Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Re: Neither economics nor wealth are a zero-sum game; the error of progressive argume
It seems to me that the argument about whether wealth is finite or infinite is an irrelevant distraction from the primary subject of this discussion.
Is wealth a zero-sum game, or isn't it? And really, this is a major distinction between those of us on the right,and those who are on the wrong.
To those of us on the right, who believe in capitalism, we recognize that even the simplest trade increases wealth. Two people make a deal to exchange one form of wealth for another, leaving each participant in possession of something that he values more than he valued that which he had to give up in exchange for it, thus leaving both parties wealthier than they were before. Wealth is increased, not by creating anything new, but by putting what already existed into the hands of someone who holds it in higher value.
Those on the wrong, of course, pursue policies in which wealth is merely taken from someone, and given to someone else. Every one who is made wealthy by wrong-wing policies is so made at the expense of someone else who is made poorer by the same amount. The far wrong operates on the premise that wealth is a zero-sum game, and pursues policies which have the intent and effect of making it so.
Specious arguments don't refute anything. But the question isn't whether wealth can be created, but whether the enrichment of one person actually does lead to the impoverishment of another. It need not always do so, but very often does. A question stands corollary to the first: do the wealthy create their wealth by their own personal efforts? The answer seems to be that they do not.
To those of us on the right, who believe in capitalism, we recognize that even the simplest trade increases wealth. Two people make a deal to exchange one form of wealth for another, leaving each participant in possession of something that he values more than he valued that which he had to give up in exchange for it, thus leaving both parties wealthier than they were before. Wealth is increased, not by creating anything new, but by putting what already existed into the hands of someone who holds it in higher value.
Many if not most exchanges are made on the basis of one participant's need, for services which have no further exchangeable value or for things which rapidly lose their value - eg. food, clothing, transport, rented accomodation, utilities. Even those with rather modest intelligence understand that buying their food for the next few days, however necessary it may be, does not increase their wealth.
Apparently you, and by your word right-wingers in general, do not understand that :lamo
Let's cut to the chase. If you don't know what a zero sum game is, then look it up. Economics is not a zero sum game because the amount of wealth is not fixed. Specious argumentation about fixed values at any split-second frozen in time don't refute that.
Of course, I have never seen anyone argue that the amount of wealth is permanently fixed, so your whole thread is rather pointless. Wealth is finite, and growth is limited. You live in this fantasy world where everyone can make a career as a painter, because painting something is 'creating wealth' - where everyone can become rich, but they're just not trying hard enough.
Most of us live in reality, where there needs to be demand in order for things to have value, and no-one else already meeting that demand in order for someone to create new wealth.
Many if not most exchanges are made on the basis of one participant's need, for services which have no further exchangeable value or for things which rapidly lose their value - eg. food, clothing, transport, rented accomodation, utilities. Even those with rather modest intelligence understand that buying their food for the next few days, however necessary it may be, does not increase their wealth.
Wealth can not only be created but it can be consumed. In fact, the formula for wealth is: Production - Consumption = Wealth. You tell someone that's starving that a 7 day supply of food isn't wealth and see if they agree with you. If you don't think food, clothing, transportation and shelter are forms of wealth, then you've never really been poor.
Apparently you, and by your word right-wingers in general, do not understand that :lamo
We don't understand how you can be so ignorant about what wealth is. That's true.
Of course, I have never seen anyone argue that the amount of wealth is permanently fixed, so your whole thread is rather pointless. Wealth is finite, and growth is limited.
So you want to argue that wealth is not fixed but that it is finite. That's the equivalent of arguing that black is white.
And then you want to argue that growth is limited. Limited by what? Limited by the amount of production and trade people engage in, of course. In other words, we ourselves, are the only limitation to wealth.[/quote]
So you want to argue that wealth is not fixed but that it is finite. That's the equivalent of arguing that black is white.
You live in this fantasy world where everyone can make a career as a painter, because painting something is 'creating wealth' - where everyone can become rich, but they're just not trying hard enough.
You live in a world where you, apparently, think strawman arguments are effective. I don't think everyone can be a painter. I think everyone can create or do something of value unless they are critically handicapped. Anything you create or any service you provide can be exchanged for wealth unless you are doing something no one wants you to do. And that's some artists for you. They produce complete crap. And this is the real key to capitalism. You fit into society by doing something of value for others and exchanging it for something of value that others are doing for you. While that does tend to punish people who want to do nothing but sit on their arse and sponge off other people, it tends to reward people who are the best at providing value and service to others. When capitalism is left to work, it works better to assure people meet the needs of society than any other system and it allows people to focus on what they like and what they do best at the level they are happy to maintain. Now, like I said, if you're one of the useless bastards in our society that really isn't interested in spending any of his time or energy doing a damned thing of value for anyone else and also doesn't want to grow his own food, maintain his own shelter, build his own cars, etc. etc. etc., then you probably wouldn't be happy with a capitalist system. But then again, you wouldn't be happy with a communist system, either because the one thing communism has going for it is that you're going to do something of value for society whether you like it or not. You lose your right to choice and freedom but you're sure as hell going to do what you're told if you don't want to spend your very short life in prison.
Most of us live in reality, where there needs to be demand in order for things to have value
Well, yes.... and DING DING DING..... Here's your cigar. Lucky you! You are in a reality where there is a demand for things!!!!! If you aren't able to trade, it's because you're useless because everyone who can do or create something of value trades all the time!
and no-one else already meeting that demand in order for someone to create new wealth.
OH... WAIT!!!! BZZZZZZZTTTTT.... So sorry. Take that man's cigar back and show him the exit door, Johnny.
You are free to enter the market at any time with whatever you can sell or produce. Other people sell labor, but so can you. Other people grow vegetables for sale but so can you. Other people build homes but so can you. Other people do electrical work but so can you. Other people fix automobiles but so can you. Other people program computers.... and guess what? So can you. You just have to get off your ass and do something of value instead of being a worthless whiner and you can trade what you've got or produce with others. I think your problem is that you are all confused and disappointed because people don't find your whining to be anything of value. I'd recommend you offer something ELSE and see how that works. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Re: Neither economics nor wealth are a zero-sum game; the error of progressive argume
The OP over-simplifies and also makes "wealth" generic, when there is a difference between someone with a 6 figure income and someone with a 7 or 8 figure income and/or 7,8,9, 10 figures of wealth, plus a corporate entity in the 9 and 10 figure category is still an entirely different creature.
My wife, to earn her own pocket and gift buying money started selling on eBay, making maybe $10 to $20 per day. To make a long story short, an extremely wealthy trophy wife of an exorbitantly wealthy husband - with exorbitantly wealthy connects and into exorbitantly wealthy corporations of old and new money measured into the tens and probably hundreds of billions collectively - thought earning her own spending money was cool and became a 50/50 partner to do so herself too - for which my wife would "run" the business and she would kick in operating and development money.
Her husband though it was cute his wife trying to make money, so threw is money-power behind it. The power and influence of that money-power was MASSIVE. It moved thru government regulations like a hot knife thru butter - and literally would just pulverize competitors no different than a poker playing raising the stakes in a no-limit game higher than anyone could even match to call the bet - winning the pot by default. Even beyond paying for all setup, inventory and other startup costs, within a few months there were 7 facilities and money was raining down. However, the time demands were great and my wife's goal wasn't to become ubber rich, so after setting aside a pile of money she suddenly shut it all down.
