Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[Wirbel]

As a part of the plan, the government took control of agriculture through the state and collective farms (kolkhozes).[118] By a decree of February 1930, about one million individual peasants (kulaks) were forced off their land. Many peasants strongly opposed regimentation by the state, often slaughtering their herds when faced with the loss of their land. In some sections they revolted, and countless peasants deemed "kulaks" by the authorities were executed.[119] The combination of bad weather, deficiencies of the hastily established collective farms, and massive confiscation of grain precipitated a serious famine,[118] and several million peasants died of starvation, mostly in Ukraine and parts of southwestern Russia.[118] The deteriorating conditions in the countryside drove millions of desperate peasants to the rapidly growing cities, fueling industrialization, and vastly increasing Russia's urban population in the space of just a few years.

Lost jobs and lost land caused peasants to starve.

[AuSable River]

absurd.

government is funded entirely by the free market through taxes, rents, royalities and fees.

which begs the question ----


if government is so magnificent -- why do they require coercive taxpayer plunder to fund their schemes ??

and if government schemes are so beneficial or cost effective --- why dont they just allow the free market to fund it ?

and lastly, if government is so efficient and munificent --- then why dont they compete on a level playing field with free market competitors ???


ponder these points.

What does that have to do with my source?

Claim:

No important technology has ever been created or produced by the government.

ENIAC was designed to calculate artillery firing tables for the United States Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory.[4][5] When ENIAC was announced in 1946 it was heralded in the press as a "Giant Brain". It boasted speeds one thousand times faster than electro-mechanical machines, a leap in computing power that no single machine has since matched. This mathematical power, coupled with general-purpose programmability, excited scientists and industrialists. The inventors promoted the spread of these new ideas by conducting a series of lectures on computer architecture.

ENIAC's design and construction was financed by the United States Army during World War II. The construction contract was signed on June 5, 1943, and work on the computer began in secret by the University of Pennsylvania's Moore School of Electrical Engineering starting the following month under the code name "Project PX". The completed machine was announced to the public the evening of February 14, 1946[6] and formally dedicated the next day[7] at the University of Pennsylvania, having cost almost $500,000 (approximately $6,000,000 today). It was formally accepted by the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps in July 1946.

The very computer you're using to post this in, is a step further in the evolution of computers such as ENIAC, funded by the government.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

checkmate dude!

the government cant fund anything

all of its wealth originates from taxpayers.

hence, using your illogic government doesnt need to tax or regulate since it can fund 'itself'

and for the 2nd time please answer my challenges in a previous post.

[Mavorpen]

As a part of the plan, the government took control of agriculture through the state and collective farms (kolkhozes).[118] By a decree of February 1930, about one million individual peasants (kulaks) were forced off their land. Many peasants strongly opposed regimentation by the state, often slaughtering their herds when faced with the loss of their land. In some sections they revolted, and countless peasants deemed "kulaks" by the authorities were executed.[119] The combination of bad weather, deficiencies of the hastily established collective farms, and massive confiscation of grain precipitated a serious famine,[118] and several million peasants died of starvation, mostly in Ukraine and parts of southwestern Russia.[118] The deteriorating conditions in the countryside drove millions of desperate peasants to the rapidly growing cities, fueling industrialization, and vastly increasing Russia's urban population in the space of just a few years.

Lost jobs and lost land caused peasants to starve.

No shit. That's what I said.

[Liriena]

More Taxes + Less Spending = More Poverty
Less Taxes + Less Spending = Capitalist Utopia- Well, all the money gets concentrated into a small elite.
Less Taxes + More Spending = Bankrupt Government
More Taxes + More Spending = Communist Utopia- Well, unless some corrupt guy like Stalin ruins it and it gets concentrated into a small elite.

Mixed Economy= It eventually goes in one of the directions (right or left)

actually, a capitalist economy would have more equality since power and priviledge would be decentralized among myriad industies and companies.

Actually...that would never happen because the market as it exists today is not a market of perfect competition. The current structure of the economy leads only into a vicious circle in which more and more money flows into the hands of the oligopolies, who also get almost complete control over price and production, thus screwing the consumers.

[El Pescado Frio]

People are corrupt in general. You know, corporations, government, the every-man... They're all terrible and not to be trusted.

