|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why are the tea partiers so angry?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Here's an interesting analysis of the 10th Amendment stuff:
"Tentherism"
Wonder if tenthers realize only 17 states can pay their own bills without federal help?
[ 03. July 2010, 19:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Here's an interesting analysis of the 10th Amendment stuff:
"Tentherism"
Wonder if tenthers realize only 17 states can pay their own bills without federal help?
Hmm... is paying states' bills a power expressly given the federal gov't in the Constitution? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
Merlin, I admire your willingness to brainstorm strategies to change the way the governments (federal, state, local) deal with a variety of issues.
It's this very willingness to actually try to come up with scenarios that seems to be absent with many of the tea party folks I know or have heard. They seem to have some sort of generalized anger and anxiety (culture of fear?) that doesn't allow them to do more than call people out and engage in shouting matches.
I believe you mentioned earlier in this thread (when the thread was more intense) that you are not affiliated with the tea party. At any rate, the way you present your ideas has tempered over the life of this thread which has allowed those of us who have stuck with the thread to think about them.
Even so, I don't agree with your POV. But that's ok. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I just wish more people who are swept up in the tea party angst would take a moment and think about what their POV actually is and try to think of ways to implement it.
Then there's be more chance for actual discourse--and perhaps more chance for finding solutions that would satisfy a greater number of people.
Polarization is the bane of problem solving.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Merlin, I admire your willingness to brainstorm strategies to change the way the governments (federal, state, local) deal with a variety of issues.
It's this very willingness to actually try to come up with scenarios that seems to be absent with many of the tea party folks I know or have heard. They seem to have some sort of generalized anger and anxiety (culture of fear?) that doesn't allow them to do more than call people out and engage in shouting matches....
Polarization is the bane of problem solving.
sabine
Yes. The tea partiers seem to be against almost everything-- or at least everything Obama-related. But I've yet to figure out anything they're for.
That's a problem.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
On the "Mexico" thread the conversation is shifting toward a discussion of capitalism: so I will post my further comments here:
I've read all the complaints about the USA's "vicious" economic system, about how "evil" it is, etc. These are reactionary and not factual. The ONLY ingredient which will make any economic system not evil or vicious is people; conversely, it is people who make the economy/gov't vicious and evil. So if the USA is vicious and evil it is NOT the fault of capitalism: it is how capitalism is applied.
Capitalism is thus far the only economic method by which maximized production is achieved: as is often said, this is solely because of human self-interest: offer a man his own property, his own wealth which he can will to his heirs, and you've taken a pleb and turned him into a potential baron. He is the master of all he surveys, and he can increase it endlessly, if the "fates" are generous and he remains in this venue long enough to fight his way up.
The "American dream" is tempered by realism: very, very few workers are inventive, persistent and lucky enough to make it rich in any big way. But we all know that while getting more dollars is the goal, meanwhile we don't go hungry, we buy our own little house somewhere (temporarily, of course, while our dreams are alive), our children get educations and end up better and smarter than we are, etc. We never become anyone the world knows about, but we shop, grow older, change cars, houses and possessions numerous times and then we die and our STUFF gets grabbed by children and siblings, etc. Capitalism produces so much STUFF that there's more than enough for everyone to enjoy without ever being "rich" by American standards. The rest of the world, especially the developing world, looks on America with envy and wonder. And life is good.
That's how it has been most of my life and even before. Post-war America has been the apogee of expansionism; while our economy has increasingly suffered from gov't intrusion/control messing with it. Now we reap what we have sown: the pulling of controls from the investment "market" has tipped the balance. People are screaming for blood. The rescued incompetent/criminal investors are the most despised people in the Nation, and the Fed that rescued them is in the same boat (that's the real cause of His Oness's unpopularity, not anything else).
The "fix" to capitalism is to balance it with Fed welfare, so that those unfortunates who fall out of capitalism during "tipping point" episodes, fall into the "safety net".
We can argue about the nature of that safety net: how it ought to be structured, funded and managed and by whom, etc. But we require it all the same, in the end, and that's the real issue today being hotly debated.
The Tea Party screamers are bound and determined to NOT allow the Fed to impose uncapitalistic controls to achieve this safety net; NO SOCIALISM! His Oness's words, past historical agenda (so-perceived) and methods so far are like waving a red flag in front of a mad bull.
I have, above, outlined my fix; with loans to the cities, counties and States, to fund "gov't work" projects and galvanize capitalism at the same time. I am convinced it would work. Something like it needs to be implemented at once. If nothing else, some amendment needs to compel these kinds of loans, so that the bankers can't squat on the money we need flowing constantly. Flowing money is the life blood of capitalism. It is stupid to blame capitalism as the evil cause of our troubles: when it is selish people who are that cause....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Also from the "Mexico" thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I repeat: capitalism is the key to prosperity because it allows self-interested humans to earn and keep private property without hinderment. Get capitalism booming in Mexico and the crime bosses and gangs will lose their momentum: very few people turn to crime when legitimate opportunities to advance are on every hand -- as in the heyday of US expansionism before the Great Depression; which didn't happen overnight; the 20's were riddled with organized crime because the economy was already tanking; whereas after the 2WW the revived capitalist economy stabilized everything and organized crime faded proportionally....
