and property-oriented cultures which are inherently imperialistic have largely eradicated them.

"...there are 10 more people who work their fingers to the bone every day their entire lives and never achieve anything."

Many of the "10 more people" exhibit intregrity, dedication and sacrifice much in order to provide for their families. For many, the sacrifices they make is reciprocated by the love they receive from their children. That love is HARDLY "never achieve anything."

Life is not fair. If it was there would be no physical or emotional pain, there would be no sickness, there would be no death. So the best we can do is live our lives in spite of the hands we are dealt.

In a Free Society under Capitalism and the Free Market, those who are dealt--metaphorically speaking--lesser hands CAN improve his or her lot in life, and possibly improve the chances that his or her children are dealt better hands, through hard work and determination. Individual entrepreneurship thrives!

In a Socialistic Society the government uses social welfare programs to promote universal employment and health care. It is nothing more than pure wealth redistribution--punishes success and promotes complacency. There is little incentive for individual entrepreneurship.

A Communistic Society has a similar economic system of a Socialistic Society but adds political control. The Party controls nearly all aspects of (in theory) a class-less society, with everyone being equal and all property is owned by everyone collectively, not by individuals. The people are slaves of the Party. Individualism is practically non-existent.

In a Totalitarian Society the regime in power controls every aspect of public and private life. The regime deals the hands and determines who will succeed in life and who will be slaves to the regime.

IN SPITE of the faults it may have, I prefer a Free Society under Capitalism and the Free Market. I believe an individual has the God-given right to self-determination.

"To take that comment literally would mean that there really is no such thing as the "American Dream." However, the proof is in the pudding! There have been millions of Americans, and even thousands of legal immigrants, who have LITERALLY gone from "rags to riches.""

I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. Sure, some people pull it off, just like some people survive plane crashes... against all odds. With so many billions of people in the world, there will be those who break the mold. But in the larger picture, I guarantee it's a very small percentage. I bet for every person who pursues their dreams with dedication and manages to achieve a better life, there are 10 more people who work their fingers to the bone every day their entire lives and never achieve anything. They're too busy scraping a day to day existence from the bottom of the barrel.

Besides, you're talking about the *American* Dream. Well what about the rest of the world? The U.S. only contains about 4.5% of the world's population, and our success rides on the subjugation of other nations... even continents. I suggest you read up on the CIA's "Dirty Wars" in South America for a good starting point on that subject. We basically turned most of South America into a slave economy. It's not conspiracy theory. Knowledge of these actions have come straight out of the CIA itself in courtrooms, declassified documents, and the remorseful confessions of their own operatives. Plus, I work for U.S. Customs. I SEE it with my own eyes in paperwork every day. They ship enormous amounts of clothing here through free trade agreements like CAFTA for measly cents, which are then sold over here for literally hundreds of times the price for the profit of American businesses. Several of these countries like Honduras, Peru, & Argentina were forced into these situations under the looming presence of death squads trained & funded by U.S. interests.

That's the true nature of our American Dream.

"TO LIMIT WEALTH IS TO LIMIT IDEAS AND THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT! So much of the technology we use today was created as a way to make money--discovering or developing more efficient methods or products to sell to customers who want to improve their lifestyle or make their work more efficient."

So you are literally telling me that preventing the power hoarding of a selfish (as you no longer seem to be arguing that point) minority of society and the subsequent subjugation of the majority is an obstruction of progress?

Not only do I find this sentiment disturbing, but I would argue that the profit motive hinders progress more than encouraging it.

For example, you know why we don't have clean, renewable energy yet? It's because fossil fuels are such a steady source of profit, while nobody's figured out how to charge for wind and sunshine... yet!

How about software? It's noteworthy that many open source (i.e. anarchist!) software developments outperform their commercial alternatives, but that's just a side note. Software, once written, is essentially an unlimited resource which offers humanity enhanced knowledge, power, and cultural enrichment. Imagine how humanity could benefit if ALL software was free! There's technically no reason it shouldn't be so, except for the profit motive.

How about pharmaceuticals? Third world countries can't afford most brand name medicines. At the same time, pharmaceutical companies have been pushing more and more aggressive intellectual property laws in this industry, so that nobody can make cheaper generic alternatives for the poor. So millions perish in the third world due to curable illnesses, because giant pharmaceutical corporations refuse to allow the expendable poor to cut into their profits.