What her and I saw is that raw money is a power all it's own, having little to do with doctrines of capitalism. Rather, it was just raw bullyism. They could buy out entire inventories allowing no competitor even the products to sell and could so price war as to quickly eliminate any targeted competition, plus all the edges in terms of government, influence and favoritism - and more. It was very educational. Capitalism is NOT just about personal efforts. It also is about the raw power of money.
The OP writes from the perspective of a "modest 6 figure" income person who believes he earned it (and maybe rightly so) and doesn't want other people taking what he earned, not from the perspective of someone (or more often some corporation) that has billions and tens of billions to throw into the "capitalism battleground," and it is a battleground.
Finally, there is the matter of "old money," ie inherited money or already existing big money. While the trophy wife's mega-rich husband was born a billionaire, his distance past heritage going back hundreds of years goes back to very humble beginnings. They understood how to use wealth to built wealth with an unusually high sense of building a future for their next generation - and had done so for hundreds of years in a clannish sense.
For example, they early on realized the potentials of land and minerals, and own MASSIVE tracts of land and even more massive amounts of mineral rights to land in the USA and other countries. They saw value in desolate land they probably bought the rights to for a penny an acre as much as 200 years ago. And when oil become the thing, money rained on them by the millions and billions - money they used to gain still more money.
They also went heavily into the food industry domestically and internationally. That was their beginning. Raising cattle and goats. And over 200+years built a money empire expanding in many, many other directions. Everyone's got to eat. If you ate beef yesterday, they likely made money on it. Probably last week they made money off you a dozen different ways.
Their capitalistic poker-playing is measured in hundreds of millions and billions per game.
Now? They can basically crush anyone they want to - and basically take everything the opposition has in the capitalism system. If they come up against opposition of equal or sufficient resistance money-power, they will join forces with that opposition so that collectively they can even more wipe out smaller operations - and then divide up what they have captured based upon what ratio each put into the money-war.
Their ultimate goal? So their next generation is even wealthier. They plan in terms of decades and centuries. Curiously, within their own family clan they are quite socialistic and have always been so - giving them the advantage of using their collective wealth generation to generation. There are also legal advantages plus it is a way to keep themselves too much off the map.
Bill Gates has 30 billion. None of them do. But collectively they probably have 200,300, 500 billion - there is no way for anyone to really know (but they do). Obviously they can play with the stock market and commodities market any way they want to. They even have their own private communities with their own systems of laws and wealth distribution among it.
What the OP lacks is what is most often lacking on the forum - the recognition that absolute dogmas of black and white really don't work. Pure capitalism becomes as brutal and corrupt as pure socialism - and in terms of absolutes both actually become the same thing. A few people with nearly all the wealth and all the power - and the peasants having little of anything.
The OP over-simplifies and also makes "wealth" generic, when there is a difference between someone with a 6 figure income and someone with a 7 or 8 figure income and/or 7,8,9, 10 figures of wealth, plus a corporate entity in the 9 and 10 figure category is still an entirely different creature.
The OP realizes that the difference between someone with a six figure income and a seven figure income isn't in the type of wealth but only in the AMOUNT of wealth. Wealth is wealth, whether it's 1.00 of wealth or 1 trillion of wealth.
My wife, to earn her own pocket and gift buying money started selling on eBay, making maybe $10 to $20 per day. To make a long story short, an extremely wealthy trophy wife of an exorbitantly wealthy husband - with exorbitantly wealthy connects and into exorbitantly wealthy corporations of old and new money measured into the tens and probably hundreds of billions collectively - thought earning her own spending money was cool and became a 50/50 partner to do so herself too - for which my wife would "run" the business and she would kick in operating and development money.
Her husband though it was cute his wife trying to make money, so threw is money-power behind it. The power and influence of that money-power was MASSIVE. It moved thru government regulations like a hot knife thru butter - and literally would just pulverize competitors no different than a poker playing raising the stakes in a no-limit game higher than anyone could even match to call the bet - winning the pot by default. Even beyond paying for all setup, inventory and other startup costs, within a few months there were 7 facilities and money was raining down. However, the time demands were great and my wife's goal wasn't to become ubber rich, so after setting aside a pile of money she suddenly shut it all down.
What her and I saw is that raw money is a power all it's own, having little to do with doctrines of capitalism. Rather, it was just raw bullyism. They could buy out entire inventories allowing no competitor even the products to sell and could so price war as to quickly eliminate any targeted competition, plus all the edges in terms of government, influence and favoritism - and more. It was very educational. Capitalism is NOT just about personal efforts. It also is about the raw power of money.
The OP writes from the perspective of a "modest 6 figure" income person who believes he earned it (and maybe rightly so) and doesn't want other people taking what he earned, not from the perspective of someone (or more often some corporation) that has billions and tens of billions to throw into the "capitalism battleground," and it is a battleground.
Finally, there is the matter of "old money," ie inherited money or already existing big money. While the trophy wife's mega-rich husband was born a billionaire, his distance past heritage going back hundreds of years goes back to very humble beginnings. They understood how to use wealth to built wealth with an unusually high sense of building a future for their next generation - and had done so for hundreds of years in a clannish sense.
For example, they early on realized the potentials of land and minerals, and own MASSIVE tracts of land and even more massive amounts of mineral rights to land in the USA and other countries. They saw value in desolate land they probably bought the rights to for a penny an acre as much as 200 years ago. And when oil become the thing, money rained on them by the millions and billions - money they used to gain still more money.
They also went heavily into the food industry domestically and internationally. That was their beginning. Raising cattle and goats. And over 200+years built a money empire expanding in many, many other directions. Everyone's got to eat. If you ate beef yesterday, they likely made money on it. Probably last week they made money off you a dozen different ways.
Their capitalistic poker-playing is measured in hundreds of millions and billions per game.
Now? They can basically crush anyone they want to - and basically take everything the opposition has in the capitalism system. If they come up against opposition of equal or sufficient resistance money-power, they will join forces with that opposition so that collectively they can even more wipe out smaller operations - and then divide up what they have captured based upon what ratio each put into the money-war.
Their ultimate goal? So their next generation is even wealthier. They plan in terms of decades and centuries. Curiously, within their own family clan they are quite socialistic and have always been so - giving them the advantage of using their collective wealth generation to generation. There are also legal advantages plus it is a way to keep themselves too much off the map.
Bill Gates has 30 billion. None of them do. But collectively they probably have 200,300, 500 billion - there is no way for anyone to really know (but they do). Obviously they can play with the stock market and commodities market any way they want to. They even have their own private communities with their own systems of laws and wealth distribution among it.
What the OP lacks is what is most often lacking on the forum - the recognition that absolute dogmas of black and white really don't work. Pure capitalism becomes as brutal and corrupt as pure socialism - and in terms of absolutes both actually become the same thing. A few people with nearly all the wealth and all the power - and the peasants having little of anything.
You seem obsessed by all this. Are you suffering and impoverished? Does this system afford you the opportunity to make the money ou wish and need? Didn't you say that your wife decided to abandoned the pursuit of wealth for a more modest life that she preferred? Isn't that one of the beautiful things about capitalism? Do you feel like you are a peasant because Bill Gates has trillions? Is Bill Gates ordering you around and telling you what to do?