Except none of that is true is it. You may be able to rewrite history in your own head but don’t expect anyone else to accept it. A strong economy has no effect on organized crime, only desperation crime. Firstly the 20’s were a period of incredible economic boom, not a tanking economy. They weren’t called the ‘Roaring Twenties’ and the ‘Golden Twenties’ for nothing. And the mafia and gangs in America were powerful throughout the twentieth century and even now – haven’t you ever seen Sopranos? Or Godfather, Casino or Goodfellas. They may be fictional representations but they are all based on real life and all are set long after WW2. In fact from what I understand, the levels of organized crime have only increased after WW2, not decreased. And this was nothing to do with the economy either. It was mainly to do with the ease of access to drugs. You don’t appear to have a clue about this subject.
Okay, I concede that "organized crime" was not the most correct use of a term: it is venerable, "old world" in origins, and has nothing to do with economic situations per se. But there is less attraction to get involved with it when the economy and less committed (dangerous) options are available. The whole reason why organized crime got invented was as a clan/family safety net against the rest of the world; feudalism (so-called) is just a brand of the same thing, and yes it is organized "crime" when it operates outside the official gov't.
But your assertion that the "roaring 20's" was some kind of economic boom is qualified by the rest of the world. Yes, if Germany's very essential economy had not been ruined by impossible demands, then the Great Depression would not have occurred. The US economy was not a monolith then either. So our capitalism was shot in the foot by what the Allies contributed to, the ruination of Germany's economy.
If organized crime has increased it is because of population growth. Demographically, it is either static or in decline, or was until recently....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Here's an interesting analysis of the 10th Amendment stuff:
"Tentherism"
Wonder if tenthers realize only 17 states can pay their own bills without federal help?
Hmm... is paying states' bills a power expressly given the federal gov't in the Constitution?
The federal government can't pay its own bills without massive deficit spending. Those 17 states that do send more to the federal government than they are taking in sure don't have the money to subsidize the other 43 states. What makes the federal government able to do it is more of a willingness to borrow money than is allowed by most states.
In actuality, the federal government doesn't have access to any more money than the states. It gets it's money from the same place the states get theirs. All of the tax revenue available to the federal government is available to the states because almost every federal tax payer is also a resident of a state. The only question is where they send their taxes.
I favor a near total abolition of the Department of Education. It makes no sense to me. Let's take two states from the lilbuddah list that are in the white. Illinois sends more to the fed than it gets. Maryland does not. Is there so much money on the North Shore that Illinois can adequately fund its own education system and still have money to send to poor school districts in Baltimore. No, it does not. Wouldn't it make more sense to take more money from Montgomery County and send it to the poor school districts in Baltimore?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
First posted by MerlintheMad:
Get capitalism booming in Mexico and the crime bosses and gangs will lose their momentum...the 20's were riddled with organized crime because the economy was already tanking
quote:
And then...
If organized crime has increased it is because of population growth.
So crime is not a result of a poor economy any more, you've now decided off the top of your head that its actually a result of population growth. Brilliant. Except that's bollocks as well of course. But don't let that stop you.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But your assertion that the "roaring 20's" was some kind of economic boom is qualified by the rest of the world.
I don't know about organised crime in Germany in the 20's, we were talking about the US. You claimed the economy was tanking in the 20's in the US. I said that was rubbish. The situation elsewhere isn't relevent to the point.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The whole reason why organized crime got invented was as a clan/family safety net against the rest of the world; feudalism (so-called) is just a brand of the same thing,
Maybe in the middle ages. Nowadays organized crime is about making money; basically just like your much vaunted unregulated capitalism.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "fix" to capitalism is to balance it with Fed welfare, so that those unfortunates who fall out of capitalism during "tipping point" episodes, fall into the "safety net".
We can argue about the nature of that safety net: how it ought to be structured, funded and managed and by whom, etc. But we require it all the same, in the end, and that's the real issue today being hotly debated.
Ah, so you agree with us after all? You are a socialist!
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
So crime is not a result of a poor economy any more, you've now decided off the top of your head that its actually a result of population growth. Brilliant. Except that's bollocks as well of course. But don't let that stop you.
Are you intentionally obfuscating what I said? I admitted that "organized crime" wasn't the best term to describe what I meant by asserting that crime goes down in a boom economy.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But your assertion that the "roaring 20's" was some kind of economic boom is qualified by the rest of the world.
quote:
I don't know about organised crime in Germany in the 20's, we were talking about the US.
I wasn't talking about organized crime in Germany, but its actual capitalist economy, tied to the rest of the world.
quote:
You claimed the economy was tanking in the 20's in the US. I said that was rubbish. The situation elsewhere isn't relevant to the point.
It sure is! Just because most Americans didn't see the crash coming doesn't mean that the "business is booming" at home wasn't a false picture. Capitalism is world-wide. That was entirely true in the 20's. What happened to Germany (largely France's fault, but condoned by the UK and USA) directly caused the Great Depression. So American economics were sabotaged by the harm done to Germany.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The whole reason why organized crime got invented was as a clan/family safety net against the rest of the world; feudalism (so-called) is just a brand of the same thing, quote:
Maybe in the middle ages. Nowadays organized crime is about making money; basically just like your much vaunted unregulated capitalism.
