Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I apologize for the language. Again, it appears that you did not READ what I WROTE, that you're replying to someone else's posts and inexplicably quoting mine.
It is almost interesting how all of our arguments inevitably come to this.
Anyway, I never said nor implied that everyone can become rich - as far as I know, neither has Rush. I *do* believe that most Americans are able-bodied and able-minded enough to provide for themselves and their families, but that's beside the point.
Rush has said so actually. And it is a noble fancy, but one that is impossible. And, honestly, I have no problem that some people are wealthy. My problem is that those who are wealthy often do it at the expense of making others poor. As much as we need CEOs and executives, they are nothing without the labor force behind them. We need to keep that in mind.
My comment ("they earned it") was in response to your sarcastic comment that "we still worship that non-living entity we call 'business' with that hollow promise that someday its wealth will 'trickle-down' to us, so we can look disdainfully at our lazy blue-collar neighbors and go to church and praise God for all the wealth He thrust upon me."
"They"? Business is
not a living entity. You think I am ignorant of economics, as you state with such a derogatory grin. However, did
you ever critically analyze what they teach you in economics? First of all, the independent variable is always "business," which implicitly means that everything else should be molded to fit business. I was not bemused when I found that labor was lumped in the same category as machinery, because people should not be so easily expendable like an obsolete machine. Hence, this is why I disagree with economics, because I think that the independent variable should be "people."
Very banally, you continue to mention "supply and demand." Once again, I do not disagree, but certain conditions are required to allow for true "supply and demand," which, most simply, is sufficient competition. But that is what America has always--and continues to--lack in most key industries. With gasoline, for instance, you don't have true competition. The price that gas stations set reflect only have 3-4 cents per gallon going to the station itself. The rest goes back to the parent oil company (minus taxes). The mega mergers of the last decade, which reflected Clinton's more conservative approach to economics, certainly did not help, and Dubya has continued with the same approach.
And I find it quite sad (but no less predictable) that you apparently honestly believe that employees are always "exploited", never hired.
My concern is for the blue-collar laborers, not myself. Whereas their high school and associate degrees were more than sufficient 25 years ago to make a damn great living, the climate shifted so dramatically that now they are left behind. Now, just imagine yourself, Bubba. Let's say that you finish your education with a degree you believe is kick ass to make a great living. You settle down, get a job that you've worked 20 years at, and start a family. You're living the American Dream, right?
Then, almost instantaneously, employers now want a degree higher than what you've attained. The price to get that degree then becomes 5x higher than what it was a year ago. But you have bills, you have a family, and what you need is work. Almost immediately, "to become more competitive," your wages are slashed about 25% and frozen for three years at that rate. You could quit, but to start out elsewhere, you'd be forced to take on entry-level wages, which are 50% lower than what you are used to making. So you stay...you have no choice, and the bills keep coming in. Consumer prices, as usual, continue to skyrocket, but we are told by our government that that isn't inflation.
Later in the year, your plant closes. "To become more competitive," your job is being sent to Mexico. Almost snidely, the government tells you that you are just lazy and stupid, and that you should go back to college. But you can't afford it. College isn't going to pay your immediately due bills. So you do get a new job finally at about 50% lower than what you are used to. You do get health insurance, but you have to co-pay $45 a week to have it. Hence, there goes more of your pay check. And now imagine, twenty years afterwards, you finally are a bit back on your feet, but not even remotely where you were in terms of the salary or benefits you used to make at your old plant twenty years prior.
So, tell me, Bubba, if you lived in such a situation, like millions were forced to live in the 1980s, like
I, as the son of a factory worker, had to live then, would you be touting the glory of capitalism then? It's "supply and demand," and it is you that is expendable, but, unlike a decommissioned piece of machinery, you are still alive.
Well, I apologize if I mischaracterized you, but you've clearly shown a lack of understanding when it comes to even elementary economics, an ignorance of capitalism that I've most often seen in Marxists and closet Marxists.
I fully well know theoretical capitalism, perhaps more so than you. While you've simply regurgitated every line fed to you in your economics curriculum, I've applied it to reality. With theoretic communism, it was obviously very different in practice. It is the same way with theoretical capitalism, and the simplistic "supply and demand" argument shows real ignorance to all the factors that shape a capitalist marketplace.