All I heard through that was that you agree it's possible for people to go out and earn a lot of money combined with a rant about people who actually did. So what did a rich person do to you to make you so bitter toward the rich?
You just have to get off your ass and do something of value instead of being a worthless whiner and you can trade what you've got or produce with others. I think your problem is that you are all confused and disappointed because people don't find your whining to be anything of value. I'd recommend you offer something ELSE and see how that works. You might be pleasantly surprised.
So this'll be the third? or fourth? time I have pointed out to you that no matter how creative your imagination is, inventing stories to tell yourself about my life (or anyone else's, since it really is a common habit of yours) is not debate :roll: See, when I say that you're living in this fantasy world I have these proven examples to back up my claim. You, on the other hand, know nothing about me except what I have told you: That I have a full-time fast food industry job, pay my taxes, give some to charity and am quite comfortable with the standard of living which my (below Australian median, but considerably above global average) income provides. Hardly a glamour story, but your ideology does seem to demand that those nasty ol' liberals be unemployed bums, doesn't it?
Many if not most exchanges are made on the basis of one participant's need, for services which have no further exchangeable value or for things which rapidly lose their value - eg. food, clothing, transport, rented accomodation, utilities. Even those with rather modest intelligence understand that buying their food for the next few days, however necessary it may be, does not increase their wealth.
Wealth can not only be created but it can be consumed. In fact, the formula for wealth is: Production - Consumption = Wealth. You tell someone that's starving that a 7 day supply of food isn't wealth and see if they agree with you. If you don't think food, clothing, transportation and shelter are forms of wealth, then you've never really been poor.
If you hand a starving man some food, obviously you've increased his wealth, however briefly. If you take his money in exchange for food at a normal market rate, you have not increased his wealth. No-one buys food or a bus ticket or rent or clothing thinking "this'll make me richer"; everyone except those completely out of touch with reality recognise that these are expenses - consumption, as you say - not an increase in wealth. In the midst of leaping heroically to Bob Blaylock's defence, your formula that wealth is based on production is in direct contradiction with what he said, to which I was responding: "Wealth is increased, not by creating anything new, but by putting what already existed into the hands of someone who holds it in higher value." Sale of needed consumables is rarely (probably never) an increase in wealth for the buyer, but those transactions represent a substantial proportion if not a majority of all exchanges, and of lower class income.
Perhaps you should check whether what you've got to say actually agrees with the guy you're defending before going off half-cocked Blind partisanship tends not to produce very intelligent views.
So you want to argue that wealth is not fixed but that it is finite. That's the equivalent of arguing that black is white.
And then you want to argue that growth is limited. Limited by what? Limited by the amount of production and trade people engage in, of course. In other words, we ourselves, are the only limitation to wealth.
Oh dear. How many times does this need to be explained, by how many people? Wealth has increased in past years. I have not seen anyone, ever dispute that. So what's the point of your thread?
Assuming there is some point, if you look at any real thing which grows or increases, it will always be finite in extent, limited in its rate of growth and (with the possible exception of the universe as a whole) limited in its full potential extent. Despite growth of wealth being one of the most important - often the most important - thing to many governments, and most individuals in rich countries, few countries ever manage to reach a 20% growth rate and probably none have ever sustained it for many years running. So are you saying that all countries, through all of modern history, just haven't had the right people? That they haven't really been trying to increase their wealth as much as they could? Or maybe you honestly believe that if all of your ideologies were implemented they'd be seeing 40, 60, 80% growth rates and more in every year?
No. Wealth is grounded in reality, much as you try to avoid it. A painting can only ever be worth the price of dozens of houses to people who already have all the houses, food, clothes and cars they could want. Without that actual, physical wealth to build on, it's just canvass with some pretty pigments on it. Without actual goods or services to exchange, a hundred dollar note is just paper.
You live in this fantasy world where everyone can make a career as a painter, because painting something is 'creating wealth' - where everyone can become rich, but they're just not trying hard enough.
Since wealth is "value" and perception, there's nothing fantastic about comprehending that wealth could, in fact, be infinite or nearly so on this planet. Or at least until you've covered the surface with Hope Diamonds, Michaelangelo's, and precious coins.
I addressed these points in my editted comments
A > Increasing supply relative to demand lowers value. Michaelangelos have 'value' only to the extent they are considered exceptional. Hence most aspiring painters (and actors, musicians etc. etc.) do not generate much, if any, wealth from what they produce.
Same story in this post: Mithrae wrote (insult snipped): "...there needs to be demand in order for things to have value, and no-one else already meeting that demand in order for someone to create new wealth." Papa replied (rhetoric snipped): "Other people sell labor, but so can you. Other people grow vegetables for sale but so can you. Other people build homes but so can you. Other people do electrical work but so can you. Other people fix automobiles but so can you."
Of course a new person can enter the same fields. But if the demand were already met, it's not creating new wealth. The increased supply will simply reduce prices - simply spread it thinner.
New wealth is created gradually over time, no-one I've seen has ever denied that, but you seem to struggle mightily with the concept - with the fact - that the increase is limited and is gradual, and most of that pie is eaten by a relative few.
So this'll be the third? or fourth? time I have pointed out to you that no matter how creative your imagination is, inventing stories to tell yourself about my life (or anyone else's, since it really is a common habit of yours) is not debate :roll: See, when I say that you're living in this fantasy world I have these proven examples to back up my claim. You, on the other hand, know nothing about me except what I have told you: That I have a full-time fast food industry job, pay my taxes, give some to charity and am quite comfortable with the standard of living which my (below Australian median, but considerably above global average) income provides. Hardly a glamour story, but your ideology does seem to demand that those nasty ol' liberals be unemployed bums, doesn't it?
If you are tired of making burger-flipping money, do something more valuable. It's not anyone else's fault that you can't figure out something more valuable to do than take a job asking "do you want fries with that". If you're comfortable with what you make and satisfied with that, then you should be rejoicing in a capitalist system that allowed you to choose a job so undemanding and comfortable. If it suits you, great! If it doesn't, do something else. That's the beauty of the capitalism you constantly complain about. Take advantage of and appreciate it instead of cursing it.
If you hand a starving man some food, obviously you've increased his wealth, however briefly. If you take his money in exchange for food at a normal market rate, you have not increased his wealth.
You sure did. If you trade your money for something that's not worth what you're paying, that's YOUR fault. The secret to wealth is wisely trading. The wisest man would be one who profits from every trade. If he buys food, the food is of grater value to him than what he traded for it. Frankly, I can't think of anything more valuable to a starving man than food, so you profit him greatly for selling him food at "normal market rate".
No-one buys food or a bus ticket or rent or clothing thinking "this'll make me richer"; everyone except those completely out of touch with reality recognise that these are expenses - consumption, as you say - not an increase in wealth. In the midst of leaping heroically to Bob Blaylock's defence, your formula that wealth is based on production is in direct contradiction with what he said, to which I was responding: "Wealth is increased, not by creating anything new, but by putting what already existed into the hands of someone who holds it in higher value." Sale of needed consumables is rarely (probably never) an increase in wealth for the buyer, but those transactions represent a substantial proportion if not a majority of all exchanges, and of lower class income
Maybe that's your problem. You don't understand wealth and don't understand that you should trade your own only for things that you feel are of greater value to you than your money. Maybe if you truly comprehended this very simple principle, you'd find your money and time better spent.
