The rich have money -- and passion

[vern_humphrey]

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.

What makes you think I haven’t read Marx?

The problem, you see, is I’ve gone beyond that and studied what happens when Marx’ theories are put into practice – by people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and so on.

The Parable of the Chocolate Cake

There was a man who had a recipe for chocolate cake; “Mix mud and straw and bake.”

Someone tried it and said, “That’s not a recipe for chocolate cake – it’s a recipe for a brick!”

But the man pointed out that the recipe card plainly said, “Chocolate cake.”

Others tried it, and they all produced bricks.

But the man explained the theory behind his recipe, and showed all the research he had done. He blamed the other people – they must have got the proportions of mud and straw wrong, or perhaps they didn’t bake the ingredients at the right temperature.

But more and more people tried it. And they all produced bricks.

And finally a man stood up and said, "It don’t make a diddly-dang what the heading on your recipe card says, and your theory is just hot air. This is a recipe for a brick!

So I say, "“It don’t make a diddly-dang what the heading on Marx’ recipe card says, and his theory is just hot air. Communism is a recipe for a brutal, repressive dictatorship – and every nation that has tried it has got just such a dictatorship.”

 

[thechrismyster]

I do have a problem with people who sit around on their butts around the pool waiting for dividend checks to come in so they can buy the latest sports car or such. It’s the idle rich who are more of a problem, IMO.

then you have no issue with most rich in America.
anyone who is poor knows how full well how hard money is to come by. anyone who is rich obviously either wills money in to existence through magical wishing, or they earn it.

first of all, in 2007, a million dollars is NOT that much money. if you think so, thats part of your problem, you aim low.

a million dollars in the NE USA, after a modest $400,000 house, retirement investment and $100,000 in cars and furniture… actually leaves you about even.

people who are poor are no happier or sadder than the rich. but money can and does by happiness. it buys independence, it buys freedom, it buys peace of mind that lets you develop other areas of your life.
anyone who tells you money does not buy happiness, in my estimation, must be poor. i’ve never met someone with money who doesn’t enjoy the freedom it brings.

money doesn’t buy happiness? i actually beg to differ.
why do the poor love the lottery? the state lotteries are disproportionatly played by the lower income brackets? if there is such happiness in being free of material things… why is this?
studies show that the heaviest lottery players – the 20% of players who contribute 82% of lottery revenue – disproportionately are low-income, minority men who have less than a college education. (1)

i was at a 7-11 this morning and i saw two people, one an elderly woman and the other a man in sweats wearing a dirty t shirt and a marlboro hat smelling of stale beer and a night of partying… between them they must have spent $50 on lottery tickets. i bet neither has much expendable income. but there is always money for those cigarettes and beer, isn’t there.

it’s a fallacy that being rich is somehow hard and makes you bad. it just means you have freedom of movement. you can do things without worrying about nickels and dimes.

(1) articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/RetireEarly/WhyPoorPeopleWinTheLottery.aspx

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Actually Communism, Socialism and Capitalism all have the same objective which is the proper distribution of resources. This creates the maximum economic growth and thus maximum benefit for society. All systems have strength and weakness. The best measurement is the size of the government in Communism the government must be huge to control and allocate all resources, in Socialism the government is large but does not control all resources it control all vital resources like health and transportation most but not all land, labor, etc… In Capitalism the government is small and has to fight to have any control the private sector is powerful, independent, and often interferes with the government.

Any real look shows at the USA indicates we are socialist not capitalist. We get up and drive a government approved car (sticker on window) down a government street (on government land) by state laws(government rules) with a state (government) license under government superision (police) to work per government ( OSHA & Dept of Labor) rules, with government induced employer insurance, which can only be used by government approved (licensed) doctors using government approved (FDA) drugs, while paying 40% taxes.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Another common mistake among Americas is to confuse free markets with Capitalism as these two items interplay most Americans falsely assume they are one in the same which is of course incorrect. Free trade is the base of most economic success in history. This is because the non free traders (closed border societies) create shortages like fruit in cold climates or grain on Islands. These shortages open the door to economic profit by trade. Britain and Japan both small and weak in natural resources have prospered to number one status using the trade system. While at the other end China and Sudia Arabia loaded with natural resources have floundered (closed borders). Whether the British Empire was Capitalistic or not depends on how you classify the King if you see him as government; it is not a Capitalist society, yet if you see him as outside the government it was a Capitalist society. The US was a capitalism society through the 1920 when we developed the “Barons” which were taken down by a move to a socialistic society. A move which continues through today( taxes are 40%). However we remain free traders even more so today as socialists than we were as capitalist, and thus our growth. Today we have some temporary problems developed by a war in Iraq, and Afghanistan, plus some embargoes as Cuba, North Korea. Additionally these affect our currency which is hurting us due to the unpopular war and its financial strain. If we continue to free trade we will remain in the top class which is only open to free traders.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Dividends and Lotteries like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are hard to find and do not really work. The Lottery is a loser’s game the odds are typically
1 : 55,000,000 compared to earning excess money which are closer to
1 : 100 depending of course on what you consider excess money

