Myths About Capitalism

[ALIHAYMEG]

How else are they gonna get credit?

Exactly! That is called being forced into something and taken advantage of.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Really? Tell that to the millions of Americans who just lost their homes in the latest bubble. Could they have afforded a house without going into debt? Not in a million years. Can people afford to go buy a car like they used to, saving and paying cash for it? Not hardly. Oh no, we are all forced into debt. That is how the "ruling class" solved the problem of the "working class" not being able to consume any more. They lent them back the money that the workers produced for them with interest. Talk about a happy day for the rich! We are all overextended and working at maximum production levels. There is nowhere to go but down. The spiral has already begun. We are in debt up to our eyeballs with home loans, car loans, student loans, credit card debt, etc. Try living without going into debt. See how long you last. How is that not being forced into it?

They can rent an apartment or get a used car. No one forced them to go into debt. It's that houses and and new cars are expensive to build.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Exactly! That is called being forced into something and taken advantage of.

No it's called offering you a better alternative

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Then what definition are you using?

I would call it crypto racism, to coin a new phrase, or techno slavery.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

I would call it crypto racism, to coin a new phrase, or techno slavery.

And you're basing this off of...?

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

They can rent an apartment or get a used car. No one forced them to go into debt. It's that houses and and new cars are expensive to build.

So you really don't care about people who have to struggle to survive then? You don't see a problem with the crooks in control stealing the public blind and then forcing them to bail them out? Many of your answers sound an aweful lot like "Let them eat cake."

 

[LiberalAvenger]

And you're basing this off of...?

It's sort of based on the old indentured servant laws. If you don't pay your bills, for whatever reasons, sometimes they do come at you with guns.

They take away your property for back taxes and stuff like that. I know, I know, boo ****ing hoo.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

No it's called offering you a better alternative

No, exorbitant interest rates are called fleecing the poor for personal gain. Especially when you invent a magical insurance policy called a "default credit swap" to shield you from the loss that you know damn well is coming. You know it so well that you bet against your own investments. Brilliant! Not you personally of course. But you seem to be siding with the dishonest guys that created the problem and profited from it. Here’s a brilliant plan; lets deregulate everything so that these crooks can have free rain. Well, maybe they are not so good at policing themselves.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

So you don't think that there are any poor people in America then? Is it that or do you just see no reason to care?

I don't know where I said that or how this statement makes any sense. I talk about poor people in the post you're quoting! I said that most people make a lot more than $7.25 an hour.

Yes, but the 1% control 37% of the wealth which translates to them being in control. Money is power and those with the power control the politics. I couldn't agree more that the key to changing this is education though.

It's not that simple.

They meaning who? Are you talking about the poor? I didn't realize that they had any lobbying influence.

The one you were asking about, corporations.

Are you advocating forced marriage? The government push to encourage marriage for welfare recipients has been over for a while now. That didn't work.

No, I'm saying that marriage helps.

The nature of marriage and the traditional ideas of family are changing rapidly for younger generations. It's not the coveted and respected institution that it once was. A better choice for education is definitely one of the keys. It's difficult for parents to take the time they need to spend with their kids studying when both parents are forced to work in order to survive though. Families don't dine together anymore because they don't have time.

Finnally we agree on something

I'm aware of some problems with the welfare system, but I'm curious as to what specific policies or procedures that you see as being responsible for people being better off staying in the system. What are you basing that on?

However, I see local communities as better help to the poor. In the past, the poor were generally helped by private institutions, but were displaced by government programs. I'm not opposed to all government help though. Give the poor more autonomy, to allow them to rise out of poverty as they choose. Milton Friedman's solution was giving them a set stipend to spend on what they want, whether that be booze or an education. It would be cheaper, less bureaucratic, and help those who need it and punish those who just abuse the system.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

So you really don't care about people who have to struggle to survive then? Many of your answers sound an aweful lot like "Let them eat cake."

No, I'm pointing out that they have alternatives, and they're not children incapable of taking care of themselves.

You don't see a problem with the crooks in control stealing the public blind and then forcing them to bail them out?

Of course I have a problem with theft, a two way agreement with someone is not theft. It is an understanding between two individuals, and no, I don't support bailouts

It's sort of based on the old indentured servant laws. If you don't pay your bills, for whatever reasons, sometimes they do come at you with guns.

They take away your property for back taxes and stuff like that. I know, I know, boo ****ing hoo.

Do we still have these?

No, exorbitant interest rates are called fleecing the poor for personal gain. Especially when you invent a magical insurance policy called a "default credit swap" to shield you from the loss that you know damn well is coming. You know it so well that you bet against your own investments. Brilliant! Not you personally of course. But you seem to be siding with the dishonest guys that created the problem and profited from it. Here’s a brilliant plan; lets deregulate everything so that these crooks can have free rain. Well, maybe they are not so good at policing themselves.