[Mavorpen]

checkmate dude!

the government cant fund anything

all of its wealth originates from taxpayers.

hence, using your illogic government doesnt need to tax or regulate since it can fund 'itself'

and for the 2nd time please answer my challenges in a previous post.

How is this a checkmate? They never said anything about taxes.

[Wirbel]

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. This movement, in its Marxist-Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with capitalist economies). - Wikipedia, Communism Article

State =/= Government, right?

[Liriena]

Communism 101: In a communist society, there is no government. Period. Stalin and the USSR were not communist. They were either state capitalist, fascist or socialist depending from where you look at them.

communism is a joke anyway

nobody is going to forego personal gain for some freeloader.

it defies human nature

Please, stop using the term "freeloader". You are insulting hundreds of million of people around the world whose only fault was being born in the wrong economic climate or social strata and calling them lazy when they were only screwed by an ill system which was only perfect in theory but was ruined from the getgo because of a rotten economic structure that made it impossible for it to work properly.

[Miss Defied]

snip

Awwwww, we sure have missed you!

Incidentally, it was so weird that you stayed away from is thread for a few days. Especially after some people made some fairly strong posts against your case. So just in case you missed them, I'm going to put them here so you can read them.

This one is a meticulously detailed refutation of your silly little FDA is the biggest accidental murderer story. I honestly can't believe Neo Art took the time to compose it because arguing with you is like isometric exercise. It's one little thing but what is shows is how you make claims about things that are very clearly just regurgitations of crap you've heard elsewhere. You think you can come here and parrot these wild assertions that are without merit.

Oh, do you mean this? (It's a .pdf)

What's funny is that even his own source defeats his own argument:

His claim was "prescription drugs are the highest cause of accidental death in the USA". That's, of course, not true. The own source shows that, in 2008 at least, the highest cause of accidental death was poisoning. Not "prescription drugs". 41,000 deaths, to car accidents' 38,000

Then add this fact: "2008, 89% of poisoning deaths were caused by drugs."

So of those 41,000, 89% were caused by "drugs". Not "prescription drugs", not "legal drugs". Drugs. All drugs. The remaining 11% were from things such as mushroom poisoning, ingestion of chemicals, etc etc.

So, 89% of 41,000 is 36,490. 36,490 accidental deaths in 2008 caused by "drugs" (or we can cite directly the report "Of the 36,500 drug poisoning deaths in 2008..."). How many were caused by car accidents? Right, 38,000.

Funny, I think 38,000 is more than 36,500. That would mean that car accidents caused more accidental deaths than "drugs". Isn't that exactly the opposite of what the OP claimed? Didn't he claim that drugs (not just drugs, but explicitly prescription drugs) were the LEADING CAUSE of accidental deaths in the USA?

the highest cause of accidental death in the USA is from prescription drugs approved by the FDA

Yup.

Oh well, so much for that theory. "drugs" as a catagory doesn't beat car accidents after all, and that's including legal AND illegal drugs.

So what about those illegal drugs hm? Let's see: "Opioid analgesics (note - painkillers) were involved in nearly 15,000 deaths in 2008, while cocaine was involved in about 5,100 deaths and heroin was involved in about 3,000 deaths"

So of those 36,500 deaths, 8,100 were clearly involving illegal drugs, and only 15,000 were attributable to LEGAL drugs. So now we've gone from "41,000 deaths by FDA approved drugs" to "15,000" (which by the way, is less than half that of car accidents, and fewer in number than those that fell to their deaths).

So now we're down to 15,000. So does that mean that 15,000 people died to FDA approved drugs, does that mean that those drugs should have not been approved?

of course not. In fact, from that very same report "misuse and abuse" of drugs has been on the rise. What's that mean? It means that many of those deaths were caused by people not following instructions, either because they didn't know them, or were addicted to them.

So we've gone from "FDA drugs kill over 40,000 people a year because they're unsafe" to "15,000 people died in 2008 due to toxicity caused in part by FDA drugs, the majority of which were caused due to misuse or abuse of that drug".

So here we have deaths caused by drugs that, if not dosed properly, can kill you, and the OP's solution is to...get rid of the organization responsible for ensuring they're labeled properly.

Brilliant!



Now, having taken the OPs advice to:

ponder that

I have, and upon reflection, have reached a conclusion.

