Gruff, with all due respect I admire your courage in the face of illusion. Unfortunately you are completely engrossed and entrenched in the financial mechanisms of life. You sound like the forlorn gambler who is trying to explain to his starving family that things are going to get better as soon as he starts to get into the chips again and that their woe is only a temporary thing based upon his bad financial decisions. You need to get real amigo!
I tell you this..........We plant seeds food grows, we harvest we eat. What is discovered in the world is for the good of our species not for the good of those who would turn it into a financial pariah that wreaks havoc, slavery, poverty and hunger. Heads need to roll and in another 50 years they will roll because civilization will one day wake up and rebel. You know it has happened before in history and it will happen again. Everyone has their breaking point and I shouldn't have to bring up nor provide links to the numerous civil uprisings around the globe on account of people pushed beyond their limitations by wealthy pond scum. On Sep 12, 12:20 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > "... On Sep 12, 6:49 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: ..." > > > But if we weren't here and making enough money to buy our expensive > > luxuries and pleasures, the elite wouldn't have the goose that keeps > > laying the golden eggs.<gruff > > > Well that is still an aristocratic mechanism equal to raising farm > > animals for slaughter. What are you saying, that the means justifies > > the end because we live well in the interim of birth to slaughter? > > Not at all. You can characterize it as an aristocracy as it certainly > fits a lot of the descriptors, but I prefer to view it as opportunity > fulfilled to the highest level. I don't know what the split is with > old money vs new money but I'd be willing to bet that most of the > wealth of the world is new money -- fortunes made by entrepreneurs in > this enormously wonderfully diverse economy we have because of the > opportunity to enter that economy and rise to the top. I don't care > for Bill Gates but I don't begrudge him his billions, nor do I > begrudge Carlos Slim who rose out of Mexican poverty to become the > richest man in the world. It's all about opportunity. > > > That we shouldn't have any qualms about someone coming over and taking > > part of our pay for digging a ditch in 95 degree sweltering heat after > > eating a baloney sandwich for lunch while they enjoy the best food in > > the comforts of air conditioned palaces with swimming pools, maids, > > butlers, chauffeurs etc. as a result of skimming off the wages of > > labor? > > If the man is offering you a job you have the choice to refuse it. > But if you accept it, you do so on the terms agreed between the two of > you, and if that includes slave wages and conditions, it's what you > agreed to. As for skimming, that's illegal and if you get the > evidence you can put that person out of business. > > > The central idea of taxation should be for the advancement of the > > common good, the roads, schools, health and retirement, to name a > > few. What we have is bad roads, failing schools, a cripple social > > security system and a lot of sick people who can't afford to go to the > > doctor. > > In an ideal world this is true and it is also the stated purpose of > taxation. It's good old human foibles that have screwed it up and > ripped it off. We try to create regulation to cover our sins but > that's like the fox watching the henhouse. We do the best we can. > > One of the reasons the economy in the developed world is slow in > coming back is that a whole slew of new regulation is being created to > try to prevent another recession as we just had. No one knows how > tight this regulation will be. It's a tricky proposition because in a > perfect world, no regulation would be needed because people would > behave honorably. But we know that's a fairy tale so we have the task > of creating regulation that will prevent as much abuse of the system > as possible WITHOUT choking it to death. > > It is a valid premise that regulation will choke an economy into > recession and depression. That's what we have now and what we had in > '29. Abuses of the system created so much false value that the bottom > dropped out. > > And there is yet another factor that a lot of people are going to have > to learn tough love to grasp. The entire paradigm of the world and > society has changed, whether we like it or not. We are now a global > economy and a global society. What happens here has ripples around > the world and vice versa. Especially in light of the BRIC of emerging > nations that are accumulating wealth (nee power) at very high growth > rates. Brazil, Russia, India and China. Since wealth is power > these nations are going to have to be accepted as equals, like it or > not. And we may even have to resolve ourselves to second place till > we get our legs back under us. > > > We have people spending out of pocket over $300,000 for a > > meager home in a cookie cutter sub division while multimillion dollar > > salaries are awarded to bank executives living lavishly in excess. > > With that degree of profit it would be possible to have 2% mortgage > > interest rates. They would still be living well enough and people > > would have more to spend on 'basic' living. But the real issue is > > that keeping the populous below a certain economic level is crucial to > > maintaining the great divide. > > Sorry, Slip. I think you've got that backwards. Making the