<!--QuoteBegin-TheWizard+May 3 2005, 11:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheWizard @ May 3 2005, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Keeping the fines the same for all parties is a safety valve. Think about it, if I were to be slapped with a $1000 speeding ticket. You can bet your butt that I would be contesting that in court.
It would cost the court money, the police officer's time, and would tie up a judge. In fact, the people who would get the more expensive fine are already more likely to contest it in court, so you can bet that every speeding ticket would be contested if a progressive fine were in place.
As it stands now, if I get a ticket for $100 and the cop was smart enough to lower the penalty so no points will go on my license, I will pay the ticket and be on my way. No tied up courts. No wasting the officer's time. No beaurocracy.
Flat fines for the same crime.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wonder did you even bother to read my post (like few other people here)...
Here in Finland everybody is ok with the system. I have actually never heard of somebody suing for it and imo it would seem quite absurd. That way it's fair to everyone.
But hey, maybe we're just politically a step ahead of you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Coltrane+May 3 2005, 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Coltrane @ May 3 2005, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-TheWizard+May 3 2005, 11:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheWizard @ May 3 2005, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Keeping the fines the same for all parties is a safety valve. Think about it, if I were to be slapped with a $1000 speeding ticket. You can bet your butt that I would be contesting that in court.
It would cost the court money, the police officer's time, and would tie up a judge. In fact, the people who would get the more expensive fine are already more likely to contest it in court, so you can bet that every speeding ticket would be contested if a progressive fine were in place.
As it stands now, if I get a ticket for $100 and the cop was smart enough to lower the penalty so no points will go on my license, I will pay the ticket and be on my way. No tied up courts. No wasting the officer's time. No beaurocracy.
Flat fines for the same crime.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wonder did you even bother to read my post (like few other people here)...
Here in Finland everybody is ok with the system. I have actually never heard of somebody suing for it and imo it would seem quite absurd. That way it's fair to everyone.
But hey, maybe we're just politically a step ahead of you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps you don't quite understand the typical American's mentality. Most anything resembling a socialist policy is bound to be scrutinized to hell, and since this will affect both the upper and middle classes it would be the source of a lot of arguing.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+May 3 2005, 12:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ May 3 2005, 12:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps you don't quite understand the typical American's mentality. Most anything resembling a socialist policy is bound to be scrutinized to hell, and since this will affect both the upper and middle classes it would be the source of a lot of arguing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes I do understand it. And I actually meant it in the post, but I dont think that it came up enough.
<!--QuoteBegin-Coltrane @ May 3 2005+ 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Coltrane @ May 3 2005 @ 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But hey, maybe we're just politically a step ahead of you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Untrue, it punishes both parties equally, often though the rich can deal with the fines quite a bit easier than poor people can, it does not take a percentage of your savings, just a fixed amount.
If anything the rich probably have it worse off, looking again @ Martha Stewart, if she was a small share owner and sold all her stock, no one would have even noticed. And even if they did she wouldn't get the same sentence or public image as she has now.
If she was any other member she would have gotten off easier. If nothing else, her public image would be drastically better, and in a lifestyle like her's, thats the only really important thing.
I don't think Martha Stewart is a great example. She actually went to prison and she's now under house arrest. It's not like she got off with just a fine. Plus, her crime was relatively minor (it was essentially covering up for a crime she didn't commit) and victimless.
<!--QuoteBegin-Coltrane+May 4 2005, 08:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Coltrane @ May 4 2005, 08:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+May 3 2005, 12:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ May 3 2005, 12:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps you don't quite understand the typical American's mentality. Most anything resembling a socialist policy is bound to be scrutinized to hell, and since this will affect both the upper and middle classes it would be the source of a lot of arguing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes I do understand it. And I actually meant it in the post, but I dont think that it came up enough.
<!--QuoteBegin-Coltrane @ May 3 2005+ 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Coltrane @ May 3 2005 @ 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But hey, maybe we're just politically a step ahead of you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To say that any one mix of socialism and capitalism is any better than any other mix of socialism and capitalism is rather conceited, no?
