Greed is a part of human nature. The more you have, the more you want.
That's why liberalism is destined to fail. Liberals believe that
people will do the morally right thing, if given the chance.

Hoboy.....

Dave, liberals try to avoid stereotyping. I can't think of a single thing that
*all* liberals believe in common. Unlike some folks, I actually know and
associate with a lot of liberals. :-)

Don't tell me what liberals believe. Even if
Rush and Hannity have assured you that "liberals believe this and that" they
are usually (often deliberately) wrong.

In example: You state that liberals believe people will do the morally right
thing if given the chance. Horseflies. Nobody is that naive. Some liberals
believe that one of the challenges in life is to figure out how to do the
morally right thing as often as possible while (as you say) the dominant force
in human nature is self serving greed.

If left to the natural course of
commerce, there will always be those who take advantage of any given
situation to increase their net worth.

There is a *natural* course to commerce?
This natural course, or commerce itself, should be the supreme principle upon
which our social fabric is founded? It's all about money, property, and net
worth?


Only through strong government
regulation (Socialism) do you stand any chance of mitigating this.

Here's the hilarious aspect of your statement. Many of the countries where the
US coroporations are relocating manufacturing, accounting, engineering,
customer service, etc, are able to pay workers such itsy-bitsy salaries because
they are *more* socialized than the US!
(But not usually socialistic). Our industry fat cats eschew any suggestion that
we adopt public housing, health care, education, transportation, or subsidize
cultural events in this county while they trip over themselves to take
advantage of low wages made possible by other countries where government
subsidies and support make high individual wages unnecessary.

Socialism is not "strong government regulation of the market". Socialism is an
economic model where a country's natural resources, physical infrastructure,
public agencies and utilities are owned in common by the population. (As
opposed to pure communism, where there is no private property of *any* kind). I
know only two liberals who are socialists. Next failing argument, please?




No, the unfortunate truth is that the world market will have to
equalize on its own, and that could take 50 years. Not very comforting
for those of us in the inflated "1st world" countries. But as the rest
of the world catches up to our standard of living, there will be no
further incentive to more work offshore.

We agree, to a degree. The "world economy" will bring up much of the rest of
the world at the direct expense of the American economy. The winners are the
very rich in the United States, and the very poor overseas. The losers are the
middle class, which will disappear as people willing to live in a home that
allocates 100 sq ft per resident, eat two sparse meals a day instead of three
big ones, walk a few miles to work or take a (god forbid!) bus displace the
middle class American workers doing those jobs now.

The 2030's will not look that much different than the 1930's in America. I'll
be dead (or close) by then, but I lament what unrestrained greed is doing to
the world my children are inheriting.