Here's one that will hit closer to home for most people, as sad as that is. So many people complain about how stagnant Hollywood, the music industry, or video games are. They keep pushing out the same ideas and content over and over again. We all know it's because executives insist on producing work which has generated profits in the past, regardless of what new and worthy ideas are available to them. They have no reason to take risks - no reason to pursue progress, because of the profit motive.

How about today's housing situation? So many people are being forced out of their homes, but for what? So they can sit empty and rot in negligence? What good does that do anybody? How is this progress? These people are being cast off like garbage by our society for no other reason than they're not generating profit, and property owners have no reason to share with those who do not offer them profit. Did you know that banking officials have admitted that 2/3 of the homes they repossess are being kept off the market in order to keep prices artificially high? So much waste in the name of profit! But this doesn't count, you say, because it's counter to free market ideals! They're not adhering to the principles of supply and demand! But it's their property. Do they not have the freedom to refuse to sell it? If we restricted their freedom to do as they please with their own property in order to enforce free market ideals, is that still a free market? Heck, is that even capitalism anymore?

Now what would happen if we cast off the profit motive? Do you honestly believe that people would just slump to the floor and waste away in pools of lethargy? Of course not. Instead of doing what generates profit, they would dedicate their lives to doing what matters to them. Priority #1 would be ensuring the means of survival.

There's a lot of people going hungry in the world. At the same time, did you know that 2/3 of the food on grocery store shelves gets thrown out? Look up Freeganism, Dumpster Diving, and Food Not Bombs - entire social movements built on nothing but the wasted nourishment of capitalism! Did you know that many farmers are actually paid EXTRA to produce at less than their capacity so that agro-businesses can maintain scarcity and keep their prices up?

I guarantee that this mockery of human need would not continue in the absence of a profit motive.

Look up the Spanish Revolution of 1936. It's a fantastic historical example of anarchist principles effectively put into action. The entire nation cast off government and capitalism. They managed to not only maintain effective infrastructure and livelihood, but improved productivity in some sectors and even defend against violent fascist invaders for a couple years through simple de-centralized, collective organizing.

As for progress, all of technology stands on the shoulders of scientific giants who operated not for profit, but for a love of knowledge. Plus, do you honestly believe that people would stop trying to improve their lives just because they're not getting paid for it? I find the notion ridiculous

"Now there is ONE aspect of the latter comment that should be considered: Term limits for Congress! So many of our Representatives and Senators have made careers out of public service. Many have accumulated wealth on the backs of the taxpayers and have far too much power."

Of course I agree with you, but as long as society operates on capitalist principles, this isn't going to change. They got there by the power of their wealth, and the power of their wealth will maintain this status quo. A massive popular movement may change things temporarily, but eventually people will falter in their vigilance and wealth will move in and reinstate its position of power.

SalmonGod, while I agree with much of what you wrote I totally disagree with two of your comments:
(1) "Thus, unless you're born wealthy, you're born a wage slave."
To take that comment literally would mean that there really is no such thing as the "American Dream." However, the proof is in the pudding! There have been millions of Americans, and even thousands of legal immigrants, who have LITERALLY gone from "rags to riches." The vast majority of these individuals stayed true to their roots and spread their new found wealth to the needy. And many of these individuals opened the door for others to do the same, either by example or personally mentoring and nurturing them.
(2) "The only way to avoid this consolidation of power is if society enforces a limit on the accumulation of wealth, and somehow ensures that nobody ever finds a way around that limit, thus gaining enough power to remove it."
TO LIMIT WEALTH IS TO LIMIT IDEAS AND THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT! So much of the technology we use today was created as a way to make money--discovering or developing more efficient methods or products to sell to customers who want to improve their lifestyle or make their work more efficient.

Now there is ONE aspect of the latter comment that should be considered: Term limits for Congress! So many of our Representatives and Senators have made careers out of public service. Many have accumulated wealth on the backs of the taxpayers and have far too much power.

"SalmonGod, you are attributing human traits to a concept. The Free Market has no emotion, it has no feelings, it is incapable of judgment. It is a concept! It is the humans within the Free Market system who chose to be selfish or compassionate. It is the humans within the Free Market system who chose to act responsibly or not."

You're misinterpreting. Yes. Free Market is an abstract concept. Yes. It's people who make decisions.

