M
Mickey_Finn
Guest
My school of thought is the Church. Are you saying I’d be a better man without it?
- Status
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
That question lost me…
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Didn’t mean to be mysterious if that’s what prompted your questioning.
My point was that, as in the slums of Calcutta today, many of the 19th Century industrial poor were there in order to better their lives, as awful a way to do it as it seems to us now. We sometimes assume “the poor” are hopeless in their own minds, when manifestly sometimes what middle and upper class people think of as their “misery” is actually their “hope”; the expression of their aspirations.
Having said that, I will add that I am outraged at the treatment of the disabled poor in our society. Neither party has done anything for them for decades. Take a look at the SSI benefit, and nobody can imagine that as proper in a society like this one.
But I’ll confess that I have an extreme distaste for middle class welfare; measures like “Cash for Clunkers” and Obamacare. I have an even greater distaste for billionaire funded imposition of “utility bills skyrocketing”.
M
Mickey_Finn
Guest
Sorry to hear that.That question lost me…
M
Mickey_Finn
Guest
Ridge it sounded like you were trying to come up with a justification for Rich Industrialists taking advantage of poor children by working them long hours in dangerous situations for starvation wages.
ATB
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Not at all. But what I was saying is that oftentimes we think conditions are exploitive that some participants in those conditions view as opportunity, and really are opportunity for them.Ridge it sounded like you were trying to come up with a justification for Rich Industrialists taking advantage of poor children by working them long hours in dangerous situations for starvation wages.
ATB
Sometimes, too, what certain laborers do is not really lining the pockets of “rich industrialists” to any significant degree. When I was a kid, for example, there were shoe factories and garment factories around. The wages were good in those factories. Then, slowly the wages and conditions deteriorated and then they all closed down because they couldn’t compete with foreign manufactories. And they often did so after sustaining serious losses.
Without for a moment denying that some employers in, say, India, are exploitive beyond what the economic situation requires that they be, I don’t think we can be sure that all conditions which we, ourselves, find bad, are not still advancements for the people involved.
I remember meeting a young fellow from India, for instance; from Mumbai to be exact. It was on a plane. He was returning to India after undergoing some manner of computer training for a U.S. company in Ohio or somewhere. He told me his salary at the plant in Mumbai would be something like $700/month. He quickly told me that in India, anyone making $700 “could have flowers every day and eat anything he wanted, and live in a nice house and have a car”. Apparently being able to buy flowers is a big thing in India. Buying them daily is an indicator of prosperity.
I asked him how people were doing who were NOT involved in companies like his. He said they were doing much better than before. People who sell flowers can sell more of them and at better prices. People who raise food can too. He said there is more money in raising more expensive farm products than in basics, and I expect that’s right. People who perform services for others can make a living. He told me he could easily afford a full-time maid for his wife at his new salary. I’m sure the life of a flower-grower/seller in India is not plush, but neither is it a permanent condition as the economy generally begins to capitalize better.
I am sometimes put to wonder whether a hardscrabble period might be necessary for any society to advance economically. Certainly that was true in Europe and the U.S. When I was a kid, I remember seeing toys that were made in Japan. If you looked on the reverse side of the metal of, say, a toy car, you could see that it was made out of a Spam can or something like that, turned inside out and reworked. That had to have been a tough existence for the workers if the materials needed had to be made out of old G.I. discards. But Japan did improve things after that.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I live under the poverty level, but I also try to donate $100 per month to charities, like Save the Children.
savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.6115947/k.8D6E/Official_Site.htm?_ga=1.158655482.194239457.1399885470
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Have you checked on reducing poverty by flooding the developing world with contraceptives and abortifacients while embracing abortion with save the children?
Why is it feeding the poor, innocent and hungry always involves our concern over their reproductive issues. The quickest way to the mind is through the stomach?
Our self made gods of the universe are on a global clean up project. Who with a nicely packaged gift of poison want to medicate your soul.
huffingtonpost.com/terry-oneill/abortion-like-contracepti_b_5316300.html?abortion
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I was not aware that they promoted abortions. I’m now going to donate to Catholic Relief Services. crs.org/hunger/
LOVE!
C
cargau
Guest
I wonder if you could provide some specifics. What laws and how do they limit competition?
Actually, businesses may work to stifle competition in their own industry often by entering into mergers and acquisitions.
The truth is, that in a free capitalist market each of the stakeholders will act in a manner that is in their own best interest. Businesses will try to make a profit but consumers will try to buy a product that presents the lowest overall cost and the best quality. Guess what, this incentivizes businesses to keep the selling price low and the quality high. Competition plays a big part in ensuring low cost and superior quality, as well.
The point is, when a business turns a profit, they hire workers, pay taxes and more than a few provide financial support for schools, hospitals and other worthwhile organizations and causes.
While some here claim that it is unfair for businesses to “make” money, the truth is that the entrepreneur made the necessary sacrifices and took risks that most working folks don’t understand or are unwilling to undertake.
Capitalism is far from perfect and works best with limited regulation. Remember WorldCom and others…
While, capitalism (trickle down) may seem flawed at times, the truth is, it is the best system we have to encourage the greatest number of folks to reach the highest level of their potential.
