Do Americans even care anymore? [Archive]

jread

1 Dec 2005, 09:50 PM

It's one of those rare times when I actually decide to share the thoughts that go through my mind on a daily basis. I usually don't think that what I have to say is all that important, but I think this is something that affects us all.

"Do we care anymore?"

What do I mean by this? I'll explain:

The United States is not the same country it used to be. Maybe this is a good thing in many ways, but I think it's a bad thing in most ways. We are borrowing more money from the rest of the world than we ever have before. We are in more personal debt than we've ever been in before (there was recently an article on MSN about the alarming amount of credit card debt racked up by Americans these days). We are destroying the countryside with suburban sprawl that is needless and wasteful. We are commuting miles and miles to work everyday, burning more gas, congesting already stressed roadways, creating more air pollution, losing quality time that we could spend with our families or doing other things we enjoy. We are eating more and more fast food, we are exercising less and less. We are shopping at Wal-Mart and Home Depot.... the very chains that have forced locally owned business to close down all across the country. We are spending less money on education. We don't buy products that say, "Made in the U.S.A." anymore. We are outsourcing more and more jobs to other countries. We have created an unsustainable monster of an economy that is going to eventually be our demise. We are losing our grasp on the very idea that we all grow up hoping to achieve: "The American Dream".

How did this happen? What are we going to do about it? We could all refuse to shop at chain stores, we buy a smaller home that is practical instead of the largest one we can find, we can create a larger market demand for housing that is closer to town and doesn't require hour-long commutes, we can drive more fuel-efficient vehicles (or walk, bike or take the bus), we could stop eating at fast food restaurants..... there are many things we can do. The ironic part is that we already *know* these things. We are just too distracted to really have time to think about them. The reality of it is that the average American is too busy trying to keep up with life. We have families to feed, bills to pay. If we can save money shopping at Walmart, then you can damn well bet that's where we're going to shop. If we can get a 2000 square foot home for the same price as a 1500 square foot home, regardless of distance from work or what farm was paved over to create it, you can bet we'll buy the larger home. We want the biggest, the best, the fastest, and.... the cheapest. We hate all of these negative things that are happening to our country and we recognize them, but we find it easier to look the other direction than actually do something about it. Do we just wait until it all blows up in our faces?

I don't know the answers. I can offer my biased and opinionated solutions, but I can't expect the rest of the country to ever realize that I know what's best for them (haha). I'll tell you what I think, but I also want to know what all of YOU think.

What I think is wrong:

1. Most people are stupid and/or apathetic.

2. People haven't been exposed to the finer things (i.e. good development, nice architecture, meaningful conversation etc.) to know any better.

3. Many, many Americans lead shallow lives concerned with the latest news regarding __________ (fill in your celebrity) rather than the big issues (war, oil dependence, loving each other, attuning to one's environment and neighborhood).

4. Americans don't want to face hard issues because we are L-A-Z-Y. Acknowledging a problem might actually mean doing something to address it.

5. Our government does not have our best interests in mind (duh).

My solutions:

1. We all need to read Walden.

2. We all need to watch Fight Club.

3. We need a reform of our public sectors.

4. We all need to freakin' slow down.

Thanks for reading and please respond (unless you don't care either).

Serotonin

1 Dec 2005, 10:24 PM

Like it.

People by and large have the same attitude in Australia, but since we have only 1/15th or so of the population of the U.S. we don't have as much of a problem, although we are mostly desert and the only arable land is really in the east, south-east and south-west. But this problem or attitude isn't confined to the U.S, it's just your country's large population results in a greater magnitude of it.

The mindless consumption is a worry. One of my mother's social work cases (which I hear about regularly) involves a woman who grew up in abject poverty in Vietnam, and was determined to move to a western country to better herself. She worked her butt off for a visa, successfully came to Australia, got a job in the public service and earned enough money for her family to buy 6 houses back in Vietnam. She is now pregnant to her white Australian husband (who she doesn't love) and isn't willing to give up her working life to raise her child, instead the child will be raised by its grandparents in Vietnam, then come back to Australia when it is 5 to get a Western education. When asked why she would give up raising her child in its formative years, she replied with words to the effect of :"I can't afford to give up my lifestyle. I am a success in my family's eyes, and I am obligated to carry on that success."

That's how strong that "striving for success" can be in some people, and I think it can override the balanced thought that you (and I) wish people had more of.

Kinda tangential reply tho, sorry.

ptGatsby

1 Dec 2005, 10:31 PM

We are borrowing more money from the rest of the world than we ever have before.

A big mistake, agreed. Debtors prison. Even if you aren't worried about defaulting, it slowly drains you of your money/life.

However, this is a natural result of the republic democracy you have. Its a systemic problem with all democracies everywhere in the world. As such, its talked about as a non-problem. But then, government needs only look 4-6 years in the future. Why would it be a problem for them?

We are in more personal debt than we've ever been in before.

Why save? No one can give an answer to this because saving is inherently a bad idea in the current economic situation.

We are destroying the countryside with suburban sprawl that is needless and wasteful.

Its not that bad, nor is it needless or wasteful. This is more viewpoint than Intrinsically bad.

We are commuting miles and miles to work everyday, burning more gas, congesting already stressed roadways, creating more air pollution, losing quality time that we could spend with our families or doing other things we enjoy.

That's for each person to decide. Its not a 'problem' and its better almost everywhere in the states (excluding NY, LA etc) than most places in the world.

Except for the family stuff... though I see plenty of that in the states already.

We are eating more and more fast food, we are exercising less and less.

All animals do this when its available.

We are shopping at Wal-Mart and Home Depot.... the very chains that have forced locally owned business to close down all across the country.

I don't have a problem with this. If anything, I'd support it. Its natural progression.

We are spending less money on education.

Its more that people are getting less and less education. The US education system is awful...

Referring of course to the public education system.

We don't buy products that say, "Made in the U.S.A." anymore.

So? Why would you?

We are outsourcing more and more jobs to other countries.

Sure, why wouldn't you?

We have created an unsustainable monster of an economy that is going to eventually be our demise.

When you spend more than you produce, its unstable. Same for an individual, for a family, for a business, for a company...

We are losing our grasp on the very idea that we all grow up hoping to achieve: "The American Dream".

Certainly the part of the American Dream where you work hard to get ahead. Its a country full of get rich quick schemes.

How did this happen?

Moderately simple: You became the world's only superpower. You are the only empire left on the planet.

Excess breeds excess, power... blah blah. This is all in action right now, just like so many times before.

What are we going to do about it?

Nothing. History is not full of empires that survive a decline. They become unstable, they start to break up...

Its a large systemic problem that cannot be undone except by a huge singular movement of the people (being a democracy of sorts!). It just won't happen.

A complete reversal of the nature of government might do it. A form of long-term hereditary monarchy might make the changes and hold to them for 30+years to fix the problems... but that's about all I can think of.

We could all refuse to shop at chain stores, we buy a smaller home that is practical instead of the largest one we can find, we can create a larger market demand for housing that is closer to town and doesn't require hour-long commutes, we can drive more fuel-efficient vehicles (or walk, bike or take the bus), we could stop eating at fast food restaurants..... there are many things we can do.

None of that will change anything. Those are topical problems, if you could even call them problems. There is no reason why I shouldn't get a larger home if I can afford it. No reason not to have 3-4 TVs if I can afford it.

But we can't afford it. Just like a household trying to hold onto an image, eventually that new car is enough to drag us to bankruptcy. Its a slow process, however.

Do we just wait until it all blows up in our faces?

More likely to leak into your faces, but yes.

What I think is wrong:

1. Most people are stupid and/or apathetic.

2. People haven't been exposed to the finer things (i.e. good development, nice architecture, meaningful conversation etc.) to know any better.

