The rich have money -- and passion

[vern_humphrey]

These are not “real” numbers they are “nominal” numbers if you use real numbers you will see a 2001 and one peak. here is a link swivel.com/data_columns/spreadsheet/1001700

As I said, my data came from the Census Bureau (and hence are the “official” figures.) The adjusted data you show does not state a source nor tell how the adjustments were made – at least I was not able to find that information.

But since we can easily find the rate of inflation year by year, we can make our own adjustments – which show a real increase in income.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Was it your intention to be offensive?

Not at all. If you take offense, then the issue is yours not my intent. Before I realized that Republicanism isn’t helpful to people who need to work for a living, I used to listen to Limbaugh. He said pretty much what you posted: “Liberals define compassion as how many people are on government assistance. Conservatives define compassion as how many people don’t need assistance.”

Which is not in conflict with what I have said – Mater et Magistra does not demand communism – rather it holds that we so structure society as to allow all who can support themselves to do just that.

You apparently don’t know hat communism is if you believe that I am promoting such. In fact, in paragraph 34 of the Encyclical, Communism and socialism are condmned. Then, in paragraphs 35 and 36, he turns around and condemns unbridled capitalism.

Paragraph 39 says, “all forms of economic enterprise must be governed by the principle of social justice and charity.” As an aside, I believe that the original Latin would say caritas where charity is written in English…in other words, Divine Love, not sympathetic giving out of pity.

And as the cites I posted at the beginning of this thread show, our society is remarkably open to those who will work, save and invest.

Our problems are not a lack of goods, nor a deliberate holding back of certain people – but rather a failure to educate and inculcate the values associated with success.

Granted. Education is important, but is it education to learn a set of facts to be recited back during a test (the current NCLB model) or perhaps would be be better to teach people how to thing critically using facts as a means to that end? I would think the latter as it forces people to actually analyze (think about) what they’re learning instead of memorizing facts.

For myself, I can say that by thinking about things in depth, I tend to, oh, I dunno…retain more information.

What is the relevance of that to the issue under discussion?

So many people who espouse Republicanism say that people are also held back by workplace regulations that protect working people from being defrauded of their wages, unsafe working conditions, race-based discrimination, sex-based discrimination, etc.

As the original cites show, such “idle rich” are more a figment of the imagination than a reality. Most affluent people earned it on their own.

That’s not what it says, it says that they are a minority. In fact, the first article says that 20% are idle rich. That’s not a 'figment of the imagination."

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not at all. If you take offense, then the issue is yours not my intent. Before I realized that Republicanism isn’t helpful to people who need to work for a living, I used to listen to Limbaugh. He said pretty much what you posted: “Liberals define compassion as how many people are on government assistance. Conservatives define compassion as how many people don’t need assistance.”

Please post a cite where I quoted Rush Limbaugh.

I posted a Catholic definition of Social Justice –

Social Ministry has two main aspects: social service (also known as Parish Outreach) and social action

Social Service is giving direct aid to someone in need. It usually involves performing one or more of the corporal works of mercy. That is, giving alms to the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick or imprisoned, taking care of orphans and widows, visiting the shut-ins etc. Another name for it is charity.

Social Action is correcting the structures that perpetuate the need. Another name for this is Social Justice.

You apparently don’t know hat communism is if you believe that I am promoting such. In fact, in paragraph 34 of the Encyclical, Communism and socialism are condmned. Then, in paragraphs 35 and 36, he turns around and condemns unbridled capitalism.

Where did I say you were “promoting communism?”

Paragraph 39 says, “all forms of economic enterprise must be governed by the principle of social justice and charity.” As an aside, I believe that the original Latin would say caritas where charity is written in English…in other words, Divine Love, not sympathetic giving out of pity.

How does this somehow mean we shouldn’t educate children, nor teach them the values needed to succeed well enough to support themselves and their children in some comfort?

Granted. Education is important, but is it education to learn a set of facts to be recited back during a test (the current NCLB model) or perhaps would be be better to teach people how to thing critically using facts as a means to that end?

I would love it if our schools were teaching critical thinking – but to think critically, one must have a good background education. And that is lacking in our present system.

As I have said in other threads, NCLB has been accused of interfering with “giving children a well-rounded education.” But anyone who has looked at the NCLB tests realizes that if children had a well-rounded education, they would need no coaching at all to pass those tests!

I would think the latter as it forces people to actually analyze (think about) what they’re learning instead of memorizing facts.