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+May 5 2005, 07:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ May 5 2005, 07:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To say that any one mix of socialism and capitalism is any better than any other mix of socialism and capitalism is rather conceited, no? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think so. Some variations of socialist/capitalist economies are definately better than other versions. The problem is finding out which ones are the better ones.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 5 2005, 08:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 5 2005, 08:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+May 5 2005, 07:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ May 5 2005, 07:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To say that any one mix of socialism and capitalism is any better than any other mix of socialism and capitalism is rather conceited, no? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think so. Some variations of socialist/capitalist economies are definately better than other versions. The problem is finding out which ones are the better ones. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Better compared to what? The happiness they provide their citizens? The incentive to individual betterment? The "fairness" factor; are all citizens at least moderately properous? How much farther above than the norm are the best people allowed to rise? There are many ways to judge a socio-political system, and a lot of them directly contradict each other: a system that is "good" on one scale might be "poor" according to another. So, no, there's no one "best" system, or even any way to say that one system is better than another. It's all a matter of opinion and perspective.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 5 2005, 07:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 5 2005, 07:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think Martha Stewart is a great example. She actually went to prison and she's now under house arrest. It's not like she got off with just a fine. Plus, her crime was relatively minor (it was essentially covering up for a crime she didn't commit) and victimless. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure I'd agree its victimless. The basic idea was she got some inside information that, when publicly released, would make a stock price go way down. So she sold all of her stocks in that company. The suckers who bought those stocks from her, right below the price fell out, were the victims.
On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean its a horrible crime. I mean, when someone happens to find out their stocks are about to crash in price, what are they supposed to do? Just hold them and watch the value disappear? In her position, I'd have probably done the same thing.
IMO, Martha's time in prison didn't exactly do anything...she didn't seem remorseful in the slightest. Actually, in the interviews, it didn't even seem like she had been in prison. "What did you miss most in prison." "Lemons, they don't let you have lemons in there."
I mean, cmon. Even if you don't feel remorse, at least pretend for the cameras. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 5 2005, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 5 2005, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 5 2005, 07:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 5 2005, 07:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think Martha Stewart is a great example. She actually went to prison and she's now under house arrest. It's not like she got off with just a fine. Plus, her crime was relatively minor (it was essentially covering up for a crime she didn't commit) and victimless. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure I'd agree its victimless. The basic idea was she got some inside information that, when publicly released, would make a stock price go way down. So she sold all of her stocks in that company. The suckers who bought those stocks from her, right below the price fell out, were the victims.
On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean its a horrible crime. I mean, when someone happens to find out their stocks are about to crash in price, what are they supposed to do? Just hold them and watch the value disappear? In her position, I'd have probably done the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But, she didn't get insider information. She was acquitted of that charge. She was sent to prison for "conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements" (<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart' target='_blank'>source</a>). So, it was victimless.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Better compared to what? The happiness they provide their citizens? The incentive to individual betterment? The "fairness" factor; are all citizens at least moderately properous? How much farther above than the norm are the best people allowed to rise? There are many ways to judge a socio-political system, and a lot of them directly contradict each other: a system that is "good" on one scale might be "poor" according to another. So, no, there's no one "best" system, or even any way to say that one system is better than another. It's all a matter of opinion and perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You've got a point. It would be hard to discretely rate socio-economic systems. Still, you can rate things like happiness or fairness. If country A does better than country B in a vast majority of those areas, then you could say that country A has a better socio-economic policy than country B. It's hard, but it's doable.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 5 2005, 08:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 5 2005, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Better compared to what? The happiness they provide their citizens? The incentive to individual betterment? The "fairness" factor; are all citizens at least moderately properous? How much farther above than the norm are the best people allowed to rise? There are many ways to judge a socio-political system, and a lot of them directly contradict each other: a system that is "good" on one scale might be "poor" according to another. So, no, there's no one "best" system, or even any way to say that one system is better than another. It's all a matter of opinion and perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You've got a point. It would be hard to discretely rate socio-economic systems. Still, you can rate things like happiness or fairness. If country A does better than country B in a vast majority of those areas, then you could say that country A has a better socio-economic policy than country B. It's hard, but it's doable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, you could go for a majority of categories, but I don't even think that would work. People in every nation are accustomed to their system, and so they tend to think of their way as the best way. So, people will naturally tend to give more "weight" to the categories that the existing system is already good at. By which I mean, to each his own. People want their systems to work for them with the minimal amount of tweaking. That's why socialists don't get a lot of support in America, but Democrats that mix socialism with capitalism together do get a good deal of support.