With deregulation, they can't have government force you to do whatever they want.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

I gotta go now, I'll be back later or tomorrow.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

Milton Friedman's solution was giving them a set stipend to spend on what they want, whether that be booze or an education. It would be cheaper, less bureaucratic, and help those who need it and punish those who just abuse the system.

That's interesting, but how would it be cheaper than the $340 a month that a household of 3 receives per month on the TANF program? (Welfare) And would it include work requirements like the TANF program does? As it is, only a person with a child can receive TANF. They also have to be in a work program for at least 86 hours a month including things like college, vocational school, ABE/GED classes, volunteer work for the city or a private company or institution, work prep courses like SPOKES that teach interviewing, resume' and other work-place skills. I'm not sure how throwing a blank check at them would be better than what we are already doing. I think the problem is that the general public has no idea what the welfare system has become. They are operating on dated stereotypes and assumptions.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

With deregulation, they can't have government force you to do whatever they want.

The government is just a sock puppet of the rich. They hold all of the cards and deregulating them wouldn't make much difference. Exept that they could destroy national parks and protected lands without interference from conservationists. I'm not sure how that would help anything.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

I gotta go now, I'll be back later or tomorrow.

I appreciate you indulging the "newbie". Talk to you later.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

I gotta go now, I'll be back later or tomorrow.

Bu Bye:2wave:

 

[cpwill]

Yes, the middle amount is more than $7.25 per hour. That doesn't address the fact that the top 1% of our population controls 37% of the country's wealth which is much more than the bottom 90% control. This brief video shows it plain enough

wealth is a trickier measure than you are giving it; as it is an indicator of behavior over time rather than income. for example, studies consistently show that african american families of the exact same incomes typically have far less wealth than their comparative white families, who in turn tend to have left than their comparative asian families. the difference is how do you treat your income; what cultural values (such as saving, thrift, etc) do you exhibit.

Real income has not gone up across the board. There has been a continuing trend of wealth being funneled upward to the top 1%. The top 20% are doing just fine while the bottom 80% is struggling. I'm really surprised that you are not willing to admit this even in the middle of the worst economic crisis in 100 years. You must fall into that top 20%.

:lol: as of two years ago my family qualified for food stamps. I say two years ago because i have no idea now - though i doubt it, as i've been promoted twice since then. i still make considerably less than the median income of $50,000. however, my family lives quite well. we never took food stamps, wic, or any other 'aid' that we qualified for; we didn't need them. bringing home about 612 dollars a week we still managed to tithe 10% and fully fund an IRA and an ESA for the baby. because we lived beneath our means. we still live a very low-key lifestyle. I will probably not purchase a new vehicle until i am into my 40's and decide to do it on a lark. I will retire a millionaire; and nearly anyone can do it. most people who are poor are poor because of their own poor decisions.

One big problem with the poor is that they are quite ignorant. (In the "lacking knowledge" sense of the word) I also agree that most people could better themselves and break free of poverty if they knew what the right choices were.

1. graduate high school
2. get a full time job
3. wait until you are married to have children

those basic three steps aren't exactly State Secrets, and again, consistently studies demonstrate that if you follow those three steps, you will not stay poor. I would add the caveat "do not get divorced"

It is a common misconception that welfare recipients don't get off of the system due to laziness.

that is incorrect; even if you are poor and relatively uneducated the tools are there to work your way out; as you yourself demonstrate.

There are a select few that cannot be reached, but the majority of them will respond to the right incentives. I'm not just guessing here. I work in the TANF program and I am very familiar with how it functions. There have been some very good improvements to the system in recent years that have given workers the ability to effect real change in people’s lives. It's not perfect by any means, but it could get a lot closer with the right backing and support. I lived most of my life in poverty and could never see any way out until somebody reached out to me and was able to show me that I actually did have options. It can't be done without support though. I would have never made it from a high school drop out to a degree holding honors graduate without constant support and encouragement. Those are the things most lacking when it comes to the poor. The cycle of dependence can be broken forever in a family with the right approach and support. We still have a long way to go. We certainly can't abandon innocent children to die of starvation because of their parent’s poor work ethic.

bolded part added. exactly. you will note that government did not provide you constant encouragement or the right kind of approach and support. quality individuals did.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

wealth is a trickier measure than you are giving it; as it is an indicator of behavior over time rather than income. for example, studies consistently show that african american families of the exact same incomes typically have far less wealth than their comparative white families, who in turn tend to have left than their comparative asian families. the difference is how do you treat your income; what cultural values (such as saving, thrift, etc) do you exhibit.