populace > better off with higher wages and greater spending power will make the > elite even richer. There's no need to be jealous. It's just the way > it works. Opportunity gives rise to big winners. The prime > motivation of the market place is profit ... the sad part is that it > is at any cost. There is no morality to the market. Any morality > must be instilled in the market makers, investors, bankers, and > MBAs. In actual fact, many prominent MBA schools, such as Harvard > and Yale to name two of the most prominent, are starting to offer > courses and lectures in the morality of economics. I really believe > we are getting better and by that I mean taking the high road. > > > Naturally we are living better than 100 years ago and we are living > > better than 500 years ago, but we have industry and technology that we > > didn't have then. Our economic means and culture was extremely > > different. To present this better off than 100 years ago is not a > > valid comparison especially when you consider how much better off we > > "should" be. > > Well, since a "should" can't be measured, all we have to go by is a > comparison with the past and any such comparison (notwithstanding the > exceptions which generally prove the rule) will always prove we are > better off in just about every way. Better health, better housing, > better clothing, better food ... without these betters we couldn't > have the metropolis centers, the ability to travel far and wide, the > wealth to make our lives comfortable. Hell, twenty five years ago I'd > be dead given the rules at the time but today I'm eligible for > Medicare and Mediaid and can look forward to living well past seventy. > > > In essence you are saying it is really better for the ditch digger > > because he now has a gas powered machine to dig ditches instead a > > shovel. > > Hell yes. And I'd bet he'd agree. There'll always be a need for > ditch diggers and there'll never be a shortage of people who are > willing to dig them for a price. It's a good deal because we need > ditches. > > > Whether we are better off today or not depends largely on who you > > ask. > > >http://uspoverty.change.org/ .....give this one a scroll. > > > Some Census stats amigo....... > > http:// .... > > And that is 2 years ago...... but I don't really need the stats, I can > > see it with my own eyes. People are struggling to make ends meet > > while your illustrious top percentile have more than they know what to > > do with. > > I'm aware of the poverty stats in the U.S. and the world and I agree. > We need to get rid of poverty and with the amount of wealth that > exists in the world there is really little excuse for it. Poverty > causes far more of our social ills (crime, sickness, ignorance, etc.) > than does any recession. > > But those in poverty today find it easier to survive than twenty-five > or fifty years ago. Hell, as I pointed out above, I live at poverty > level. It's the only way I can qualify for Medicaid. I get $669 a > month in social security and $120 a month in food stamps. I live > quite comfortably within those parameters. I would not have been able > to get aid or live at poverty level a quarter century ago. > > Yes, there are more people entering the poverty realm due to > unemployment and the state of the economy but they have access to > sustenance. No one is going to starve in the developed world due to > lack of resources. But the economy was highly overinflated due to > greed for the most part -- profit at any cost -- and we all took part > in that. Subprime mortgages would not have sold if there were not > ready buyers looking to flip them in a year or two. Highly leveraged > complex investment vehicles would not have sold were it not for ready > buyers looking for a quick profit. > > There is responsibility involved. For instance, my landlord > constantly bemoans the loss of his retirement nest egg due to the > collapse of General Motors. Yet three years ago when things started > to fall apart, I advised him to get out of GM common stock, and I kept > advising him all the way down as the market went from 14,000 to > 6,000. Now he bemoans his losses when he could have saved a > significant portion of them. That was his responsibility and I've > told him I don't want to hear his whining anymore. I can say that > safely because I provide him with $2,400 a year in tax free rental > income, which he needs more than ever. > > > Really gruff, after all these years and all the money that has been > > given up to the coffers, should we all be living much better today? > > Well, as I said above, there is no way to measure should. > > > Is there "any" excuse for poverty in a wealthy country? Unless you > > think incompetent and selfish leadership, corruption and greed are > > excuses. > > No, on this point I am in total agreement. There is no excuse for > poverty given the amount of wealth in the world. It's just as you > point out: greed, incompetence, selfishness and corruption. But those > are all human failures not a failure of the system. > > > The bailouts were a sham. Wouldn't "buying" vehicles for people who > > don't have transportation to and from work, single parents without > > cars etc. be the same as bailing out the auto industry? But no that > > was too easy so what happened was the poor ditch digger schlep's money > > got handed over to the fat cats who patted themselves on the back with > > huge bonuses. Well we all know the stories except for those who are > > so busy digging ditches and still don't have enough money to buy a > > television > > ... > > read more »