So basically, every country in the world already has the "best" system in the eyes of its citizens.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 5 2005, 07:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 5 2005, 07:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 5 2005, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 5 2005, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 5 2005, 07:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 5 2005, 07:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think Martha Stewart is a great example. She actually went to prison and she's now under house arrest. It's not like she got off with just a fine. Plus, her crime was relatively minor (it was essentially covering up for a crime she didn't commit) and victimless. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure I'd agree its victimless. The basic idea was she got some inside information that, when publicly released, would make a stock price go way down. So she sold all of her stocks in that company. The suckers who bought those stocks from her, right below the price fell out, were the victims.
On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean its a horrible crime. I mean, when someone happens to find out their stocks are about to crash in price, what are they supposed to do? Just hold them and watch the value disappear? In her position, I'd have probably done the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But, she didn't get insider information. She was acquitted of that charge. She was sent to prison for "conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements" (<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart' target='_blank'>source</a>). So, it was victimless. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, now that case is coming back to me (wasn't following the news coverage that closely to begin with, and its been awhile). They couldn't convict her on what she actually <i>did</i> (stock dumping), so they convicted her for lying in an attempt to <i>hide</i> what she did. Quite stupid, really. Wouldn't lies like that be protected under the 5th amendment or something? I mean, if you commit a crime, and say "no, I didn't do it", thats not usually held against you as a separate crime.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+May 5 2005, 07:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ May 5 2005, 07:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So basically, every country in the world already has the "best" system in the eyes of its citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree. While it would indeed be hard to classify the "best" system, there are none the less systems that are clearly sub-par. For example, soviet russia completely collapsed after using a socio-economic system that clearly didn't work well for some 40-odd years. I don't think that one was seen by its starving citizens as the "best" possible system.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 5 2005, 08:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 5 2005, 08:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+May 5 2005, 07:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ May 5 2005, 07:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So basically, every country in the world already has the "best" system in the eyes of its citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree. While it would indeed be hard to classify the "best" system, there are none the less systems that are clearly sub-par. For example, soviet russia completely collapsed after using a socio-economic system that clearly didn't work well for some 40-odd years. I don't think that one was seen by its starving citizens as the "best" possible system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Damn, I meant to say "any system where the government has the consent of the governed". I was just thinking about the Western world while formulating my argument.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+May 5 2005, 07:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ May 5 2005, 07:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+May 5 2005, 08:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ May 5 2005, 08:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+May 5 2005, 07:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ May 5 2005, 07:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So basically, every country in the world already has the "best" system in the eyes of its citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree. While it would indeed be hard to classify the "best" system, there are none the less systems that are clearly sub-par. For example, soviet russia completely collapsed after using a socio-economic system that clearly didn't work well for some 40-odd years. I don't think that one was seen by its starving citizens as the "best" possible system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Damn, I meant to say "any system where the government has the consent of the governed". I was just thinking about the Western world while formulating my argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You can do it for free countries, too. Some countries become rich, meaning they have good economic policies. Some countries become poor, meaning they have bad economic policies.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
In response to several things stated previously
Whitecollar crime is really not victimless as someone else or many others money is being illegally, unjustly, and unfairly taken away.
It costs people billions every year.
Martha Stewart was not really convicted for her financial dealings as that was her stock broker. She was convicted of obstructing justice by hampering with a police investigation and lying to the government aka perjury
Thats a felony, in fact she was convicted of 4 felonies.
Comments
It would cost the court money, the police officer's time, and would tie up a judge. In fact, the people who would get the more expensive fine are already more likely to contest it in court, so you can bet that every speeding ticket would be contested if a progressive fine were in place.
