http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000056.html
Now in order to fully appreciate why Capitalism is such a blessing � including being a blessing for the poor � we have to understand what poverty is. We have to have a definition of poverty. And we have to understand what it really means to be poor in a rich country, and to be rich in a poor one. We keep hearing certain professional (as in paid) complainers bleating about how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That�s just wrong. That�s demonstrably, provably false. It�s a lie. The rich get richer, and the poor get richer too. At least here they do. American poverty is defined by a certain income. These people are poor by definition. I�m not trying to be sarcastic, and I�m not trying to minimize the pain of it � I�m just stating a fact. Now, what does it mean when we learn that the poorest Americans have incomes higher than 90-some percent of the rest of the world? What does that mean? Poor people in America have electrically powered homes. They have the same clean running water the rest of the city residents have. Almost all have telephones and television. Many have a third-hand piece of crap automobile like my last three cars. (My current ride has had one previous owner and 12,000 miles and it feels new. I�ve never owned a new car.) Does it suck to be poor in America? It depends on who you talk to. If you spend your life calculating what Bill Gates makes while you were sleeping, chances are you�ll be pretty ornery. But if you look out into the rest of the world, and even a few decades back into history � American history, a rich country�s history -- then you just might begin to realize that you, a poor American, are living better than just about any other humans in history, and I am including the richest people of just sixty or seventy years ago � a single human lifespan for a poor American. A hundred years ago, if the Crown Prince caught the flu, that richest, most powerful person on the earth, likely as not, died. At this hour, at this instant, people of all incomes are being saved from certain death in clinics and hospitals by treatments unimaginable a few short decades ago. Some facts are undeniable � that�s why we call them �facts.� Lifespan and infant mortality are scientific data sets that pay no attention to ideology. The first has been rising, the other dropping, all across the globe, and doing so spectacularly where capitalism has taken hold. Rich capitalist countries -� the ones with those evil kkkorporations -- are also far cleaner � Greener, you might say � than poor, socialist ones. That�s got to stick a little, thinking about that up there in that tree night after night, for years. Where monumentally thick governments, like that of China, are finally forced to get out of the way and let people work to improve their own lives �- we call this process �making money� -- the results are simply dumbfounding, given the amount of poverty that has been foisted on that industrious nation for a few millennia of raw tyranny. Ask your solid, upper-middle-class in Egypt, or Vietnam, or Belarus, if they�d like to get a chance to start a new life as a poor American. Then get the hell out of their way, if you don�t feel like tasting the sidewalk. One of the few places where longevity is falling drastically is in the ruin of Russia and her poor, literate, long-suffering people. Communism is still killing those poor bastards. It�s like a disease that stalks you even after it�s been eradicated. What a filthy legacy. On Sep 17, 9:18 pm, VT Sean Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sounds great, but then I remember what this capitalist > nation did the things that were done to the less desirables. > > The polio blankets to the Native Americans. > > The millions of Africans brought to America as slaves. > > The 100,000's of Chinese killed building the railroads. > > The exploitation of all nationalities deemed to be inferior. > > People wrote eloquent articles explaining the justification > of these things also. This is just another example of > this same BS, > > It does say a lot about you however. Confirms most of what I believe > about you, > > On Sep 18, 12:08 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000056.html > > > That capitalism generates wealth is beyond debate. This capitalist > > reactor of ours easily invents more, learns more, and produces more > > benefits in a year than mankind did under a millennia of rule by Kings > > and Barons and Caliphs and Emperors. It s just amazing what people can > > do when you just get the hell out of their way. > > > As an economic system for increasing prosperity, you just can t beat > > it. And those who despise capitalism can t argue with this they just > > can t. What they can do, perpetually and loudly, is talk about how > > unfair Capitalism is. Because it allows the hard-working and ambitious > > to keep the rewards of their hard work and ambition, Capitalism does > > indeed produce some pretty uneven results. > > > But does uneven mean unfair? Depends on how you measure fair. > > > Now far be it for me to split linguistic hairs and argue over what the > > definition of is is. But if we re going to get to the heart of this > > unfair business, we have to ask ourselves, unfair to whom? Because if > > we are to talk intelligently about this, we re going to have to > > understand something right out of the gate: life is unfair. If life > > were fair, we d all be the same same intelligence, same drive, same > > capabilities. But we re not. It is a hallmark of our species that we > > vary wildly in these and many other categories. That s what makes us > > so diverse, and we sure want to celebrate that, don t we? > > > So, when we talk about making things fair, making them equal, we find > > ourselves in the same impossible conundrum as we do when we discuss > > The Irresistible Force meeting The Immovable Object. > > > Cool! Which would win? > > > Neither. It s an oxymoron. The definition of Irresistible Force means > > that there cannot be an Immovable Object, and vice versa. You have to > > pick one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. > > > Likewise, when we try to measure fair and equal, we have to face the > > hard reality that people are different. So, do we want to measure an > > equal front end: equality of opportunity or an equal back end: > > equality of results? Can t have both. > > > Here s why: > > > When the Declaration of Independence thundered that All Men are > > Created Equal, it meant equal in those essential elements: equal under > > the law. Equal in terms of basic human rights. Equal in dignity. Equal > > in the sense that if someone with a lot of money thinks they can cut > > in front of me at an ATM line just because they re rich, then they can > > just kiss my Royal Irish Ass! that kind