How do you teach critical thinking to those who cannot read and write? NCLB tests at a very basic level - far below the level needed to learn critical thinking.

I suspect much touting of “critical thinking” is because it is not defined, and people can claim they are teaching it and not be held accountable for failure.

For myself, I can say that by thinking about things in depth, I tend to, oh, I dunno…retain more information.

And you should have no problem passing those embarassingly simple tests, then.

So many people who espouse Republicanism say that people are also held back by workplace regulations that protect working people from being defrauded of their wages, unsafe working conditions, race-based discrimination, sex-based discrimination, etc.

And where did I say that? Please post a quote.

That’s not what it says, it says that they are a minority. In fact, the first article says that 20% are idle rich. That’s not a 'figment of the imagination."

One out of 270 people in this country are millionaires. If you believe that 20% of those are “idle rich” (which is not defined in the article) then that’s less than one out of 1,350 people.

And we should not educate the children, nor teach them to work, save and invest because of a vague reference to a tiny minority of one out of 1,350 people?

 

[levi86]

Go to the door of your room. You’ll find a switch there. Flip it and you’ll have light. Go into the kitchen and you’ll find a box with cold food and even ice – despite the fact that spring is well along. And the food will be food you didn’t plant and harvest yourself.

Go into the poorest neighborhoods – you’ll see televisions and air conditioners and automobiles. Canned foods. Refrigerators. Gas and electric stoves. Plumbing with hot and cold running water. tubs, showers and toilets.

Look at the streets – they’re paved. People do not shoud “Gardee Loo” and empty their chamber pots out the windows any more.

It wasn’t Feudalism that produced all that!
.

What you have just described is the product of industrialisation not capitalism It wasn’t capitalism that brought about these amenities, it was the advent of the agricultural and industrial revolutions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What you have just described is the product of industrialisation not capitalism It wasn’t capitalism that brought about these amenities, it was the advent of the agricultural and industrial revolutions.

As if “industrialization” was an economic competitor to capitalism!

Electric lights, radio, television, air conditioners, computers and so on are all the products of a capitalist system – that is, the means of production and distribution for these goods is privately owned, operated for profit, and in a** competitive environment.**

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Please post a cite where I quoted Rush Limbaugh.

I didn’t say you quoted Limbaugh, I said your post sounded like him. Big difference.

I posted a Catholic definition of Social Justice –

Source?

Where did I say you were “promoting communism?”

By referring to my quoting of Mater et Magistra saying that it doesn’t deman communism. I said nothing of the sort. You did imply that I was promoting communism and I won’t sit still for that.

How does this somehow mean we shouldn’t educate children, nor teach them the values needed to succeed well enough to support themselves and their children in some comfort?

Did I ever say that? No.

I would love it if our schools were teaching critical thinking – but to think critically, one must have a good background education. And that is lacking in our present system.

As I have said in other threads, NCLB has been accused of interfering with “giving children a well-rounded education.” But anyone who has looked at the NCLB tests realizes that if children had a well-rounded education, they would need no coaching at all to pass those tests!

How do you teach critical thinking to those who cannot read and write? NCLB tests at a very basic level - far below the level needed to learn critical thinking.

I said how to do it. Remember plane geometry? You use geometry to learn logic then apply that logic to learn more advanced geometry. The same can be used for almost anything. You learn to read, write and do math(basic skills) one way but when it comes to more advanced topics like social studies (is that still taught?), civics and science, that’s where critical thinking is essential.

I suspect much touting of “critical thinking” is because it is not defined, and people can claim they are teaching it and not be held accountable for failure.

And, of course, it’s EASIER to use standardized tests that cost a LOT of money ($$$ to the test manufacturers).

And you should have no problem passing those embarassingly simple tests, then.

Um…I think I probably could considering I qualify for at least college level algebra

And where did I say that? Please post a quote.

Are you denying your right-wing ideological beliefs?

One out of 270 people in this country are millionaires. If you believe that 20% of those are “idle rich” (which is not defined in the article) then that’s less than one out of 1,350 people.

And we should not educate the children, nor teach them to work, save and invest because of a vague reference to a tiny minority of one out of 1,350 people?

I never said that. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, it’s unsanitary.

I think education is underfunded and too much nonsense is allowed to be taught.

 

[levi86]

As if “industrialization” was an economic competitor to capitalism!