Dividends were stopped some years ago as the business and the stock holder BOTH must pay the tax so a $1 of profit is reduced to $0.60 dividend which mean $0.36 spending money to the stock holder. (the business paid $0.40 tax, and the stock holder paid $0.24 tax). Today the $1 is reinvested (called retained earning) the object is to increase the capital value(stock price). When the stockholder wants his money he simply sells stock all or part. In theory this is taxed the same but really because the business compounded the tax free dollar ( through depreciation) and the stock holder can time his sale to reduce taxes, like during a year with losses or during low income retirement phase(IRA & 401k).

Actually the super rich are a drain on society but they comprise only about 3% of the population so not a great loss. The drain occurs because they control large amounts of resources with no requirement to use these efficiently. Like owning land and refusing to allow development, or allowing your buddies to be V.P.s even though they are performing poorly. This is frustrating to the poor who work hard with little or no assets while watch some of the rich squander assets yet the free market tends to correct this over time.

 

[jman507]

Another common mistake among Americas is to confuse free markets with Capitalism as these two items interplay most Americans falsely assume they are one in the same which is of course incorrect. Free trade is the base of most economic success in history. This is because the non free traders (closed border societies) create shortages like fruit in cold climates or grain on Islands. These shortages open the door to economic profit by trade. Britain and Japan both small and weak in natural resources have prospered to number one status using the trade system. While at the other end China and Sudia Arabia loaded with natural resources have floundered (closed borders). Whether the British Empire was Capitalistic or not depends on how you classify the King if you see him as government; it is not a Capitalist society, yet if you see him as outside the government it was a Capitalist society. The US was a capitalism society through the 1920 when we developed the “Barons” which were taken down by a move to a socialistic society. A move which continues through today( taxes are 40%). However we remain free traders even more so today as socialists than we were as capitalist, and thus our growth. Today we have some temporary problems developed by a war in Iraq, and Afghanistan, plus some embargoes as Cuba, North Korea. Additionally these affect our currency which is hurting us due to the unpopular war and its financial strain. If we continue to free trade we will remain in the top class which is only open to free traders.

Well, that is always an important concept before you really dig into any debate, both need to understand the terminology the other is using. The terminology isn’t near as important as what it means. I guess one could say you seem to pin capitalism into meaning laissez faire capitalism, and you could have capitalism in a mixed economy. You could call it also socialist, both depend on percise definitions of capitalism and socialism.

 

[Frankk]

To achieve true social justice, we merely need to inculcate in children the values of work and saving, and an understanding of economics. Everything else needed to end poverty is already in place.
What are we doing to accomplish this?

I do think this is a rather simplistic view spoken from a democratic, western perspective. True social justice must include the people in Darfur and other ‘Third World’ countries. For them to have social justice would require us in the West to forgo some of the luxuries of life we currently enjoy; to reduce our insatiable appetite for energy; to minimize the waste we create, and so on.

Children need to learn the moral values that Christ laid down for us and apply them in a way that transcends national boundaries.

Somehow I can’t see this happening anytime soon. :crying:

 

[mark_a]

To achieve true social justice, we merely need to inculcate in children the values of work and saving, and an understanding of economics. Everything else needed to end poverty is already in place.

What are we doing to accomplish this?

The playing field is more level today than before mostly due to reduced racial prejudice. Otherwise it still seems to be the haves vs. the have-nots.

We also need to remember that social security and medicare were dogfights in their day. Many, many wealthy people fought this social justice.

Almost a decade ago, the book “The Millionaire Next Door” alerted America to these quiet-living folks who accumulate wealth while their neighbors spend themselves into debt.

I believe that the ones who do inherit large somes of money end up being the ones who spend themselves into oblivion.

 

[mark_a]

I do think this is a rather simplistic view spoken from a democratic, western perspective. True social justice must include the people in Darfur and other ‘Third World’ countries. For them to have social justice would require us in the West to forgo some of the luxuries of life we currently enjoy; to reduce our insatiable appetite for energy; to minimize the waste we create, and so on.

Children need to learn the moral values that Christ laid down for us and apply them in a way that transcends national boundaries.

Somehow I can’t see this happening anytime soon. :crying:

Thanks for reminding us of this. These are very good points that help us take the focus off our own little world.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do think this is a rather simplistic view spoken from a democratic, western perspective.