Organized crime is clearly "feudal" in structure. Each boss has a bigger boss and sworn followers who will turn up armed and with deadly intent if commanded to. "Money" is a convenience. Where it is in short supply other commodities will suffice. Feudalism is always about making "money", i.e. getting rich and powerful and staying that way....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have, above, outlined my fix; with loans to the cities, counties and States, to fund "gov't work" projects and galvanize capitalism at the same time. I am convinced it would work. Something like it needs to be implemented at once.
I'm not an economist, but this seems similar to the WPA programs that were implemented during the Great Depression.
quote:
If nothing else, some amendment needs to compel these kinds of loans, so that the bankers can't squat on the money we need flowing constantly. Flowing money is the life blood of capitalism. It is stupid to blame capitalism as the evil cause of our troubles: when it is selish people who are that cause....
Maybe a law, not an amendment.
As for who is to blame....I don't think one philosophy, one group of people (e.g., bankers), one President or one political POV is to blame. I think a combination of things have, over the years, allowed us to become complacent about our society--its benefits and its flaws--to the point that creeping trouble finally erupts and we haven't a clue where it came from.
Then we have the hard work of going back and teasing out solutions based on evidence that may have been there all along, but we weren't paying attention.
I think the element of "surprise" has caught some people off guard, people like the tea party folks, and their anger reflects the intensity of their startle response.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "fix" to capitalism is to balance it with Fed welfare, so that those unfortunates who fall out of capitalism during "tipping point" episodes, fall into the "safety net".
We can argue about the nature of that safety net: how it ought to be structured, funded and managed and by whom, etc. But we require it all the same, in the end, and that's the real issue today being hotly debated.
Ah, so you agree with us after all? You are a socialist!
Do you agree with me, that capitalism needs to be unfettered? If not, then you are likely the socialist, not me.
I am a "born again capitalist" through and through. But that doesn't mean that I see capitalism as the only source of available work and resource for obtaining the necessaries of life. Capitalism is the most potent economic form of motivational production; that's all it is. Everything else has to be structured in order to provide for the unfortunate.
If you've paid any attention to what I've proposed: BOTH unfettered capitalism and a form of welfare (not free, but worked for) are required. Capitalism cannot provide welfare; people do that.
I've offered a theory to provide for it. The systematic implementation of it would be up to the experts advising gov't.
So far, systematic taxation to fund Fed Gov't welfare programs has contributed to deficit spending and will also contribute to eventual bankruptcy. Taxation to pay for Fed welfare programs is a dead end.
Instead, welfare and civic programs to restore inner cities, beautify parks and roadways, provide educational opportunities to the disadvantaged, medical care, etc., ought to be run locally and with recourse to (mainly) local capitalist interests (i.e. loans from capitalists to pay other capitalists for goods and services). Such a system would remove the massive Fed debt-making machine....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
@sabine: quote:
I'm not an economist, but this seems similar to the WPA programs that were implemented during the Great Depression.
With the obvious differences: that the Fed is not overseeing or attempting to fund the work projects at any level; that with a compulsory lending law in place, the money now will flow (where it did not then). The solution, it seems obvious to me, is to compel the money flow. Cities, counties and States will draw loans, put their people to work in exchange for goods and services (welfare for honest, consistent work), resulting in a stimulated local economy: and the Nation-wide effect will be a rescued "national" economy as capitalism recovers, the "safety netters" diminish in number, and more paying jobs are restored and created, thus paying back the loans....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Cities, counties and States will draw loans, put their people to work in exchange for goods and services (welfare for honest, consistent work), resulting in a stimulated local economy: and the Nation-wide effect will be a rescued "national" economy as capitalism recovers, the "safety netters" diminish in number, and more paying jobs are restored and created, thus paying back the loans....
I get where you're coming from (I think....) but there have been some attempts at work-for-welfare already, and they tend to result in a two-tier system....
...two people doing the same job at the same pay level. One person gets a wage which s/he is free to spend on whatever s/he wants (because that person did not come to the job "needing the services") while the other gets foodstamps or a housing voucher or credit toward some other service and is not free to spend as s/he wishes. In the end, the work-for-welfare becomes as much a trap as straight welfare does.
If you bar the first person (the one who doesn't need welfare) from having the work-for-welfare job, you run the risk of diminishing his/her chances of obtaining employment and you create a "indentured" situation for the second person.
I don't know if there is a third or fourth option out there that would take care of things.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Cities, counties and States will draw loans, put their people to work in exchange for goods and services (welfare for honest, consistent work), resulting in a stimulated local economy: and the Nation-wide effect will be a rescued "national" economy as capitalism recovers, the "safety netters" diminish in number, and more paying jobs are restored and created, thus paying back the loans....
I get where you're coming from (I think....) but there have been some attempts at work-for-welfare already, and they tend to result in a two-tier system....
...two people doing the same job at the same pay level. One person gets a wage which s/he is free to spend on whatever s/he wants (because that person did not come to the job "needing the services") while the other gets foodstamps or a housing voucher or credit toward some other service and is not free to spend as s/he wishes. In the end, the work-for-welfare becomes as much a trap as straight welfare does.
If you bar the first person (the one who doesn't need welfare) from having the work-for-welfare job, you run the risk of diminishing his/her chances of obtaining employment and you create a "indentured" situation for the second person.