Electric lights, radio, television, air conditioners, computers and so on are all the products of a capitalist system – that is, the means of production and distribution for these goods is privately owned, operated for profit, and in a** competitive environment.**

I’m not going to explain why what you have just said is nonsense, because anybody with even a meagre understanding of history would see why.

On a practical note…Have you ever considered mentoring a poor family? I’m sure there are many families that that could benefit from your superior understanding of capitalist ideology.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I didn’t say you quoted Limbaugh, I said your post sounded like him. Big difference.

Would you be offended if I accused you of sounding like Tom Cruise? After all, both he and Limbaugh are entertainers.

Source?

ecatholic2000.com/sj/socjust.shtml

Now, do you object to distinguishing between charity and social justice? Do you deny that the goal of Social Justice is to remove the structural problems that leave many in need of charity?

By referring to my quoting of Mater et Magistra saying that it doesn’t deman communism. I said nothing of the sort. You did imply that I was promoting communism and I won’t sit still for that.

But you want me to sit still for being accused of sounding like Rush Limbaugh.

Did I ever say that? No.

Then what is your objection to the course I advocate – which is that we should educate children, and teach them the values needed to succeed well enough to support themselves and their children in some comfort?

I said how to do it. Remember plane geometry? You use geometry to learn logic then apply that logic to learn more advanced geometry.

How do you learn plane geometry without learing axioms and theorems?

And that knowledge is beyond what NCLB requires – and schools are struggling to meet that lamentably low standard, and complaining about how hard it is.

The same can be used for almost anything. You learn to read, write and do math(basic skills) one way but when it comes to more advanced topics like social studies (is that still taught?), civics and science, that’s where critical thinking is essential.

But right now, most school systems are struggling to meet standards far below that point. We need a quantum improvement in education before we can teach critical thinking.

And, of course, it’s EASIER to use standardized tests that cost a LOT of money ($$$ to the test manufacturers).

When schools cannot bring children to where they can pass standardized tests, they are a loooooooong way from being able to teach critical thinking.

Um…I think I probably could considering I qualify for at least college level algebra

Go and get the released (old) test questions used in your state and get back to me. Tell me if you think the test is “too hard” and requires unreasonable teaching and coaching to pass it.

Are you denying your right-wing ideological beliefs?

I don’t know what my “right-wing ideological beliefs” are. You’ll have to tell me before I can answer.

I never said that. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, it’s unsanitary.

Well, what is your point?

I have said we can raise many children out of poverty if we give them a good education and inculcate in them the values of hard work, saving and investing.

What part of that do you find objectionable?

I think education is underfunded and too much nonsense is allowed to be taught.

I agree on the nonsense part, but I know of no study showing a correlation between quality of education and dollars spent. Some poorly-funded systems do a good job. On the other end of the scale, the Poster Child is Kansas City, where a judge ordered local officials to raise taxes and dictated how to spend billions – and in the end those children were behind their peers of similar socio-economic background.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not going to explain why what you have just said is nonsense, because anybody with even a meagre understanding of history would see why.

Not going to explain, or can’t explain?

The latter – because it is capitalism that serves as the driving force behind industrialization. To understand modern history, you have to understand that.

On a practical note…Have you ever considered mentoring a poor family? I’m sure there are many families that that could benefit from your superior understanding of capitalist ideology.

I assume you meant this to be offensive.

But I have mentioned before how my wife and I work with people at the nursing home. She has encouraged and helped about a dozen of her CNAs (whom she trained) to go on to nursing school and drafted me to tutor them.

And there are several people who I encouraged over the years – I can honestly say that everyone who listened to me made out very well.

 

[levi86]

Not going to explain, or can’t explain?

The latter – because it is capitalism that serves as the driving force behind industrialization. To understand modern history, you have to understand that.
.

I have come across a number of explanations for the industrial revolution i.e.

1. Social change post English civil war.
2. Advances in disease control, an increase in population (workforce)
3. Lack of disease and famine lead to the agricultural revolution i.e. less labour intensive (allowing for a greater manufacturing workforce)
4. The expansion of colonial territory i.e. greater demand for manufactured goods
5. Most importantly: the advent of new technologies such as the steam engine

I am yet to come across a critique of the industrial revolution that sites capitalism or capitalist ideologies as one of its major causes.

I assume you meant this to be offensive.

Actually it was a sincere question.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have come across a number of explanations for the industrial revolution i.e.