3. Many, many Americans lead shallow lives concerned with the latest news regarding __________ (fill in your celebrity) rather than the big issues (war, oil dependence, loving each other, attuning to one's environment and neighborhood).

4. Americans don't want to face hard issues because we are L-A-Z-Y. Acknowledging a problem might actually mean doing something to address it.

5. Our government does not have our best interests in mind (duh).

Reordered;

1) Your government does not have your best interest in mind. They are so far beyond "not having your interests" that they barely even pretend to have your interests at heart! No one even comes close to believing that crap. The best you can say is that its a necessary evil.

2) Many, many American lead shallow lives concered with... I want to add that your media is horrific. Government owns the media now and the interest in certain events is a general propaganda technique. You have been systematically attuned to a certain form of reporting and are unable to see beyond it. In general, of course. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propoganda#Techniques_of_propaganda_generation )

3) People haven't been exposed to the finer things... Totally agree. And most haven't traveled enough either. Most haven't studied other cultures, etc.

I don't hold much with the other two. People are people... not lazy, nor stupid. The vast majority are average!

I like how the "American dream" of becoming a rich prosperous nation built on hard work has changed into the "American dream" of being personally rich built on tricking, stealing and get-rich quick schemes.

Anyway, my thoughts as I read your post, as best I can put them down quickly!

booyalab

1 Dec 2005, 10:55 PM

the United States is the biggest "debtor nation" because other countries want to invest in our enterprises more than any other single country. This is GOOD for our economy, not bad.

jread

1 Dec 2005, 11:07 PM

Its not that bad, nor is it needless or wasteful. This is more viewpoint than Intrinsically bad.

I think it's all three. I may have confused people with this statement by not going into more detail, so I will now:

The American-Style suburban sprawl is indeed quite wasteful. There are much more efficient ways to build single-family housing than the way we currently do it. Denser development (even single-family) saves the land around you for agriculture or natural features. Why destroy these fields and forests if we don't have to?

altblue

1 Dec 2005, 11:07 PM

Being the lazy, apathetic American that I am, all I'm going to say instead of posting a longer reply is, nice post. :) I'm in agreement with most of what you say, and actually do try to do most of those things that we should do. But it's just not enough for large-scale results. I'm in the belief that in order to really effect change the way our system is right now, is exactly to become very rich, because only then, will you have power and actually be able to influence government in some way. But the truly good and idealistic will probably be weeded out by this process. Just my 2 cents.

Nemesis

1 Dec 2005, 11:11 PM

Nemesis

1 Dec 2005, 11:21 PM

HEY YOURE FROM TEXAS!!! KEEP YOURE GOD DAMNED GOVERNORS IN TEXAS WILL YOU!!!!

Sue Denim

1 Dec 2005, 11:31 PM

This should cheer you up:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/AWelcomeFromBillBonner.html
(or not.)

C.J.Woolf

1 Dec 2005, 11:33 PM

What disturbs me most about American society is the attitude of "I've got mine; you're on your own." There is hostility to the very idea of a public sector. Parks go to hell, and people's idea of a "public" place is the mall. The public airwaves are allowed by the government to be private. (Thank goodness for the Internet -- until the megacorps find a way to control it too.) Public service employees are seen as leeches. (Except for nurses and police officers and firefighters, as Arnold Schwarzenegger found out. Hee.) People whine about paying the taxes necessary to support the public sector. People want to opt out of public services -- education and transportation especially -- instead of working to improve them. They want to take their kids and their money out of the public schools and send them (and a lot more money) to private schools, and to hell with anyone who can't afford a private school -- or a car.

"You're on your own" means Americans are burdened with more risk than citizens of Canada or Europe. No health insurance means you're one long hospital stay away from bankruptcy. (That's the #1 cause of bankruptcy, by the way, not personal irresponsibility.) Bush does not understand Social Security. It is not an investment plan. It's not meant to make you rich; it's meant to keep you out of the poorhouse. (I'm sorry -- street. There are no poorhouses in America anymore.)

Politicians won't level with the voters because they would get punished for it at the polls. The majority votes for politicians who pander to their desire to get something for nothing.

</rant>

Sue Denim

1 Dec 2005, 11:34 PM

the United States is the biggest "debtor nation" because other countries want to invest in our enterprises more than any other single country. This is GOOD for our economy, not bad.It's good, which is to say that it's propping up our economy. That is, until they change their minds an no longer want to finance our consumption. Then it's bad, and we'll be quite limited in what to do about it.

booyalab

1 Dec 2005, 11:35 PM

I think it's all three. I may have confused people with this statement by not going into more detail, so I will now:

The American-Style suburban sprawl is indeed quite wasteful. There are much more efficient ways to build single-family housing than the way we currently do it. Denser development (even single-family) saves the land around you for agriculture or natural features. Why destroy these fields and forests if we don't have to?
the hype around 'depletion of resources' is exaggerated, land is more expensive now than it was back in the 1800s. It will become more expensive as it reflects the underlying reality of the supply not being sufficient to meet the demand.

booyalab

1 Dec 2005, 11:38 PM

C.J.Woolf

1 Dec 2005, 11:42 PM

Bully for the foreigners who want to invest in America, but the US government is irresponsible to spend money it doesn't have unless that spending is itself an investment -- which it isn't.

Nemesis

1 Dec 2005, 11:48 PM

i read somewhere that all 6 billion people in the world could live in texas with at least 1000 square feet of living space with more than plenty room left over. leaving the rest of the world to be used to support ourselves. that would be cool. but it just will never happen

Hypnos

1 Dec 2005, 11:53 PM

Bully for the foreigners who want to invest in America, but the US government is irresponsible to spend money it doesn't have unless that spending is itself an investment -- which it isn't.
And yet you wonder why there is mistrust and dissatisfaction with the public sector? The public sector needs to be slashed.

abathur

2 Dec 2005, 12:14 AM

I think part of "The American Dream" issues is that a bait-and-switch took place somewhere along the line. Freedom is the dream, money buys freedom, but also buys suburban homes and SUVs, so to speak.

I think suburban sprawl is probably the most true to "The American Dream" of most of our activities today. Our own little comfortable plot of America, our own space. Granted, I think public transportation systems could be many, many times more efficient and effective.

As far as large corporations--I don't have a problem with the idea inherently. I think the ideal would be a few large businesses in every sector competing in every market (builders square, home depot, lowes) or somesuch, but with a tax structure that still encourages the small business owner. Corporations and economies of scale have their benefits, but when competition isn't there, they get complacent and indeed malevolent. I think there's a genuine amount of room in many industries for someone with capital to force complacent and unhealthy businesses to get into shape or shut down. Perhaps there should be tax-breaks based on some measure of a businesses ability to drive down corporate profits (or prices?) in a sector by its actions, enough so to encourage staying lean and treating customers right. Perhaps I'm idealistic, but "if" I can get off my ass, that's my goal in life--to start a few businesses and get enough capital going to start challenging complacent industries and pushing them to honesty or bankruptcy by treating customers with benevolence and industry competition with ruthlessness.

C.J.Woolf

2 Dec 2005, 12:17 AM

And yet you wonder why there is mistrust and dissatisfaction with the public sector? The public sector needs to be slashed.
Where, pray tell? The most expensive government programs are also the most popular and broad-based -- Medicare and Social Security. "Welfare" programs are a stalking horse of the Right, and not nearly so expensive.

Also, as the Republican administration and Congress increase spending they decrease income through tax cuts. Repeal them and much of the deficit goes away.