Oh dear. How many times does this need to be explained, by how many people? Wealth has increased in past years. I have not seen anyone, ever dispute that. So what's the point of your thread?
The point is that the constant wealth creation proves that economics is not a zero-sum game, which is a false implied presumption at the core of virtually all arguments that wealth redistribution is necessary and justified.
Assuming there is some point, if you look at any real thing which grows or increases, it will always be finite in extent, limited in its rate of growth and (with the possible exception of the universe as a whole) limited in its full potential extent.
This is, essentially, circular argumentation; that you believe wealth growth must be finite because you believe that everything is finite. Without a hard limitation, you must assume more growth is possible and if you want to explain the hard limit of wealth growth, please give the details of that certain boundary.
Despite growth of wealth being one of the most important - often the most important - thing to many governments, and most individuals in rich countries, few countries ever manage to reach a 20% growth rate and probably none have ever sustained it for many years running. So are you saying that all countries, through all of modern history, just haven't had the right people? That they haven't really been trying to increase their wealth as much as they could? Or maybe you honestly believe that if all of your ideologies were implemented they'd be seeing 40, 60, 80% growth rates and more in every year?
While I think it could be possible for the growth of wealth to even double every year, it would be highly improbable and unnecessary. The fact that wealth grows at all means that we are producing more than we are consuming. Is your wealth growing? That's the thing that should be important to you. Are YOU producing more than you are consuming?
Same story in this post: Mithrae wrote (insult snipped): "...there needs to be demand in order for things to have value, and no-one else already meeting that demand in order for someone to create new wealth." Papa replied (rhetoric snipped): "Other people sell labor, but so can you. Other people grow vegetables for sale but so can you. Other people build homes but so can you. Other people do electrical work but so can you. Other people fix automobiles but so can you."
Of course a new person can enter the same fields. But if the demand were already met, it's not creating new wealth. The increased supply will simply reduce prices - simply spread it thinner.[/quote]
Possibly. More competition can reduce prices. Simple supply and demand theory at work there and there's nothing sinister about that. Competition is a good thing - it drives quality up and prices down. It keeps things reasonable and reasonable is good, no?
New wealth is created gradually over time, no-one I've seen has ever denied that, but you seem to struggle mightily with the concept - with the fact - that the increase is limited and is gradual, and most of that pie is eaten by a relative few.
What is "eaten" is not wealth. Remember the formula here. Wealth = production - consumption. The wealth that is built is built by people that produce more than they consume. And why complain that they keep that excess production since it's THEIR production that is in excess of their consumption?
The OP realizes that the difference between someone with a six figure income and a seven figure income isn't in the type of wealth but only in the AMOUNT of wealth. Wealth is wealth, whether it's 1.00 of wealth or 1 trillion of wealth.
You seem obsessed by all this. Are you suffering and impoverished? Does this system afford you the opportunity to make the money ou wish and need? Didn't you say that your wife decided to abandoned the pursuit of wealth for a more modest life that she preferred? Isn't that one of the beautiful things about capitalism? Do you feel like you are a peasant because Bill Gates has trillions? Is Bill Gates ordering you around and telling you what to do?
All I heard through that was that you agree it's possible for people to go out and earn a lot of money combined with a rant about people who actually did. So what did a rich person do to you to make you so bitter toward the rich?
In no fashion did I say I am bitter towards the rich and chances are quite high that my level of economic wealth is notably higher than yours. My wife stepped out of it because she's not a Scrouge. Our house (huge) is paid for as it our land (lots and lots of it) as is everything else. So many boats and cars I've given away half a dozen in the last year because they were just too much to take care of, use or worry about. We have a collective 6 figure income and she has a deep 7 figures in the bank, mostly offshore, plus could crank up the business again if she ever cared to. Quite a few quickly disposable personal property assets such as a huge firearms collection.
But neither her nor I live just for $$ and I was neither surprised nor displeased at her decision. Our children will not remain young. Time with them, with each other, with enjoying our lives all higher priorities than just piling money into bank accounts. The wealthy tend to see getting more and more money as some measure of life and some independently desirable goal - giving no thought to what they give up in return.
If you read of those who endlessly pursued ultimate wealth lifelong and obtained it becoming the wealthiest people in the world, virtually all in their old age expressed how much they regretted their lives and saw themselves as failures for all they gave up in doing so.
Basically you completely ducked the issue I raised to go into some rage, needing to make false assertions about me to do so. Rather, you seem to think you're a big deal and brilliantly earned what you got - as if somehow you prove something in doing so.
What I wrote, to simplify it for you since that seems necessary. The picture you portray of wealth is false because you simplify it to support your platitudes and dogma. Your assertion is that capitalism is fair and equal. It is not fair and equal at all. Capitalism has nothing to do with fairness and equality. Those are not even in the principles of capitalism.
Money in a capitalistic system is as much a weapon as a gun is in a lawless land. People with wealth via capitalism tend to - as you do - declare capitalism is edict from God and a self proving truism as a result. It is not.
What is happening in this country is a clash between two systems - democracy and capitalism. Those who are benefiting from capitalism are raging against democracy that is increasingly trying to dig into their holy pocketbooks, which they believe they have an inherent right to have on their religion of capitalism. It is curious to watch. Because our income is just over 50% based upon the government, our position is likely far more secure than yours. If capitalism is winning, we make money. If the trend towards socialism is winning, we also make money. And if the economy collapses, everything we have is paid for and the Mrs. has deeply into 7 figures in offshore International accounts and money markets.
The difference between you and I is that I don't worship capitalism. I worship my children and wife.
At age 15 I was a runaway with a newborn and only what I could carry. I "pulled myself up by my boot straps" as people like to say. And I wasn't nice in how I did so often. We survived. Capitalism did us well. I married quite well too. A lot of effort. A lot of dumb luck too.
Oh, and I don't carry $3 in my wallet. Usually about $4K. My wife at least $5K in her purse. And much more in safes at our home. We both have plenty of bank cards to cash accounts. From what you wrote, your "wealth" is only on paper. You aren't as big a deal as you think.
In no fashion did I say I am bitter towards the rich and chances are quite high that my level of economic wealth is notably higher than yours. My wife stepped out of it because she's not a Scrouge. Our house (huge) is paid for as it our land (lots and lots of it) as is everything else. So many boats and cars I've given away half a dozen in the last year because they were just too much to take care of, use or worry about. We have a collective 6 figure income and she has a deep 7 figures in the bank, mostly offshore, plus could crank up the business again if she ever cared to. Quite a few quickly disposable personal property assets such as a huge firearms collection.
But neither her nor I live just for $$ and I was neither surprised nor displeased at her decision. Our children will not remain young. Time with them, with each other, with enjoying our lives all higher priorities than just piling money into bank accounts. The wealthy tend to see getting more and more money as some measure of life and some independently desirable goal - giving no thought to what they give up in return.
If you read of those who endlessly pursued ultimate wealth lifelong and obtained it becoming the wealthiest people in the world, virtually all in their old age expressed how much they regretted their lives and saw themselves as failures for all they gave up in doing so.