You are HORRIBLY bad at this. Like, stunningly bad. To the point where you are, and I say this without reservation, literally the worst debator on this forum.

You are awful.

Ponder that, if you're able.

But aside from that, these deaths are occuring despite the regulatory powers of the FDA, not because of them. Funny though, you would think with all these bad drugs on the market that the consumers would be boycotting and "holding back" these irresponsible companies.
But they aren't. What will make consumers "hold back" these businesses when you just take away the FDA in your fantasy world?

Yeah, one would think that, wouldn't one?

And you also think that all we have to do is abolish FDA regulations and all of a sudden big pharma will stop rushing unsafe, untested drugs to the market? How will that happen exactly?

To channel the OP's logic - "fuck you, that's how"

If you are going to only read one of these please let this be the one. It is a very earnest detailing of your failings in the realm of logic and rhetoric. Really, it will do you well to read this and take it to heart.

While you should be lauded for actually trying to make an intelligent argument, (even if you are horribly failing in the process) you are, predictably, failing to do so here, I expect because you are trying to imitate the logical arguments you have seen being met with success, without actually understanding how or why a logical, intelligent argument is respected, where the irrational, essentially faith (not in the religious sense) based arguments that seem to have convinced you, typically fail to convince intelligent people, and will generally get you laughed out of the room. So allow me to show you what you did wrong:

First, you start off by essentially saying that all people on the left side of the isles are indoctrinated by the media and popular culture. This is, under the best of circumstances, a reckless opening since you are making a wild claim, that is sure to offend a large part of your audience, liberal and conservative alike. If you will recall your High School writing classes, the introduction to an essay, (which is typically just an extended argument), you are supposed to pull your audience in, not make yourself hostile to them. Now, it is possible, in theory, to get away with such a claim, but you absolutely must immediately follow it, either with a thesis that will prove it as such, or at least strong evidence or logical demonstration of fact, in order to back it up. In this way you win back the audience's attention, even if begrudgingly. You do neither. Your topic is about something else entirely, and you end up just taking this as a given. This means that, as a result, the only people that are going not be offended are essentially those that think this exact thing already, as you have already alienated everyone else. So then why write this? The only people liable to by sympathetic to your writing are those who already think the exact same thing, so clearly they don't need to be convinced. Therefore, unless you are just wanting to sit around wanking off to each other in written form, your argument has already failed.

The second place where you misstep is the third paragraph and onward, your main thesis and body paragraphs to go back to the High School writing courses (which I'm sure you didn't just blow off because you thought it wasn't important, or knew better). You start off by stating that the government is corrupt, then citing the influence of special interest groups and the recent financial crisis in America as evidence. The problem here is that this is not evidence, as you do not say what the logical link is between the two. You don't show how the presence of these special interest groups are corrupting our government, you don't show how the recent financial crisis is evidence of this. It is true that often someone constructing a logical argument might cite a historical or current event as evidence of their position with very little explanation and move on, but the reason they can do this and sometimes get away with it is that it is already commonly accepted that X event is an example of Y. (For instance, the continued aggression of Nazi Germany that eventually lead to WWII being an example of the failure of appeasement, to use a commonly accepted, if not particularly historically accurate, example) Even when people do this, it does not make for a particularly strong argument, and is really only socially allowed to occur because people understand that a person might be rushed for time or space. But in this case, the influence of special interest groups is NOT accepted as always making a government corrupt, and the recent financial crisis is NOT commonly accepted as being evidence of this. Indeed, the general, though by no means uncontested, view in America is that the financial crisis resulted from NOT ENOUGH government regulation of these financial institutions. Therefore, you needed to actually give fairly objective evidence, or a sound explanation of how exactly this is evidence of government corruption, which you don't do. This is echoed over and over again throughout your argument here, such as where you say the purpose of government is just for the material gain of the politicians (for which you give no evidence), that democrats are diverting scare resources (what resources, and how are they scarce) away from important sectors of the economy (what sectors of the economy, and why are they important?) just to bailout reckless firms and individuals (how are all the firms and individuals who benefited from the stimulus reckless?), for which you have also offered no logical proof. So, because you refuse to actually give proof for your claims, there is no reason your audience should accept them as legitimate.