The mistrust and dissatisfaction is misdirected. It ain't the government's fault so much as the Republican party's. Clinton balanced the budget and got a good economy for it.

ptGatsby

2 Dec 2005, 12:29 AM

the United States is the biggest "debtor nation" because other countries want to invest in our enterprises more than any other single country. This is GOOD for our economy, not bad.

How do you end up in debt when they invest in your industries? Shouldn't you gain +money when you let them 'invest' in something (ie: normally selling a portion of an asset would gain you money, ie: share, loaning them money). Even if you let them develop your resources, they should end up paying for the use/etc.

This is a common phrase thrown out that doesn't show what is really happening in the government accounts.

Your government taxes you. They get money. They spend more money than they take. They borrow from Americans and from Foreigners (including governments) to make up the difference. Foreigners then trade (buy) a physical asset with your money.

A debtor nation is one that needs to borrow money in order to pay its current costs. Its a net negative decrease in your cash flow. The only reason they buy your stuff is because they have your dollars - they consume them to buy your assets. In short, the government is trading your physical assets to maintain their current spending habits.

As your overall net value decreases, the value of your dollar decreases. As you print more to pay for your existing debt, your overall net value decreases. The end result is less and less people will take your money, its value decreases... and you can buy less.

------=------

The American-Style suburban sprawl is indeed quite wasteful. There are much more efficient ways to build single-family housing than the way we currently do it. Denser development (even single-family) saves the land around you for agriculture or natural features. Why destroy these fields and forests if we don't have to?

But why not? We have to do it to some degree... why only a specific amount? Is there a logical break-even point where 30% is ok, but 31% is not?

That is why I said it is opinion. I can say that the spending habits in the US are financially impossible to maintain in the future (well, short of force...). I cannot say that sprawl is a problem... if anything, its natural. Expand to take up available room and all that.

Hypnos

2 Dec 2005, 12:31 AM

Where, pray tell? The most expensive government programs are also the most popular and broad-based -- Medicare and Social Security. "Welfare" programs are a stalking horse of the Right, and not nearly so expensive.
People simultaneously acknowledge the inefficiency of gov't control while refusing to let go of their own cut of the bacon. Quite a pickle, no?

Also, as the Republican administration and Congress increase spending they decrease income through tax cuts. Repeal them and much of the deficit goes away.
The deficit does weaken the dollar and is a major problem, but is nowhere near a 3rd-world tipping point. Of greater concern is the war which is sucking up real dollars, destabilizing oil prices, and reducing trade certainty.

The mistrust and dissatisfaction is misdirected. It ain't the government's fault so much as the Republican party's. Clinton balanced the budget and got a good economy for it.
Clinton lucked out with the economy the same way Reagan did.

abathur

2 Dec 2005, 12:40 AM

Eh, there's nutjobs on both sides of the fence who'd screw us over if they could. I'm a bit torn though. I tend to be disgusted with most of the rep/dem radicals as I see them--but the ideas that even birthed this country are rather radical. I must say I'm disappointed to see so much protest to gun ownership though. IMO we should still be passionate to fight over our ideals. Perhaps the Civil War was not glorious--but I find most lack the spine to fight for what they believe. I'm not saying it should come to that, but the passion should be there, and, IMO, the populace should always attempt to keep itself in a condition where it is capable of overthrowing the government and military should the need arise.

I'll probably get all kinds of red-flagged for saying that--I'll admit I'd probably be the last person to go try and start a revolution, but I think the passion is part of what has made this country work, and I think a government that knows its people are capable of--and would actually, if necessary, overthrow it, might actually maintain some sort of honesty and benevolence. Other than that idea, I guess I'm fairly moderate ;)

As for Asia--I'm not so sure, despite the fact that I've been pretty sure China would overtake us as a world power by 2050. Also, by this time, many countries in Asia are projected to be hitting population curves like those in Japan today. They're going to be dealing with a _lot_ of aging people, without the real infrastructure and wealth to deal with it best I can tell. We had the advantage of industrializing/developing when lifespans were low, 50 years or so? Asia is urbanizing pretty rapidly, which is expected to further cut back birthrates. They may have some pretty atrocious dependency ratios within 50 years. I mean, we're worried about a fairly cylindrical population bell curve, but many Asian countries are looking at heading into inverted pyramid type circumstances within 50 years in which all of their largest demographics are past working age. Sure, they're growing rapidly now, but I'm starting to wonder if it'll be sustainable--if they won't have to start killing off old people to maintain the growth or collapse under the economic weight of supporting them. www.nationmaster.com has bell curve age distributions for all the countries. India is only barely starting to shrink by 2050 in projections, but I think the process is still expected to play out.

Amusingly, this is expected to create a lucrative market for American health care/equipment firms.

/shrug

C.J.Woolf

2 Dec 2005, 12:42 AM

People simultaneously acknowledge the inefficiency of gov't control while refusing to let go of their own cut of the bacon. Quite a pickle, no?
Quite. Ties in with my earlier comment about pandering politicians.

Clinton lucked out with the economy the same way Reagan did.
True. You could say that Clinton took advantage of a strong economy to balance the budget. But he balanced the budget, unlike Reagan or Bush 43, and I think he deserves credit for his fiscal discipline.

I still want to know what you'd cut.

Serotonin

2 Dec 2005, 12:52 AM

And yet you wonder why there is mistrust and dissatisfaction with the public sector? The public sector needs to be slashed.

....Creating an underclass who will steal your motorcycle and pawn it.

What goes around....

Hypnos

2 Dec 2005, 01:15 AM

Quite. Ties in with my earlier comment about pandering politicians.
You can view this as a transactional cost problem in public choice -- the loudest voices win, with a fair bit of pandering to all interests; the budget keeps growing. Without repealing the 16th amendment, I don't know how to put the brakes on this.

True. You could say that Clinton took advantage of a strong economy to balance the budget. But he balanced the budget, unlike Reagan or Bush 43, and I think he deserves credit for his fiscal discipline.
Indeed -- something he did I actually agree with.

I still want to know what you'd cut.
Irrespective of political realities? The general theme would be devolution:

* Privatize social security
* Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid
* Roll back Iraq operations, and re-evaluate strategic interests and foreign deployments
* Eliminate all funds spent locally for "community development," etc.
* Eliminate all business subsidies
* Eliminate income assistance, job training, etc.
* Make the transportation funding process more rigorous

Toying with the National Budget Simulation (http://www.nathannewman.org/nbs/longbudget06.html), and accounting for the its bugs, I have cut federal spending by 50% -- $3.7 trillion to $1.8 trillion.

Hypnos

2 Dec 2005, 01:20 AM

....Creating an underclass who will steal your motorcycle and pawn it.

What goes around....
Despite the Bay Area's generous public assistance programs supplementing those of the federal gov't, property crime here is very high. Indeed, I had to repair my motorcycle's ignition lock a few months ago after an overnight theft attempt.

Sue Denim

2 Dec 2005, 01:50 AM

It's good, which is to say that it's propping up our economy. That is, until they change their minds an no longer want to finance our consumption. Then it's bad, and we'll be quite limited in what to do about it.
they change their minds all the time, but they dont change their mind about investing..they change their mind about what they're investing IN...so scarce resources will be transferred to their most valuable uses. Not good for the specific business that has been proven to suck, but good for society as a whole.
When I wrote, "...until they change their minds an no longer want to finance our consumption," I didn't mean they changed their minds about which american securities or debt they want to buy. I meant they decide to withdraw the investments from america and put them elsewhere.

And ptGatsby, you're correct that foreigners (including gov'ts) are also buying equities, in addition to buying the debt.

Lee

2 Dec 2005, 02:18 AM

The United States is not the same country it used to be. Maybe this is a good thing in many ways, but I think it's a bad thing in most ways.Yes, the longer life spans, lower infant mortality rates, higher standards of living, widespread ownership of cars, transport systems, vast communication networks, cheap electricity, effective sewage systems, public education and mordern medical services are all a horrible burden to bare.