I don't know if there is a third or fourth option out there that would take care of things.
sabine
There is, and I admitted that running this system would be complex!
First of all, the person employed with a paying (capitalist job) would declare income; that would either disqualify them from obtaining "gov't work" (and the welfare attached with it), or only a partial subsidy for "gov't work" by the underpaid. Second, the "gov't work" is not employment in the same sense that it is any sort of regular, guaranteed job: it isn't ever supposed to turn into some permanent competition with capitalism. In fact, the materials and training and supervision would all come from capitalists. Third, there is no "locked into" tier for the working welfare recipients: part of the services provided would be education. With the skills obtained "on the job" and at school, an out would be provided for those who become qualified for paying (capitalist) jobs....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
(missed the edit "slit" -- it hardly is big enough to be called a "window")
I wanted to clarify that this system is all about intent. The intent of making banks let go of the money when cities, counties and States take out loans, is that unemployed people will be put to work, which work will get its materials and expertise from capitalism, thus stimulating the economy at once: thus the intent is MONEY FLOW and an end to frozen money choking capitalist interests. Second, the intent to make welfare recipients work is to prevent entitlement mentality; and in its place will be a strong work ethic, self respect and community solidarity (and on the grand scale, patriotism).
Obviously, without these intents, "my" system will not work. But if the main mass of Americans possess these intents, then no matter how many hitches in our git-along crop up we will overcome them. The intent will make the corrections naturally. As long as money flows and people work for what they obtain nothing can stop us....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I am a "born again capitalist" through and through.
But you wrote:
quote:
...the answer to radical, long-term change is causing the laborers to see that what they do is effecting the changes: it is their own work which is changing their world. If the laborers perceive that they are controlled by outside interests, they will never believe in the changes: "That I individually am helping make the difference".
Which is as good a piece of socialist analysis as anything. Its exactly that kind of dangerous thinking that set Marx off on the road to Communism.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I wanted to clarify that this system is all about intent. The intent of making banks let go of the money
So, what you propose is not that the state owns business, but that it controls them...which is mercantilism...which is what Mexico has. Ergo, you wish the US to be like Mexico.
[ 09. July 2010, 01:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
First of all, the person employed with a paying (capitalist job) would declare income; that would either disqualify them from obtaining "gov't work" (and the welfare attached with it), or only a partial subsidy for "gov't work" by the underpaid. Second, the "gov't work" is not employment in the same sense that it is any sort of regular, guaranteed job: it isn't ever supposed to turn into some permanent competition with capitalism. In fact, the materials and training and supervision would all come from capitalists. Third, there is no "locked into" tier for the working welfare recipients: part of the services provided would be education. With the skills obtained "on the job" and at school, an out would be provided for those who become qualified for paying (capitalist) jobs....
Thanks for the clarification of your vision. I'm not saying this to be contentious, but your ideas do seem to be in a slow drift to the left. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I wanted to clarify that this system is all about intent. The intent of making banks let go of the money
So, what you propose is not that the state owns business, but that it controls them...which is mercantilism...which is what Mexico has. Ergo, you wish the US to be like Mexico.
Not at all. I want "the State" to regulate the currency, "provide for the general welfare", so that it can afford to keep unemployed people busy working and get them back into capitalism as soon as possible. That is not mercantilism. I don't know what you call it: but the State does not regulate capitalism in my world view: rather, it protects people from the caprices of capitalism by providing a "place" for those, rendered null and void BY capitalism, to recover....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Thanks for the clarification of your vision. I'm not saying this to be contentious, but your ideas do seem to be in a slow drift to the left.
sabine
Left of right, to be sure. But I am probably a "centrist" in just about every angle of politico-philosophy you'd care to bring up. I want unfettered capitalism, because that's how abundant productivity is achieved without gov't ownership or control over it (I am ultimately an advocate for private property, no matter how much some happen to acquire); and I want a "safety net" on the local level provided by money borrowed FROM capitalism (not taxation)....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
it protects people from the caprices of capitalism by providing a "place" for those, rendered null and void BY capitalism, to recover....
Not getting snarky here; how does one go about this without regulating capitalism?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
it protects people from the caprices of capitalism by providing a "place" for those, rendered null and void BY capitalism, to recover....
Not getting snarky here; how does one go about this without regulating capitalism?
The only regulation I am proposing is making it illegal for banks to refuse loans to incorporated cities, counties and States: this frees up the money. The Fed regulates the money in circulation so they have a special one to one relationship with banks, the ones compelled to make the gov't loans to fund the welfare for work programs.
This perception that capitalism needs regulating (reining in, curtailing, moderating) is inimical to the very core dynamic of capitalism. When such controls are implemented and capitalism doesn't work the gov't gets blamed and more regulations are endlessly sought: when what is really needed is a temporary welfare for work "safety net" until capitalism sorts itself out, again. It will, always, as long as people are free to pursue their dreams and can get their hands on the money. When capitalism hits a rough spell and unemployment soars, that is when the loans to cities, counties and States step in; the increased demand on capitalist sources for materials and services turns the loans into capitalist gains, and the process of recovery is immediately jump-started. It seems obvious to me that such a combined system does not need regulating beyond defining what is legal and what is not (which we have plenty of already)....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Unfettered capitalism produces monopolies and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. This is hardly deniable given the history of capitalism in this country and the world. Capitalism without regulation is a recipe for poverty and exploitation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...as long as people are free to pursue their dreams and can get their hands on the money.