"A slave to your Christian beliefs"? If I'm wrong for trying to associate you and Karl Marx, your much more mistaken to attempt to disassociate me and Christ.
Hoo-ray. Now I can do my own "I never said, nor implied" statement.
I never said, nor implied that your beliefs are anti-Christian. I was talking about
my Christian beliefs.
Capitalism doesn't demand that individuals act selfishly, it simply recognizes that most people do most of the time - and it recognizes that self-interest is often quite helpful in generating wealth for the entire society.
Exactly. Hence, I believe that there must be sufficient regulation to curtail such behavior. Without the regulation of the early 20th century, you and I would likely very exploited laborers that have been working in factories since we were 5 years old.
If capitalism suggests anything about taking care of the poor, etc., it suggests perhaps that government is not the one to do it - the taxes required to do so may needlessly hamper the free flow of capital.
Let's look back at history. When it wasn't the government taking care of people, no one else did.
Personally, I believe that capitalism (and democracy) need to tempered with Christian morality - not that the government needs to provide a welfare state, but that individuals should give to charities.
In the 1920s, during the last fundamentalist revival before the present, it was Christianity that disdainfully evoked predestination to state that the poor are poor because it is God's will and the rich are rich because of God's will. Hence, they felt that aiding the poor was going contrary to God's will. How quickly that all changed when the nouveau riche fell flat on their ass during the Great Depression.
I would not trust the welfare of our nations on the highly judgmental and highly discriminatory Christian religions. If anything, you should learn that the mixing of politics and religion is a dangerous combination, whereas morality is often compromised in favor of power and money. Hence, you see why the Reformation happened in the 1500s.
IN FACT, between the two (welfare and charities), charities appear to be the more attractive, Christianity-wise, because it involves the free will of the person giving, as opposed to the confiscatory taxation of the "donor".
How often do you give to charities, Bubba? How often do most people you know give to charities? Even with 9-11, a lot of people pledged blood donation, but not even half actually went through with it. The only way you can assure the welfare of our citizens is through government, and the only way government can run is through taxation.
But let's say that taxation ended tomorrow. Business would see this, and likely lower your wages proportionately in due time. Hence, we'd really be no greater off, now would we?
Those desires of yours ("until... I won't be happy") sound quite noble, but we should carefully consider the suggested solutions to see if they actually work. As far as I know, you've given very few solutions, and - given your ignorance in basic economics - I would be very suspect of any quick fix you suggest.
Well, considering that over 45 million Americans are without health insurance and that the most jobs created in America in the last twenty years were low paying (stuff like McDonald's, etc.), I would say that our current system is not working.
Further, the desire to see "everyone make a living wage" (a favorite phrase of Clinton, if I recall correctly) seems unnecessary, especially because most teenagers at supermarkets don't need to make enough to feed a household of four.
See, now you are being silly. Thirty years ago, the average family could survive on one income, usually from the father figure. The average family now uses two incomes, and it is not that the second income is just for luxury and greed factor. It is just to survive. And then, here we had all this "family values" talk from Republicans. But, when your "family" is working most of the day, how can it function properly?
And it can't. In the last twenty years, you can proportionately see a change in the behavior of children between those that grew up with a parent at home and those who grew up with day care and babysitters. But capitalism doesn't give a shit about that.
(And, instead of forcing wages up, we could lower taxes - the individual would still see more money come home.)
Business would likely lower wages proportionately. The Federal Reserve would see the added income, signal the "inflation" flag (remember, the primary indicator of inflation over the last twenty years is wages), and drive down wages.
And, once again, there is that issue of who is going to pay for the government functioning? Who is going to pay for all those hundreds of billions in new military toys Dubya wanted? Who is going to pay for when that hurricane comes and destroys whole areas of land? You think that all government does is waste money, but I'm sure if that disaster ever comes, you'd decry for the government to help you.
And as a final observation, your desires seem very difficult to attain - and certainly not something that government can achieve, regardless of how much money it spends.
It's funny how the Scandinavians could do this, and America, with all its power and wealth, cannot.
Most people would be furious paying 70% of their income to the government, regardless of the amount they made. Why? Well, it's a pretty big reason, one you should take to heart: IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY.
Of course, the wealthiest only pay about 36% in taxes in America. But, in France, it is about 70% for the wealthiest, with the less you make the dramatically less you pay in taxes. A novel concept, isn't it? But think of all that you get with taxes over there--health care, efficient public transportation, etc. Hence, you would require fewer expenses, and not have to worry about your health care system or transportation declaring bankruptcy due to a worthless stock that plunged over a rumor.