Basically you completely ducked the issue I raised to go into some rage, needing to make false assertions about me to do so. Rather, you seem to think you're a big deal and brilliantly earned what you got - as if somehow you prove something in doing so.
What I wrote, to simplify it for you since that seems necessary. The picture you portray of wealth is false because you simplify it to support your platitudes and dogma. Your assertion is that capitalism is fair and equal. It is not fair and equal at all. Capitalism has nothing to do with fairness and equality. Those are not even in the principles of capitalism.
Money in a capitalistic system is as much a weapon as a gun is in a lawless land. People with wealth via capitalism tend to - as you do - declare capitalism is edict from God and a self proving truism as a result. It is not.
What is happening in this country is a clash between two systems - democracy and capitalism. Those who are benefiting from capitalism are raging against democracy that is increasingly trying to dig into their holy pocketbooks, which they believe they have an inherent right to have on their religion of capitalism. It is curious to watch. Because our income is just over 50% based upon the government, our position is likely far more secure than yours. If capitalism is winning, we make money. If the trend towards socialism is winning, we also make money. And if the economy collapses, everything we have is paid for and the Mrs. has deeply into 7 figures in offshore International accounts and money markets.
The difference between you and I is that I don't worship capitalism. I worship my children and wife.
At age 15 I was a runaway with a newborn and only what I could carry. I "pulled myself up by my boot straps" as people like to say. And I wasn't nice in how I did so often. We survived. Capitalism did us well. I married quite well too. A lot of effort. A lot of dumb luck too.
Oh, and I don't carry $3 in my wallet. Usually about $4K. My wife at least $5K in her purse. And much more in safes at our home. We both have plenty of bank cards to cash accounts. From what you wrote, your "wealth" is only on paper. You aren't as big a deal as you think.
The beauty of capitalism is that it allowed you to manage your life as you saw fit, not in how much money you have. You don't seem to get that the real benefit of capitalism is that you got to make a lot of money when you wanted and you were able to scale back your efforts when your priorities changed. If you aren't a big fan of capitalism then you don't fully comprehend or appreciate the level of freedom it has afforded you.
The difference between you and I, other than the fact that you're probably more wealthy, is that I appreciate the freedom I've had to manage my life as I see fit and engage in trade as I saw fit. I'm just a few thousand over median income right now and that's where I want to be. I could have spent the time I've spent posting here doing something productive instead of casting pearls before swine, but I chose to cast pearls before swine instead. Capitalism gives me that freedom to decide what to do with my time and effort and I appreciate it. The only caveat is that I have to accept responsibility for my decisions in that regard. It's a good deal.
If you are tired of making burger-flipping money, do something more valuable. It's not anyone else's fault that you can't figure out something more valuable to do than take a job asking "do you want fries with that". If you're comfortable with what you make and satisfied with that, then you should be rejoicing in a capitalist system that allowed you to choose a job so undemanding and comfortable.
While I think it could be possible for the growth of wealth to even double every year, it would be highly improbable and unnecessary. The fact that wealth grows at all means that we are producing more than we are consuming. Is your wealth growing? That's the thing that should be important to you. Are YOU producing more than you are consuming?
Since you laid out the model of YOUR life as example, bet you don't like answering these questions:
1. If he is flipping burgers, he actually IS producing something. He is literally producing hamburgers.
TELL US, what are YOU "PRODUCING" now?
2. Since you see his job as "undemanding and comfortable," what HARD job do you do now that is uncomfortable and demanding?
Certainly obvious fair questions. What is your precise answer?
As for me, the higher my income the easier, less demanding and more comfortable my job became. I don't produce anything, I work for the government. And I get easement lease money from the government for some of our land. We have interests and dividends from her savings. Other another income contributor to our household is a prosecutor and attorney. None of us "produce" anything and my wife doesn't work for her interest and dividend money.
So... for all your talking down at him about "production" and your apparently superior but more demanding and uncomfortable career, what do you "PRODUCE" and how is it "uncomfortable" and "demanding?"
I think your raging and sneering has run you out on a limb and I may have just sawed it off?
I'm afraid I won't answer that because I'm in such a narrow field of endeavor and so recognizable in that field that anyone who wanted could then find out who I was and where I lived, etc. Suffice to say that I am an artisan craftsman.
2. Since you see his job as "undemanding and comfortable," what HARD job do you do now that is uncomfortable and demanding?
None of your business. What I used to do, however, was application programming in ABAP/4 for one of the biggest corporations in the world. Now I work for myself from home as an artisan.
As for me, the higher my income the easier, less demanding and more comfortable my job became. I don't produce anything, I work for the government. And I get easement lease money from the government for some of our land. We have interests and dividends from her savings. Other another income contributor to our household is a prosecutor and attorney. None of us "produce" anything and my wife doesn't work for her interest and dividend money.
If you work for the government, you are trading something of value. You produce labor of one sort or another that they find acceptable. You traded something of value for your land. You earned the money you have in savings. You get money from people that exchange their money for something you offer of value and it's all in fair trade, no? So what's your point there, Joko?
So... for all your talking down at him about "production" and your apparently superior but more demanding and uncomfortable career, what do you "PRODUCE" and how is it "uncomfortable" and "demanding?"
Looks like I must repeat that it's none of your business. I am doing what I am comfortable doing just as Mithrae is doing what he is comfortable doing and we both get to choose because we live in a capitalist economic system that allows us to choose. And the difference between me and both you and Mithrae is that I recognize the freedom and good of capitalism while you, obviously do not. Both of you rage against the very thing that provided you the freedom to make the choices that you both claim have made you quite content. So why the ingratitude? Why the contempt for a system that has so thoroughly rewarded your choices and efforts?
I think your raging and sneering has run you out on a limb and I may have just sawed it off?
The beauty of capitalism is that it allowed you to manage your life as you saw fit, not in how much money you have. You don't seem to get that the real benefit of capitalism is that you got to make a lot of money when you wanted and you were able to scale back your efforts when your priorities changed. If you aren't a big fan of capitalism then you don't fully comprehend or appreciate the level of freedom it has afforded you.
The difference between you and I, other than the fact that you're probably more wealthy, is that I appreciate the freedom I've had to manage my life as I see fit and engage in trade as I saw fit. I'm just a few thousand over median income right now and that's where I want to be. I could have spent the time I've spent posting here doing something productive instead of casting pearls before swine, but I chose to cast pearls before swine instead. Capitalism gives me that freedom to decide what to do with my time and effort and I appreciate it. The only caveat is that I have to accept responsibility for my decisions in that regard. It's a good deal.
You are confusing socialism/communism with slavery and tyranny. They are different. I'm not advocating socialism/communism in any sense. No do I dispute your claim of your economic status (calling people liars is too common and pointless on the forum in general). I certainly am not criticizing you or your personal life.
My point is that capitalism, like any other system, must have overseeing restraints. Certain levels at which the scale tilts back the other way. I see a true and imminent future problem for this country because those failed - and the bandaid fixes are coming to bite the economy - and thus everyone - in the ass.
The corruption at the top - levels well beyond you and I - went too far over the top. The super rich not only not paying taxes, but literally bleeding off the public treasury and writing themselves loans to enhance what they already have - such as propping up the stockmarket, bailing out banks that only bought out other smaller banks, and the many, many ways in which a corrupt link between money, government and the wealthy have created real problems overall - and unjust imbalance.