That's a nice romantic myth, and it sells, but it's not true.
If, say, you grow up with type 1 diabetes, your dreams are limited by the need to get a job that offers good health insurance. The recent health care "reform" doesn't go far enough to remedy that, but it goes too far for the tea partiers!
If you happen to be born in an inner city, chances are you'll be in bad situations kids in the suburbs don't have to deal with, and you won't have the opportunities early on that come with a suburban public school system. I know you'll say somehow capitalist investors will fix it all if we just give them the chance, but in reality, people tend to invest in their own communities.
In fact, the IRS had to change the rules for creating scholarship endowments for colleges and universities. People were actually crafting scholarships only their kids or other family members could ever qualify for, so they could get the tax write-offs and recognition AND benefit from the scholarship. (I learned this while working in development at a public university. Every scholarship had the same clause that basically said anyone could win it. I guess the tax deduction for the donation must've exceeded the usual credits you get for college tuition - Hope and Lifelong Learning credits.)
That's one example of the sad fact that without regulation, that's how capitalists do things: they help their own. Humans aren't as altruistic as we love to think we are! Everyone knows other similar examples. Happily, we know exceptions, too, but those exceptions prove the rule.
And, yes, we've all heard the stories of someone from the ghetto succeeding against all odds because of their hard work, determination, and, frankly, talents. That's also an exception that proves the rule.
Hence even your own admission that capitalism need some regulation and correction.
I really do believe that humans are basically good, but I also believe we're evolved from (common ancestors to) monkeys. We mean well, and act in our own self-interest most of the time.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This perception that capitalism needs regulating (reining in, curtailing, moderating) is inimical to the very core dynamic of capitalism. When such controls are implemented and capitalism doesn't work the gov't gets blamed and more regulations are endlessly sought:
Hmmm, Great Depression caused in large part by poorly regulated capitalism. The regulation which followed cannot have had anything to do with the relative stability which followed, can it? Loosening regulations contributed to the current problems, what is the solution? Unfettered capitalism!
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
a combined system does not need regulating beyond defining what is legal and what is not
Tomatoes, tomahtoes.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
(which we have plenty of already)....
Please point to which laws/regulations caused the current mess.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unfettered capitalism produces monopolies and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. This is hardly deniable given the history of capitalism in this country and the world. Capitalism without regulation is a recipe for poverty and exploitation.
No, it is not. Yes, it creates a few uber rich. Your envy is showing! Life on earth for humans is not fair. And the last thing anyone should expect is that Gov't will see to it that life is fair for everyone. What hubris! And the mass of envious fall for it every time.
You see capitalism as evil because it produces a few rich who own the main mass of material wealth. Actually, that has always been the case with any economic system. The genius of unfettered capitalism is the enormous abundance of goods and services that it produces for everyone's use.
Monopolies are ruled out because of the fairness laws without inhibiting the opperation of competition. Even the megahuge corporations are in competition with each other; ergo, they must consider how to keep their employees satisfied and generate loyalty to "the company". If they don't see to that as first priority, their employees go off on their own and seek the better working deals.
You seem to think that "unfettered capitalism" results in tyranny automatically. Actually, the laws in place make blatant tyranny illegal on so many levels. In a nation where individual civil liberties are held up as the most inalienable rights, the law defines behavior and policy for the uber rich too: they can't just walk all over the working classes.
So capitalism results in the wealth being destributed such that everyone has an abundant life. The people "at the top" just have an over-kill abundance. If you won't be happy living in the "shadow" of such success, the answer isn't to dismantle it.
Perhaps the answer is to be free to try and get rich too. The Law won't allow the super rich and powerful to destroy your efforts: not in the America of the free capitalists, it won't. But in the America of His Oness's "fair distribution" the reworked Law will absolutely prevent you from rising "above yourself": all the while preserving the uber rich who happen to be in power (wielding The Law in their own self-interest)....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Your envy is showing!
Leave off the personal attacks or take it to Hell.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
It wasn't meant as an attack. Envy is the common vice of our species. It is, in fact, one of the most powerful forces behind free capitalism. "Keeping up with the Joneses" and all that jazz. By taking my comment personally you seem to be asserting that you are not envious. Yet your advocating for His Oness's "fair distrubution" i.e. anti-capitalism, indicates otherwise....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
sabine replying to MtM:
... your ideas do seem to be in a slow drift to the left.
I think some perfectly normal centrist policies are defined as "liberal" by the dominant right-wing voices in the media. And for a lot of Americans words like "liberal", "left-wing", and "socialist" have all been drained of meaning other than as insults (and are not even dfistinguished from each other or from "Marxist" or "Communist") Its all part of the almost complete domination of American media by the political right.
So when people come up with some sensible political idea that might otherwise be called liberal or left-wing they have to brand it, and themselves, as conservative, in order to avoid using what to them are dirty words.
Its like people who call themselves vegetarian but eat fish.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
No, it is not. Yes, it creates a few uber rich. Your envy is showing! Life on earth for humans is not fair. And the last thing anyone should expect is that Gov't will see to it that life is fair for everyone. What hubris! And the mass of envious fall for it every time.