We are borrowing more money from the rest of the world than we ever have before.As booya pointed out, this is a good thing. Afterall, the rest of the world is not made up of morons, nobody would lend anybody money unless they had confidence in getting that money back. The very word "lend" and "debt" are highly misleading; to say that the rest of the world is investing in America because they believe they will get a return on that investment would be more accurate.

We are in more personal debt than we've ever been in before (there was recently an article on MSN about the alarming amount of credit card debt racked up by Americans these days). We are destroying the countryside with suburban sprawl that is needless and wasteful. We are commuting miles and miles to work everyday, burning more gas, congesting already stressed roadways, creating more air pollution, losing quality time that we could spend with our families or doing other things we enjoy. We are eating more and more fast food, we are exercising less and less. We are shopping at Wal-Mart and Home Depot....While you may complain, nobody forces society into this situation. The reason that people do these things is because people see these as the best options out of the alternatives on offer, the fact that they come with downsides is to be expected, as everything does.

If we "remedied" the problems you point out, we may well end up generating other problems, such as complaints that food is no longer enjoyable, a less properous economy because people are spending time with the kids while they could be working (and now the kids can't get the xbox360 they wanted for Christmas! :( ). I may point out that most people find exercsing a thoroughly boring (if not painful) activity, and doing so may well actually reduce their quality of life from their perspective.

the very chains that have forced locally owned business to close down all across the country.Good! do you know how they "forced" locally owned businesses to close down? because they provided comparable products at a cheaper price, and consumers made the decision to go where they could get value for money. This is incidently the best thing for society, because efficient businesses make better use of scarce resources, and efficient use of recources is what makes a properous economy. Most locally owned businesses make less efficient use of recources than big businesses, which is exactly why big businesses are big and locally owned businesses are small.

We are spending less money on education. We don't buy products that say, "Made in the U.S.A." anymore.Again, do you know why? because the goods are cheaper when made elsewhere, and is a better allocation of scarce recourses. By freeing up money in the consumers pocket by making the goods cheaper, that consumer can support more jobs for other Americans.

We are outsourcing more and more jobs to other countries. We have created an unsustainable monster of an economy that is going to eventually be our demise.Not at all. The economy will only eventually be your demise if government decides to poke its nose in too much. You have little to worry about simply because a free market is adaptive, countless individuals will always adjust to demand and try to fill it, changing circumstances simply mean the strategy for making a profit changes.

How did this happen? What are we going to do about it? We could all refuse to shop at chain stores, we buy a smaller home that is practical instead of the largest one we can find, we can create a larger market demand for housing that is closer to town and doesn't require hour-long commutes, we can drive more fuel-efficient vehicles (or walk, bike or take the bus), we could stop eating at fast food restaurants..... there are many things we can do.Now this is a way to ensure an economic demise. All the things you list may have negatives, but the fact that people have chosen them over the alternatives you describe tells you something important i.e. they come with many benefits and are signs of a healthy economy, and a healthy free market economy is good for everyone.

The ironic part is that we already *know* these things. We are just too distracted to really have time to think about them. The reality of it is that the average American is too busy trying to keep up with life. We have families to feed, bills to pay. If we can save money shopping at Walmart, then you can damn well bet that's where we're going to shop. If we can get a 2000 square foot home for the same price as a 1500 square foot home, regardless of distance from work or what farm was paved over to create it, you can bet we'll buy the larger home. We want the biggest, the best, the fastest, and.... the cheapest.You describe the real problem here.

Most people do not agree that saving money, having nice houses, cars and paying bills are negative things, they are to most people the things of life, the things that they desire. A family home, a car, nice neighbours and a good job.

I don't know the answers. I can offer my biased and opinionated solutions, but I can't expect the rest of the country to ever realize that I know what's best for them (haha). I'll tell you what I think, but I also want to know what all of YOU think.There is your problem. Stop looking for solutions to societies woes, because your solution will inevitably be anothers problem, and all "solutions" come with trade-offs, because you can't get something for nothing.

I think most of the bad things that you see happening to your country are actually the exact kind of trade-off that I am referring to... hey, it's not perfect, but these downsides are an inevitable consequence of our efforts to get all these other things we want.

Does that mean that we do nothing about them? no, of course not, but changes must be piecemeal, and we must never expect solutions.

1. Most people are stupid and/or apathetic.I bet I can pick almost anyone at random in the world, and demonstrate how they have quite specialised knowledge in at least one area. I really do not think that most people are stupid, and I actually find the comment slightly insulting and arrogant.

2. People haven't been exposed to the finer things (i.e. good development, nice architecture, meaningful conversation etc.) to know any better.Oh poor them, they are lucky to have people like you to tell them that they are stupid and uncultured.

3. Many, many Americans lead shallow lives concerned with the latest news regarding __________ (fill in your celebrity) rather than the big issues (war, oil dependence, loving each other, attuning to one's environment and neighborhood).Many many Americans are elitest intellectual snobs, who look down their morally superior noses at everyone else, despite not really knowing much more than average Joe, who simply wants to get on with his life.

5. Our government does not have our best interests in mind (duh).Yes, which is exactly what a democracy helps to control. The government has its own interests in mind (whether from the left or right), but by tying the governments interests to the peoples well-being through voting, we can ensure that the power is controlled through mutual self-interest between the people and government.

I suggest you read up on economics, as many of your opinions sound nice, but would be economically disasterous, which would only hurt everyone, especially the poor and disadvantaged.

sbw

2 Dec 2005, 02:18 AM

We are spending less money on education.

um, we are? I've read that we spend more per student than any other nation in the world, and also that the per student $ amount has been increasing for a long time.

edit: and Lee said everything else for me.

Scott

Nemesis

2 Dec 2005, 02:25 AM

um, we are? I've read that we spend more per student than any other nation in the world, and also that the per student $ amount has been increasing for a long time.

edit: and Lee said everything else for me.

Scott

all that says to me is that were throwing money at the problem... and bush IS cutting funding for education... his national approval rating is 42%... in virginia (VIRGINIA) it's 36%... I guess he wants to play limbo with it (how low can ya go?)

sbw

2 Dec 2005, 02:45 AM

Where, pray tell? The most expensive government programs are also the most popular and broad-based -- Medicare and Social Security. "Welfare" programs are a stalking horse of the Right, and not nearly so expensive.

Also, as the Republican administration and Congress increase spending they decrease income through tax cuts. Repeal them and much of the deficit goes away.

The mistrust and dissatisfaction is misdirected. It ain't the government's fault so much as the Republican party's. Clinton balanced the budget and got a good economy for it.

1. yeah, and medicare and social security are the biggest causes of our future bankruptcy. but you're right, it would be political suicide to attack them--dubya is even proving that republicans can be just as socialist as democrats with that asinine medicare drug benefit.

2. tax cuts are ALWAYS good.

3. "Clinton balanced the budget" because he happened to preside over the most prosperous era in the history of america, if not mankind. thus, tax revenue was at an all-time high. some would argue that the clinton era was as prosperous as it was due to reagan's economic policies...although I'm not enough of an expert to argue that point convincingly, it's something to consider.

tom delay got indicted; many americans believe that dubya lied to get the iraq war going; kelo-new london eradicated eminent domain (and thus property rights, to a degree) in favor of a local-government cash grab; mccain feingold shits all over the first amendment; the patriot act, which all the politicians (including the democrats) signed into law WITHOUT READING IT FIRST, violates the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments (and probably others).

in short, the mistrust and dissatisfaction with government are absolutely not misdirected in any way.