When you say “simplistic,” let me quote Clauzwitz, “In war, everything is simple. But even the simplest things are very hard to do.”

If we could accomplish the simple things I laid out, we could go a long way to minimizing poverty in this country. But those simple things will be very hard to do.

True social justice must include the people in Darfur and other ‘Third World’ countries. For them to have social justice would require us in the West to forgo some of the luxuries of life we currently enjoy; to reduce our insatiable appetite for energy; to minimize the waste we create, and so on.

There is an old saying, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” There is no silver bullet that will simultaneously solve all problems of the world. But that shouldn’t prevent us from attacking the problems we can solve – otherwise, we wind up doing nothing at all.

Children need to learn the moral values that Christ laid down for us and apply them in a way that transcends national boundaries.

How can we do that, if we can’t even do it within our national boundaries?

Somehow I can’t see this happening anytime soon. :crying:

No need to cry – save that energy for advancing the cause. Dispair, after all, is a sin.

 

[Frankk]

If we could accomplish the simple things I laid out, we could go a long way to minimizing poverty in this country. But those simple things will be very hard to do.

How can we do that, if we can’t even do it within our national boundaries?

Vern

I can’t but agree with you. On the issue of how to do it, there is an old adage, ‘if you don’t know where to start, then start somewhere.’

I guess raising awareness is a first step. However, in this Godless and materialistic world I cannot see it resulting in success. As an individual, I try to do my bit. Unnoticeable in the world at large but it, I hope, has an impact on some unfortunate soul in the Third World.

I do despair of humans coming up with an answer. The G8 countries are already way behind on the solemn pledges they made {2 years ago?}

No, I put my trust in God to sort it out. I just wish He’d get a move on.

 

[jman507]

If I was to call it distributionism via a sort of capitalism is that a possible way to catagorize it Vern? What you are saying is that you’d like capital spread out as much as possible, from people who have been taught an understanding of how to economically sustain oneself through work, saving and prudent choices? (Then a given some cannot possible do this, and that should be done as locally as possible – I don’t know if you proposed that, but I thought I’d add that in.)

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I do think this is a rather simplistic view spoken from a democratic, western perspective. True social justice must include the people in Darfur and other ‘Third World’ countries. For them to have social justice would require us in the West to forgo some of the luxuries of life we currently enjoy; to reduce our insatiable appetite for energy; to minimize the waste we create, and so on.

Children need to learn the moral values that Christ laid down for us and apply them in a way that transcends national boundaries.

Somehow I can’t see this happening anytime soon. :crying:

Not necessarily, allowed to work free markets would reduce the inequity. See why would you fight your neighbor to the death this Tuesday instead of going to work and living normally? The answer is impediments prevent the people of Darfur from simply going to work and living normally. The “fat cat” is another opportunity of the people of Darfur to offer better cheaper work if the free markets exists. So how come Darfur is not mfg, or performing phone service for us? because of man made oppressive impediments

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern

I can’t but agree with you. On the issue of how to do it, there is an old adage, ‘if you don’t know where to start, then start somewhere.’

I guess raising awareness is a first step. However, in this Godless and materialistic world I cannot see it resulting in success. As an individual, I try to do my bit. Unnoticeable in the world at large but it, I hope, has an impact on some unfortunate soul in the Third World.

I do despair of humans coming up with an answer. The G8 countries are already way behind on the solemn pledges they made {2 years ago?}

No, I put my trust in God to sort it out. I just wish He’d get a move on.

There was a famous British military disaster in the 18th century, caused by the failure of two commanders. It was summed up like this:

The Earl of Chatham, his saber drawn
Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strawn.
Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em
Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham

Perhaps God is waiting for us to get a move on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If I was to call it distributionism via a sort of capitalism is that a possible way to catagorize it Vern?

Categorize what?

What you are saying is that you’d like capital spread out as much as possible, from people who have been taught an understanding of how to economically sustain oneself through work, saving and prudent choices?

Actually, work, savings and prudent choices increase the overall wealth – they don’t simply spread it more thinly.

(Then a given some cannot possible do this, and that should be done as locally as possible – I don’t know if you proposed that, but I thought I’d add that in.)

There will always be those who cannot – through physical or mental disabilities – support themselves. But if all the rest of us are prosperous, we will have adequate resources to contribute to the truly needy.

 

[levi86]

What makes you think I haven’t read Marx?

The problem, you see, is I’ve gone beyond that and studied what happens when Marx’ theories are put into practice – by people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and so on.