1. Social change post English civil war.
2. Advances in disease control, an increase in population (workforce)
3. Lack of disease and famine lead to the agricultural revolution i.e. less labour intensive (allowing for a greater manufacturing workforce)
4. The expansion of colonial territory i.e. greater demand for manufactured goods
5. Most importantly: the advent of new technologies such as the steam engine

I can see it now:

“Hey, Jombo, whatcha doin’?”

“Designing a steam engine. If I were actually going to build it, it would do the work of any number of horses.”

“Aintcha gonna build it?”

“Of course not! I’d need money to built it!”

“Ya could sell shares – folks ought to be anxious to get in on the ground floor of something like this.”

“No! That would be capitalism!”

James Watt was a capitalist. Jethro Tull was a capitalist. Eli Whitney was a capitalist.

I am yet to come across a critique of the industrial revolution that sites capitalism or capitalist ideologies as one of its major causes.

Wow!

Actually it was a sincere question.

A sincere attempt to offend.

 

[levi86]

Originally Posted by levi86

Clearly you haven’t either; if you had you wouldn’t have responded with an anecdote of your own creation.

A sincere attempt to offend.

Sir, I think you are being somewhat sensitive. My statement was actually quite complimentary. I may detest capitalism, but I have no doubt that your understanding of it is exceptional. As I said, you clearly have a “superior understanding of capitalist ideology”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Clearly you haven’t either; if you had you wouldn’t have responded with an anecdote of your own creation.

an·ec·dote /ˈænɪkˌdoʊt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-ik-doht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.

[Origin: 1670–80; < NL anecdota or F anecdotes < LGk, Gk anékdota things unpublished (referring esp. to Procopius’ unpublished memoirs of Justinian and Theodora), neut. pl. of anékdotos, equiv. to an- an-1 + ékdotos given out, verbal adj. of ekdidónai to give out, publish (ek- ec- + didónai to give)]

—Synonyms story, yarn, reminiscence.

Are you sure “anecdote” was the word you wanted to use?

Note: an anecdote must relate to “a particular incident or event.” Humourous dialogs are not “a particular incident or event.”

However, I point out the Industrial Revolution was not an economic system – any more than the Rennassance, the Reformation, or the Enlightenment were economic systems.

The prevailing economic system which made the Industrial Revolution possible was capitalism – the private ownership of the means of production and distribution for profit in a competitive enviromment.

James Watt was a capitalist. Jethro Tull was a capitalist. Eli Whitney was a capitalist. Alexander Graham Bell was a capitalist. The Wright Brothers were capitalists. Thomas Edison was a capitalist. Hiram Maxim was a capitalist. Al Gore is a capitalist. Ted Turner is a capitalist.

Sir, I think you are being somewhat sensitive. My statement was actually quite complimentary. I may detest capitalism, but I have no doubt that your understanding of it is exceptional. As I said, you clearly have a “superior understanding of capitalist ideology”.

I was not aware there was such a thing as “capitalist ideology.”

 

[levi86]

Are you sure “anecdote” was the word you wanted to use?

Note: an anecdote must relate to “a particular incident or event.” Humourous dialogs are not “a particular incident or event.”

Fair enough :tiphat:

However, I point out the Industrial Revolution was not an economic system – any more than the Rennassance, the Reformation, or the Enlightenment were economic systems.

I never suggested industrialisation was an economic model.

The prevailing economic system which made the Industrial Revolution possible was capitalism – the private ownership of the means of production and distribution for profit in a competitive enviromment.

If industrialisation is only effective when operated alongside capitalism how do you explain the massive industrialisation that occurred within the USSR? At one point Soviet Industrial output far exceeded that of the US. Industrial growth does not require capitalism.

Just because the first industrial revolution (one of many around the world) took place in capitalist England does not imply that capitalism was the cause of that revolution. But as I said, if you have any evidence to the contrary (other than your own reasoning) I would be more than happy to look at it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I never suggested industrialisation was an economic model.

Then why did you even mention the Industrial Revolution?

The things we enjoy in modern times – from air conditioning to microwaves – were produced and disrtributed in a capitalist economy. Without capitalism, we would not have these things.

If industrialisation is only effective when operated alongside capitalism how do you explain the massive industrialisation that occurred within the USSR? At one point Soviet Industrial output far exceeded that of the US. Industrial growth does not require capitalism.

**Efficient **industial growth does.

The Soviet Union was not only inefficient in producing and distributing goods, it was unable to sustain itself and collapsed of its own weight.