As it stands now, if I get a ticket for $100 and the cop was smart enough to lower the penalty so no points will go on my license, I will pay the ticket and be on my way. No tied up courts. No wasting the officer's time. No beaurocracy.
Flat fines for the same crime.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder did you even bother to read my post (like few other people here)...
Here in Finland everybody is ok with the system. I have actually never heard of somebody suing for it and imo it would seem quite absurd.
That way it's fair to everyone.
But hey, maybe we're just politically a step ahead of you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It would cost the court money, the police officer's time, and would tie up a judge. In fact, the people who would get the more expensive fine are already more likely to contest it in court, so you can bet that every speeding ticket would be contested if a progressive fine were in place.
As it stands now, if I get a ticket for $100 and the cop was smart enough to lower the penalty so no points will go on my license, I will pay the ticket and be on my way. No tied up courts. No wasting the officer's time. No beaurocracy.
Flat fines for the same crime.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder did you even bother to read my post (like few other people here)...
Here in Finland everybody is ok with the system. I have actually never heard of somebody suing for it and imo it would seem quite absurd.
That way it's fair to everyone.
But hey, maybe we're just politically a step ahead of you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps you don't quite understand the typical American's mentality. Most anything resembling a socialist policy is bound to be scrutinized to hell, and since this will affect both the upper and middle classes it would be the source of a lot of arguing.
Yes I do understand it. And I actually meant it in the post, but I dont think that it came up enough.
<!--QuoteBegin-Coltrane @ May 3 2005+ 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Coltrane @ May 3 2005 @ 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But hey, maybe we're just politically a step ahead of you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
look at Martha stuart, she breaks the law, but since she has the cash, she can get out of it.
Rich people in a capitlist society will allways be above the law.
If anything the rich probably have it worse off, looking again @ Martha Stewart, if she was a small share owner and sold all her stock, no one would have even noticed. And even if they did she wouldn't get the same sentence or public image as she has now.
HECK YEAH SHE SHOULD BE SCREWED IF SHE BREAKS THE LAW
PS, try not to use the capslock key too much.
Yes I do understand it. And I actually meant it in the post, but I dont think that it came up enough.
<!--QuoteBegin-Coltrane @ May 3 2005+ 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Coltrane @ May 3 2005 @ 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But hey, maybe we're just politically a step ahead of you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To say that any one mix of socialism and capitalism is any better than any other mix of socialism and capitalism is rather conceited, no?
I don't think so. Some variations of socialist/capitalist economies are definately better than other versions. The problem is finding out which ones are the better ones.
I don't think so. Some variations of socialist/capitalist economies are definately better than other versions. The problem is finding out which ones are the better ones. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Better compared to what? The happiness they provide their citizens? The incentive to individual betterment? The "fairness" factor; are all citizens at least moderately properous? How much farther above than the norm are the best people allowed to rise? There are many ways to judge a socio-political system, and a lot of them directly contradict each other: a system that is "good" on one scale might be "poor" according to another. So, no, there's no one "best" system, or even any way to say that one system is better than another. It's all a matter of opinion and perspective.
I'm not sure I'd agree its victimless. The basic idea was she got some inside information that, when publicly released, would make a stock price go way down. So she sold all of her stocks in that company. The suckers who bought those stocks from her, right below the price fell out, were the victims.
On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean its a horrible crime. I mean, when someone happens to find out their stocks are about to crash in price, what are they supposed to do? Just hold them and watch the value disappear? In her position, I'd have probably done the same thing.
"What did you miss most in prison."
"Lemons, they don't let you have lemons in there."
I mean, cmon. Even if you don't feel remorse, at least pretend for the cameras. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm not sure I'd agree its victimless. The basic idea was she got some inside information that, when publicly released, would make a stock price go way down. So she sold all of her stocks in that company. The suckers who bought those stocks from her, right below the price fell out, were the victims.