Scott

ptGatsby

2 Dec 2005, 03:19 AM

And ptGatsby, you're correct that foreigners (including gov'ts) are also buying equities, in addition to buying the debt.

Why people put these two together, in terms of being 'good', is beyond me. It's like saying "Yah, the bank lends me money" and putting it together with "I invest money", then saying "Its a good thing I pay interest - afterall, they must believe in me", followed by saying "I sell parts of myself to the bank".

Maybe if you were... ermm... investing the money you lend? But then, theoretically, you wouldn't be going further into debt. That's what makes it bad. Systematically borrowing more and more money isn't a good thing.

As booya pointed out, this is a good thing. Afterall, the rest of the world is not made up of morons, nobody would lend anybody money unless they had confidence in getting that money back. The very word "lend" and "debt" are highly misleading; to say that the rest of the world is investing in America because they believe they will get a return on that investment would be more accurate.

Under no conditions is borrowing money better. It doesn't even matter if you are putting the money to good productive use (ie: using borrowed money to open an oil field).

Forget why the other person/side is doing it... You are paying them interest, therefore they are doing it so that you pay them interest. That's it! A liability on your side, an asset on theirs. The risk/return might be better, granted. It might even be the best investment on earth. It doesn't matter. You are putting out cash to fund your services. You are borrowing money to pay interest on previous borrowed money!

Yes, its great that the US has a dominant world position, but that's irrelevant to your financial position. A solid company with bad financials goes broke... like many of the fortune companies over the last century. Same with people, same with governments.

It may feed the ego, but it doesn't feed the wallet.

booyalab

2 Dec 2005, 03:30 AM

When I wrote, "...until they change their minds an no longer want to finance our consumption," I didn't mean they changed their minds about which american securities or debt they want to buy. I meant they decide to withdraw the investments from america and put them elsewhere.

yup, I guess we better keep churning out those innovations.

Sue Denim

2 Dec 2005, 03:33 AM

Why people put these two together, in terms of being 'good', is beyond me. It's like saying "Yah, the bank lends me money" and putting it together with "I invest money", then saying "Its a good thing I pay interest - afterall, they must believe in me", followed by saying "I sell parts of myself to the bank".
To be clear, I'm with you on this one. When I said to booyalab that it was good, it was a qualified response.

nottaprettygal

2 Dec 2005, 05:12 AM

Good! do you know how they "forced" locally owned businesses to close down? because they provided comparable products at a cheaper price, and consumers made the decision to go where they could get value for money.

The problem here is that big businesses are increasing their profits by forcing wages down, rather than raising prices. Back in the day, successful businesses would share their benefits with their employees, but that loyalty is gone now. People can be fired at a moment's notice. It's created the belief in Americans that the only route to success is ruthless self-interest and short-run salary maximization. And meanwhile large corporations are in a race to the bottom. Economically big business makes sense...but they have serious consequences on the attitudes of Americans.

And let's not forget that if a large corporation is so efficient that they drive other companies out of the market, they then become a monopoly and are free to charge whatever the hell they want for their product.

CoHo

2 Dec 2005, 05:16 AM

And let's not forget that if a large corporation is so efficient that they drive other companies out of the market, they then become a monopoly and are free to charge whatever the hell they want for their product.

Erhm.... not exactily

If I buy out all bread makers in the world I can't really charge $20 a loaf of bread because a new bread company will jump up offering $15 for a loaf...

and the circle of life continues! yiff

nottaprettygal

2 Dec 2005, 05:27 AM

Erhm.... not exactily

If I buy out all bread makers in the world I can't really charge $20 a loaf of bread because a new bread company will jump up offering $15 for a loaf...

and the circle of life continues! yiff

Yeah. Why I decided to contribute to a discussion of economics is beyond me.

I should have said that monopolies are free to raise their prices to further increase profits, not charge whatever they want. I got a little carried away.

Hypnos

2 Dec 2005, 05:47 AM

The problem here is that big businesses are increasing their profits by forcing wages down, rather than raising prices. [...]
They can only do that because American labor is overpriced compared to the foreign equivalents. Labor interests try to keep wages elevated through trade restrictions and union entitlements; in the end, it's nothing but a wealth redistribution scheme.

[...] Back in the day, successful businesses would share their benefits with their employees, but that loyalty is gone now. [...] Economically big business makes sense...but they have serious consequences on the attitudes of Americans.
An employer isn't one's "family" or other euphemism -- its fiducial responsibility is to maximize shareholder value within the law. It's precisely this ruthless competition that breeds efficiency and value for the customer, as well. As an employee, you either get with the game and don't take things personally and build equity, or become bitter and fall short of your goals.

jread

2 Dec 2005, 06:57 AM

Thanks to all of you who have responded so far. I'm enjoying the discussion very much and hope that it keeps going.

Lee, I prefaced my "list" with the statement that they were my own, biased opinions. I know they are certainly flawed and elitist, etc. How many people on here (including you) feel that much of the world is sheepish, etc.? You are just as guilty of moralistic elitism as I am in your comments.

I am not here to argue, though. I just wanted to spark a good discussion and it seems to be working so far. This is something where nobody is right or wrong... most of it is going to be opinion-based. We cannot give an equation to solve it all... only our personal perspectives and insights.

sbw

2 Dec 2005, 07:01 AM

An employer isn't one's "family" or other euphemism -- its fiducial responsibility is to maximize shareholder value within the law. It's precisely this ruthless competition that breeds efficiency and value for the customer, as well. As an employee, you either get with the game and don't take things personally and build equity, or become bitter and fall short of your goals.

exactly. on a completely unrelated note, do you think that many people take this "build equity" idea seriously? it has struck me lately that financial independence is not a priority or goal for most people.

(I suppose 'financial independence' is not perfectly analagous with the discussion, but it seems to be the most common end-goal of said equity building)

Scott

Hypnos

2 Dec 2005, 07:09 AM

jread,

You layed out a moral vision in the first post, and indeed there's no way we can agree on what that should be -- which is why we should concentrate on letting individuals do their own thing peacefully. If people are eating themselves silly, great -- let'em pay for their own healthcare. The gov't should only step into issues where there is a clear common interest: law and order, defense, environment, etc.

Sue Denim

2 Dec 2005, 07:42 AM

I am not here to argue, though. I just wanted to spark a good discussion and it seems to be working so far. This is something where nobody is right or wrong... most of it is going to be opinion-based. We cannot give an equation to solve it all... only our personal perspectives and insights.
Yeah, we can argue until we're blue in the face (or until our fingers bleed... no wait, I hate cliches...), but what's going to happen will happen, and there's little we can do to affect it. If some of us feel strongly enough, we might take action like buying gold or changing our spending behavior. But that's all I can see happening.

zhang_bob

2 Dec 2005, 11:14 AM

You should not stereotype people in different countrys,different people have different views.

Wiki

2 Dec 2005, 11:36 AM

Americans do care. They are fed up with government inaction. Private groups around the country are organizing and assembling in masses to attempt to secure our borders and attack the government officials for allowing this illegal immigration problem to get out of hand. Homeland security my ass! It is just a smoke and mirrors extension of the war on drugs as is the patriot act. The governent can make money from drug prosecution and seizure, but they have to spend tons of money to deport the 8 million and counting illegals, thus their propoganda attempts to engage our sympathy, well its not fooling anyone. They govenment in the US picks and chooses to enforce laws that genrate revenue for themselves, otherwise ignoring and violating their other laws that would cost them by inaction and accomodation.

Since sue mentioned gold and I am very bullish on it for multiple reasons I wont get into here. Let me add that the Gold ear marked to meet this years seasonal jewelry demand has already been taken delivery of, yet the futures remain strong. There are better ways to invest rather than hoarding bullion or jewelry though.

