Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
If the poor must work to earn every dollar, shouldn’t the rich?; Is socialism for the rich a good idea?
Topic Started: Jan 11 2018, 12:41 PM (752 Views)
George Aligator
Member Avatar

The argument over which poor people deserve aid has begun anew thanks to incipient Republican efforts to harshen work requirements attached to welfare programs. For conservatives and thus-inclined Democrats, work requirements are about making sure that people who receive federal aid aren’t lazy loafers living off the dole — “welfare queens” in Reaganite parlance.

It’s a badly mistaken point of view. Built into the claim that it’s only fair that poor people should be made to work for welfare are a few troubling assumptions: that poor people don’t or won’t work; that only compensated, market labor is real work; that society (and the state) always require work to precede income; and that each person is due to receive simply what they earn. Each of those is false.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-the-poor-must-work-to-earn-every-dollar-shouldnt-the-rich/2018/01/05/c36d9a10-f243-11e7-b390-a36dc3fa2842_story.html?tid=a_mcntx&utm_term=.496fb332a164
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

I've noticed the people who say "I work hard for my money, i don't want to pay taxes" often work less hard than the poor people they denigrate. It's usually coming from a someone with a cushy sales job, a rent-taker, or middle man, not the guys doing actual labor. Much of the new tax bill rewards passive income and ownership over earned wages. The myth of the new GOP as populist saviors is a transparent lie.
Edited by nNeo, Jan 11 2018, 01:36 PM.
"You’ll have a lot of collateral damage.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

It's sad so many people do not understand basic capitalism. It's not necessarily about working hard, it's about working smart. One can work hard by digging ditches or one can design an app that makes everyone more efficient. The app designer can sell the rights to his product for millions and retire, the ditch digger will be poor and sore most of his life. Our education system does a horrible job preparing our children for the real world. They are taught to be workers, not entrepreneurs. The silly question about why shouldn't rich people work hard is not really worth answering. If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism.
Texas Produces Double The Renewable Power As California At Almost Half The Price
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 02:59 PM
It's sad so many people do not understand basic capitalism. It's not necessarily about working hard, it's about working smart. One can work hard by digging ditches or one can design an app that makes everyone more efficient. The app designer can sell the rights to his product for millions and retire, the ditch digger will be poor and sore most of his life. Our education system does a horrible job preparing our children for the real world. They are taught to be workers, not entrepreneurs. The silly question about why shouldn't rich people work hard is not really worth answering. If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism.
I thank you for pointing out that "If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism." So many right wing trolls try to insult me because my family has trans-generational investments.

I don't think your hypothetical example of the ditch digger and the inventor of the excavator covers the whole issue of labor and capital. Capital provides the resources with which labor creates value. That value is divided between the capitalist (the guy who owns the shovel, the guy who owns the excavator factory) and labor (the guys who dig, the guys who produce the excavators). In your example, the designer is an independent contractor, which doesn't change the principles. The big question is: how is the wealth produced by capital-plus-labor divided between the capitalist and the workers? There is no quick, simple or universal answer.

In most advanced economies, the answers are produced by an interaction of government regulation (taxes, labor laws, entitlements) and market forces (sales, finance). These are the two actors, the script is still not easy or simple. Various efforts have been made to simplify the script -- placing all capital in the hands of government (socialism, dictatorships) or eliminating regulation. Both extremes have produced painful failures and all our modern democracies agree on an economy that is directed by government, capital and labor (citizens) acting in constitutional partnership. Constant fine tuning and adjustment is required. Shrill name calling doesn't help.
Edited by George Aligator, Jan 11 2018, 04:53 PM.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 04:52 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 02:59 PM
It's sad so many people do not understand basic capitalism. It's not necessarily about working hard, it's about working smart. One can work hard by digging ditches or one can design an app that makes everyone more efficient. The app designer can sell the rights to his product for millions and retire, the ditch digger will be poor and sore most of his life. Our education system does a horrible job preparing our children for the real world. They are taught to be workers, not entrepreneurs. The silly question about why shouldn't rich people work hard is not really worth answering. If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism.
I thank you for pointing out that "If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism." So many right wing trolls try to insult me because my family has trans-generational investments.

I don't think your hypothetical example of the ditch digger and the inventor of the excavator covers the whole issue of labor and capital. Capital provides the resources with which labor creates value. That value is divided between the capitalist (the guy who owns the shovel, the guy who owns the excavator factory) and labor (the guys who dig, the guys who produce the excavators). In your example, the designer is an independent contractor, which doesn't change the principles. The big question is: how is the wealth produced by capital-plus-labor divided between the capitalist and the workers? There is no quick, simple or universal answer.