The band aid has been welfare social programs creating an increasing population dependent (or thinking they are) upon the government. The number of people looking to the government as "their economic system" is growing by tens of millions. It has reached a majority and now is reaching a majority of voters.
At the same time, the super wealth the USA had after WWII, with competitors literally blown up, lead to a glut in feel good do-goodism - basically destroying the USA's actually true "production" base - ie industry and manufacturing. The USA has become a country with an economy based largely upon moving around paper and computer printout money with little to nothing backing it up. Just keep writing ourselves hot checks and refinancing the national debt with loans on top of loans.
In addition, while "the death tax" is a good slogan, the ability of someone to be born a billionaire - and then use that raw money power to just crush others to take ever more money also isn't exactly capitalism. Rather, that is a property right - and I question how far that right should go. Minimally, the raw power of money to be used as raw power should be restrained.
The OLD tax structures used to have HIGH taxes - but nearly all of which you could write off and avoid IF you put the money back into production in a way that benefited the economy and society. Just piling raw money onto of raw money and using it to get more money - producing nothing tangible in return - was highly penalized. Not so anymore. Now you just run it out of the country sucking it entirely out of the economy - and just keep sucking more and more out.
I fear the bubble is going to burst - and at best all the government and financial people are trying to do is have a managed decline to avoid social revolution and sudden economic collapse - a dismal picture I paint for sure. And, of course, doing everything to protect those with lots of "money" being able to get it OUT of the country where it is safer and less reachable - to literally reward taking what remains of national wealth elsewhere - to get out while the getting is still good.
Because the money/finance/government corruption has gone so far, and the bandaids so entrenched, there is no easy one-line solution, if there is one at all. There are too many destructive forces that are entrenched. The government is vastly too corrupt in terms of being bought off and controlled. People have been made or become too reliant upon the government in terms of economics. The super rich have vast sums of money on paper used only to make money but actually producing nothing but more money on paper - that everyone else is suppose to honor.
A guy flipping hamburgers for a living? You should tell him THANK YOU if an American. In 37 states now he probably would have more of an income by carefully pursuing a welfare life not working at all. And if he were smart he'd slip, hurt his back, and claim workman's comp while hiring the right doctor to seek the holy grail of permanent full time disability. Maybe find an under-the-table cash job along with it, then also paying no taxes. We know people of that exact economic means.
And that money will come from somewhere - whether from you and 101 various taxes and fees, inflation, more debt etc.
Simply put, those of us who are economically successful and well off, but not super wealthy, shouldn't gloat or lecture because, candidly, we are THE target, aren't we?
I'm afraid I won't answer that because I'm in such a narrow field of endeavor and so recognizable in that field that anyone who wanted could then find out who I was and where I lived, etc. Suffice to say that I am an artisan craftsman.
None of your business. What I used to do, however, was application programming in ABAP/4 for one of the biggest corporations in the world. Now I work for myself from home as an artisan.
If you work for the government, you are trading something of value. You produce labor of one sort or another that they find acceptable. You traded something of value for your land. You earned the money you have in savings. You get money from people that exchange their money for something you offer of value and it's all in fair trade, no? So what's your point there, Joko?
Looks like I must repeat that it's none of your business. I am doing what I am comfortable doing just as Mithrae is doing what he is comfortable doing and we both get to choose because we live in a capitalist economic system that allows us to choose. And the difference between me and both you and Mithrae is that I recognize the freedom and good of capitalism while you, obviously do not. Both of you rage against the very thing that provided you the freedom to make the choices that you both claim have made you quite content. So why the ingratitude? Why the contempt for a system that has so thoroughly rewarded your choices and efforts?
Ooops.... from your perspective you sawed the limb off. From my perspective I watched you bust your ass on the ground after you did.
Ok, if you are an artisan craftsmen I withdraw my challenge and you are a producer and probably work your ass off. I'm one of the few people on the forum that actually will concede a point if I lose it.
You are confusing socialism/communism with slavery and tyranny. They are different. I'm not advocating socialism/communism in any sense. No do I dispute your claim of your economic status (calling people liars is too common and pointless on the forum in general). I certainly am not criticizing you or your personal life.
My point is that capitalism, like any other system, must have overseeing restraints. Certain levels at which the scale tilts back the other way. I see a true and imminent future problem for this country because those failed - and the bandaid fixes are coming to bite the economy - and thus everyone - in the ass.
The corruption at the top - levels well beyond you and I - went too far over the top. The super rich not only not paying taxes, but literally bleeding off the public treasury and writing themselves loans to enhance what they already have - such as propping up the stockmarket, bailing out banks that only bought out other smaller banks, and the many, many ways in which a corrupt link between money, government and the wealthy have created real problems overall - and unjust imbalance.
The band aid has been welfare social programs creating an increasing population dependent (or thinking they are) upon the government. The number of people looking to the government as "their economic system" is growing by tens of millions. It has reached a majority and now is reaching a majority of voters.
At the same time, the super wealth the USA had after WWII, with competitors literally blown up, lead to a glut in feel good do-goodism - basically destroying the USA's actually true "production" base - ie industry and manufacturing. The USA has become a country with an economy based largely upon moving around paper and computer printout money with little to nothing backing it up. Just keep writing ourselves hot checks and refinancing the national debt with loans on top of loans.
I fear the bubble is going to burst - and at best all the government and financial people are trying to do is have a managed decline to avoid social revolution and sudden economic collapse - a dismal picture I paint for sure. And, of course, doing everything to protect those with lots of "money" being able to get it OUT of the country where it is safer and less reachable - to literally reward taking what remains of national wealth elsewhere - to get out while the getting is still good.
Because the money/finance/government corruption has gone so far, and the bandaids so entrenched, there is no easy one-line solution, if there is one at all. There are too many destructive forces that are entrenched. The government is vastly too corrupt in terms of being bought off and controlled. People have been made or become too reliant upon the government in terms of economics.
A guy flipping hamburgers for a living? You should tell him THANK YOU if an American. In 37 states now he probably would more by carefully pursuing a welfare life not working at all. And if he were smart he'd slip, hurt his back, and claim workman's comp while hiring the right doctor to seek the holy grail of permanent full time disability.
And that money will come from somewhere - whether from you and 101 taxes, inflation, more debt etc.
Simply put, those of us who are economically successful and well off, but not super wealthy, shouldn't gloat or lecture because, candidly, we are THE target, aren't we?
I just don't get your irrational paranoia. We're "the target" of what? Some imaginary conspiracy? The fact that you could choose to engage in trade as you saw fit, I get to engage in trade as I see fit and Mithrae gets to engage in trade as he sees fit isn't a shortcoming of capitalism - it's the glory of it. I'm not the victim of capitalism. I'm a success story and not because I'm rich, but because I'm free and I'm damned happy. I do what I choose to do for a living. And so does everyone else. Where things fall apart is when someone chooses to do nothing - or nothing of value and wants society to put up what THEY have done of value for nothing in return. It falls apart when we actually let people do that. Capitalism provides more freedom than any other economic system but in order for it to work people have to accept the consequences of their choices. That's the deal. You do what you wish and accept the results of your efforts. You are not entitled to anyone else's profits nor are others entitled to yours. You do what you wish and the fruits of your labors are yours. That's freedom.
