Why shouldn't capitalism be better regulated?

[Vadinho]

$70,000 a year just for being a freeloader is having it pretty good for sure!! Compare that to $2-3 dollars a day for the world's real poor. Americas poor are more likely to suffer more from eating too much rather than too little

So you are comparing our poor, our definition of poor, with a destitute person living on 3 bucks a day. You know what? I have lived on 3 dollars a day. Did it for about 7 months when I was in my twenties while in Africa. I was rich compared to the folks around me that were living that life for real. I was just backpacking and knew I could escape it with a plane ride. I doubt if you could handle it given your posting record. I suggest you try it out sometime. Live on 3 dollars a day. Come back when someone lets you use their PC and doesn't mind your stench.

 

[Hamish Howl]

ever see a conservative have to run from a debate? What does that teach you??

Not to waste time with blowhards?

 

[jaeger19]

???? you said capitalism caused slavery and then we pointed out the obvious to you: slavery existed 1 million years before capitalism.

Nope.. I said that slavery in America and child labor in America were the result of capitalism.

 

[jaeger19]

Are you arguing that our definition of poor should be measured against the poor of other less developed countries? Against Americans in the 20s, 30s or 40s? I find arguments like the one you just made to be unnecessarily cruel and unfair. In essence, you are claiming that the poor in America have it good so quit your bitching. In a nation with this much wealth, everyone should be able to live lives of plenty and free from economic worries. I know about 10 million Americans live that life every day. That is how many millionaires are in America today. Now why not find a way to insure that every person has a standard of living that frees them from the worries of having no home, no car, no health care, poor schools, poor infrastructure and so on. We have the dough, we just let it get really lumpy. This reminds me of modern famines. The issue is never not enough food, the issue is always of distribution of that food. There is no real reason why anyone on the planet should be hungry. I bet even a conservative would embrace that idea. So how to fix the problem of hunger? There are lots of ideas and most of them involve moving food from one place to another. The same is true of money. Unfortunately, in our country, money means more about a person then anything else with the exception of property/land. I think all of us do want to live in a country where everyone is doing well. Why not let that be our goal instead of having this idea that winners and losers are key to what it means to be an American?

In no way am I in agreement with James lunacy.


However, there is a valid question here. How do we define poverty and being poor? Our poor.. in most countries, in many developed countries, would be middle class in those countries.

When we measure poverty in the US in exactly the same way that we do in other countries (their example is Malawi) then we find that the US poor are consuming not that $1.25 a day of absolute poverty, nor that $2 a day of poverty, but there's no real difference in consumption between those who report zero income and those who report $20 a day in income. And it should be emphasised again that it is consumption possibilities that are used in our international definitions of this true poverty.
One other thing we should note as well. By those same World Banks standards the definition of globally middle class is a consumption possibility of $2 to $50 a day (there's two different possible definitions, $2 to $13 which we might better regard as "not in poverty but not yet middle class" and $12 to $50 which is perhaps "middle class"). Even those reporting no income at all in the US have consumption possibilities roughly equal to those reporting incomes of $20 a day. And to repeat, yes, this is adjusting for the different value of money in different places and countries.
Thus we can say that by global standards there are no poor people in the US at all: the entire country is at least middle class or better. We seem to have fought and won that War on Poverty.
This still leaves us with the war in inequality of course but then that's a rather different matter.

By Global Standards There Are No American Poor; All In The US Are Middle Class Or Better

 

[Vadinho]

In no way am I in agreement with James lunacy.


However, there is a valid question here. How do we define poverty and being poor? Our poor.. in most countries, in many developed countries, would be middle class in those countries.



By Global Standards There Are No American Poor; All In The US Are Middle Class Or Better

Well, the definition of poor is an interesting discussion. In many ways, it is like a grade based upon the curve. If everyone in your class scores 9 out of 10 and you got an 8, you would be an F because someone has to be an F. You could use statistics and standard deviations to mathematically determine poverty levels. Or you could look towards happiness metrics, quality of life metrics, cost of living for the basics (Maslow's hierarchy of needs would be a good model) or you could just make up a number and be done with it. Every method has its faults but some reflect reality a bit more accurately. I would argue that if your income cannot sustain you with housing, transportation, food, clothing and some semblance of savings, you are poor. Anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck and is living a spartan life not of their own choosing but simply due to costs and incomes is poor in my opinion. For instance, my daughter makes around 20 grand a year. She is poor. If she made 40 grand a year, she would be covering all her action and saving a little bit each year. That would put her just out of poverty in our area. Someone who makes 100 grand and spends 100 grand is not poor anywhere in the nation, they just spend more then they should.