In most advanced economies, the answers are produced by an interaction of government regulation (taxes, labor laws, entitlements) and market forces (sales, finance). These are the two actors, the script is still not easy or simple. Various efforts have been made to simplify the script -- placing all capital in the hands of government (socialism, dictatorships) or eliminating regulation. Both extremes have produced painful failures and all our modern democracies agree on an economy that is directed by government, capital and labor (citizens) acting in constitutional partnership. Constant fine tuning and adjustment is required. Shrill name calling doesn't help.
Capitalism serves the savvy. A man of humble beginnings can achieve anything but he has to have the determination. The poor are poor because they do not market themselves well. Some suffer from low self esteem and low confidence, they accept low wage jobs because they lack confidence. Everyone needs to understand they are a product, they are free to sell their product or labor to the highest bidder. It is up to the individual to enhance their skills and remarket themselves. Upward mobility is always possible although many feel defeated and give up. Maybe that's where government can step in. As we've discussed marketable skills are changing quickly, our society needs to constantly adapt. What does a 45 year old man do when his skills are outdated? More emphasis needs to be on continuing education and job training. As for capital I don't see that as barrier to success. Once you've established good credit the banks are lining up to lend you money. Last, I salute your family's success. Wealth enables one to pursue more noble things, working to pay the bills is drudgery, it consumes you.
Texas Produces Double The Renewable Power As California At Almost Half The Price
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 05:43 PM
George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 04:52 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 02:59 PM
It's sad so many people do not understand basic capitalism. It's not necessarily about working hard, it's about working smart. One can work hard by digging ditches or one can design an app that makes everyone more efficient. The app designer can sell the rights to his product for millions and retire, the ditch digger will be poor and sore most of his life. Our education system does a horrible job preparing our children for the real world. They are taught to be workers, not entrepreneurs. The silly question about why shouldn't rich people work hard is not really worth answering. If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism.
I thank you for pointing out that "If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism." So many right wing trolls try to insult me because my family has trans-generational investments.

I don't think your hypothetical example of the ditch digger and the inventor of the excavator covers the whole issue of labor and capital. Capital provides the resources with which labor creates value. That value is divided between the capitalist (the guy who owns the shovel, the guy who owns the excavator factory) and labor (the guys who dig, the guys who produce the excavators). In your example, the designer is an independent contractor, which doesn't change the principles. The big question is: how is the wealth produced by capital-plus-labor divided between the capitalist and the workers? There is no quick, simple or universal answer.

In most advanced economies, the answers are produced by an interaction of government regulation (taxes, labor laws, entitlements) and market forces (sales, finance). These are the two actors, the script is still not easy or simple. Various efforts have been made to simplify the script -- placing all capital in the hands of government (socialism, dictatorships) or eliminating regulation. Both extremes have produced painful failures and all our modern democracies agree on an economy that is directed by government, capital and labor (citizens) acting in constitutional partnership. Constant fine tuning and adjustment is required. Shrill name calling doesn't help.
Capitalism serves the savvy. A man of humble beginnings can achieve anything but he has to have the determination. The poor are poor because they do not market themselves well. Some suffer from low self esteem and low confidence, they accept low wage jobs because they lack confidence. Everyone needs to understand they are a product, they are free to sell their product or labor to the highest bidder. It is up to the individual to enhance their skills and remarket themselves. Upward mobility is always possible although many feel defeated and give up. Maybe that's where government can step in. As we've discussed marketable skills are changing quickly, our society needs to constantly adapt. What does a 45 year old man do when his skills are outdated? More emphasis needs to be on continuing education and job training. As for capital I don't see that as barrier to success. Once you've established good credit the banks are lining up to lend you money. Last, I salute your family's success. Wealth enables one to pursue more noble things, working to pay the bills is drudgery, it consumes you.
I think you and I agree that capital free to seek profit in a market economy is the greatest stimulator of economic growth the world has ever seen. Hell, even the Communist Party of China agrees with that!

But that doesn't mean that pure, unfettered capitalism is the best system. Capitalism seeks profits and profits come greatest from expansion and growth. However, capitalism isn't necessarily concerned with the over-all economy or people and sectors not connected with shareholder profits. Capitalism is aimed at profits, not social welfare or environmental protection. The profit motive is a powerful engine but the car still needs a steering wheel and brakes.

Government in the USA has a responsibility to foster and protect our capitalist market economy; however, that is not the only responsibility of government. As I said, it is a complex operation requiring constant tweaking and adjustment.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 06:06 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 05:43 PM
George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 04:52 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 02:59 PM
It's sad so many people do not understand basic capitalism. It's not necessarily about working hard, it's about working smart. One can work hard by digging ditches or one can design an app that makes everyone more efficient. The app designer can sell the rights to his product for millions and retire, the ditch digger will be poor and sore most of his life. Our education system does a horrible job preparing our children for the real world. They are taught to be workers, not entrepreneurs. The silly question about why shouldn't rich people work hard is not really worth answering. If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism.
I thank you for pointing out that "If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism." So many right wing trolls try to insult me because my family has trans-generational investments.

I don't think your hypothetical example of the ditch digger and the inventor of the excavator covers the whole issue of labor and capital. Capital provides the resources with which labor creates value. That value is divided between the capitalist (the guy who owns the shovel, the guy who owns the excavator factory) and labor (the guys who dig, the guys who produce the excavators). In your example, the designer is an independent contractor, which doesn't change the principles. The big question is: how is the wealth produced by capital-plus-labor divided between the capitalist and the workers? There is no quick, simple or universal answer.