I also think it isn't good when the tax code has so many loopholes as to allow companies to, in the end, pay so little. The obvious solution would be a simpler code.
"Simpler codes" lead to the common man paying more in taxes, with the wealthy getting off big time. Steve Forbes' flat tax plan, for instance, actually had the poorest paying 2% more of a tax rate and the wealthiest paying a rate that was 19% less. How fair is that?
Taking those two paragraphs at one time, I can see that you're at LEAST no better. You apparently believe that everyone in corporate America is pure evil. Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise, but I do believe you're talking out of your ass.
Either that or you are living in a fantasy world and refuse to pay attention to reality, clinging, instead, to theory. So, let me remind you of it.
According to the corporate world, the South--where you live--is a bastion of cheap labor in America. No unions and lots of right-to-work states. So, what happens is that every time there is a "recession," they close plants in the North and send them South, where they can pay you fools much less. Maybe it is because it is cheaper to live there, or maybe it is because you just take more corporate bullshit down there.
No, I wouldn't be a tyrant. I know you find it hard to believe, but I would be a reasonable man; I just don't want government telling me what to do, what they find reasonable.
If it weren't for that big-bad "government," you would be working 14 hour days, seven days a week, just like they did in the late 19th century.
We're also propping up a bloated government. Slash taxes in half, and you wouldn't have people working for "half a salary".
That's bull. Do you need a course in mathematics now too?
Salary X: $60,000
Tax Rate: 25%
Taxes, before all legal deductions and refunds: $15,000
Now let's slash taxes in half.
Tax Rate: 12.5%
Taxes, before all legal deductions and refunds: $7,500
Shouldn't I now have twice as much to work with, according to what you have stated?
The prime buying power of the American working class was around 1970, where many auto workers could actually afford Cadillacs and country clubs like the wealthy. The prime tax burden was on corporations, rather than individuals (like now). Prices were regulated to prevent going too excessive. Excessive corporate profits were discouraged under the windfall profit tax; hence, it was more advantageous to give higher salaries to your labor to avoid that government penalty. Workers were happy, America was prosperous, and the world didn't implode.
All that got deregulated in the early 1980s, and look at the world we have now. The average worker cannot remotely afford those luxury items, there is no incentive to raise wages (the incentive is actually to keep them low now), consumer prices go unchecked, and more wealth is concentrated in the upper 1%. Would you say we are better off now or then? Knowing you, you'll say now, and you are a fool if you believe that.
I will ignore the Mien Kamph comment if you will forgive the Das Kapital comment. Again, just because you're ignorant of basic economics doesn't necessarily mean you're a communist, and I wrong to think so.
And just because you are happily in theoretical euphoria, with the theoretical zeal of a brainwashed university student, and ignorant of reality...I guess that doesn't mean you are a Nazi. So I will forgive the "Das Kapital" comment.
melon, you think "supply and demand" are mere buzzwords, and you think that price fixes do not cause shortages. You clearly do not have even the most basic understanding of economics. Until you do, there's no sense debating at all.
Bubba, there is more to economics than "supply and demand," and, thus, you clearly do not have an understanding of true economics. Under most basic science, you could say that a bowling ball and a feather will fall to the ground at the same rate. But then you wouldn't have taken into account a whole number of factors, including weight, aerodynamics, etc. That is your problem regarding economics; you don't take everything into account. "Supply and demand" is the same as assuming we live in a vacuum, where a bowling ball and a feather have the same advantages, but, clearly, we don't live in a vacuum and your simplistic "supply and demand" scenarios don't work.
Price fixing always causes shortages? Look at the deregulated electricity of California. The power companies simply cut output and cried "shortage" as an excuse to raise prices. But I'm sure you'd be happy paying 10x as much for your electricity, knowing that your power company is now making a hefty profit for it's stockholders, while outputting less electricity with no government regulation behind it. But I'm sure, like everyone else, you'd bitch. You can't have both ways.
Until you get something called "real life experience," which I was attempting to give you some with "American Dream," so you can get beyond the simplistic pretenses you learn in university, then there is no point debating with you either.
Melon
------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
[This message has been edited by melon (edited 01-19-2002).]