 

[jaeger19]

Well, the definition of poor is an interesting discussion. In many ways, it is like a grade based upon the curve. If everyone in your class scores 9 out of 10 and you got an 8, you would be an F because someone has to be an F. You could use statistics and standard deviations to mathematically determine poverty levels. Or you could look towards happiness metrics, quality of life metrics, cost of living for the basics (Maslow's hierarchy of needs would be a good model) or you could just make up a number and be done with it. Every method has its faults but some reflect reality a bit more accurately. I would argue that if your income cannot sustain you with housing, transportation, food, clothing and some semblance of savings, you are poor. Anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck and is living a spartan life not of their own choosing but simply due to costs and incomes is poor in my opinion. For instance, my daughter makes around 20 grand a year. She is poor. If she made 40 grand a year, she would be covering all her action and saving a little bit each year. That would put her just out of poverty in our area. Someone who makes 100 grand and spends 100 grand is not poor anywhere in the nation, they just spend more then they should.

Well. what about 98 thousand.. , or 96, 70, 60.? That's what makes it difficult since the definition of what is "spartan".. life is pretty subjective.

I have had this argument with an employee in another business I own. She would complain that she didn't make enough money to have healthcare insurance. (she made more than what would qualify for Medicaid.. and in state that took the Medicaid expansion).. She did qualify for some, limited subsidy from Obamacare. She went through her costs with me.. and I pointed out that she smoked 2 packs a day. We calculated the cost per month and it was 420 dollars a month conservatively. just to smoke. (and she had heart and respiratory problems on top of that).

Her insurance cost would have been 220 out of pocket.. leaving her with 200 dollars a month for savings.

She still smokes 2 packs a day. So...

I think that key.. is not necessarily defining poor.. (of course making sure that people have basic necessities)..

But we should instead look at opportunity. IS there the opportunity.. really.. to "do well".

Not everyone can "do well" pretty much by definition as there is always inequity... but you can improve opportunity to do well.

 

[Vadinho]

Well. what about 98 thousand.. , or 96, 70, 60.? That's what makes it difficult since the definition of what is "spartan".. life is pretty subjective.

I have had this argument with an employee in another business I own. She would complain that she didn't make enough money to have healthcare insurance. (she made more than what would qualify for Medicaid.. and in state that took the Medicaid expansion).. She did qualify for some, limited subsidy from Obamacare. She went through her costs with me.. and I pointed out that she smoked 2 packs a day. We calculated the cost per month and it was 420 dollars a month conservatively. just to smoke. (and she had heart and respiratory problems on top of that).

Her insurance cost would have been 220 out of pocket.. leaving her with 200 dollars a month for savings.

She still smokes 2 packs a day. So...

I think that key.. is not necessarily defining poor.. (of course making sure that people have basic necessities)..

But we should instead look at opportunity. IS there the opportunity.. really.. to "do well".

Not everyone can "do well" pretty much by definition as there is always inequity... but you can improve opportunity to do well.

In many ways, what you wrote here is likely how most folks see the issue. A combination of the results of lots of personal decisions and the environment or status one lives in or was born into, they all determine outcomes. I think most of us would accept a world where those of us that start in the dugout have at least the same quality of opportunity and support as those born on first, second or third base in terms of education, child support, decent housing, food, shelter and so on. Whatever line you pick will create debates but we should not accept a Hobbesian world in a nation with so much wealth and opportunity.

 

[James972]

Well, prior to the 80s, that is exactly how companies were managed.

and then everyone recovered from WW2 and the world become a very competitive place. 1+1=2

 

[James972]

Shareholder value only really became a thing when sharks looked at balance sheets and started green mailing companies..

Totally insane and illiterate. Who is going to start a company and become a shareholder if the company doesn't care about shareholder value?? Do you think the Girl Scouts are going to provide capital for business development? The soviets had no greedy shareholders and 120 million slowly starved to death. Notice the way a liberal makes a conservative feel like a kindergarten teacher?

 

[Vadinho]

and then everyone recovered from WW2 and the world become a very competitive place. 1+1=2

No, then corporate raiders started looking at balance sheets for undervalued assets and started green mailing companies to flip by selling off undervalued assets. Go watch "Wall Street" again.

 

[James972]

No, then corporate raiders started looking at balance sheets for undervalued assets and started green mailing companies to flip by selling off undervalued assets. Go watch "Wall Street" again.

so you want a libNazi country wherein you are not allowed to freely buy things from willing sellers at what both think is a good price?

 

[James972]

we should not accept a Hobbesian world in a nation with so much wealth and opportunity.

Dear our poor get $70,000 a year while billions of people live at $2-3 dollars a day. $70,000 is not enough for a liberal because the liberal IQ is near 0. Is any other conclusion possible? If so tell us what it is!!

 

[James972]

. but you can improve opportunity to do well.

dear, we have free education and $trillions in other stuff to improve opportunity but its never ever enough because the liberals lack the IQ to say when is enough.

 

[Vadinho]

Dear our poor get $70,000 a year while billions of people live at $2-3 dollars a day. $70,000 is not enough for a liberal because the liberal IQ is near 0. Is any other conclusion possible? If so tell us what it is!!

When I see you respond to me I usually disregard your post without reading them because 9 out of 10 times, you post something like this and it gets tiresome. I work around liberals, very smart folks. My own IQ is in the top 1%, has been pretty steady since I was a kid. Your 70k number needs to be cleansed with toilet paper since the location it came from is usually cleansed by a good scrubbing.