Ok, if you are an artisan craftsmen I withdraw my challenge and you are a producer and probably work your ass off. I'm one of the few people on the forum that actually will concede a point if I lose it.
Being an artisan is also one of the reasons why it is clear as crystal to me that wealth is created. It's harder to see when you get a paycheck for working x-amount of hours for someone else. But it is easy to see when you take a few dollars worth of material and convert it into something worth hundreds of dollars with skills, knowledge and creativity that you've developed over years with hands-on work. Granted, I've engaged in some sort of capitalist venture since I was about 11 years old, whether catching and selling bait to fishermen, mowing lawns, managing a paper route, etc.... all involved creating, gathering, servicing and selling, so I was predisposed to understand and grasp free trade and capitalism but it helps when you literally create wealth in your own shop with your own hands.
And, of course, having an aunt that lived in a ramshackle cabin in the West Virginia hills also gave me insight into self-reliance. You can build your own cabin, plow your own rocky garden and raise your own food, haul your own water, dig your own septic hole over the outhouse you build with your own two hands and live by your own efforts but it's a whole lot harder to do that than it is to specialize in something and trade one person for vegetables and another person for carpentry and another for plumbing, etc. I think a lot of people don't really understand that the alternative to engaging in trade is to do for yourself and they have no idea how hard that actually is. My aunt and her husband and kids lived at a level of poverty that is unimaginable in a first world country but they were the salt of the Earth, always had food on the table, welcomed strangers and had a lifestyle that made them very content as far as I could tell. They never craved more wealth than they possessed. When you live like that, you realize that a full larder with plenty of home canned meat and a root cellar full of potatoes and onions and squash is wealth, too.
I just don't get your irrational paranoia. We're "the target" of what? Some imaginary conspiracy? The fact that you could choose to engage in trade as you saw fit, I get to engage in trade as I see fit and Mithrae gets to engage in trade as he sees fit isn't a shortcoming of capitalism - it's the glory of it. I'm not the victim of capitalism. I'm a success story and not because I'm rich, but because I'm free and I'm damned happy. I do what I choose to do for a living. And so does everyone else. Where things fall apart is when someone chooses to do nothing - or nothing of value and wants society to put up what THEY have done of value for nothing in return. It falls apart when we actually let people do that. Capitalism provides more freedom than any other economic system but in order for it to work people have to accept the consequences of their choices. That's the deal. You do what you wish and accept the results of your efforts. You are not entitled to anyone else's profits nor are others entitled to yours. You do what you wish and the fruits of your labors are yours. That's freedom.
But it's not democracy. Democracy is the people get what they want.
My concerns? My children's future. Nearly all our land is under 99 year easement lease to government agencies, in return we not only get small lease checks, but far more we get property tax exemption. I watch the property taxes go up and up on our home. The security of home ownership for old folks is being lost to property taxes.
When we drove between New York and Baltimore and around NYC, in 3 days we probably paid over $50 in tolls. Just one bridge was $7.50 each way. The toll probably used to be a quarter when that bridge was built. I paid over $1000 to renew registrations and over $2000 for title, tags and sales tax on a car my wife got me. Grocery story prices tell the "tax" of inflation.
We can afford it. We dined at hundred dollar a meal restaurants on vacation - menu prices didn't matter. We can afford our $500 a month and growing utility bills. We can afford tens of thousands for vehicles. But where is this all headed for my children?
We have quite an estate to leave them. Runaway inflation could erase it.
When we drove thru Harlem, in every direction jammed together for miles were 8 to 12 story projects apartments - millions of people for which most live on government checks - and for which the only way to get a pay raise is to have another baby for increased government support.
The massive paper wealth of the country - as is most of the last of production - is racing offshore - and laws are all written to encourage doing so. I could go on and on with such dismal talk.
You are writing about a platitude about capitalism, equating it to freedom. But democracy also is freedom, isn't it? Certainly it is "equality" - 1 person = 1 vote. And it is the have-nots reliant upon government who are going to control elections. Which way do you think they will go? Towards capitalism? Or socialism? We already know that answer.
The concept of actual capitalism is lost to BOTH political parties. The Republican party has corrupted it. The Democratic party had abandoned it.
I fully agree upon the concept of self reliance. That is, however, not the same as capitalism. They can overlap, but are not the same, just like democracy and capitalism can overlap, but are not the same. A person can become super wealthy in China and could in the USSR too. Just different career path choices. Personal freedom, there is more here but that is drifting away. ObamaCare, for the first time, made all American born indebted to corporate American in a marriage to government - National Corporate Socialism - or fascism - pick your word.
I am concerned of my children's future because I see a dismal economic, social values and political system in the future.
The only hope is that still inside most Americans is a belief they possibly could get ahead of the game and gain wealth and power by their efforts. I think that is also slowly being lost. Before it is, a whole new sales pitch had better be made by someone - and that isn't happening in our political structure. But we have a media that will declare anyone doing so a wacko kook and massive sums of money will be spend to destroy such candidates.
Wealth is not a zero sum game. While left wing arguments tend to insinuate that wealth is static and that when the rich get richer it makes everyone else poorer, this simply isn't true. It can be argued that currency is finite but currency is only one minor form wealth can take. My wealth is in modest six figures. I own a big jar of change and have three one-dollar bills in my wallet. Obviously, my wealth is not in the form of currency. Most peoples' wealth isn't in the form of currency. Currency is nothing but an exchange medium.
Wealth can be a bottle of wine (I know a fellow that had two bottles worth 50,000.00 each). Wealth can be a piece of property. Wealth can be a painting or a gemstone. Wealth can be royalty rights. Wealth can be stock options. Wealth can be a settlement agreement. Wealth is something that is created. Wine is created. Paintings are created. Houses are created. Companies are created. Books are created. Investment vehicles are created. Motor vehicles are created. Stamps are created..... well, the list goes on and on and on and on. These are all or can all be wealth and they are all created.
A modern artist might paint a million dollars worth of paintings in a short frame of time and no one else has less of anything because he painted them. His wealth was created. He might trade those paintings for currency. He might trade those paintings for stocks or bonds or other instruments of wealth. He might trade them for ten years of service. He can trade them for whatever he wishes but no one has less of anything just because he created that wealth and traded it to someone else for something they had to offer. He could have exchange those paintings with another painter. Now Monet owns Manets and Manet owns Monets. They're both wealthier.
When arguments insinuate a finite wealth that only changes hands, the arguments rely on a falsehood and logically fail and should be immediately tossed on the rubbish heap and given no further consideration. I think all too often we humor along such invalid arguments and end up with ridiculous discussions and ridiculous ideas as a result of failing to enforce reality in discussion.
The message: Wealth and economics is not a zero-sum game and arguments should not be permitted to assert the contrary.
There are tons of zero-sum game type of interactions in the creation of wealth and economics. If you aggregate it enough sure...there's not net change or there may even be a net benefit...hey the guy that just got his pay reduced at his factory job while producing the same amount of goods has benefited the owner. Now the owner is taking that wealth created by the lowering of wages to loan the guy working the factory job some money to buy things he could once buy on his own! Look at that net increase in total wealth created! All boats have been lifted!