The reason the government tries to make life fair for everyone is that by not doing so, it risks social unrest and revolution - i.e. Russia, France, China, etc.
The first social benefits were provided by the Otto von Bismarck of Germany not because he was enlightened, but because he knew that a poor deprived population that sees no hope in improving their lot through regular channels turns to crime and revolution to achieve equality.
Equalizing incomes (to a degree that ensures basic services and social mobility but doesn't stifle innovation and achievement) creates a peaceful population which has a stake in the status quo as opposed to a dispossessed one that wants to overthrow it.
And if you don't think it won't happen in the U.S. I suggest rereading American labour history in the early 20th Century through WWII. This country was very close to a socialist/Marxist revolution. In fact, Marx expected that revolution to happen in western Europe and the U.S., not Russia.
[ 12. July 2010, 17:21: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Perhaps the answer is to be free to try and get rich too. The Law won't allow the super rich and powerful to destroy your efforts: not in the America of the free capitalists, it won't. But in the America of His Oness's "fair distribution" the reworked Law will absolutely prevent you from rising "above yourself": all the while preserving the uber rich who happen to be in power (wielding The Law in their own self-interest)....
Ha! America has the worst social mobility measure of every western economy, save the UK and Italy. It is far more difficult for a person to move from poverty to wealth in the U.S. than it is in Canada, Scandinavia or Australia.
It's a lovely myth that this can happen in the U.S., but the incredibly unequal educational system and ongoing economic/geographical apartheid prevent it in the vast majority of cases.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Perhaps the answer is to be free to try and get rich too. The Law won't allow the super rich and powerful to destroy your efforts: not in the America of the free capitalists, it won't. But in the America of His Oness's "fair distribution" the reworked Law will absolutely prevent you from rising "above yourself": all the while preserving the uber rich who happen to be in power (wielding The Law in their own self-interest)....
Ha! America has the worst social mobility measure of every western economy, save the UK and Italy. It is far more difficult for a person to move from poverty to wealth in the U.S. than it is in Canada, Scandinavia or Australia.
It's a lovely myth that this can happen in the U.S., but the incredibly unequal educational system and ongoing economic/geographical apartheid prevent it in the vast majority of cases.
Besides, the lack of (upward) mobility for the lower and middle classes and the increased power of the "uber rich" has been a trend for a few decades now, regardless of which party is in power. I want to blame it on Reagan and his "trickle down economics" and deregulation, but I don't know enough about politics and economics to say that for sure. Plus I was a teenager during the Reagan years, so I don't have a lot of first-hand awareness of how things were before. At any rate, what's going on in the economy right now predates the current administration.
Besides, the "uber rich" you're complaining about are the ones who have convinced you that Obama's proposals to increase the tax burden on the wealthiest in the country (who have enough money to figure out how to get out of a lot of their tax anyway) will negatively affect the rest of us. Making the super-rich pay a higher percentage of taxes and giving the working and middle classes a break isn't going to prevent upward mobility by the lower classes.
You're a capitalist, Your Mness ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) - think of Henry Ford. He wanted to sell more cars, so he paid his workers enough so they could buy cars. The policies Republicans since Reagan have wanted to implement are the equivalent of Henry Ford saying that if he wanted more people to buy cars, he needed to give more people jobs, which he could do if he payed them very little so as not to reduce his own profits, which, of course, he would use to give more people jobs. You can see that wouldn't have worked, right?
Plus, Republicans are always saying if we want to help the economy, we need to lower taxes so people have more of their own money to spend (thereby increasing demand which leads to an increased supply which leads to more jobs). Obama has always wanted to cut the taxes of the majority - the lower, working and middle classes. It's just that in order to continue to provide services, the government would need to make sure it was getting its tax revenue from somewhere - and closing loopholes and increasing the tax burden on those who can afford it the most is a fair way to do that. Unless you're really, really rich and think you need even more money and have a right to make so much money you could never spend it in your lifetime, then you think it's unfair, because you don't want to share your toys with the other boys and girls. We all learned in kindergarten and Sunday School that that is no way to live amongst our fellow human beings.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
This idea that everyone in American can get rich is a powerful myth. I have to wonder if there are some Calvinist roots to it. But when you scrape away at the surface there are far bigger barriers in the U.S. than elsewhere. The local control and funding of the school systems, urban sprawl and poor efficient public transportation alternatives are probably the biggest barriers.
If I'm a poor father living in Compton, CA the chances of my child moving out of poverty are slim. The Compton public school district is one of the area's worst performers. The graduation rate is less than 50% and few who graduate have the English and Math skills to start university at a remedial level. High performing teachers go elsewhere where they are paid better, have more resources and better working conditions, so you're left with sub-par faculty (though many may be very dedicated). The poor tax base ensures that the school facilities, books, musical instruments, shop/trade courses, counselling and other services are substandard as well.
What are the alternatives?
Well you could pick up move to a richer school district, except how would a middle class person afford to live in San Marino, Arcadia, Santa Monica, South Pasadena, Beverly Hills or Palos Verdes? Condominiums there start in $500k range and go up from there. You could try to move to an outer suburb in the Inland Empire or Palmdale, but those are largely suburban areas where there are few well-paying jobs. You would have to invest in a car (taking $1,000/mo out of your take-home pay for payments, maintenance, gas, insurance, etc.) and probably make a long round trip into the city.