On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean its a horrible crime. I mean, when someone happens to find out their stocks are about to crash in price, what are they supposed to do? Just hold them and watch the value disappear? In her position, I'd have probably done the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But, she didn't get insider information. She was acquitted of that charge. She was sent to prison for "conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements" (<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart' target='_blank'>source</a>). So, it was victimless.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Better compared to what? The happiness they provide their citizens? The incentive to individual betterment? The "fairness" factor; are all citizens at least moderately properous? How much farther above than the norm are the best people allowed to rise? There are many ways to judge a socio-political system, and a lot of them directly contradict each other: a system that is "good" on one scale might be "poor" according to another. So, no, there's no one "best" system, or even any way to say that one system is better than another. It's all a matter of opinion and perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've got a point. It would be hard to discretely rate socio-economic systems. Still, you can rate things like happiness or fairness. If country A does better than country B in a vast majority of those areas, then you could say that country A has a better socio-economic policy than country B. It's hard, but it's doable.
You've got a point. It would be hard to discretely rate socio-economic systems. Still, you can rate things like happiness or fairness. If country A does better than country B in a vast majority of those areas, then you could say that country A has a better socio-economic policy than country B. It's hard, but it's doable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you could go for a majority of categories, but I don't even think that would work. People in every nation are accustomed to their system, and so they tend to think of their way as the best way. So, people will naturally tend to give more "weight" to the categories that the existing system is already good at. By which I mean, to each his own. People want their systems to work for them with the minimal amount of tweaking. That's why socialists don't get a lot of support in America, but Democrats that mix socialism with capitalism together do get a good deal of support.
So basically, every country in the world already has the "best" system in the eyes of its citizens.
I'm not sure I'd agree its victimless. The basic idea was she got some inside information that, when publicly released, would make a stock price go way down. So she sold all of her stocks in that company. The suckers who bought those stocks from her, right below the price fell out, were the victims.
On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean its a horrible crime. I mean, when someone happens to find out their stocks are about to crash in price, what are they supposed to do? Just hold them and watch the value disappear? In her position, I'd have probably done the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But, she didn't get insider information. She was acquitted of that charge. She was sent to prison for "conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements" (<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart' target='_blank'>source</a>). So, it was victimless. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, now that case is coming back to me (wasn't following the news coverage that closely to begin with, and its been awhile). They couldn't convict her on what she actually <i>did</i> (stock dumping), so they convicted her for lying in an attempt to <i>hide</i> what she did. Quite stupid, really. Wouldn't lies like that be protected under the 5th amendment or something? I mean, if you commit a crime, and say "no, I didn't do it", thats not usually held against you as a separate crime.
I disagree. While it would indeed be hard to classify the "best" system, there are none the less systems that are clearly sub-par. For example, soviet russia completely collapsed after using a socio-economic system that clearly didn't work well for some 40-odd years. I don't think that one was seen by its starving citizens as the "best" possible system.
I disagree. While it would indeed be hard to classify the "best" system, there are none the less systems that are clearly sub-par. For example, soviet russia completely collapsed after using a socio-economic system that clearly didn't work well for some 40-odd years. I don't think that one was seen by its starving citizens as the "best" possible system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn, I meant to say "any system where the government has the consent of the governed". I was just thinking about the Western world while formulating my argument.
I disagree. While it would indeed be hard to classify the "best" system, there are none the less systems that are clearly sub-par. For example, soviet russia completely collapsed after using a socio-economic system that clearly didn't work well for some 40-odd years. I don't think that one was seen by its starving citizens as the "best" possible system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn, I meant to say "any system where the government has the consent of the governed". I was just thinking about the Western world while formulating my argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can do it for free countries, too. Some countries become rich, meaning they have good economic policies. Some countries become poor, meaning they have bad economic policies.
Whitecollar crime is really not victimless as someone else or many others money is being illegally, unjustly, and unfairly taken away.
It costs people billions every year.
Martha Stewart was not really convicted for her financial dealings as that was her stock broker. She was convicted of obstructing justice by hampering with a police investigation and lying to the government aka perjury
Thats a felony, in fact she was convicted of 4 felonies.
end of story.