But Capitalism is a concept which sets forth principles by which society operates. In other words, it's a way of life. When I grow up in a society which operates in a certain way, it has a very strong effect on my world view.

I'm not saying that Capitalism is some conscious entity that's actively trying to poison my mind. I'm saying that just as a desert raises people who value water, capitalism raises people who value property. You're born into a world where every idea, place, and thing is owned by someone. To have ANYTHING, even the necessities of life, you have to get it from somebody else. The only way to do this is by trade. If you have nothing to trade, you have to sell yourself and/or your labor. You can't rely on generosity, because people who give up their property freely give up their own market presence and eventually have nothing to give. Some people have far more than they could ever possibly need, but they didn't obtain it by being generous.

Thus, unless you're born wealthy, you're born a wage slave. You find a person/entity who owns tons of property. They tell you what to do, and hopefully you're able to find a master who can/will offer a decent livelihood in return.

Keep in mind that it's extremely unlikely, as discussed earlier, that this master is a generous person. You're selling yourself to him. You are living life by his rules in exchange for the right to live. This person has absolutely no reason to have interest in designing those rules to your advantage. He will give you what you need in order to serve him.

Of course, you have freedom to quit at any time (ignoring the likelihood that you're bound to a contract), but then what? How do you support yourself?

How this resembles an equal playing field or any kind of self-determination must be far beyond my comprehension.

"In a FREE society it is not the responsibility of the government to dictate compassion or force people to act responsibly. It is the government's responsibility to indict, prosecute and convict those who BREAK THE LAW, not who fail to meet a compassion test or who fail to meet a test for acting responsibly."

You nailed it. Right on the head. Remember that property is power, and it's most easily obtained by the selfish. It naturally follows that any government, no matter how well-meaning in its original creation, will become populated with wealthy, selfish people. The wealthy have the time and resources to pursue government influence for their own ends, while their (wage) slaves hardly have the time or resources to even figure out what's really going on in politics because they're too busy working for their right to exist.

The only way to avoid this consolidation of power is if society enforces a limit on the accumulation of wealth, and somehow ensures that nobody ever finds a way around that limit, thus gaining enough power to remove it. Not likely. Not to mention completely contradictory to free market ideals.

It's funny you so enjoy referencing the founding fathers also, because many of the most famous of them were extremely critical of their own ideas. I won't write a dissertation here on the characters of people like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, or Andrew Jackson. If you're interested in truth, you will take the initiative to read up on history you weren't taught in high school.

Suffice to say that most of the highly regarded founders of the U.S. wholeheartedly admitted that their institutions where highly vulnerable and could easily be turned on the very people they were created to protect, if those people were not extremely vigilant and even occasionally violent. Andrew Jackson is an especially striking example of this, as his presidency was marked by a heated battle with a bank which he saw as growing too large, gaining too much political influence, and threatening the long-term freedom of the nation. How very Un-Laissez Faire of him.

But then, he couldn't live to fight banks forever, and we all know much gigantic power they wield today. Naturally, wealth consolidates and freedom disintegrates, even if it begins as a free market.

Kudo's to Obama's PR firm.....

of course their objective has changed...

they GOT him elected....their job one right now is to keep his numbers from falling....

Making him look like a HERO [now who excatly relayed this story?????]

"not a white house staffer"....hhhmmmm....

I'm sure someone sidled up and heard the WHOLE thing.....ya...thats it

SalmonGod, you are attributing human traits to a concept. The Free Market has no emotion, it has no feelings, it is incapable of judgment. It is a concept! It is the humans within the Free Market system who chose to be selfish or compassionate. It is the humans within the Free Market system who chose to act responsibly or not. In a FREE society it is not the responsibility of the government to dictate compassion or force people to act responsibly. It is the government's responsibility to indict, prosecute and convict those who BREAK THE LAW, not who fail to meet a compassion test or who fail to meet a test for acting responsibly.

Our founding fathers wrote the U. S. Constitution so that the federal government would "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The federal government is responsible for allowing an equal playing field, not guaranteeing everyone will succeed equally. We still (at least for now) believe in the Individual's right to self-determination: By virtue of that right they freely determine their OWN political status and freely pursue their OWN economic, their OWN social and their OWN cultural development.

Sorry, "Joe the Plumber," but you know NOTHING. In what way is Obama an elitist? Go ahead - look the word up, and then try to give me an example of a way in which he's acted that way. Know why you can't do it? Because you're spouting off garbage someone smarter than you made up.