In most advanced economies, the answers are produced by an interaction of government regulation (taxes, labor laws, entitlements) and market forces (sales, finance). These are the two actors, the script is still not easy or simple. Various efforts have been made to simplify the script -- placing all capital in the hands of government (socialism, dictatorships) or eliminating regulation. Both extremes have produced painful failures and all our modern democracies agree on an economy that is directed by government, capital and labor (citizens) acting in constitutional partnership. Constant fine tuning and adjustment is required. Shrill name calling doesn't help.
Capitalism serves the savvy. A man of humble beginnings can achieve anything but he has to have the determination. The poor are poor because they do not market themselves well. Some suffer from low self esteem and low confidence, they accept low wage jobs because they lack confidence. Everyone needs to understand they are a product, they are free to sell their product or labor to the highest bidder. It is up to the individual to enhance their skills and remarket themselves. Upward mobility is always possible although many feel defeated and give up. Maybe that's where government can step in. As we've discussed marketable skills are changing quickly, our society needs to constantly adapt. What does a 45 year old man do when his skills are outdated? More emphasis needs to be on continuing education and job training. As for capital I don't see that as barrier to success. Once you've established good credit the banks are lining up to lend you money. Last, I salute your family's success. Wealth enables one to pursue more noble things, working to pay the bills is drudgery, it consumes you.
I think you and I agree that capital free to seek profit in a market economy is the greatest stimulator of economic growth the world has ever seen. Hell, even the Communist Party of China agrees with that!

But that doesn't mean that pure, unfettered capitalism is the best system. Capitalism seeks profits and profits come greatest from expansion and growth. However, capitalism isn't necessarily concerned with the over-all economy or people and sectors not connected with shareholder profits. Capitalism is aimed at profits, not social welfare or environmental protection. The profit motive is a powerful engine but the car still needs a steering wheel and brakes.

Government in the USA has a responsibility to foster and protect our capitalist market economy; however, that is not the only responsibility of government. As I said, it is a complex operation requiring constant tweaking and adjustment.
Agreed. If this was a football game the government would be the referees. That doesn't mean they decide winners and losers but they are there to ensure a good clean game and enforce the rules. We have anti-trust laws for a reason, they preserve competition, that benefits the masses. If one team acquired unlimited resources, bought the best players and always won we wouldn't have a game. Government is there to do what capitalism can't or shouldn't do, oversee road construction, the military, police, the courts and to a certain extent education. The size and scope of government will always be debated. Free markets are unplanned, that scares the hell out of most people. Arguments between the right and left are allows about the balance of power between the private sector and the government. It's a reasonable debate but by no means an honest and open debate. It's tainted by special interests, probably always will be. We sit on opposite sides of the teeter totter , the equilibrium is always shifting. We would do better to realize we share the same interests, remember when one kid used to jump off?
Texas Produces Double The Renewable Power As California At Almost Half The Price
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 07:15 PM
George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 06:06 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 05:43 PM
George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 04:52 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 02:59 PM
It's sad so many people do not understand basic capitalism. It's not necessarily about working hard, it's about working smart. One can work hard by digging ditches or one can design an app that makes everyone more efficient. The app designer can sell the rights to his product for millions and retire, the ditch digger will be poor and sore most of his life. Our education system does a horrible job preparing our children for the real world. They are taught to be workers, not entrepreneurs. The silly question about why shouldn't rich people work hard is not really worth answering. If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism.
I thank you for pointing out that "If you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism." So many right wing trolls try to insult me because my family has trans-generational investments.

I don't think your hypothetical example of the ditch digger and the inventor of the excavator covers the whole issue of labor and capital. Capital provides the resources with which labor creates value. That value is divided between the capitalist (the guy who owns the shovel, the guy who owns the excavator factory) and labor (the guys who dig, the guys who produce the excavators). In your example, the designer is an independent contractor, which doesn't change the principles. The big question is: how is the wealth produced by capital-plus-labor divided between the capitalist and the workers? There is no quick, simple or universal answer.

In most advanced economies, the answers are produced by an interaction of government regulation (taxes, labor laws, entitlements) and market forces (sales, finance). These are the two actors, the script is still not easy or simple. Various efforts have been made to simplify the script -- placing all capital in the hands of government (socialism, dictatorships) or eliminating regulation. Both extremes have produced painful failures and all our modern democracies agree on an economy that is directed by government, capital and labor (citizens) acting in constitutional partnership. Constant fine tuning and adjustment is required. Shrill name calling doesn't help.
Capitalism serves the savvy. A man of humble beginnings can achieve anything but he has to have the determination. The poor are poor because they do not market themselves well. Some suffer from low self esteem and low confidence, they accept low wage jobs because they lack confidence. Everyone needs to understand they are a product, they are free to sell their product or labor to the highest bidder. It is up to the individual to enhance their skills and remarket themselves. Upward mobility is always possible although many feel defeated and give up. Maybe that's where government can step in. As we've discussed marketable skills are changing quickly, our society needs to constantly adapt. What does a 45 year old man do when his skills are outdated? More emphasis needs to be on continuing education and job training. As for capital I don't see that as barrier to success. Once you've established good credit the banks are lining up to lend you money. Last, I salute your family's success. Wealth enables one to pursue more noble things, working to pay the bills is drudgery, it consumes you.
I think you and I agree that capital free to seek profit in a market economy is the greatest stimulator of economic growth the world has ever seen. Hell, even the Communist Party of China agrees with that!