If the Chinese Yuan is 'forced' to inflate on the currency markets, eventually the cheap electronics and other imports will go up in price. It may take some time, as China will fight this tooth and nail for as long as it can, but this coming year maybe your last chance to get that electronic goody that youve been putting off, at its most attractive prices.

ptGatsby

2 Dec 2005, 03:43 PM

on a completely unrelated note, do you think that many people take this "build equity" idea seriously? it has struck me lately that financial independence is not a priority or goal for most people.

No, a minor amount of the population takes "building equity" seriously. In fact, very few companies take it seriously - normally these two are equivalent (the people who believe it are in companies that believe it).

Even on the boards it seems that very few are truly interesting in working to become independent. We all want it... but the time horizons and risk factors tend to mean that ~25% or so actually try... and it seems like only some ~10% of 90% of the population (eliminating the top 10% of money holders) get close to it.

It appears this has always been true, as well. I can't even explain why! Maybe its just a natural balance...

sbw

2 Dec 2005, 05:37 PM

No, a minor amount of the population takes "building equity" seriously. In fact, very few companies take it seriously - normally these two are equivalent (the people who believe it are in companies that believe it).

Even on the boards it seems that very few are truly interesting in working to become independent. We all want it... but the time horizons and risk factors tend to mean that ~25% or so actually try... and it seems like only some ~10% of 90% of the population (eliminating the top 10% of money holders) get close to it.

It appears this has always been true, as well. I can't even explain why! Maybe its just a natural balance...

as a recent retiree, I feel so special! thanks, man!

seriously, though...I can't explain why, either. sounds like a new thread topic...

Scott

kendoiwan

2 Dec 2005, 06:06 PM

They can only do that because American labor is overpriced compared to the foreign equivalents. Labor interests try to keep wages elevated through trade restrictions and union entitlements; in the end, it's nothing but a wealth redistribution scheme.

Side note, the average worker cannot support themselves or their families on the "overpriced" wages they are paid. Which is why for instance Walmart encourages employees to take Public assistance to supplement their wages. The cost of living in the U.S. is ridiculous, and most people aren't as saavy as yourself or SBW, so they're stuck.

floid

2 Dec 2005, 06:25 PM

I don't know the answers. I can offer my biased and opinionated solutions, but I can't expect the rest of the country to ever realize that I know what's best for them (haha). I'll tell you what I think, but I also want to know what all of YOU think.
I think the attitude you displayed in this (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=4928) thread back in June is just as much a problem as all the one's you've listed in the current thread.

That's just my opinion, of course.

coffeezombie

2 Dec 2005, 06:28 PM

The gov't should only step into issues where there is a clear common interest: law and order, defense, environment, etc.
And city planning, of course. :whistle:

In...TP

2 Dec 2005, 06:41 PM

Walmart encourages employees to take Public assistance to supplement their wages.
Wal-Mart pays plenty of taxes that support these programs. They also work closely with the Salvation Army. Why not take advantage of these programs?

ptGatsby

2 Dec 2005, 06:44 PM

Side note, the average worker cannot support themselves or their families on the "overpriced" wages they are paid. Which is why for instance Walmart encourages employees to take Public assistance to supplement their wages. The cost of living in the U.S. is ridiculous, and most people aren't as saavy as yourself or SBW, so they're stuck.

I don't know if I agree with this entirely. To a certain degree and below a certain line its probably true. But I don't believe that average stuff.

I managed, allbeit in Canada, to manage on minimum wage for a few years. Granted, I had no kids and what not, but I still managed to save up a decent amount of money (decent being relative to my earnings, heh).

Many of my friends at the time are massively in debt - but they had cell phones, they had computers, cable, etc. They never dug their way out. So I can't say I'm completely sympathetic. My GF was from a small town and many of the girls there - with no easy way out at all! - actually planned on getting pregnant young to cash in on welfare.

So the problem isn't as simple as cost of living or not high enough incomes. Its definately more complex than that, with racism, environment and a lot of other factors being at fault.

Its a complex issue... but what has been noted repeatedly in economic history is that the more government attempts to fix problems, the more imbalances are introduced. They may shift between populaces, demographics etc... but imbalances cannot be stamped out. (This is in reference to the original comment of trade barriers and offshoring American jobs).

This is a correction of imbalances that exists now... unfortunately, nothing can really help with. If you prevent it, your net material (amount produced/your$) QOL goes down... if you allow it, your net material worth goes down (your$/produced good).

In short, imbalances always move towards averaging out when the factors contributing are equal.

jread

2 Dec 2005, 07:21 PM

I think the attitude you displayed in this (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=4928) thread back in June is just as much a problem as all the one's you've listed in the current thread.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Not really, because I could argue that illegal immigration is also giving a crotch-kick to our economy and adding to our problems.

floid

2 Dec 2005, 08:09 PM

Not really, because I could argue that illegal immigration is also giving a crotch-kick to our economy and adding to our problems. The fact that you post on this forum along with people from around the world should give you some clue that, in the modern world in real experience beyond the nationalistic fantasies of control freak politicians, the notion of "our economy" and "our problems" as somehow separate from the rest of the world is somewhat ridiculous.

If you want to wipe out all the technology that ties humans together in a planetwide context and return to a more feudal way of life your above "crotch-kick" argument might make some sense. In the real world, as it exists today, however, it does not.

If the United States wants to dictate what language the rest of the world speaks, what movies the rest of the world watches, what soda pop they drink, what kind of underwear they wear, and what kind of fast food they consume so that United States Corporations can grow wealthy off of "them foreigners" (whether they live here or on foreign soil) doing all the dirty work then the United States is going to have to pay for the privilege.

And it really is that simple.

Maybe you should learn to speak a little Spanish.

kendoiwan

2 Dec 2005, 08:21 PM

I don't know if I agree with this entirely. To a certain degree and below a certain line its probably true. But I don't believe that average stuff.

I managed, allbeit in Canada, to manage on minimum wage for a few years. Granted, I had no kids and what not, but I still managed to save up a decent amount of money (decent being relative to my earnings, heh).

Many of my friends at the time are massively in debt - but they had cell phones, they had computers, cable, etc. They never dug their way out. So I can't say I'm completely sympathetic. My GF was from a small town and many of the girls there - with no easy way out at all! - actually planned on getting pregnant young to cash in on welfare.

So the problem isn't as simple as cost of living or not high enough incomes. Its definately more complex than that, with racism, environment and a lot of other factors being at fault.

Its a complex issue... but what has been noted repeatedly in economic history is that the more government attempts to fix problems, the more imbalances are introduced. They may shift between populaces, demographics etc... but imbalances cannot be stamped out. (This is in reference to the original comment of trade barriers and offshoring American jobs).

This is a correction of imbalances that exists now... unfortunately, nothing can really help with. If you prevent it, your net material (amount produced/your$) QOL goes down... if you allow it, your net material worth goes down (your$/produced good).

In short, imbalances always move towards averaging out when the factors contributing are equal.

In Ny, the cost for a studio apt is roughly 700-800 dollars a month, the starting wage a most retail jobs is 6.75-7.25, and if you are working 40 hrs that would be lucky but for the sake of arguement lets say you work 40, now do the math. I can't speak for other parts of the country though...

ptGatsby

2 Dec 2005, 08:59 PM

In Ny, the cost for a studio apt is roughly 700-800 dollars a month, the starting wage a most retail jobs is 6.75-7.25, and if you are working 40 hrs that would be lucky but for the sake of arguement lets say you work 40, now do the math. I can't speak for other parts of the country though...