Just because the first industrial revolution (one of many around the world) took place in capitalist England does not imply that capitalism was the cause of that revolution.

Saint Fiacre, help me!

Capitalism is the private **production and distribution of goods **for profit in a competitive environment. What good is invention without production and distribution?

And while communism can immitate other systems and build factories, as we have seen, it is not efficient or sustainable.

But as I said, if you have any evidence to the contrary (other than your own reasoning) I would be more than happy to look at it.

Look at your own evidence – you cited the Soviet Union.

Where is the Soviet Union today?

 

[levi86]

Capitalism is the private production and distribution of goods for profit in a competitive environment. What good is invention without production and distribution?

Ah hah! I think i’ve just discovered why you are so committed to capitalism; you’re a pessimist. You clearly have a very negative opinion of human nature. You must believe that a person’s only motivation for doing anything is personal gain. Is it so hard for you to believe that it is possible for society to function without selfishness?

Me, personally, I prefer to assume the best of people. I believe that people are intrinsically generous, and that presented with the opportunity will choose the greater good of the community over themselves. Capitalism exists because of peoples commitment to themselves, true socialism exists because of peoples commitment to society.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ah hah! I think i’ve just discovered why you are so committed to capitalism; you’re a pessimist. You clearly have a very negative opinion of human nature. You must believe that a person’s only motivation for doing anything is personal gain. Is it so hard for you to believe that it is possible for society to function without selfishness?

Would it be wrong for me to call you an Elitist?

I am an optimist – I believe people are best served when they control their own lives and make their own choices.

Socialists and Communists, on the other hand beleive people are not smart or wise enought to control their own lives – so they must be controlled by the Elite.

As for “selfishness” – look at the vast disparity in standard of living between the ruling class of Communist countries and the general population.

Me, personally, I prefer to assume the best of people.

With the caveat, of course, that they are not smart enough to be trusted to control their own lives.

I believe that people are intrinsically generous, and that presented with the opportunity will choose the greater good of the community over themselves.

And so do I – let people manage their own lives. Let them earn their own money. Let them make their own decisions about how they can best help the community.

Capitalism exists because of peoples commitment to themselves, true socialism exists because of peoples commitment to society.

True socialism exists because some people believe themselves to be better than others, and consider they have a right to take the fruits of other people’s labor (without actually producing anything themselves, of course0 and dispose of it according to their whims.

 

[levi86]

Socialists and Communists, on the other hand beleive people are not smart or wise enought to control their own lives – so they must be controlled by the Elite.

True socialism exists because some people believe themselves to be better than others, and consider they have a right to take the fruits of other people’s labor (without actually producing anything themselves, of course0 and dispose of it according to their whims.

Ah yes, socialism according to the neo-conservatives. May I suggest you read some of the works of the early socialist movement (Marx in particular). After doing so you may still be opposed to socialism, however at least your opinion will be founded upon truthful information.

 

[jman507]

Capitalism exists because of peoples commitment to themselves, true socialism exists because of peoples commitment to society.

I think that is a bit idealistic, there can be a lot of reasons why why any economic system exists. Also no real econnomic system really seems as if it really perfectly matches it’s ideal. For the most part it takes a lot of decisions by many people to shape any system.

 

[aaronjmagnan]

Problems of the poor are not solved by giving them money. Neither are they solved by entrusting a special class to the distribution of power and goods (vanguard). Nor are they solved by dictatorships.

They are cared for by faith.

For how often are spontaneous instances of charity or progress born from the problems of a poor man who has hope to not be poor; or from a rich man who is sick of self-centered greed?

The problem is not the economic system–it is the center. Around what exactly are these two centered on? Well, money as it represents power…or…resources as they equal governing power; and if you worry about money your problems will be revolving around money; and if you worry about power, well, you will have those who lack power and those who are overabundant in it.

Any system will be completely whole if run with love. Yep, real love. Charity. Concern. Sympathy. And I mean in the sense of guidance from the holy spirit. With free will, humans can run ANY sort of government they choose. The only way for this to benefit all, however, must be that they govern with love.

Communism did not solve the problem of the poor. It created a slave class. Capitalism offers ascension, but matched with greed only the evil can truly ascend. Socialism replaced faith in God and placed it on the society, becoming our dear mother,taking care of our colds and coughs and regulating pay checks.

Catholicism is the answer. Not economics. Patience in the progress of the world that is not too changed with revolution nor better off if we sit still.

God bless
Aaron