of equal. > > > But to believe that all people are equally capable is to well not be > > paying attention, as a quick game of one-on-one half-court between > > Michael Jordan and Michael Moore will quickly reveal. (note to Don > > King: There are millions, and I mean millions to be made off this > > idea. Call me.) > > > There will always be people smarter than you, and people more stupid; > > people more and less motivated, ruthless, connected, ambitious, > > frugal, hardworking than you are. Nothing can change that. Nothing > > should change that because there lies the Gulag. People are > > different. Leave them alone. Encourage the downhearted, by all means. > > Help those in need when they ask for help. But otherwise mind your own > > business, bub. > > > Society is as fair as it can get when all people have equal > > opportunity to make what they will of themselves. We are not there > > yet. We are close. We are much, much closer than many would have us > > believe. > > > But people are different. They will always be different. They will > > succeed and fail differently. There s no two ways around it. > > > Like so many flawed ideas beloved by the far left, equality seems like > > a noble enough goal. Until you think about it. People have different > > capabilities. So do you want equality of opportunity as I do where > > people can make of themselves what they will? Or do you want equality > > of results, where society steps in to make sure that everyone comes > > out the same? > > > If society had a magical way of raising the bottom up, of speeding up, > > buffing up, and tidying up Michael Moore, thereby giving him the means > > to beat Michael Jordan in our (sadly) mythical game of half-court, > > well we d all be the winners and life would be just dandy. But, alas, > > this wonderful, brilliant idea is marred only by the annoying fact > > that it is demonstrably impossible. Michael Moore can never play as > > well as Michael Jordan. Never. If you want that game to come out a tie > > equal! then you are going to have to hobble Michael Jordon. > > > You re going to have to remove a foot or two from his femurs, stitch > > him into a clumsy, bulky, ugly suit adding a few hundred pounds, > > heavily sedate him to slow down his mental powers, fill him full of > > cheap booze to degrade his aim and coordination oh, and really mess > > up his face surgically. No fair if people are rooting for him > > disproportionately! That might hurt Michael Moore s self-esteem and > > limit his ability to compete. > > > Do all these things, and more, and you will have two equal players. > > You will have a really stupid, incompetent, pointless game. You will > > have removed all the grace, power, style, finesse and genius from a > > gifted and noble man, and added nothing whatsoever to his opponent. > > You just made Michael Moore equal to Michael Jordan. Now is that fair > > to Michael Jordan? > > > And after you ve done all these things, Michael Jordan will still hand > > Michael Moore his ass because he thinks and acts like a winner and not > > a victim. > > > Equality under the law: good. Essential. > > > Forcing people of differing skills, motivation and capability to be > > equal: ruinous. Suicidal. And deeply, deeply unfair. But, for the > > Berkeley crowd, there s no reason why a fatally flawed, disgusting, > > historically-demolished idea can t be retried and retried and > > retried So long as it will fit on a 2x4 foot piece of cardboard that > > you can hold on the end of a stick while dancing in a public fountain > > wearing a star-spangled diaper. > > > Does Capitalism, and its equality of opportunity, produce cruel > > results? It does. Does Socialism, and it s equality of outcome, > > produce a fair and happy society? Ask the Russian farmers under > > Stalin. Ask the Chinese under Mao during the Cultural Revolution. Ask > > the Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge. > > > Oh, wait you can t. They ve all been murdered. > > > On Sep 17, 9:06 pm, VT Sean Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > This is seductive self justification for greed. > > > > I hear this from 'christians' who say God wants them to be Rich, > > > yet these same chritians live in gated communities and > > > send their kids to private schools and want all foreigners > > > to be rounded up. > > > > Greed, hate, and zenophobia all rolled up in self deception. > > > This is just another version of the same old same old. > > > > On Sep 17, 11:53 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I think it important to remember just what it means, to some... > > > > >http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000056.html > > > > > ...I believe that there are three elements just three that we mix > > > > in just the right ratio to perform our national alchemy. Look around > > > > you at the rest of the world. Those who use none of these ingredients > > > > are disasters, basket cases, failed states where misery and poverty > > > > crush the life out of what is almost an indomitable human drive to > > > > create, to nurture, and to prosper. > > > > > Almost indomitable. There are governments, theories, and people that > > > > have managed it after many years of hard and dedicated work. > > > > > We together have wasted enough time talking about these failed ideas, > > > > these various and sundry kleptocracies, these stinking, wretched > > > > failures. We know what they are and we know what they look like. Today > > > > we are hunting success. > > > > > One of the three, any one, buys you a respite. Not a huge one, > > > > perhaps, but a glimmer of hope. Two, and life begins to become > > > > livable. Grey, perhaps. Uninspired. But livable. > > > > > Pull all three together and you have a society worth living in. Pull > > > > all three together in just the right way, and you have a reactor, a > > > > fire-breathing creativity engine that unlocks in each of us the very > > > > best people we can become. > > > > > Stop guessing. Sorry, but it s not God, Guts and Guns. The Arabs have > > > > God, the Russians have Guts and the Colombians have Guns you want to > > > > live there? > > > > > We re going to take a moment to look at each one of the three, each > > > > element in this national Trinity of success and prosperity. > > > > > These three pillars have several things in common. Their first and > > > > greatest strength is that they are self-correcting. They require > > > > optimism remember that: that s critical. They are beyond flexible: > > > > they are supple. No, even more they are fluid. And yet each has > > > > strict rules that must be rigidly obeyed for the reactor to produce > > > > full power. This combination of a rigid internal structure, coupled > > > > with astonishing flexibility, is what gives them, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