I would hardly call NY average in any sense of the word.
( http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/15/cx_sc_0916homeslide.html?thisSpeed=35000 )

The average price seems to be about 635 (which isn't very discrimatory on studio/1brdm, etc).
( http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahsfaq.html )

You can get the full information here if you are really curious; http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/h150-01.pdf

The general conclusion I draw is that there are problems, but as I said, it is more on environment (location, etc) and other social factors (racism, etc).

Those problems are more significant because you cannot artificially raise wages without raising housing costs, generally speaking. Its akin to inflation, which hits hard assets, like land/housing, first.

And I hate to say it, but a lot of countries are far far worse off than this. A dual minimum earning family could easily afford a NY apartment (2200 on a ~1100 housing cost rent)... and that is the worst place in the country. Certainly in places like Penn state (the only friends I talk to now), getting a room mated place for less than 500 is relatively easily done. I know around here you can get a room mate for about ~400CDN, since I was looking at buying and getting a room mate to defray costs. My upper threshold I could charge was 375 + utils.

Course, real estate right now is ridiculous anyway. Go go inflationary bubbles!

jread

2 Dec 2005, 09:45 PM

The fact that you post on this forum along with people from around the world should give you some clue that, in the modern world in real experience beyond the nationalistic fantasies of control freak politicians, the notion of "our economy" and "our problems" as somehow separate from the rest of the world is somewhat ridiculous.

If you want to wipe out all the technology that ties humans together in a planetwide context and return to a more feudal way of life your above "crotch-kick" argument might make some sense. In the real world, as it exists today, however, it does not.

If the United States wants to dictate what language the rest of the world speaks, what movies the rest of the world watches, what soda pop they drink, what kind of underwear they wear, and what kind of fast food they consume so that United States Corporations can grow wealthy off of "them foreigners" (whether they live here or on foreign soil) doing all the dirty work then the United States is going to have to pay for the privilege.

And it really is that simple.

Maybe you should learn to speak a little Spanish.

You keep taking things out of context.

The Spanish this and that is annoying but not the end of the world. It's the uncontrolled pouring in of illegal immigrants that is definitely a problem. Most countries do something to control illegal immigration.... we are welcoming them with open arms. Immigration is good and beneficial to a country, when it is done legally. When done illegally, it can be crippling.

Where do you live?

kendoiwan

2 Dec 2005, 09:47 PM

I would hardly call NY average in any sense of the word.
( http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/15/cx_sc_0916homeslide.html?thisSpeed=35000 )

The average price seems to be about 635 (which isn't very discrimatory on studio/1brdm, etc).
( http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahsfaq.html )

You can get the full information here if you are really curious; http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/h150-01.pdf

The general conclusion I draw is that there are problems, but as I said, it is more on environment (location, etc) and other social factors (racism, etc).

Those problems are more significant because you cannot artificially raise wages without raising housing costs, generally speaking. Its akin to inflation, which hits hard assets, like land/housing, first.

And I hate to say it, but a lot of countries are far far worse off than this. A dual minimum earning family could easily afford a NY apartment (2200 on a ~1100 housing cost rent)... and that is the worst place in the country. Certainly in places like Penn state (the only friends I talk to now), getting a room mated place for less than 500 is relatively easily done. I know around here you can get a room mate for about ~400CDN, since I was looking at buying and getting a room mate to defray costs. My upper threshold I could charge was 375 + utils.

Course, real estate right now is ridiculous anyway. Go go inflationary bubbles!

You raise valid points. As I said I can't speak for other parts of the country. But for the record a studio for 650 is a dream the doesn't exist outside of a gov't program.

ptGatsby

2 Dec 2005, 09:57 PM

You raise valid points. As I said I can't speak for other parts of the country. But for the record a studio for 650 is a dream the doesn't exist outside of a gov't program.

I noticed that. That's utterly amazing... I couldn't find a reasonable place for less than 800... and reasonable took on a whole new meaning, too! Most seem to be nearly $1000... for a studio!

Can't say I'd stay in NY for any length of time! 8O

kendoiwan

2 Dec 2005, 10:12 PM

I noticed that. That's utterly amazing... I couldn't find a reasonable place for less than 800... and reasonable took on a whole new meaning, too! Most seem to be nearly $1000... for a studio!

Can't say I'd stay in NY for any length of time! 8O

Tell me about it. Other members would have to confirm, but I'm under the impression that although the real estate prices are lower in other parts of the country the wages are basically to scale with the situation in ny meaning the rents outpace the wages...

ptGatsby

2 Dec 2005, 10:33 PM

Tell me about it. Other members would have to confirm, but I'm under the impression that although the real estate prices are lower in other parts of the country the wages are basically to scale with the situation in ny meaning the rents outpace the wages...

re: Wages do scale to COL in a particular area, no question about it.

re: Rents outpace wages

I don't know about that. The two are mutually exclusive events that need to balance out - if people can't rent, then the landowner gets no money. Too many rental places, same thing. And the otherside is true - not enough space, rents go up... people want to rent, rents go up.

The minimum wage in the US is currently 6.00. That would amount to 1040/month. That's the worst case scenario available... Since NY is the worst place in the US to live, rent/housing wise, which is pretty much 100% of minimum wage, it has to be better elsewhere in the country.

I'm definately not saying that its good, however. Economics is generally pretty indifferent to what I think, I find.

Structurally, however, wages should be a certain % of available income... in areas like NY where there is a huge difference in wages (I think...), distortion is inevitable. However, working at walmart (8.23) amounts to 17118/year, with ~8000 (that is, average of 665, higher than national average) for housing costs. Its a pretty crappy budget, 750/month, but I can say that it is more than doable. Even in NY, its theoretically possible, if you don't do much outside food and necessities (budget of ~ 400).

This seems about right, to me. Typically 40% is the amount that is targetted by banks, etc, for debt management... so theoretically, you would need 60% of income to be part of the 'safe' risk demographic.

kendoiwan

2 Dec 2005, 10:40 PM

ptGatsby

2 Dec 2005, 11:01 PM

those are gross #'s and everybody knows what you net is what counts. Most people who aren't professionals either live in a rooming situation, or there are two incomes, it's nearly impossible for a single person maintain otherwise without gov't assistance. and this isn't a problem confined to the uneducated (see NYU "nerds on strike").

The tax bill should be roughly 1450 if you have zero exemptions, file as single, etc. Worst case scenario.

I don't disagree with the poverty part of it, incidently. It is getting worse.

Architectonic

3 Dec 2005, 12:43 AM

The US will probably have a mild recession/more inflation next year - the interest rate yield is currently very low. If interest rates are raised further, you have the potential for an inverted yield curve (rather bearish). If interest rates are not raised, then the US dollar will drop and you will have significant inflation. (although the advantage of that is debt in US dollar terms will deflate since the real value of the dollar drops)

Recent action on the price of gold might be a clue of things to come.

Hypnos

3 Dec 2005, 12:52 AM

coffeezombie

3 Dec 2005, 12:53 AM

I don't see what the problem is with just getting up and moving. If you aren't earning enough to live in a particular area, that means you aren't competitive, so you have to leave.

Don't some people want to be near their family anymore?

kuranes

3 Dec 2005, 01:02 AM

I don't see what the problem is with just getting up and moving. If you aren't earning enough to live in a particular area, that means you aren't competitive, so you have to leave.

Computer geeks better learn Hindi :D

You might not have enough $ to move. I would think that you'd want to have $5-6K at least in addition to the cost of the move itself, unless you already had something lined up.

I'm not sure how strict they are about lease breaking either if it was done spur of the moment.

Some areas of the country have a much lower cost of living but far fewer job openings too. Especially if your "experience" is limited to certain industries, considering most places paying anything worth talking about insist that you have prior experience in their line of work.

Hypnos

3 Dec 2005, 05:51 AM

Don't some people want to be near their family anymore?
Probably. If your family enjoys your company, they could help out, instead of making everyone else pay.