But that doesn't mean that pure, unfettered capitalism is the best system. Capitalism seeks profits and profits come greatest from expansion and growth. However, capitalism isn't necessarily concerned with the over-all economy or people and sectors not connected with shareholder profits. Capitalism is aimed at profits, not social welfare or environmental protection. The profit motive is a powerful engine but the car still needs a steering wheel and brakes.

Government in the USA has a responsibility to foster and protect our capitalist market economy; however, that is not the only responsibility of government. As I said, it is a complex operation requiring constant tweaking and adjustment.
Agreed. If this was a football game the government would be the referees. That doesn't mean they decide winners and losers but they are there to ensure a good clean game and enforce the rules. We have anti-trust laws for a reason, they preserve competition, that benefits the masses. If one team acquired unlimited resources, bought the best players and always won we wouldn't have a game. Government is there to do what capitalism can't or shouldn't do, oversee road construction, the military, police, the courts and to a certain extent education. The size and scope of government will always be debated. Free markets are unplanned, that scares the hell out of most people. Arguments between the right and left are allows about the balance of power between the private sector and the government. It's a reasonable debate but by no means an honest and open debate. It's tainted by special interests, probably always will be. We sit on opposite sides of the teeter totter , the equilibrium is always shifting. We would do better to realize we share the same interests, remember when one kid used to jump off?
I think what we disagree about is mostly the size and nature of government regulation of the economy. These debates go on in every advanced economy and, with our freedom of speech and of the press, are vital for both growth and freedom. There are about as many different views as there are informed citizens. It's a good thing.

What we need to protect is our free market for ideas. Our country was founded when criticizing the government could get you thrown into jail along side John Peter Zenger. We've come a long way since then and our vital freedoms are now threatened from a different direction and with new technology.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 08:06 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 07:15 PM
George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 06:06 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 05:43 PM
George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 04:52 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepIf you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism." So many right wing trolls try to insult me because my family has trans-generational investments.

I don't think your hypothetical example of the ditch digger and the inventor of the excavator covers the whole issue of labor and capital. Capital provides the resources with which labor creates value. That value is divided between the capitalist (the guy who owns the shovel, the guy who owns the excavator factory) and labor (the guys who dig, the guys who produce the excavators). In your example, the designer is an independent contractor, which doesn't change the principles. The big question is: how is the wealth produced by capital-plus-labor divided between the capitalist and the workers? There is no quick, simple or universal answer.

In most advanced economies, the answers are produced by an interaction of government regulation (taxes, labor laws, entitlements) and market forces (sales, finance). These are the two actors, the script is still not easy or simple. Various efforts have been made to simplify the script -- placing all capital in the hands of government (socialism, dictatorships) or eliminating regulation. Both extremes have produced painful failures and all our modern democracies agree on an economy that is directed by government, capital and labor (citizens) acting in constitutional partnership. Constant fine tuning and adjustment is required. Shrill name calling doesn't help.
Capitalism serves the savvy. A man of humble beginnings can achieve anything but he has to have the determination. The poor are poor because they do not market themselves well. Some suffer from low self esteem and low confidence, they accept low wage jobs because they lack confidence. Everyone needs to understand they are a product, they are free to sell their product or labor to the highest bidder. It is up to the individual to enhance their skills and remarket themselves. Upward mobility is always possible although many feel defeated and give up. Maybe that's where government can step in. As we've discussed marketable skills are changing quickly, our society needs to constantly adapt. What does a 45 year old man do when his skills are outdated? More emphasis needs to be on continuing education and job training. As for capital I don't see that as barrier to success. Once you've established good credit the banks are lining up to lend you money. Last, I salute your family's success. Wealth enables one to pursue more noble things, working to pay the bills is drudgery, it consumes you.
I think you and I agree that capital free to seek profit in a market economy is the greatest stimulator of economic growth the world has ever seen. Hell, even the Communist Party of China agrees with that!

But that doesn't mean that pure, unfettered capitalism is the best system. Capitalism seeks profits and profits come greatest from expansion and growth. However, capitalism isn't necessarily concerned with the over-all economy or people and sectors not connected with shareholder profits. Capitalism is aimed at profits, not social welfare or environmental protection. The profit motive is a powerful engine but the car still needs a steering wheel and brakes.