The third problem is that you don't give us an alternative. Sure, your implied alternative is that if big government is bad, smaller, or no government, should be good, but this is not enough because, again, you are assuming most people agree with you, when in fact not even a plurality (read: biggest minority) of people agree necessarily agree with you. You haven't explained how a smaller government would solve these problems, how taking power away from the government would keep the already tremendous power of the special interest from crowding out any ability the government would have to fight back, or even how less government involvement in the affairs of these special interest would decrease their power. I suspect the reason for this is that you don't know yourself, but even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do, you have not given it, so there is no reason your audience should accept your alternative as better than the status quo, when indeed for all they know (since you HAVEN'T EXPLAINED what your alternative is) it is worse.

Your final blunder is simply the fact that you are being petulant and obnoxious. You are using a bunch of words and phrases that people other than yourself have uttered, in much better context and with much better justification, that appear to be intelligent, popular and edgy, with the apparent ability to rile people up (after all, they probably riled you up when you first heard them). For instance, you use "Obama, Bush, and the democrats", since you perceive that all three are unpopular, but without the contextual knowledge to know that, at the very least, Bush, his failures, and his unpopularity, are not allied with the democrats or Obama (or, on a slightly more complex note, that clumping the actions of congressional democrats with Obama is not entirely accurate either). You call this diatribe about how government only exists to benefit the politicians and this cronies the "preamble to Economics 101", as if you are trying to add some academic legitimacy to your work, when really it just ends up making you infuriating to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics, as this has absolutely nothing to do with it, and patronizing to everyone else. You seemingly randomly break up your statement with diatribes against Obama and the democrats, which while in an intelligent discussion or essay might pass as humor, are just as baseless and petty as the rest of your argument, making your argument clunky, and making yourself appear petty and dishonest, as it make the audience question why you taking petty shots at people you don't like instead of explaining your argument, which in turn makes it look like you are trying to pull a fast one on them by insulting people instead of explaining yourself.

So basically, the problem with this topic, and your argument in general comes down to this: it isn't doing anything to make anyone more sympathetic to your position. You, in essence, don't make a case for yourself, you just sit there and throw out words you hope will get people as riled up as they got you. Your topic will not be sympathetic to anyone, except those who already agree with you, which makes it somewhat less useful than preaching to the choir, as in this case you are likely you are likely to alienate some of the choir. So really, I do applaud you for trying to make a logical, sympathetic argument, but this only makes it worse when you fail so horribly. And for the love of God, don't say you didn't fail, you failed to make a logical, sympathetic argument by every definition of the term. This is no reason you shouldn't keep trying, but for the love of God, make sure to learn from the mistakes you made here for next time.

Another good example of someone blowing open the wide gaping holes in everything you say. It is full of facts, logic and empirical evidence which I know you love because you reference them in about one-third of your posts. The problem is all you do is blurt out a series of non-sequiturs. It is a very good rebuttal that any reasonable person cannot dismiss. (BTW that is the word you are looking for-rebuttal-it's a noun. Rebut is the verb form but you keep using it as a noun.)

Let's review what we've seen so far, since we appear to have meandered a bit and the topics have become mixed.

OP Argument 1: Government is always corrupt, and increasing its scale increases the scale of corruption.
I provided three metrics illustrating that no fewer than four first-world, industrialized, globally-trading countries with massive welfare states were nigh unto devoid of corruption. The OP responded to this criticism of Argument 1 by accusing me of comparing apples to oranges, citing the difference in population between these countries and the USA as evidence.

In so doing the OP has failed to realize that this point is absolutely, positively immaterial to the question of whether or not extensive government influence belies extensive corruption. As a consequence, I argue that the OP has failed to actually defend Argument 1 against my criticism and has further failed to provide a metric illustrating a direct, causative relationship between the act of increasing government spending and the increase of corruption, which would actually provide a defense of Argument 1. Another method would be to demonstrate that the governments of those four countries are actually "small" governments (the population is irrelevant to the argument). To take this second route would require quantification of what constitutes a "big" and "small" government, something else we have yet to be provided. Yet a third method would be to substantiate a claim that these four governments are actually very corrupt.

OP, you have to understand that you have made a universal argument. If I can find even one example of a large-scale government which is not rife with corruption your argument loses its quality of being universally applicable. To continue to assert that government is inherently corrupt and becomes more corrupt as its scale increases in spite of this counter evidence (as you have) is logically invalid. You have provided no evidence to substantiate that your claim is universally true and you have not actually defended your argument from my counter examples.