The other alternative is private school, but then even that can be hit or miss. Perhaps there is a decent Catholic school with room for your child at a price you can afford, but if it is good, everyone will be competing for the same seats. If it's not, you're not much better off.
Even if you manage to do it, the costs of higher education are going up at a rate higher than inflation. California was one of the last states to impose community college and university tuitions but those are going up quickly and those schools are facing cuts because of the budget crisis. So middle class and poor kids are hobbled at this level too. If you manage to graduate you have tens of thousands of dollars worth of student loans to pay off, in an economy where the long term trend is that well paying jobs are fading. Even law school is no guarantee of a 6 figure income anymore.
So the idea that anyone can become wealthy in "free" America is a myth. America isn't free if you're poor. You are every bit as trapped as you'd be in an authoritarian state. There may be people who manage to move up, but that is as much luck as skill.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Ha! America has the worst social mobility measure of every western economy, save the UK and Italy. It is far more difficult for a person to move from poverty to wealth in the U.S. than it is in Canada, Scandinavia or Australia.
Your mistake is in assuming that social mobility is only upward. The US has created an almost perfect engine for driving its citizens down the economic ladder...
--Tom Clune
[ 12. July 2010, 18:13: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
This idea that everyone in American can get rich is a powerful myth.
Indeed it is. It seems to drive most of what Merlin says. I already picked up on it goodness-knows-how-many-pages ago when we had a little debate about why so many people are eager to emigrate to America.
I think it's because they believe the myth. It's certainly one that America seems keen to perpetuate.
Perhaps it wasn't a myth back in the pioneering days.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
This idea that everyone in American can get rich is a powerful myth. [/qb]
Indeed it is. It seems to drive most of what Merlin says. I already picked up on it goodness-knows-how-many-pages ago when we had a little debate about why so many people are eager to emigrate to America.
I think it's because they believe the myth. It's certainly one that America seems keen to perpetuate.
Perhaps it wasn't a myth back in the pioneering days.
If I had a dollar for every refugee who has told me that they were shocked to find themselves (after resettlement) trapped in a system that doesn't allow them to create secure lives for themselves in the US (after enduring terrible hardship elsewhere) I'd be able to start a charity to help them.
They've all heard the rumours of how once you get here and work hard, you will be able to provide for your family and maybe even get to use the education/training you had before you came.
Ask me about the MBAs who are driving cabs and the RNs who are cleaning hotel rooms--and then ask me how long it takes them to move up to a position befitting their education.....for most, it never happens. And then they become just another segment of the disenfranchised in this country--or as we in the refugee biz like to say, they are are victims twice.
ETA: I'm not talking about undocumented immigrants, but legal immigrants from conflict zones who are invited here by our government and really really want to be producitve citizens. But the door hardly opens a crack for them once they are in the country, and they are subjected to intense prejudice.
sabine
[ 13. July 2010, 02:32: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, maybe we need not blame it all on America (for values of America = people long since absorbed and assimilated). In my Vietnamese community the myth is eagerly propagated by many of the very people most hurt by it--namely, the new arrivals who are living in the slums. A few of the dimmer sparks among them do things like going to Cadillac showrooms and taking pix of themselves to send back home with the note "This is my garage." And of course there's always the idiot who wants to pick up points with a lovely Vietnamese-based girl he could have never lifted his eyes to before. "Yes, darling, I've earned my PhD in six months!" (= piled higher and deeper)
Oh, the humanity. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
If only I had spanking privileges.
[ 13. July 2010, 03:57: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You can spank me, L.C., if it's okay with Josephine.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Merlin--
FWIW, you seem to have a rather rose-colored view of capitalism. I realize that, for anyone, that goes along with finding The Answer (tm) to a problem.
But...some of your comments seem divorced from the realities of everyday life. A few examples:
quote:
In a nation where individual civil liberties are held up as the most inalienable rights, the law defines behavior and policy for the uber rich too: they can't just walk all over the working classes.
The rich and powerful usually aren't held to the same standards as everyone else. They can and do walk all over all sorts of people. (Though there are good folks with wealth and power who try to do good in the world.)
quote:
The "American dream" is tempered by realism: very, very few workers are inventive, persistent and lucky enough to make it rich in any big way. But we all know that while getting more dollars is the goal, meanwhile we don't go hungry, we buy our own little house somewhere (temporarily, of course, while our dreams are alive), our children get educations and end up better and smarter than we are, etc. We never become anyone the world knows about, but we shop, grow older, change cars, houses and possessions numerous times and then we die and our STUFF gets grabbed by children and siblings, etc. Capitalism produces so much STUFF that there's more than enough for everyone to enjoy without ever being "rich" by American standards. The rest of the world, especially the developing world, looks on America with envy and wonder. And life is good.
Your "tempered by realism" American Dream is almost as unrealistic as the original--a huge number of people never got any of those things, nor had a chance to get them. Even during the period when you thought they did.
quote:
Obviously, without these intents, "my" system will not work. But if the main mass of Americans possess these intents, then no matter how many hitches in our git-along crop up we will overcome them. The intent will make the corrections naturally. As long as money flows and people work for what they obtain nothing can stop us....