Government in the USA has a responsibility to foster and protect our capitalist market economy; however, that is not the only responsibility of government. As I said, it is a complex operation requiring constant tweaking and adjustment.
Agreed. If this was a football game the government would be the referees. That doesn't mean they decide winners and losers but they are there to ensure a good clean game and enforce the rules. We have anti-trust laws for a reason, they preserve competition, that benefits the masses. If one team acquired unlimited resources, bought the best players and always won we wouldn't have a game. Government is there to do what capitalism can't or shouldn't do, oversee road construction, the military, police, the courts and to a certain extent education. The size and scope of government will always be debated. Free markets are unplanned, that scares the hell out of most people. Arguments between the right and left are allows about the balance of power between the private sector and the government. It's a reasonable debate but by no means an honest and open debate. It's tainted by special interests, probably always will be. We sit on opposite sides of the teeter totter , the equilibrium is always shifting. We would do better to realize we share the same interests, remember when one kid used to jump off?
I think what we disagree about is mostly the size and nature of government regulation of the economy. These debates go on in every advanced economy and, with our freedom of speech and of the press, are vital for both growth and freedom. There are about as many different views as there are informed citizens. It's a good thing.

What we need to protect is our free market for ideas. Our country was founded when criticizing the government could get you thrown into jail along side John Peter Zenger. We've come a long way since then and our vital freedoms are now threatened from a different direction and with new technology.
Free market ideas/speech are under assault. The only acceptable speech is generic, sterile and politically correct speech. We are being forced to conform and walk the line. We are more accepting of alternative lifestyles, a good thing but very intolerant of uncomfortable speech. Public figures live in fear of saying the wrong thing, intended or not, it could ruin their careers. I would rather be insulted than patronized.
Texas Produces Double The Renewable Power As California At Almost Half The Price
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

PATruth
Jan 12 2018, 04:21 PM
George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 08:06 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 07:15 PM
George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 06:06 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 05:43 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepIf you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism
I think you and I agree that capital free to seek profit in a market economy is the greatest stimulator of economic growth the world has ever seen. Hell, even the Communist Party of China agrees with that!

But that doesn't mean that pure, unfettered capitalism is the best system. Capitalism seeks profits and profits come greatest from expansion and growth. However, capitalism isn't necessarily concerned with the over-all economy or people and sectors not connected with shareholder profits. Capitalism is aimed at profits, not social welfare or environmental protection. The profit motive is a powerful engine but the car still needs a steering wheel and brakes.

Government in the USA has a responsibility to foster and protect our capitalist market economy; however, that is not the only responsibility of government. As I said, it is a complex operation requiring constant tweaking and adjustment.
Agreed. If this was a football game the government would be the referees. That doesn't mean they decide winners and losers but they are there to ensure a good clean game and enforce the rules. We have anti-trust laws for a reason, they preserve competition, that benefits the masses. If one team acquired unlimited resources, bought the best players and always won we wouldn't have a game. Government is there to do what capitalism can't or shouldn't do, oversee road construction, the military, police, the courts and to a certain extent education. The size and scope of government will always be debated. Free markets are unplanned, that scares the hell out of most people. Arguments between the right and left are allows about the balance of power between the private sector and the government. It's a reasonable debate but by no means an honest and open debate. It's tainted by special interests, probably always will be. We sit on opposite sides of the teeter totter , the equilibrium is always shifting. We would do better to realize we share the same interests, remember when one kid used to jump off?
I think what we disagree about is mostly the size and nature of government regulation of the economy. These debates go on in every advanced economy and, with our freedom of speech and of the press, are vital for both growth and freedom. There are about as many different views as there are informed citizens. It's a good thing.

What we need to protect is our free market for ideas. Our country was founded when criticizing the government could get you thrown into jail along side John Peter Zenger. We've come a long way since then and our vital freedoms are now threatened from a different direction and with new technology.
Free market ideas/speech are under assault. The only acceptable speech is generic, sterile and politically correct speech. We are being forced to conform and walk the line. We are more accepting of alternative lifestyles, a good thing but very intolerant of uncomfortable speech. Public figures live in fear of saying the wrong thing, intended or not, it could ruin their careers. I would rather be insulted than patronized.
There is a lot of truth in your criticism of public discourse these days. I think the shift from newspapers to TV (radio was a major player but not at the expense of print media) has a lot to do with it. Even so, the days when TV anchormen could control the agenda is gone. I think that in some ways the decline in regular church attendance has something to do with it. Sermons aren't news but they do contain logical thought about human social issues. People just aren't as comfortable with a paragraph of information as the used to be. The tweet and the one-liner have a degree of acceptability unimaginable in earlier times.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Jan 12 2018, 04:57 PM
PATruth
Jan 12 2018, 04:21 PM
George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 08:06 PM
PATruth
Jan 11 2018, 07:15 PM
George Aligator
Jan 11 2018, 06:06 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepIf you're rich you have the freedom to work or not, that's the beauty of capitalism
Agreed. If this was a football game the government would be the referees. That doesn't mean they decide winners and losers but they are there to ensure a good clean game and enforce the rules. We have anti-trust laws for a reason, they preserve competition, that benefits the masses. If one team acquired unlimited resources, bought the best players and always won we wouldn't have a game. Government is there to do what capitalism can't or shouldn't do, oversee road construction, the military, police, the courts and to a certain extent education. The size and scope of government will always be debated. Free markets are unplanned, that scares the hell out of most people. Arguments between the right and left are allows about the balance of power between the private sector and the government. It's a reasonable debate but by no means an honest and open debate. It's tainted by special interests, probably always will be. We sit on opposite sides of the teeter totter , the equilibrium is always shifting. We would do better to realize we share the same interests, remember when one kid used to jump off?
I think what we disagree about is mostly the size and nature of government regulation of the economy. These debates go on in every advanced economy and, with our freedom of speech and of the press, are vital for both growth and freedom. There are about as many different views as there are informed citizens. It's a good thing.