I couldn't stand "your president", but I ALWAYS hoped he'd succeed for the sake of this country. This country would be better if people like you would leave it.

"Now then what you are describing is NOT the Free Market but the INDIVIDUAL. The Free Market is not selfish or greedy. It is the Individual who may be selfish, greedy or even a criminal. It is the Individual who is or isn't compassionate."

The free market is competitive. Competition is naturally egocentric. Competition is about winning for oneself. Thus, it naturally favors selfishness. Not that competition (being an abstract concept) is selfish, rather it rewards selfishness. Thus, free markets grant power to the selfish. Selfish people will naturally use their power in order to gain more power. Thus the free market destroys itself.

Unless rules are put in place that prevent anybody from ever getting ahead, which in itself is a contradiction of capitalism's core principles.

The ideal of the free market is logically impossible.

And the idea that freedom and inequality are incompatible is inherently contradictory, and flies in the face of history. First of all, inequality means freedom only for a few, therefore not a free society. Then there are modern historic examples of successful anarchist societies, but they were all torn down by imperialistic invaders. There's also the fact that over 98% of human history is indigenous (Civilization as we know it hasn't been around for very long), and indigenous cultures enjoyed huge amounts of freedom, equality, sustainability, and a relative lack of violence compared to "civilized" cultures.

SalmonGod, no offense but you are completely wrong about the Free Market.

In the Free Market prices rise as demand increases or supply decreases. Prices drop as demand decreases or supply increases. When prices get too high the Free Market corrects itself as people cut back on purchasing. When prices get too low the Free Market corrects itself as people see the bargin and begin purchasing again. It's just that simple.

However, when outside sources interfere with the Free Market (i.e., government forces a company to produce a particular product; forces extra costs in producing a particular product; or sets price controls) it will effect the Free Market process. Sometimes it is for the public good and safety. Sometimes it is nothing more than meddling for the sake of being able to control. Regardless, the Free Market is then a LIMITED Free Market.

Now then what you are describing is NOT the Free Market but the INDIVIDUAL. The Free Market is not selfish or greedy. It is the Individual who may be selfish, greedy or even a criminal. It is the Individual who is or isn't compassionate.

In a FREE society there will always be the Have's and Have Nots. That's because no two INDIVIDUALS are alike. Some individuals are driven to succeed (some may even be obsessively driven). Some individuals are satisfied to live modestly and be able to save a little above all of the expenses. Some individuals are lazy. Some individuals THINK of themselves as victims and depend on others. Some individuals ARE victims and HAVE to depend on others. Some individuals ARE victims but in spite of that are driven to succeed on their own. And there are many others who fall in between the above categories.

Some individuals are compassionate--regardless of which of the above categories they fall. Some individuals are just plan selfish, greedy OR EVEN A CRIMINAL--regardless of which of the above categories they fall.

Don't confuse the Individual's free will with the Free Market.

"Capitalism is not to blame for this current economic crisis, the federal reserve and currency manipulation by central banks are to blame.
it is amazing how short sighted and easily mislead most are. we have not had free market capitalism in this nation for years."

Free market capitalism is inherently unsustainable. It's a system where property is power, and all life revolves around competing for it. It rewards selfishness and penalizes compassion. As in any competition, you don't get ahead by helping others, and somebody is eventually going to get ahead. Chances are extremely high that it will be someone very selfish. Somebody is going to operate successful business, amass more property than others, and thus have more power to run more successful business. It snowballs.

Soon we find ourself in a situation where Person A has complete ownership over something Population B needs to survive. Ultimately, this means that Person A gets to make all the rules and Population B has no choice but to live by them.

Suddenly, there's no more free market.

America again has a leader who acts like one.

Pure class; it's the small things that define a mans character and this was one of them

@ eichler1
Obama is an elitist and a liar. I'm going to give your president every bit of respect you gave mine.

Here's the irony. Americans would probably be much better off if the two had walked out of the conference, and nothing got done. But, oh sure, bravo. Well, I'm off to look for three more jobs so our 4% of the population can save the rest of the miserable world who won't save themselves. Ciao, now.

Can you IMAGINE George Bush doing this? Bravo President Obama! Man o man that n.i.g.g.e.r. from the ghetto South Side of Chicago, the corrupt Democratic Machine is really something isn't he!