Has it been your experience that if you really want something and work really hard to get it, that you can always overcome obstacles???
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Has it been your experience that if you really want something and work really hard to get it, that you can always overcome obstacles???
This is where Merlin suddenly and dramatically reveals that he is, in fact, a Hollywood scriptwriter.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, maybe we need not blame it all on America (for values of America = people long since absorbed and assimilated). In my Vietnamese community the myth is eagerly propagated by many of the very people most hurt by it--namely, the new arrivals who are living in the slums. A few of the dimmer sparks among them do things like going to Cadillac showrooms and taking pix of themselves to send back home with the note "This is my garage." And of course there's always the idiot who wants to pick up points with a lovely Vietnamese-based girl he could have never lifted his eyes to before. "Yes, darling, I've earned my PhD in six months!" (= piled higher and deeper)
Oh, the humanity.
If only I had spanking privileges.
Of course I was not blaming it all on America (bold in your quote is mine, too).
I was merely stating what my experience and the experience of the people I work with tends to be.
I've also had experiences with refugees who are similar to those you have described, but for the most part, my post is pretty close to the reality in my work and my city.
I'm not debating here, at lest not now--although I once was more worked up on this thread--I'm just describing a few things that I thought were relevant.
On a thread where some people are debating, some people are discussing, and some people are flirting with hell behavior, it's hard to read plain text as those words sounded in the head of the writer.
peace,
sabine
[ 13. July 2010, 12:10: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...
So the idea that anyone can become wealthy in "free" America is a myth. America isn't free if you're poor. You are every bit as trapped as you'd be in an authoritarian state. There may be people who manage to move up, but that is as much luck as skill.
I don't know if you're addressing what you think I said or believe. To repeat: I do not believe that America is or ever was a country where anyone can get rich. If people believed that it is only because there are enough exceptions to the rule to be popular urban legends: and, there is the very real productivity and prosperity here to make life good (unless life is only good for you if you're one of the rich, then in opinion you have an attitude and values problem, but that's another subject for discussion).
Getting "rich" isn't the issue and shouldn't be the goal of the gov't providing for the general welfare!
Certainly, equal education opportunities are part of providing for the general welfare. But if everyone got a doctorate there would still be resulting stratification in low to high paying jobs. That is the simple fact of supply and demand!
Capitalism is the most productive form of economy. It is no panacea for securing the general welfare; but it does go further by being more productive and creating more incentive than any other economic system. The wealth of goods and services are what comes to the aid of the disadvantaged. If the goods and services are in short supply everyone suffers (even the very rich would notice the difference in their world, for poverty and squalor would be everywhere outside of their tiny walled domains - instead of prosperity and general upkeep)....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Merlin--
FWIW, you seem to have a rather rose-colored view of capitalism. I realize that, for anyone, that goes along with finding The Answer (tm) to a problem.
But...some of your comments seem divorced from the realities of everyday life.
...Has it been your experience that if you really want something and work really hard to get it, that you can always overcome obstacles???
"Rose-colored", not at all. I am an idealist. What's the point of working for less than the ideal?
Everyday life has nothing to do with idealism. Dreams are what change our world, not constant talking about reality.
Nothing I have suggested is unobtainable. And I have said nothing about everyone getting rich or there being a system to erradicate the poor among us. There will always be poor/dependant people for a complex of reasons.
In my experience, people who work hardest/smartest get ahead most often. Exceptions do not disprove the "rule".
But when someone's hard work ends up for naught, we have few recourses in place other than State welfare. I simply envision a different focus and funding for that welfare; two-part change would effectively alter state welfare into a system that we do not recognize anywhere today. Those two changes would effect a "work for what you receive" mentality that allows no place for entitlement mentality. And the funding no longer being tax-based (ergo no longer on the Fed level either), per force takes from capitalism and repays capitalism, further stimulating the economy rather than imposing a constant, growing drain upon it....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Baseball game's over. Right now, and I suspect in common with quite a few participants in this thread, I'm not sure you've got any real kind of answer to Erin's challenge. But I'd be interested in reading a serious response, rather than an assertion that the challenge is asinine. I mean, if it is asinine, then it should be easy to demonstrate that. Please show us the donkey. Sometime soon?
If someone was to say to me in person "But basically what you're saying is that it's perfectly ok for the state, county and city to fuck you up the ass, but God forbid the federal government make the attempt, right?" I'd probably just toss a quarter in their cup and move on.
I'm against governments of any level buggering the people. If someone in DC tries it, there's very little that can be quickly done. If someone local tries it, I can be on their front porch in less than half an hour.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Well, I've lost the context of THAT response entirely. Care to bring me (us) up to speed?...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Well, I've lost the context of THAT response entirely. Care to bring me (us) up to speed?...
If you're talking about my post, it was something Erin posted as a response to one of my posts a few days ago. Those are her exact words. I guess some folks think hyperbole is the greatest thing ever.
[ 14. July 2010, 16:45: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I guess some folks think hyperbole is the greatest thing ever.
Plenty of them in the tea party.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I guess some folks think hyperbole is the greatest thing ever.
Plenty of them in the tea party.
In any party.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