What we need to protect is our free market for ideas. Our country was founded when criticizing the government could get you thrown into jail along side John Peter Zenger. We've come a long way since then and our vital freedoms are now threatened from a different direction and with new technology.
Free market ideas/speech are under assault. The only acceptable speech is generic, sterile and politically correct speech. We are being forced to conform and walk the line. We are more accepting of alternative lifestyles, a good thing but very intolerant of uncomfortable speech. Public figures live in fear of saying the wrong thing, intended or not, it could ruin their careers. I would rather be insulted than patronized.
There is a lot of truth in your criticism of public discourse these days. I think the shift from newspapers to TV (radio was a major player but not at the expense of print media) has a lot to do with it. Even so, the days when TV anchormen could control the agenda is gone. I think that in some ways the decline in regular church attendance has something to do with it. Sermons aren't news but they do contain logical thought about human social issues. People just aren't as comfortable with a paragraph of information as the used to be. The tweet and the one-liner have a degree of acceptability unimaginable in earlier times.
At the risk of sounding old news used to be on at 6:00 and 11:00, it lasted 30 minutes. They didn't have the time to beat a topic to death for weeks on end. With unlimited news channels going 24/7 that's not the case. We have liberal news and conservative news, what a joy, pick your bias! Add social media to the equation and you have a full blown 24/7 platform to attack anyone on the planet. Social media is instantaneous and very impersonal, it's easy to be cruel to strangers, especially when you don't walk in their shoes. Think about cyber bullying, people are committing suicide as a result!

It's funny you mention church, one of the least discussed topics these days. I'm not religious but I remember Sunday mornings listening to the sermon. I have to think I benefitted from those 20 minute pep talks. Are morals even taught these days? I'm not sure the fear of burning in hell is the right way to build character but there has to be instruction. What has replaced religion?

We are in some ways a more miserable, meaner society living in bigger houses. I've always believed people have a harder time dealing with success than they do hardship. In tough times people ban together, they share, they do whatever it takes. We are clearly more wealthy, healthier, we live longer but our economic success hasn't always translated into a better society.
Texas Produces Double The Renewable Power As California At Almost Half The Price
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

It's hard to imagine how the idea could be implemented but there is something attractive about requiring the wealthy to do something direct and personal in order to earn their comfortable position. I think universal service with no exceptions for all young adults would be a good start. I had to do that although it was my family not the government that made the decision.

In later years, a proven amount of community service should be rewarded with the sort of tax breaks the wealthy enjoy now. Spend all your time on the golf course and it is going to cost you big time. Our founders were quite disapproving of the idle luxury of the British aristocracy. It is a shame that we have become so divided with our hedge fund managers becoming the new dukes and earls.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
grannyhawkins
Member Avatar
I say that big talk's worth doodly-squat
Wealth and Work are relative, what's missing from the equation is effort!!!
Endeavor to Persevere!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

If a poor man has a dollar, no one suggests he should be able to invest that dollar and make so much money he never has to work again. But if a rich man has a hundred million dollars, that's exactly what they suggest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Jan 15 2018, 12:08 AM
If a poor man has a dollar, no one suggests he should be able to invest that dollar and make so much money he never has to work again. But if a rich man has a hundred million dollars, that's exactly what they suggest.
A poor man with a couple dollars can open an Ameritrade or ETrade account. On day one he will have more money available to them than they do after paying into social security for 20 years.

Why would democrats design a system that intentionally operates like a Ponzi scheme? I guess they care about the poor?
Edited by PATruth, Jan 15 2018, 10:21 AM.
Texas Produces Double The Renewable Power As California At Almost Half The Price
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

PATruth
Jan 15 2018, 10:20 AM
Opinionated
Jan 15 2018, 12:08 AM
If a poor man has a dollar, no one suggests he should be able to invest that dollar and make so much money he never has to work again. But if a rich man has a hundred million dollars, that's exactly what they suggest.
A poor man with a couple dollars can open an Ameritrade or ETrade account. On day one he will have more money available to them than they do after paying into social security for 20 years.

Why would democrats design a system that intentionally operates like a Ponzi scheme? I guess they care about the poor?
This ^^^ lemonade stand economics theory of ROI is a children's fable. Every potentially profitable investment has a jacks-or-better opening amount below which the investment can't succeed. Many thousands of Americans test that limit every day which is a major reason why well over 90% of all new small businesses fail within a year.