Being an artisan is also one of the reasons why it is clear as crystal to me that wealth is created. It's harder to see when you get a paycheck for working x-amount of hours for someone else. But it is easy to see when you take a few dollars worth of material and convert it into something worth hundreds of dollars with skills, knowledge and creativity that you've developed over years with hands-on work. Granted, I've engaged in some sort of capitalist venture since I was about 11 years old, whether catching and selling bait to fishermen, mowing lawns, managing a paper route, etc.... all involved creating, gathering, servicing and selling, so I was predisposed to understand and grasp free trade and capitalism but it helps when you literally create wealth in your own shop with your own hands.
And, of course, having an aunt that lived in a ramshackle cabin in the West Virginia hills also gave me insight into self-reliance. You can build your own cabin, plow your own rocky garden and raise your own food, haul your own water, dig your own septic hole over the outhouse you build with your own two hands and live by your own efforts but it's a whole lot harder to do that than it is to specialize in something and trade one person for vegetables and another person for carpentry and another for plumbing, etc. I think a lot of people don't really understand that the alternative to engaging in trade is to do for yourself and they have no idea how hard that actually is. My aunt and her husband and kids lived at a level of poverty that is unimaginable in a first world country but they were the salt of the Earth, always had food on the table, welcomed strangers and had a lifestyle that made them very content as far as I could tell. They never craved more wealth than they possessed. When you live like that, you realize that a full larder with plenty of home canned meat and a root cellar full of potatoes and onions and squash is wealth, too.
But again, we come to some of my concerns. You couldn't dig that well here because it violates local codes and even if you could they weren't licensed to do it. And they couldn't keep their property likely due to their income couldn't pay the property taxes.
So while I entirely agree on your principles, I don't think in isolation they are even allowed, or at least are rapidly vanishing away - due to 2 diametrically opposite forces. The extreme excesses of the money people in marriage to government, while the government buys off the other extreme of the rapidly going government dependent masses.
The majority of people always will, always have, and always must have simplistic, lower jobs. That is a necessary function of society. It is a social reality. The millions of kids pouring out of universities are learning the hard way that not everyone can be a chief.
It has reached a point that a person will have a higher income being on welfare than working a full time minimum wage job. And they will vote. We also have a growing aged population that expects their living expenses paid for decades. Capitalism no longer directly applies to them either.
We need politicians that cry BS! to the functioning of government, the regulation of super-wealth favoritism , to eliminate the aspects of government that destroy production, and a hardass view to lazy ass welfare receiving - for starters.
And pure democracy is not a good thing. The people might want to hang you without a trial. Or they may want to take your money because they outnumber you. What we have is a "democratic republic". The people don't actually just get what they want. The majority might decide that a white woman and a black man can't get married. Our rule of law prevents such a tyranny of the majority from being implemented though - or if implemented, overturned and redressed.
My concerns? My children's future. Nearly all our land is under 99 year easement lease to government agencies, in return we not only get small lease checks, but far more we get property tax exemption. I watch the property taxes go up and up on our home. The security of home ownership for old folks is being lost to property taxes.
When we drove between New York and Baltimore and around NYC, in 3 days we probably paid over $50 in tolls. Just one bridge was $7.50 each way. The toll probably used to be a quarter when that bridge was built. I paid over $1000 to renew registrations and over $2000 for title, tags and sales tax on a car my wife got me. Grocery story prices tell the "tax" of inflation.
We can afford it. We dined at hundred dollar a meal restaurants on vacation - menu prices didn't matter. We can afford our $500 a month and growing utility bills. We can afford tens of thousands for vehicles. But where is this all headed for my children?
When we drove thru Harlem, in every direction jammed together for miles were 8 to 12 story projects apartments - millions of people for which most live on government checks - and for which the only way to get a pay raise is to have another baby for increased government support.
The massive paper wealth of the country - as is most of the last of production - is racing offshore - and laws are all written to encourage doing so. I could go on and on with such dismal talk.
You are writing about a platitude about capitalism, equating it to freedom. But democracy also is freedom, isn't it? Certainly it is "equality" - 1 person = 1 vote. And it is the have-nots reliant upon government who are going to control elections. Which way do you think they will go? Towards capitalism? Or socialism? We already know that answer.
The concept of actual capitalism is lost to BOTH political parties. The Republican party has corrupted it. The Democratic party had abandoned it.
I fully agree upon the concept of self reliance. That is, however, not the same as capitalism. They can overlap, but are not the same, just like democracy and capitalism can overlap, but are not the same. A person can become super wealthy in China and could in the USSR too. Just different career path choices.
I am concerned of my children's future because I see a dismal economic, social values and political system in the future.
The only hope is that still inside most Americans is a belief they possibly could get ahead of the game and gain wealth and power by their efforts. I think that is also slowly being lost. Before it is, a whole new sales pitch had better be made by someone - and that isn't happening in our political structure.
Well, I do agree with you that we are thoroughly screwed but it's not the fault of capitalism - it's because we are abandoning it. The siren call of reaping that which thou didst not sow is strong with those craving socialism. It's easy to want to redistribute "the wealth" for people that think they'll be on the receiving end of such a distribution but the price for that is simply too much for this country to bear.
This country has become like an alcoholic, dependent on a co-dependent government enabling irresponsible behaviors. We aren't going to turn this ship around until we hit rock bottom. What a lot of people don't seem to understand about the miraculous "post-war boom" is that a big part of it was "Post-depression mentality". This country hit rock bottom and that helped fuel the powerful rebound.
There are tons of zero-sum game type of interactions in the creation of wealth and economics. If you aggregate it enough sure...there's not net change or there may even be a net benefit...hey the guy that just got his pay reduced at his factory job while producing the same amount of goods has benefited the owner. Now the owner is taking that wealth created by the lowering of wages to loan the guy working the factory job some money to buy things he could once buy on his own! Look at that net increase in total wealth created! All boats have been lifted!
To pretend that wealth creation via pay reduction is relevant here is dishonest as hell. That would account for somewhere close to zero percent of all wealth creation. The percentage would certainly start with a decimal point and then would probably be followed by one or more zeroes.
To pretend that wealth creation via pay reduction is relevant here is dishonest as hell. That would account for somewhere close to zero percent of all wealth creation. The percentage would certainly start with a decimal point and then would probably be followed by one or more zeroes.
Really? So a 30 year trend for stagnant/decrease in wages for unskilled labor (by far the largest labor pool) accounts for 0% when determining wealth creation?
Really? So a 30 year trend for stagnant/decrease in wages for unskilled labor (by far the largest labor pool) accounts for 0% when determining wealth creation?
Yep. I think it accounts for right around zero percent of wealth creation. Those stagnant wages are in real dollars and for an industry in which they are unable to do much, if anything to increase the value of their product, i.e. "labor". The act of going around a building lot picking up 2x4's isn't worth any more in real value than it was worth 10 years ago.
I don't think that changes the left's argument about wealth or income redistribution in the least; they care little about where wealth comes from, as they seek to achieve "social justice" or greater equality of outcome. The left sees only where "too much" wealth is and where "too little" wealth is and see gov't (acting as their Robin Hood hero) as the best answer to "fixing" that situation.
Yeah, come to America, make a great life for yourself, start a company, get rich and be demonized for being a success. It make you wonder why people still come here.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Blind partisanship tends not to produce very intelligent views.