Are you saying that African Americans are not performing the right kinds of behaviors over time and that Asian Americans are performing better behaviors over time? Do you have any research to site that supports this assertion? Are you another one that believes that there are no poor people in America?

as of two years ago my family qualified for food stamps. I say two years ago because i have no idea now - though i doubt it, as i've been promoted twice since then. i still make considerably less than the median income of $50,000. however, my family lives quite well. we never took food stamps, wic, or any other 'aid' that we qualified for; we didn't need them. bringing home about 612 dollars a week we still managed to tithe 10% and fully fund an IRA and an ESA for the baby. because we lived beneath our means. we still live a very low-key lifestyle. I will probably not purchase a new vehicle until i am into my 40's and decide to do it on a lark. I will retire a millionaire; and nearly anyone can do it. most people who are poor are poor because of their own poor decisions.

If I had to guess, I would say that your fundamentalist peers and right wing ideology are most responsible for your opinions on the matter. There is no such thing as a Biblical mandate to tithe by the way, but that is another matter. How do you plan on retiring a millionaire making 39,000 a year?

1. graduate high school
2. get a full time job
3. wait until you are married to have children

those basic three steps aren't exactly State Secrets, and again, consistently studies demonstrate that if you follow those three steps, you will not stay poor. I would add the caveat "do not get divorced"

I'm assuming you have documented evidence of these assertions as well.

bolded part added. exactly. you will note that government did not provide you constant encouragement or the right kind of approach and support. quality individuals did.

They certainly did, and I don't remember saying anything about the government helping me. I was lucky enough not to need it just like you.

 

[phattonez]

Are you saying that African Americans are not performing the right kinds of behaviors over time and that Asian Americans are performing better behaviors over time? Do you have any research to site that supports this assertion? Are you another one that believes that there are no poor people in America?

Obviously. I heard the statistic the other day that only like 30% of black males are graduating from high school.

If I had to guess, I would say that your fundamentalist peers and right wing ideology are most responsible for your opinions on the matter. There is no such thing as a Biblical mandate to tithe by the way, but that is another matter. How do you plan on retiring a millionaire making 39,000 a year?

Probably the income of the wife and the man, plus they can live frugally.

I'm assuming you have documented evidence of these assertions as well.

If you can get a full-time job making minimum wage, that's not bad, depending on where you live and how you want to live.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

That's interesting, but how would it be cheaper than the $340 a month that a household of 3 receives per month on the TANF program? (Welfare) And would it include work requirements like the TANF program does? As it is, only a person with a child can receive TANF. They also have to be in a work program for at least 86 hours a month including things like college, vocational school, ABE/GED classes, volunteer work for the city or a private company or institution, work prep courses like SPOKES that teach interviewing, resume' and other work-place skills. I'm not sure how throwing a blank check at them would be better than what we are already doing. I think the problem is that the general public has no idea what the welfare system has become. They are operating on dated stereotypes and assumptions.

Because, it involves far less bureaucracy and the money can be spent as they wish. Work programs set the poor people are a relatively small number of paths. With the stipend they can improve themselves however they see fit.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The government is just a sock puppet of the rich. They hold all of the cards and deregulating them wouldn't make much difference.

That's why education is needed. A change to our voting sytem to increase political competition would help.

Exept that they could destroy national parks and protected lands without interference from conservationists. I'm not sure how that would help anything.

I don't have a problem with national parks as I see them as protecting our country's heritage, and I'm not against all environmental regulation, just most of it.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

Obviously. I heard the statistic the other day that only like 30% of black males are graduating from high school.

That's probably pretty close, but that group needs help to change that trend. American Indians are also in bad shape.

Probably the income of the wife and the man, plus they can live frugally.

I doubt living frugally will get him there. Maybe if his wife makes 6 figures a year.

If you can get a full-time job making minimum wage, that's not bad, depending on where you live and how you want to live.

The problem there is that it is hard to find full-time minimum wage jobs. Most of them are part-time and seasonal. Even full-time minimum wage only gets you $1160 a month before taxes. If you are lucky enough to get benefits you have premiums to pay. Most don't offer benefits like retirement, paid vacation, dental and vision, etc. Those things can all be considered part of an employees pay. (If you are lucky enough to get them) That leaves a person with less than $1000 per month to live on even with the best case scenario. Most are much less than that. How do you pay rent/utilities, car payment, insurance, and buy gas and food for a month on that?

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

Because, it involves far less bureaucracy and the money can be spent as they wish. Work programs set the poor people are a relatively small number of paths. With the stipend they can improve themselves however they see fit.

You must be a very high-up employee of the BCF of some State to have developed that kind of an informed opinion on the subject. What do you do? Because my experience working with this population has shown me that leaving a person who has inadequate education, no ability to think in future-tense, and no support system to their own devices is a very bad idea. They need an example of success to follow. They need time to change their world view and perspective on life. These things happen very slowly and not without failures along the way. Simply throwing money at them doesn't work. The failures of the past are proof of that.