Insufficient capital is a major barrier but it is not the only one. The entire economy is rigged against the small entrepreneur or independent contractor by regulation and the tax code, both of which are controlled by big business through "campaign contributions" made to elected politicians and by inherent forces such as efficiency of scale, concentration of capital and compound interest.

We had a free market economy back in the days when the federal government was handing out free capital in the form of fertile farmland for homesteading. The Industrial Revolution put an end to that until the depredations of the Robber Barons and the Trusts provoked the Progressive Movement.

Starting with Reagan's "the government is the problem," policies we have been steadily dismantling the system which made the American economy and the American worker the envy of the world. The nations which learned from our example are now surpassing us. Wake up, America! If you want to make America great again, you have to take us back to the system we had when our greatness leapt up and astonished the world.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

"Insufficient capital is a major barrier but it is not the only one. The entire economy is rigged against the small entrepreneur or independent contractor by regulation and the tax code, both of which are controlled by big business through "campaign contributions" made to elected politicians and by inherent forces such as efficiency of scale, concentration of capital and compound interest."

Rigged against the small entrepreneur is little more than BS and an excuse. If you establish decent credit by paying your bills on time lenders are desperately trying to lend you money. It's actually annoying getting the calls and the literature from people wanting to lend me money.

The only people rigging the system against the poor are the ones convincing them they can't succeed so they may as well not try.
Texas Produces Double The Renewable Power As California At Almost Half The Price
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

PATruth
Jan 15 2018, 11:46 AM
"Insufficient capital is a major barrier but it is not the only one. The entire economy is rigged against the small entrepreneur or independent contractor by regulation and the tax code, both of which are controlled by big business through "campaign contributions" made to elected politicians and by inherent forces such as efficiency of scale, concentration of capital and compound interest."

Rigged against the small entrepreneur is little more than BS and an excuse. If you establish decent credit by paying your bills on time lenders are desperately trying to lend you money. It's actually annoying getting the calls and the literature from people wanting to lend me money.

The only people rigging the system against the poor are the ones convincing them they can't succeed so they may as well not try.
I agree with you that credit is easy these days but your credit rating and history may be quite a bit more favorable than it is for many starting out. As I recall from your posts, you own your own suburban home and both you and the missus have successful careers. Your aren't really a beginner.

Up here where I live, we don't have any major employers except a few posh resorts and ski sites. The paper mills folded long ago. What we do have is a considerable number of small, independent guys in the so-called forest products industry, loggers, truckers etc. and quite a few builders, roofers, landscapers, plumbers etc. who depend on the summer homes customers for a very significant part of their trade. It is a joke up here that entire towns depend on an economy of taking in each other's laundry.

I've lived up here for over a generation and my friends are largely from this one-owner business class. I am aware of the challenges of starting up and of staying in business during a downturn stretch. Over the years, I have backed a number of my friends and their kids, relying on my own financial advisors to work out the details. I could give you lots of examples of what it takes to get started and what it means to owe the bank a monthly payment when the business cycle takes a downturn. It can be heartbreaking for a young guy in his twenties or thirties with a wife and a couple of little kids.

I won't try to change your mind based on my experiences any more than I would abandon what I believe because your banks are dying to lend you money. The statistics on small business startups are there to see and the stories of people actually trying to get on that up-escalator are both exciting and sad. It's America after all. Winners win big but there are too many young losers who did their best. Our upward social mobility numbers are a shame on the American dream.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Jan 15 2018, 12:41 PM
PATruth
Jan 15 2018, 11:46 AM
"Insufficient capital is a major barrier but it is not the only one. The entire economy is rigged against the small entrepreneur or independent contractor by regulation and the tax code, both of which are controlled by big business through "campaign contributions" made to elected politicians and by inherent forces such as efficiency of scale, concentration of capital and compound interest."

Rigged against the small entrepreneur is little more than BS and an excuse. If you establish decent credit by paying your bills on time lenders are desperately trying to lend you money. It's actually annoying getting the calls and the literature from people wanting to lend me money.

The only people rigging the system against the poor are the ones convincing them they can't succeed so they may as well not try.
I agree with you that credit is easy these days but your credit rating and history may be quite a bit more favorable than it is for many starting out. As I recall from your posts, you own your own suburban home and both you and the missus have successful careers. Your aren't really a beginner.

Up here where I live, we don't have any major employers except a few posh resorts and ski sites. The paper mills folded long ago. What we do have is a considerable number of small, independent guys in the so-called forest products industry, loggers, truckers etc. and quite a few builders, roofers, landscapers, plumbers etc. who depend on the summer homes customers for a very significant part of their trade. It is a joke up here that entire towns depend on an economy of taking in each other's laundry.