S
sallybutler
Guest
Requiring that a new limo service ‘prove’ there is a need before it can be licensed and that it won’t affect existing limo businesses. (Las Vegas)
Requiring that limo’s charge a minimum of $45 per ride (Nashville)
In 2007 Four Missouri physician organizations have sued to have declared unconstitutional a law that would allow certified professional midwives to deliver babies without collaborating with a physician.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear cargau,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Nowadays very high quality merchandise is only affordable to the wealthy, those of slender means have no choice but to accept goods that are often not of merchantable quality. Even food is ‘graded’ now and so there is chicken and chicken, beef and beef, eggs and eggs and bread and bread. The poor must content themselves with substandard food that often has little or no nutritional value, simply because they cannot afford better. This has not always been the case and I can remember when, for example, furniture that was not considered top of the range was still jolly good stuff and did not fall apart. Moreover, our food was not graded and even regular eggs and bread tasted really good, but such is no longer the case. Now if you want quality bread or eggs you must pay a high price, or make do with inferior produce that is not nourishing. All “high quality” goods and foods are now sadly beyond the reach of the poor and thus only the affluent can afford the best. Capitalism always provides for the needs of the wealthy in every aspect of life, whilst the poor and needy get left behind and become increasingly impoverished.
Unfortunately, dear friend, Capitalism is not conducive to the affluent society where material wealth is widely distributed - if only that were the case. Alas, those who for genuine reasons are losers in the struggle to survive, such as the mentally afflicted, and cannot reach “the highest level of their potential”, are neglected and left to sink or swim. That is at variance with the holy religion of Christ which insists that we support the weak and ensure that they are not callously abandoned to their fate. The redistribution of wealth ensures that all men are cared for and that their most basic needs are met, that is to say food, clothing and shelter. Here in Britain this is provided for by the Welfare State, of which most decent people are jolly proud. This safety net has saved multitudes from severe hardship and deprivation since its inception and has been a tremendous blessing to this country.
No country can attain lasting peace and prosperity which neglects its poor and vulnerable citizens - Capitalism and the free market has a tendency to do just that, sadly.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
That is VERY generous of you Robert. I have donated to Children International. I shall include Save the Children next time.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Come on Robert I’m having a hard time keeping up with you.I was not aware that they promoted abortions. I’m now going to donate to Catholic Relief Services. crs.org/hunger/
LOVE!
Maybe I should just support some local families who are in need. That way I KNOW where my $$$ goes and I can monitor the benefits.
Come to think about it…too bad that won’t work with the portion of my taxes that the government gives away on welfare. I wonder where all of that really goes.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Good post, Cargau, it’s nice to have some support for Capitalism.
Sadly, Sally is right. There ARE laws that reduce competition, These laws are proposed and supported by “crony Capitalists”. They are usually requirements for insurance that a small competitor cannot afford. Or restrictive licensing, regulations or rules that only exist to discourage a new start-up. (OSHA, the FDA and EPA come to mind) It reallystarted with the Sherman Anti Trust Act. That law did nothing to protect consumers. It eliminated competition by driving small businesses our of business. It created the “Political Capitalist”. The one who becomes prosperous by influencing politicians rather than serving his customers.
Real Capitalism requires FREEDOM. When you have get PERMISSION from someone to do something…you are not free.
C
cargau
Guest
Portrait,
Good day to you, as well…
Capitalism does not provide for redistribution of dollars or euros. Rather capitalism provides opportunities for individuals willing to work hard and take risks so that they may prosper.
Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor defeats the incentive to succeed since the sacrifice and effort is given to someone else. On the other side, why would I struggle to be great when I know that the government is going to send me a check. It begs the question, “why would I strive for greatness when others either enjoy or provide the fruits”.
I realize that there are people who can never enjoy prosperity for a multitude of reasons. Surely, they need assistance. I have no argument with that.
Human dignity at its very core is found in work. A man or woman who passionately pursues a craft or profession and does it well has more self esteem and I might argue has a better chance of being a good husband, wife, father, mother, person…
I am opposed to the redistribution of wealth not because I share my blessings, but because it flies contrary to the nature of the human spirit.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
That is simply not true!
History bears it out.
Capitalism is the system that raised the standard of living of its poorest citizens to heights no collectivist or welfare system has ever begun to equal.
If you are concerned with peace remember that unbridled Capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history—a period during which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world—from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.
S
sallybutler
Guest
What I’d like to see happen is for companies have to reimburse the federal and state governments any monies paid to their employees. For example, if a person works and still qualifies for food stamps, their employer should have to reimburse the governmental organization that gave the money to the employee. If a person receives disability because of a work related injury, the employer has to reimburse the government. If someone apples for unemployment, their last employer has to pay for all of it. If a person needs retraining because their jobs were sent out of the country or to another state, the employer who sent those jobs out of the country or to another state would have to pay for the retraining.
Perhaps that would remind employers, especially large corporations, that they are part of the community and they are responsible for their actions.
Perhaps that would remind employers, especially large corporations, that they are part of the community and they are responsible for their actions.
A
adawgj
Guest
No it never works. A free market works.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I know, I was reading through a few of these, pretty much status quo, its definitely a concentrated effort which broken down becomes the pro-life and pro choice situation. The problem is this has been going hand in hand now for a long time in these areas of medical, poverty, and life basically.
- Status