[Krivich]

Who appoints the chairman of the fed and removes the chairman if he does not like the chairman's direction?

The president does it. But this does not play any role.

You are naive.

I wonder, who has more influence on the formation of the government, voters or those who print the money?

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
Who appoints the chairman of the fed and removes the chairman if he does not like the chairman's direction?

Quote:
The president does it. But this does not play any role.

Quote:
You are naive.

I wonder, who has more influence on the formation of the government, voters or those who print the money?

The Golden Rule is a farce?

[Krivich]

Do you mean the right to vote, the election law?

[DanDaMan]

Clearly, those who decide who runs the printers that print the money rule.

[Krivich]

Presidents come and go, but the owners of the Fed remains...

[DanDaMan]

I do not think that will hold true if a president or congress devoid of progressive & leftist ideals comes into power.

[Krivich]

That's right. The american democracy. This understands also by those who have most influence to the power, ie the big business and the members of the fed particularly.

[Negotiator]

1. "Does a limit to wealth exist" - Yes. The available space - currently still earth, everything else is extremely expensive to reach - is limited. Ressources are limited. Scientific knowledge isnt complete. Therefore wealth is limited, because it depends upon these things. Once we actually are "allknowing" in the field of scientific knowledge, we might have the ability to specify quite exactly the limit of wealth. Until then, the progression of knowledge will increase our wealth constantly, while the transformation from resources into harder attainable ressources (such as the burning of oil into water and carbondioxine) will reduce our wealth.

2. "What is the source of wealth" - Work, Ressources, Energy.

3. "Does the wealth of one cause the poverty of the other" - Absolute and relative poverty, in our current world, depends upon the amount, quality and nature of production, and the distribution of what is produced. In an ideal world, everyone who can work has work, only things that are needed are produced, and every human being gets all their requirements satisfied and a fair share of whats left after everyones essential needs have been satisfied. Therefore, everyone in such a world would be a little wealthy, and nobody would be poor, unless the production of essential items (mostly food) is that low that it is not enough to sustain everyone.

4. "What is liberal freedom good for" - Liberal freedom is necessary, because if you are not free, there is nothing to protect democracy and the welfare state either. Without individual freedom, the individual human being is not valued. Without a welfare state, there is no community. There is no value to individual freedom if you starve to death.

5. "People are greedy" - Yes. And the opposite is also true. Human beings are extremely complex, that is my core argument why neither capitalism nor socialism can work, as they both have a too simple model of human beings at their core. Only an intelligent combination of both ideologies will operate well.

6. "Doesnt economy define all ?" - Thats a typical american attitude. US Americans are often so extremely materialistic. But the economy only defines material issues. Liberalism is about being free, which is not only a material, but also a mental state. For example, it means you are free to think, free to express your thoughts, and free to learn about the thoughs of others.

7. @SpecialOlympian: "That's pretty much the conclusion I came to after reading the New Testament." - Must be an extremely different new testament than I have read, because the new testament declares greed to be evil all over the place, and clearly states that it is very hard for rich people to enter heaven.

8. ...

Ok, too much different stuff to continue this format.

[Negotiator]

These measures have nothing to do with liberalism. This, I think, in the spirit of social democracy.

So the americans DO know about the existence of the idea of social democracy, and do not just think its the same as modern liberalism ? So why is there no category for it on this site ?

Sorry, in germany, we only know ONE kind of liberalism, and its that braindead ideology that government is evil and rules are evil and the less we have of either, the more we would be free. Its still very funny that liberalism here is the closest I know of my own political ideas.

As far as I'm aware, there has never been evidence collected with the absence of government, but nothing indicates that it is so in virtue of government presence neither.

We, the people, are the government. At least if it is a democracy. Sadly many democracies have been changed to plutocracies behind the curtain, resulting in people realizing they dont really matter and they are NOT in charge, even if they should be.

(Question:) DanDaMan was Obama the main reason behind the Great Depression and the 2nd World War ?

(Answer:) I do not know much of that history.

OMG ROTFL LOL LOL LOL.

I think DanDaMan would be a great comedian, if he got the right partner who asked him the right questions in public. Except of course he himself had no clue why he would be so funny.

Roosevelts policies kept the depression going all the way up to the war. The war ended the depression.

No

He is right that the aftereffects of the depression were only truely gone after the second world war, though.

But he's dead wrong it would be Roosevelts fault. Thats like saying the USA didnt win the Vietnam war because they didnt dropped enough bombs on Vietnam (I wouldnt be surprised if he believes that one too, though). The best way to handle the Depression would have been to avoid it in the first place. Second to that, removing the core cause - the extreme differences in wealth of people, and the complete lack of control of the financial markets, was the best thing to do, but didnt ended the crisis fast either. It did set the foundation for the wealth of the USA after the war though. Would it not have happened, the wealth differences would have still been that large and the USA couldnt have prospered like it did in the time after the war.