OP Argument 2: The USA bears a higher standard of living and quality of life than Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark thanks to its higher GDP per capita PPP. Furthermore, most US states outperform the GDP per capita PPP of all the Scandinavian states.
First things first: the claim that the USA overall has a higher GDP per capita PPP than all the Scandinavian states is demonstrably false. Simply shrugging one's shoulders and saying "Meh, it's the Norwegians' oil" doesn't invalidate that fact, and such an argument is an act of deflection rather than an act of refutation. It is not a proper defense of the OP's claim therefore.

Let us next address the claim that since the GDP per capita PPP in many US states is higher compared to those of the Nordic countries, the standard of living and quality of life in those states is better. This is a complete misunderstanding of how GDP per capita figures are used to infer standards of living, and in fact it's a failure to even fully grasp what a GDP per capita figure is measuring in the first place.

As I have already said several times, changes in GDP per capita over time are what is used to approximate changes in the standard of living in a given location throughout a given time frame, the figure is not a direct measurement of the standard of living or the incomes of the people in the area of interest. It is therefore absolutely worthless, in the context of a discussion on relative standards of living, to point at a US state's GDP per capita PPP figure for a given year in an effort to assert that the state of interest has a higher standard of living than that of whatever Nordic country you want to compare it to. The best you can do is compare the rates of change in their figures within the same time frame to determine whose standard of living was improving or decreasing more strikingly over that period of time. I have already done this for Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the USA as a whole and illustrated that the standard of living, as inferred by GDP per capita PPP alone, is improving at a much higher rate in Sweden and Finland than in the United States. The standards of living in Norway and Denmark are relatively static, with Denmark's slightly increasing year to year.

In order to more reliably comment on the standard of living you must, in addition to GDP per capita, examine several factors such as per capita income, cost of living, infant mortality rates, literacy rates, proportions of the population completing each level of education, life expectancy, and so forth. You cannot simply rely on GDP per capita PPP figures to make an argument about standards of living and quality of life. These figures are wonderful for an inference about shifts in standards of living, but they are not direct measurements thereof and should thus not be used as the OP has used them.

It is thus that I again conclude that the OP has failed to adequately defend their argument. Argument 2 stands contested.

Argument 3: The United States is doomed to failure thanks to 100+ trillion dollars in debt owed to entitlements.
The OP finally provided a source for this claim, but the source does not say what the OP says. There is not projected, even at current taxation and funding rates, a 100+ trillion dollar entitlement liability by this date in 2015. The OP has miscalculated.

[Samuraikoku]

checkmate dude!

the government cant fund anything

And yet my source says it funded ENIAC. And the Internet.

all of its wealth originates from taxpayers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_bonds

hence, using your illogic government doesnt need to tax or regulate since it can fund 'itself'

What does that have to do with anything I said?

and for the 2nd time please answer my challenges in a previous post.

I would if they were actually relevant to what I'm posting.

[Wirbel]

People are corrupt in general. You know, corporations, government, the every-man... They're all terrible and not to be trusted.

That's the problem. How can you create a society without abused people, poor people, and violence? YOU CAN'T! Can you reduce it? Yes. But then different problems arise.

A corrupt society run by corrupt humans will not become less corrupt.

[Mavorpen]

People are corrupt in general. You know, corporations, government, the every-man... They're all terrible and not to be trusted.

That's the problem. How can you create a society without abused people, poor people, and violence? YOU CAN'T! Can you reduce it? Yes. But then different problems arise.

A corrupt society run by corrupt humans will not become less corrupt.

Hence why government is good.

[Liriena]

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. This movement, in its Marxist-Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with capitalist economies). - Wikipedia, Communism Article

State =/= Government, right?

Since I'm not communist, your point is lost.