I've lived up here for over a generation and my friends are largely from this one-owner business class. I am aware of the challenges of starting up and of staying in business during a downturn stretch. Over the years, I have backed a number of my friends and their kids, relying on my own financial advisors to work out the details. I could give you lots of examples of what it takes to get started and what it means to owe the bank a monthly payment when the business cycle takes a downturn. It can be heartbreaking for a young guy in his twenties or thirties with a wife and a couple of little kids.

I won't try to change your mind based on my experiences any more than I would abandon what I believe because your banks are dying to lend you money. The statistics on small business startups are there to see and the stories of people actually trying to get on that up-escalator are both exciting and sad. It's America after all. Winners win big but there are too many young losers who did their best. Our upward social mobility numbers are a shame on the American dream.
Young people can establish credit beginning in college, before they even have income. If they don't max their cards on beer and pot they can come out of college with credit and the ability to borrow. After that banks constantly up the maximum loan amount. As a government advocate you should be pleased with the SBA loan program, easy approval and the rates are very good. Banks strive to lend as much SBA money as possible.

As for NH, they generally speaking have a pretty friendly business climate. The problem could be high property taxes, labor costs, energy costs, healthcare costs and general regulatory environment. Most onerous is your BPT, Business Property Tax and BET, Business Enterprise Tax. I don't claim to be an expert on your overall business environment, that's a quick analysis.
Edited by PATruth, Jan 15 2018, 01:02 PM.
Texas Produces Double The Renewable Power As California At Almost Half The Price
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

PATruth
Jan 15 2018, 01:01 PM
George Aligator
Jan 15 2018, 12:41 PM
PATruth
Jan 15 2018, 11:46 AM
"Insufficient capital is a major barrier but it is not the only one. The entire economy is rigged against the small entrepreneur or independent contractor by regulation and the tax code, both of which are controlled by big business through "campaign contributions" made to elected politicians and by inherent forces such as efficiency of scale, concentration of capital and compound interest."

Rigged against the small entrepreneur is little more than BS and an excuse. If you establish decent credit by paying your bills on time lenders are desperately trying to lend you money. It's actually annoying getting the calls and the literature from people wanting to lend me money.

The only people rigging the system against the poor are the ones convincing them they can't succeed so they may as well not try.
I agree with you that credit is easy these days but your credit rating and history may be quite a bit more favorable than it is for many starting out. As I recall from your posts, you own your own suburban home and both you and the missus have successful careers. Your aren't really a beginner.

Up here where I live, we don't have any major employers except a few posh resorts and ski sites. The paper mills folded long ago. What we do have is a considerable number of small, independent guys in the so-called forest products industry, loggers, truckers etc. and quite a few builders, roofers, landscapers, plumbers etc. who depend on the summer homes customers for a very significant part of their trade. It is a joke up here that entire towns depend on an economy of taking in each other's laundry.

I've lived up here for over a generation and my friends are largely from this one-owner business class. I am aware of the challenges of starting up and of staying in business during a downturn stretch. Over the years, I have backed a number of my friends and their kids, relying on my own financial advisors to work out the details. I could give you lots of examples of what it takes to get started and what it means to owe the bank a monthly payment when the business cycle takes a downturn. It can be heartbreaking for a young guy in his twenties or thirties with a wife and a couple of little kids.

I won't try to change your mind based on my experiences any more than I would abandon what I believe because your banks are dying to lend you money. The statistics on small business startups are there to see and the stories of people actually trying to get on that up-escalator are both exciting and sad. It's America after all. Winners win big but there are too many young losers who did their best. Our upward social mobility numbers are a shame on the American dream.
Young people can establish credit beginning in college, before they even have income. If they don't max their cards on beer and pot they can come out of college with credit and the ability to borrow. After that banks constantly up the maximum loan amount. As a government advocate you should be pleased with the SBA loan program, easy approval and the rates are very good. Banks strive to lend as much SBA money as possible.

As for NH, they generally speaking have a pretty friendly business climate. The problem could be high property taxes, labor costs, energy costs, healthcare costs and general regulatory environment. Most onerous is your BPT, Business Property Tax and BET, Business Enterprise Tax. I don't claim to be an expert on your overall business environment, that's a quick analysis.
A college degree is one of the most profitable lifetime investments in America. The couple of hundred thousand dollars spent returns well over a million in increased lifetime earnings. But ROI isn't the whole story on college loans, just as it isn't the whole story on one-man startup small businesses. Getting the loan isn't that easy and the repayment schedule doesn't match the income and needs patterns of the new college graduate. Although the over-all outlook for college grads is good, it isn't the same for everyone everywhere. For these reasons, I am in favor of socializing the college investment by making state institutions tuition free and recovering the costs through graduated income taxes. We know this works. We do it with high schools and have for a century.

You are quite correct about our pro-business tax policy and investment climate here in NH. As with the rest of America, the free market capitalist economy is working great and creating an impressive degree of wealth. As with the rest of America, the distribution pattern is not doing well in equal opportunity and upward social mobility for those in the bottom half. The former is not dependent on the latter but our top-to-bottom circulation pattern needs to be fixed up.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Civil Debate & Discussion ( No Hostility :) · Next Topic »
Add Reply