Spoken like a true conservative elite. What he means is, if the poor and working poor quit buying their products, capitalism would collapse. If people with income under $50,000 ever unite they could put the lights out for any business they target. You just don't get it, do you? The rich depend on the poor for profit. .
Who is "he" you are referring to? If the poor have no money, how are the rich depending on them? If I produce a product for sale and then give the poor the money to purchase that product, does that make me any richer? I think capitalism works when people are employed to produce products and they earn enough money to buy some of those same products. In that way everyone benefits. Even Clinton seemed to understand, "It's the economy, stupid." Welfare, charity, and government don't create a sustainable economy and if they could why would anyone care to work? They are burdens on an economy, and a large part of the reason the National debt has grown so large.
I think it would be appropriate to say that something that doesn't concern me would be none of my concern. I contend first with the things that do directly touch me and/or my family, and address other problems and situations as I see fit. The difference between us is that I make my own decisions, where you would prefer that you or someone else make them for me. The only thing I promote is that individual choice is paramount in maintaining individual freedom. Are you claiming to be clairvoyant? Did I use any of those words, kind, class, or race? A community is more or less the more immediate area in which you live. When living in a small town in Georgia, I did not consider myself a member of the community that lives in San Francisco on the other side of the country. You have to draw lines somewhere. You might say it's because I don't wish for me or others to become shackled with those who accept your philosophy when the lead Lemming goes over the cliff. You can choose to ignore me, in hopes that I will fade away. You do have that right, as my interpretation of the 1st Amendment only establishes the right to free speech, not the right to be listened to or read. Are you talking of the U.S. or UK government? What is the great good you refer to? Doing something that is ineffective, didn't do any good at all, or had an adverse effect on people sounds like many government programs. The best thing that any government can do for the people is to allow jobs to be created, without imposing rules and regulations that limit employers by making it less costly to reduce the workforce. Chrysler, and GM in particular are going to have quite an impact on the entire U.S. workforce for many years to come. My ex-neighbor was a janitor at the GM plant and for several years I thought he was an executive, based on his life style compared to mine. He wasn't very sociable so I only found that out after becoming friends with someone who went to school with him and knew him better than I. And he was not a Republican or a Conservative, as evidenced by his bumper stickers.
Gardener. To start, my statement included those making up to $50,000 a year. Very few people below that income save, so that is what they spend. Even people on welfare, retirement and disability spend that money somewhere. Take a simple company like Coke. If for some reason everyone included in my income range was to stop buying Coke's products, Coke would go out of business. The number of consumers in the lower income range is so great as to actually have the final say in whether or not a company survives. The only problem is that most of them have no idea they have this power. I worked security for a Honda plant, most employees there could not afford a new Honda. I have a friend who works for a subsidiary of Mercedes, he can't afford one of them either. And, my friend who buries people can't afford the services of the industry in which he works. By your own definition, capitalism isn't working. Actually, they did. Through the most generous years for social programs we usually had roughly 4.5 to 5 percent unemployment, so as a whole, people do prefer to work for more than take less, plus, getting government assistance isn't as easy as you imply. The national debt is not the result of welfare and charity, it's because of 2 wars and the idiocy of Bush and Republican policies. .
"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)." [SIZE=+1]"If you cut 26 percent of the welfare now given to the rich you have instantly balanced the budget." [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"If you cut out weathfare, you could pay off the national debt in 11 years."[/SIZE] http://www.corporations.org/welfare/
...to answer the OP's question; Luck. However I do believe everyone is born with an equal chance at transcendence, enlightenment.
"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character".- RW Emerson.
I earned less than that most of my life, and only slightly more in the last few years I worked, yet I was able to meet my needs including a few luxuries as well. At the same time I had co-workers who earning the same who were constantly in debt, one having filed bankruptcy twice, and planning a third, and not because of anything other than his own irresponsible money handling. I agree that everyone who has money spends it, including the rich, who probably spend much more than the poor. I agree that consumers have much power that they can exercise if they wish, and that is what free trade should be based upon. Laws should only be needed to prevent dishonest or harmful practices, and assure fair competition can take place without price fixing. I don't think earning money should be considered dishonest. Coke is a fine example, and although not wishing to put them out of business I usually buy a competitors product, and do so with many name brand products where I find the competitors product to be of equal quality or acceptable quality, but lower priced. I also don't support Microsoft who I feel produces an inferior product at much too high a price, but encounter many who love their product and continually purchase upgrades as they become available. I use only open source software and make contributions to those who produce something I find useful and well written. People should be made aware of the power they have, and not make themselves dependent on government to exercise it. Once any power is given to a government it becomes very difficult or impossible to regain it. I have a friend who is a highly paid government inspector at Lockheed, and he can't even afford a C130. Just because you work for a company that produces expensive products doesn't mean you should earn enough to purchase the product you make, but only that it provides you a means of living. My brother works for a paper mill and he can purchase more paper than he could ever use. Should I then consider him to be overpaid? By my definition, capitalism is working as best it can under adverse conditions imposed by government interventions. Go look at the debt clock. Who is going to eventually pay the piper? Or can you rationalize how this can continue perpetually? Past results aren't necessarily reliable in predicting the future. As a whole, the national debt is a result of excess spending, which has been left unchecked one administration after another, Bush included, and never before so great as now.
When Bush took the helm, from a liberal who cleaned up his father's mess, America was financially sound. Eight years of conservative policies later, the Chinese own it. There's no way around the fact that the mess we're in today is the result of your own ideologies at work. The financial institutions were allowed to run amok and crashed the world's economy. The oil companies were allowed to "drill baby drill," and, well, listen to the news. As a frequent visitor to the Gulf I feel as though a part of me has died; and it's buried along side my national pride. .