So let me get this strait. You base your opinions not on the system itself, but on the actions of dictators who have exploited the system? Perhaps I should apply the same standard to capitalism

Perhaps I should mention that colonialism would not have been possible without capitalism, that the enslavement of millions and the exploitation of many more by the colonial powers was driven by capitalism. That the only reason your country and many others were able to achieve economic success during this period was because of the exploitation of these peoples based on capitalist principles.

Perhaps I should mention the countless crimes that have been committed against humanity by huge corporations in the name of profit, and capitalism. That up until recently capitalism was characterised by the mass exploitation of the proletariat by a very small elitist community. That the only reason such exploitation has been stemmed in some western countries is because of the Labour Movement, which was founded upon socialist ideology.

Perhaps I should mention that the vast majority of dictators throughout modern history were not socialists but rather capitalists, that they have exploited their populations through means of the capitalist system.

I could use all these things as proof of my position , but to so would be dishonest and misleading. To base ones opinions regarding a particular system or institution on the actions of a minority of individuals is bigotry. When siting the actions of Stalin, Mao and Po pot as “proof” that socialism is flawed you are no better than those who hate the Catholic Church because of the past indiscretions of its clergy or governing body.

 

[jman507]

Categorize what?

Actually, work, savings and prudent choices increase the overall wealth – they don’t simply spread it more thinly.

There will always be those who cannot – through physical or mental disabilities – support themselves. But if all the rest of us are prosperous, we will have adequate resources to contribute to the truly needy.

I didn’t say it’d be spread more thinly, just spead out more. If people know how to preserve capital, likely it won’t be wasted. One really cannot start out with the assumption there is x amount of capital, we can rearrange as we wish and x will stay the same and will stay equal in the future.

 

[jman507]

So let me get this strait. You base your opinions not on the system itself, but on the actions of dictators who have exploited the system? Perhaps I should apply the same standard to capitalism

Perhaps I should mention that colonialism would not have been possible without capitalism, that the enslavement of millions and the exploitation of many more by the colonial powers was driven by capitalism. That the only reason your country and many others were able to achieve economic success during this period was because of the exploitation of these peoples based on capitalist principles.

Perhaps I should mention the countless crimes that have been committed against humanity by huge corporations in the name of profit, and capitalism. That up until recently capitalism was characterised by the mass exploitation of the proletariat by a very small elitist community. That the only reason such exploitation has been stemmed in some western countries is because of the Labour Movement, which was founded upon socialist ideology.

Perhaps I should mention that the vast majority of dictators throughout modern history were not socialists but rather capitalists, that they have exploited their populations through means of the capitalist system.

I could use all these things as proof of my position , but to so would be dishonest and misleading. To base ones opinions regarding a particular system or institution on the actions of a minority of individuals is bigotry. When siting the actions of Stalin, Mao and Po pot as “proof” that socialism is flawed you are no better than those who hate the Catholic Church because of the past indiscretions of its clergy or governing body.

So if you substitute the corportations for the government, I don’t see how that is really going to change matters. The common thing with the problems of capitalism, Stalin Mao, Po pot, and problem memebers of the clergy, is that they are all human.

 

[levi86]

So if you substitute the corportations for the government, I don’t see how that is really going to change matters. The common thing with the problems of capitalism, Stalin Mao, Po pot, and problem memebers of the clergy, is that they are all human.

With all due respect, I’m not sure you have a clear understanding of what socialism was intended to be. The fundamental concept behind the socialist movement is the **de-centralisation **of authority i.e. giving power back to the people. Socialism does not seek to “substitute the corporations for the government”, such a transition is equally unacceptable under Marxist theory.

 

[jman507]

With all due respect, I’m not sure you have a clear understanding of what socialism was intended to be. The fundamental concept behind the socialist movement is the **de-centralisation **of authority i.e. giving power back to the people. Socialism does not seek to “substitute the corporations for the government”, such a transition is equally unacceptable under Marxist theory.

Well I’m sure I don’t see where that changes much from what Vern has been saying other than instead of giving power back to people, the people learn how to take the power back. Though it seems the one problem with Marxist theory is when it seems the proponets seem to never really follow through with giving the power back to the people.

It’s really hard to actually have someone in power to give power back. For the most part if anyone aspired to power, there very well had to be a reason for it and a vision behind it.

While I cannot remember right now if I read all your posts, but I’ll say you might be better off defining the aspects of the system you desire, than to call it Marxist Theory, and especially calling things Capitalism, Socialism, Communism. All those terms have ideas behind it for every given poster, and the definitions can be vague. In the end you might not be debating actual ideas, but loaded terms. Especially with Vern, (correct me if I’m wrong, Vern) and to a lesser extent myself, is I could care less for economic theory except for maybe a starting point, but would rather get at practical application.

Although I’ll ask one thing, does Marxist theory allow for private property?