>Seriously? What are you saying... that there should be a cap on how much money you can make?


Yes, that is what i was saying. I know you Americans have been tought how bad communism is for quite a while. Most Europeans also believe that it was an idea of lucifer himself, but personally i think its not a bad idea in general. Now before you start telling me what an ass Stalin was, let me tell you i agree. What the Russians practiced there was horrible.
The main idea of Marx was a different, namely that ressources and land belong to all and not to single individuals (At least thats how i translate it into our time, if you dont agree forget about marx and take the idea as mine).
In principle a communistic economic system is in comparison to a capitalistic system a more democratic one. In capitalism money means power. Now we have seen the numbers, the bottom 40% of the population own 1% of wealth. They got nothing to say really. But the succesful managers, they have the ability to change something in this world. They have the power to make decisions that influence other people as well(people who work for them for example). And a single person making decisions without having to ask the people who are affected by it, is by all means not democratic.

btw, i dont envy the rich. I dont seek wealth, i seek wisdom and happiness.

In principle a communistic economic system is in comparison to a capitalistic system a more democratic one. In capitalism money means power. Now we have seen the numbers, the bottom 40% of the population own 1% of wealth.

If this were true then Republicans would win more elections. After all, they're the party of the rich white man. And yet Obama has recently won the Presidency. Hmmmm that's strange, I guess the bottom 40% must hold some power in America.

I agree that Communism in it's purest form is a good idea, but it will never happen. Greed and corruption will always exist, and unfortunately Communism is usually a single party system, so it may or may not be as democratic as you think. Not to mention the decrease in productivity that occurs when you get paid $5 no matter how hard you work.

"greenoaks... America is not a democracy... we are a republic."

America is technically a Representative Democracy, which is a type of democracy. You could argue that we also fit under the "republic" umbrella, in that we are not completely governed by votes, (i.e. the constitution). However, "Democracy" is a more accurate label then "Republic."

Oh and a flat-rate income tax would be horribly unfair. But not taxing income seems like an interesting alternative to me.

If you guys could only stop bumping this totally kdice related thread...

Communism in its purest form is not a good idea. It is founded on a major flaw: dialectic. Dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) may be a handy descriptive idea to describe some phenomena (as hubris, nemesis, ate may be used to describe Greek plays), but it does not amount to the foundation for a complete system of thought.

Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

"If you guys could only stop bumping this totally kdice related thread..."

Bump with more useless references to kdice please.

this is totally relevant to kdice. Obama's plan working or not working has a direct impact on the amount of people jobless and playing kdice!

Storm,
Investopedia explains Multiplier Effect
The multiplier effect depends on the set reserve requirement. So, to calculate the impact of the multiplier effect on the money supply, we start with the amount banks initially take in through deposits and divide this by the reserve ratio. If, for example, the reserve requirement is 20%, for every $100 a customer deposits into a bank, $20 must be kept in reserve. However, the remaining $80 can be loaned out to other bank customers. This $80 is then deposited by these customers into another bank, which in turn must also keep 20%, or $16, in reserve but can lend out the remaining $64. This cycle continues - as more people deposit money and more banks continue lending it - until finally the $100 initially deposited creates a total of $500 ($100 / 0.2) in deposits. This creation of deposits is the multiplier effect.

The higher the reserve requirement, the tighter the money supply, which results in a lower multiplier effect for every dollar deposited. The lower the reserve requirement, the larger the money supply, which means more money is being created for every dollar deposited.

although it is true in this scenario an initial 100$ creates a total of 500$ in deposites, it also creates 400$ in debt. this means that in reality that 100$ remains 100$. Your thinking is the type of thinking that has gotten the global economy into this mess. if no new products or services are created then the value of the money circulating around the globe remains constant (assuming that demand is steady). what you fail to realize is that if i have 100$ and i turn t into 500 dollars without producing some kind of product, then i have taken 400 dollars from elsewhere in the economy. This however does not mean that i created 400$, it means that 400$ was redistributed.

all that 20 billion in food stamps does is redistribute money in the national economy into an industry that is already doing great. look at it this way food industry is a rich man. your giving him 20 billion dollars. to do so you are taking 20 billion dollars away from less fortunate industries. Coming from a liberal congress this seem awefull hypocrytical.

That is fractional reserve banking. I am talking about the spending multiplier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spending_multiplier: The multiplier effect is a tool used by governments to attempt to stimulate aggregate demand. This can be done in a period of recession or economic uncertainty. The money invested by a government creates more jobs, which in turn will mean more spending and so on.