Is your primary goal the promotion of your agenda by focusing on the placement of blame? What you are trying suggesting to be my ideologies have not been implemented for a long time now. The last time the U.S. even came close to being financially sound was near the end of Andrew Jacksons term, and although he was a Democrat he would unlikely be admitted to the party were he living today. The Deepwater Horizon oil rig was ordered in 1998, laid down in 2000, and completed early 2001. It was acquired in February 2001, so shouldn't Clinton be receiving the blame, or at least a portion of it for allowing what appear to have been defective components to have been used in its construction? Financial institutions appear not to have broken any written laws, and with the vast number of laws we have to contend with today, businesses and financial institutions have to look long and hard to determine how they can remain profitable, and in business, while remaining within the law. So it may not be the best business practices that are put to work, but the ones that remain within the laws they must obey. Often this requires they have to take greater risks than they would normally. When living in the States, I don't think I had a single friend who was debt free. But of course most friends had more possessions than I, even my poorer friends. The main difference between us was that I saved until I could purchase what I wanted, while my friends borrowed to purchase what they wanted. They, like many others, looked for someone to blame for their problems, while I simply faced my problems and looked for solutions to them. Have you ever invested in the stock market? I've often heard it said that for every winner there is a loser, but while that may sound true and even occasionally actually be true, it is not always the case. Like the current financial anomaly stocks are traded based on future projections, and during the creation of the bubbles, which always reach a bursting point, many people make profits with few losses on the way up. At some point the market always becomes overvalued, and the more intelligent investors recognize the fact, short the market and await the correction to occur, at which point the lessor intelligent investors take losses which produce even greater profits for the more intelligent investors. At that point there are many losers, looking for someone to blame for their losses, and the winners simply because they employed greater rational intelligence are seen as greedy, while ignoring the fact that they too were exercising greed, and high risk by purchasing or holding stocks in order to make a profit when they should not have been. Should such people be bailed out when making poor decisions? When government becomes the guarantor for those who make poor choices in life, risk is eliminated and poor choices become more frequent. When the individual has to take full responsibility for the choices they make, more often they make less risky choices, leaving them to those who can best afford them. Perhaps you should look at society like the stock market, in that you have to invest something in order to reap any returns. If you own no stock in a company, you should receive no dividends. When nothing is invested nothing can be lost, but in return nothing should be gained. Government should motivate, not agitate. That is the primary difference between a leader and an organizer.
Then wouldn't lottery tickets produce more chances for luck to pay off than would welfare checks? Neither one requires much effort.
No more so than you. The Republicans have not had control of Congress since the end of the Great Depression, so, yes I am. Damn, if the country has been in a financial mess for 180 years I certainly wouldn't worry about it at this point. Why not, and while we're at it we can blame Nixon for the exploding Pinto. Evidently, your friends aren't as smart as you are. I don't gamble .
Except that I'm not so interested in who to blame as I am in what to blame. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. Progressive light and progressive heavy is how I view the two parties. Obviously. Leave it for someone else to worry about after you're gone. If that makes you happy, go ahead. I'd even be willing to say that they may be smarter, considering that many of them have acquired many possessions that will be paid for by those who are just being born, as they will die deeply in debt. At least, not with your own money?
Sorry, I thought you were blaming the "Socialists" for giving it all to the poor. According to you I'm paying for what my parents, grand parents and great grand parents spent. .
Not blaming socialists, but socialist programs created by democrats and republicans. Not at all, you're only paying for a portion of what you're spending, and adding to the debt of future generations. The last time the National debt decreased was in 1960, under Eisenhower.
Indie No answers and little or nothing of substance on the issues being discussed. * You claim that you are only really concerned with yourself, you very local area and you family, yet instead of concerning yourself with those things you’re on an international website promoting ideas and attitudes that would effect everyone if implemented. And the thing is that your promoting stuff you don’t even seem able to defend from criticism, don’t seem to have given much thought to and worse don’t seem willing to give much thought to. Again it makes me wonder why you are here? I mean you claim it is because – This displays a great deal of unthinking bias, first you haven given a convincing explanation of what you think is ‘my philosophy’ although I’ve asked on a number of occasions. And second your own ideas seem rather ill informed and poorly thought through, don’t seem to stand up well to scrutiny and which even you seem unwilling or unable to defend from the criticism that they could do more harm than good. And lastly what have lemmings got to do with it?
Indie Once more I’m amazed at the simplicity of your thinking. It used to be called the business cycle but its closer to a speculative cycle these days. But as I’ve pointed out and you are yet to address although it has been brought up several times now - is that neo-liberal / free market economic ideas have no way of dealing with a crash, other than just letting everything fall. Do they? I mean it is very easy in hindsight to say the person who bet right on a horse did it out of ‘intelligence’ and the person who backed the wrong nag was ‘unintelligent’. The problem is that before the fact they don’t seem that different. It is very simple to just dub someone a business or investment geniuses with greater rational intelligence when there horses came in and the bet pays up, and then very easy to start calling them dumb idiots if they loose. I don’t think ordinary taxpayers should bail out those institutions that make losses from speculative investments. The problem was that such institutions were at the forefront of those braying for the deregulation that actually brought about the situation where their failure could have brought about a worse situation than their bail out. A strictly regulated and monitored market is the only way of making sure such institutions don’t cause more harm than good. As to individuals taking responsibility I got the impression you though people like Richard Fuld (Lehman Brothers) and James Cayne (Bears Stearns) should keep their millions even when they drove their companies into the ground?