 

[jaeger19]

In many ways, what you wrote here is likely how most folks see the issue. A combination of the results of lots of personal decisions and the environment or status one lives in or was born into, they all determine outcomes. I think most of us would accept a world where those of us that start in the dugout have at least the same quality of opportunity and support as those born on first, second or third base in terms of education, child support, decent housing, food, shelter and so on. Whatever line you pick will create debates but we should not accept a Hobbesian world in a nation with so much wealth and opportunity.

Even that gets difficult though. I mean.. I had opportunity.. because I started poor to what would be considered poor or lower middle class parents.

They themselves were from poor parents. definitely poor.

But now.. I am in the 1%. My kids go to public school... but there is no doubt.. that they have advantages that the poor kids in their school don't have. And there really isn't a way to mitigate that.

 

[James972]

However, there is a valid question here. How do we define poverty and being poor? Our poor.. in most countries, in many developed countries, would be middle class in those countries.

and, the massive war on poverty in this country was in reality a crippling body blow to exactly those it was trying to help! It didn't decrease poverty but it did destroy love and family. Liberalism has always been the most deadly force in human history.

 

[jaeger19]

dear, we have free education and $trillions in other stuff to improve opportunity but its never ever enough because the liberals lack the IQ to say when is enough.

Sweetie... we don't have the advantages that we used to.

I know.. because my parents..in the 1950's and 1960's...had access to FREE COLLEGE. That's right.. they were able to get free college.

That is not available today. My college was not free.. but it could still be paid for... now.. if I was starting out.. I would not have been able to afford college..

I started a business when I was 25.

That same opportunity is not available now. I could not start the same business now as I did in a couple of decades ago. Which is kind of good in some ways because I have no worries about upstart competition coming in. BUT.. the truth is.. the opportunity that generations ago had.. is not available to my kids.

Its just the facts.

 

[jaeger19]

and, the massive war on poverty in this country was in reality a crippling body blow to exactly those it was trying to help! It didn't decrease poverty but it did destroy love and family. Liberalism has always been the most deadly force in human history.

Total lie on your part... you don't even have a clue what you are talking about.

Destroy love and family? Please..what a crock.

But I'll tell you what.. how about you define exactly what specific "war on poverty".. crippled those "it was trying to help"... and then in detail please explain how it destroyed love and family.

Please start from 1990 till now... thanks.

 

[James972]

Sweetie... we don't have the advantages that we used to.
I know.. because my parents..in the 1950's and 1960's...had access to FREE COLLEGE. That's right.. they were able to get free college.

So?? It wasn't free for those who had to pay for your parents welfare college!! We cant afford free college anymore because the liberals tax and waste so much of our money! They are poor in Cuba because of liberalism, they cant afford anything. They starved in USSR and Red China; they could not afford anything there either. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

Destroy love and family? Please..what a crock.

.

Do you think the Girl Scouts destroyed love and family in America or was it the liberals, the true enemies of civilization on earth??

 

[James972]

Total lie on your part..

dear, you clean for got to tell us why you feel it was a lie?? Isn't it amazing that the thought never crossed your liberal mind? what does that teach you?

 

[James972]

But I'll tell you what.. how about you define exactly what specific "war on poverty".. crippled those "it was trying to help"... and then in detail please explain how it destroyed love and family.
.

dear, haven't you read any of the books out on this very subject? Is your belief in illiteracy so strong that you refuse to read any books at all??

 

[James972]

.. the opportunity that generations ago had.. is not available to my kids.

Its just the facts.

Any reason to think that or just liberal goofing?

 

[jaeger19]

So?? It wasn't free for those who had to pay for your parents welfare college!! We cant afford free college anymore because the liberals tax and waste so much of our money! They are poor in Cuba because of liberalism, they cant afford anything. They starved in USSR and Red China; they could not afford anything there either. Do you understand?

Wrong. See that's the problem with you right wing wing nuts. You don't understand business or economics.

So.. it wasn't free for those who had to pay for my parents "welfare college"...but.. that college... allowed them to get out of being poor.. and eventually, when I left the house.. middle class. Over time.. they got more education..which they paid for.. got masters degrees.. and now.. my parents are into their late 70's... and are still net taxpayers.

Because of that investment in college... They have paid that money back in tax money that they were able to pay from having better jobs. That money paid in education.. has paid dividends in tax money from my parents that they ARE STILL PAYING. In fact.. even as retired people.. they are still making enough money that they pay taxes every year. The reality is that my parents.. have probably subsidized the social security.. for those people that paid taxes back in the 1960's.. so my parents could go to college.

That's just an economic fact. By investing tax money into my parents. The US taxpayer.. has made MORE money off my parents than they spent on them to give them free college.

Do you understand?

 

[jaeger19]

Any reason to think that or just liberal goofing?

Already laid out how. Just conservative practicality and truth.