[AuSable River]

absurd.

government is funded entirely by the free market through taxes, rents, royalities and fees.

which begs the question ----


a) if government is so magnificent -- why do they require coercive taxpayer plunder to fund their schemes ??

b) and if government schemes are so beneficial or cost effective --- why dont they just allow the free market to fund it ?

c) and lastly, if government is so efficient and munificent --- then why dont they compete on a level playing field with free market competitors ???


ponder these points.

a) Because in a capitalist society everything costs money, and the government doesn't really have a magic machine to make it (at least, not without causing serious currency problems)

b) Because the free market as it exists today is an imperfect market and, thus, it would never be efficient enough to provide for the needs of the whole population. Please read some basic economy on the differences between and properties of "market of perfect competition" and "market of imperfect competition".

c) Funny thing...in many countries that actually happens...and it goes rather well.

a) I got news for you honey, in every society goods and products cost money.

b) yes everything humans do is imperfect including the free market, but in contrast to big govt systems it is far more effective (see north korea, cuba, zimbabwe, california, detroit, et al).

c ) where and for every time you cite government just surviving without tax payer plunder or favorable monopolistic law protecting them --- millions of free market firms exist and thrive despite having to pay taxes.

[Wirbel]

That's the problem. How can you create a society without abused people, poor people, and violence? YOU CAN'T! Can you reduce it? Yes. But then different problems arise.

A corrupt society run by corrupt humans will not become less corrupt.

Hence why government is good.

How do you draw that from what I said?

"A corrupt society run by corrupt humans will not become less corrupt."

"Run By" would refer to government.

[Wirbel]

State =/= Government, right?

Since I'm not communist, your point is lost.

We were just talking about communism. It wasn't about whether or not you were communist, it was about the definition.

[Mavorpen]

Hence why government is good.

How do you draw that from what I said?

"A corrupt society run by corrupt humans will not become less corrupt."

"Run By" would refer to government.

No, that would refer to large businesses who, using monopolies, effectively run the country. Governments prevent this, hence why they are good.

[Liriena]

Hence why government is good.

How do you draw that from what I said?

"A corrupt society run by corrupt humans will not become less corrupt."

"Run By" would refer to government.

Or run by...you know...powerful economic groups who, in an imperfect market, control both price and production, thus eliminating the basic principle for a fair capitalist system: a balance between producer and consumer.

[Wirbel]

How do you draw that from what I said?

"A corrupt society run by corrupt humans will not become less corrupt."

"Run By" would refer to government.

No, that would refer to large businesses who, using monopolies, effectively run the country. Governments prevent this, hence why they are good.

The government, who is corrupt, uses it's power to allow politicians to live lavish lifestyles.

[Wirbel]

No, that would refer to large businesses who, using monopolies, effectively run the country. Governments prevent this, hence why they are good.

The government, who is corrupt, uses it's power to allow politicians to live lavish lifestyles.

Corporations prevent the government from completely ruling the country.

[Miss Defied]

checkmate dude!

the government cant fund anything

all of its wealth originates from taxpayers.

I see what you did there!
This is brilliant logic my friend!
Of course it would also stand to reason then, that private enterprise can't fund anything.
All of its wealth originates from customers and investors

[Norstal]

checkmate dude!

the government cant fund anything

all of its wealth originates from taxpayers.

I see what you did there!
This is brilliant logic my friend!
Of course it would also stand to reason then, that private enterprise can't fund anything.
All of its wealth originates from customers and investors

But it's voluntary even though people need to eat everyday and it's voluntary and it's not coercion by nature or something derp.

Where is Trotsky when you need him or did he just gave up.

[Mavorpen]

No, that would refer to large businesses who, using monopolies, effectively run the country. Governments prevent this, hence why they are good.

The government, who is corrupt, uses it's power to allow politicians to live lavish lifestyles.

The corporations, who are corrupt, use its powers to prevent competition and extorts poor people so they can have lavish lifestyles.

The government, who is corrupt, uses it's power to allow politicians to live lavish lifestyles.

Corporations prevent the government from completely ruling the country.

No, they don't. The people do.

[Wirbel]

How do you draw that from what I said?

"A corrupt society run by corrupt humans will not become less corrupt."

"Run By" would refer to government.

Or run by...you know...powerful economic groups who, in an imperfect market, control both price and production, thus eliminating the basic principle for a fair capitalist system: a balance between producer and consumer.

Negative and negative should make a positive, shouldn't it? In theory.

Why can't politics be math?

[El Pescado Frio]

NEWSFLASH: LIFE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TERRIBLE!

YOU'RE ALL IDEALISTS! YOU DISGUST ME!