What work programs do you thing exist? What makes you think that these programs set people on a narrow path? Does helping someone get a bachelors degree set them on a narrow path? Does supporting them in getting certification in a trade set them on a narrow path? I'm not sure what could possibly set them on a better path toward success. No, it seems that you are motivated by your preconceived political ideas instead of genuinely looking for ways to improve the lives of people and break the cycle of poverty. All you see is smaller government. All you want is for the rich to have more freedom to hoard the nation’s wealth as you hold onto the hope that you might someday be one of them. Why do people not see that it will never happen? You can’t worm your way in. You have to be born into it. Wouldn’t you rather stand up for something practical like a more equitable distribution of wealth which would benefit us all?

 

[Sandokan]

Slavery is a good comparison. The slave masters were just forced to call it something different. Now we are enslaved to indebtedness. All you have to do is take the profits that the workers produce and lend it back to them with interest. It's a win-win for the "ruling class" and a bottomless pit of debt for the "working class”. Good analogy.

Capitalism clearly distributes wealth unequally, but nevertheless it distributes wealth. Socialism distributes poverty equally. We cannot redistribute wealth if we cannot accumulate it. The redistribution of wealth is in reality redistribution of work.

The fallacy of redistributive wealth is that you will work as hard for me as you will for yourself. Socialism fails because it completely misrepresents human nature. That's precisely why capitalism works.

Corruption rich high levels in socialist countries, due to the system of perquisites and favors provided to the ruling class or political elite, what Djilas called the "new class." Djilas described the "new class" of rulers as "those who have special privileges and economic preferences because of the administrative monopoly they hold."

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Capitalism clearly distributes wealth unequally, but nevertheless it distributes wealth. Socialism distributes poverty equally. We cannot redistribute wealth if we cannot accumulate it. The redistribution of wealth is in reality redistribution of work.

The fallacy of redistributive wealth is that you will work as hard for me as you will for yourself. Socialism fails because it completely misrepresents human nature. That's precisely why capitalism works.

Corruption rich high levels in socialist countries, due to the system of perquisites and favors provided to the ruling class or political elite, what Djilas called the "new class." Djilas described the "new class" of rulers as "those who have special privileges and economic preferences because of the administrative monopoly they hold."

I agree that pure socialism or extreme socialism does not work. There are many stories in history to prove this.

However, sometimes I think socialism gets mixed up with humanism, even though they are different concepts. Extreme capitalism has many faults, also.

I would like to see a more equal blending of capitalism with humanism, fairness, ethics, and things of that nature.

 

[ALIHAYMEG]

Capitalism clearly distributes wealth unequally, but nevertheless it distributes wealth. Socialism distributes poverty equally. We cannot redistribute wealth if we cannot accumulate it. The redistribution of wealth is in reality redistribution of work.

It is neither capitalism nor socialism that distributes anything. They are simply approaches to the handling of the profits of production. (Both money and property) What you are calling socialism is actually one approach to communism although not the only approach. That $50,000 a year median figure is the amount that every American over 18 could earn with a completely flat distribution of wealth. That is hardly poverty level. That would not work for several reasons. There still needs to be an incentive to go further with education and do jobs that require more skill and responsibility. The research shows that the "carrot and stick" approach (paying someone a wage) is not affective as a motivator with jobs that require more than simple mechanical work. In other words, when you have to think creatively and apply logic, the best motivators are autonomy, the betterment of society, and recognition of achievements. People want to be recognized as innovative and forward thinking and they will do far more work to achieve these things than simply working for a wage. There needs to be a balance of motivation.

The fallacy of redistributive wealth is that you will work as hard for me as you will for yourself. Socialism fails because it completely misrepresents human nature. That's precisely why capitalism works.

There has never been a true socialist approach implemented. There have been several dictatorships and oligarchies masquerading as socialist societies. The problem is that everyone is thinking in absolutes. There doesn't have to be a one-or-the-other system. Both capitalism and socialism can co-exist within the same system. First and foremost, this nation is a Republic. That is our form of government as it should be. The way we do things within that system is what needs to change. All of the rhetoric that is spouted about what this or that word (socialism) means and represents is just propaganda. We already have both elements at work in the system. There just need to be some adjustments.

Corruption rich high levels in socialist countries, due to the system of perquisites and favors provided to the ruling class or political elite, what Djilas called the "new class." Djilas described the "new class" of rulers as "those who have special privileges and economic preferences because of the administrative monopoly they hold."

The same thing is true of capitalist societies. The "ruling class" (the wealthy) is always in control. My point is that we need to change that.