You might not have enough $ to move. I would think that you'd want to have $5-6K at least in addition to the cost of the move itself, unless you already had something lined up.

I'm not sure how strict they are about lease breaking either if it was done spur of the moment.[/quote]
Yup, there's always "friction." Again, why it's important to have equity (or at least savings) instead of just waiting to feed at the paycheck trough. It's easy enough to break your lease if you lose your job.

Some areas of the country have a much lower cost of living but far fewer job openings too. Especially if your "experience" is limited to certain industries, considering most places paying anything worth talking about insist that you have prior experience in their line of work.
That means your industry is obsolete, if it doesn't pay enough where you are, and there aren't enough openings where it's cheaper.

kuranes

3 Dec 2005, 05:58 AM

Its easy enough to say "Just change to a new industry. Earn more so you won't be over a barrel. Etc." Quite different to be actually DOING it.

Hypnos

3 Dec 2005, 06:24 AM

Perhaps, but think about what "over a barrel" means. How entitled do you get to be? How much should everyone's taxes go up to tide you over because your skills are ill-suited to the local economy? Ultimately, it's your responsibility to take care of yourself, and find the appropriate means to do so. I would draw the line where your diseased penuriousness endangers the public health.

kuranes

3 Dec 2005, 06:29 AM

I haven't brought up the issue of how taxes would be affected by my particular situation here, although that might be a good thread someday. I'm just saying that it's easy to make blithe comments on other people's situations as though to say "simple matter."

Hypnos

3 Dec 2005, 07:37 AM

I'm not unsympathetic, but at the same time I recognize that everyone has their own problems. It's perverse to reward failure and penalize success.

kuranes

3 Dec 2005, 08:04 AM

I understand. I've said before that your arguments are quite persuasive. I am a Hypnos admirer in many ways. I just think about the old ( American ) Indian saying "Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him." I know that you probably weren't judging me personally ( maybe a little ) but you were judging people LIKE me, and implying ( IMO ) that there was no complexity to the situation. A simple matter of poor planning, or a simple matter of "Die then, and make room for others", or laziness, foolhardy spending etc. I don't see things that cut and dry.

For example on taxes, I hear about government boondoggles ( through probing on my part) where lots of taxpayer money is wasted. Yet these things are not usually anywhere near as well publicized as the old chestnut about the poor taking up too many resources. And how big of a slice do the poor snatch up compared to other drains on the budget? ( I agree that just throwing money at the problem won't solve it. That doesn't mean that we should just ignore it. ) Then you look at corporate welfare etc. I won't bore you with the whole litany. You are extremely well read. I'm sure that you too have probed and seen these things yourself. In fact, you are skilled enough that I bet you could come up with a good argument AGAINST the position you normally take on this board. It would be interesting to see that.

I hear corporations constantly bemoaning not having enough skilled people. Well, why not TRAIN some people in new skills then? Sure, it will cost, but so does recruiting new employees and dealing with turnover in a dog eat dog environment that has partly been created by these same attitudes. It's not all just cold black or white decisions. Companies that started spending money on Work/Life set-ups where the company offers day care and flex-time etc. were thought impractical at one time. Now a lot of companies are coming to see it makes sense. But they had to gamble it worked in the beginning. It made sense from a humanistic perspective, though. People don't always just care what you know. They want to know that you care too. See my thread on "Psychic Income". These things are not always easily measured in tally marks by the bean counters, granted, especially if they are still ideas and have not been implemented yet.

This does not have to mean Communism. Read Ricardo Semmler's "Maverick" for an example of what I think this country needs more of. It is very much in line with your "reward performance" ideals. But it is quite a bit different than business as usual in the USA.

placid_panic

3 Dec 2005, 10:12 AM

i make nine dollars an hour. even though i have to work about 45 hours a week i don't get any overtime pay, health insurance or sick days. i get no benefits at all and this week i don't have any nights off because the owner was injured. i ride my bike the five miles to work each night, even when it rains. the buses don't run this late. i spend about twenty dollars a week on groceries at the farmer's market. i got this computer for $140 on craigslist. i give my change to homeless people. i'll be volunteering at the youth shelter soon, when i have some nights off. i don't have any family to support me if anything happens. so yes, some americans do care. i care and it makes me sick.

it really pisses me off when i get my paycheck and about a quarter of it is missing and i know where that money is going. it's going to pay for a completely unnecessary and morally wrong war somewhere i've never been. it's going to this (http://www.corporations.org/welfare/). and this (http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2004/ShiftyTaxCuts_pr.html). that pisses me off.

this (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238741_countingpoor31.html) is where i live.

and hypnos, i would love to be able to leave. i would move to canada, where there is a decent minimum wage and universal health care. canada's become a lot more selective about who they let in in recent years, however. i wonder if that's indicative of anything?

we could be doing much better (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html)

shameful (http://www.inequality.org/facts.html)

when i was homeless, i used to look up at the parking garages and wonder what drives people.

zhang_bob

3 Dec 2005, 11:07 AM

The minimum wage in the US is currently 6.00. That would amount to 1040/month. That's the worst case scenario available... Since NY is the worst place in the US to live, rent/housing wise, which is pretty much 100% of minimum wage, it has to be better elsewhere in the country.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
Why some do some States have minimum wage rates lower than the Federal wage . eg KANSAS $2.65 and OHIO $4.25 Except, employers with gross annual sales from $150,000 to $500,000 $3.35 , Except for employers with gross annual sales under $150,000 $2.80

I`m glad am not from the USA then.

Here Britains
# The main rate for workers aged 22 and over. On 1 October 2005 this rate was raised to £5.05 an hour,

# The accredited training rate for workers aged 22 and over who are receiving accredited training in the first six months of a job with a new employer. On 1 October 2005 this rate of the minimum wage was raised to £4.25 an hour,

# The development rate for 18-21 year olds. On 1 October 2005 rate of minimum wage was raised to £4.25 an hour,

# The development rate for 16-17 years olds. This rate is £3.00 an hour

$1 is £0.59

Purple-Silver Fox

3 Dec 2005, 06:43 PM

An often recurring opinion among US citizens is: "I don't trust the government."

I think that's strange, in a society that claims to be democratic. The voters either don't vote, or vote for parties that identify with the government. The general answer to that distrust seems to be to strive for less government and less personal involvement with politics, preferring the private sector; that sector, however, has no other claim than acting for it's own profits and there's no electoral brake on it.

That seems paradoxical.

kuranes

3 Dec 2005, 08:08 PM

An often recurring opinion among US citizens is: "I don't trust the government."

I think that's strange, in a society that claims to be democratic. .

"Claims to be" is the key phrase. I don't feel my voice is adequately represented. The people who won't vote for the lesser of two evils are understandable, but still annoying at times. I met a guy from New Zealand that lived here for a year or so, who couldn't understand why so many people thought Bush was so great prior to his arrival here. After living here a while he told me "NOW I understand. Bush DOESN'T have a 'mandate'. In fact, he's just a puppet of some behind-the-scenes players. The American people are given a choice between Pepsi and Coke when they are allowed to vote."

It may not be quite as simple as he laid it out, but there's a lot of truth to that. Media coverage has a lot to do with it too. And what is THEIR interest? Neutral objective coverage of complex issues? Or sometimes slanted brief soundbites- a la Fox news, campaign "warchests" that award points for who has the most money behind a campaign, etc. The idea of it being truly a consensus reached after a informed debate is diluted tremendously IMO. Why isn't this more obviously visible? This phenomenon has gradually gotten worse over the years, vs. abruptly, so that its not that readily apparent to the average person beset with their own distracting problems in this "new economy". Like the old joke about boiling a frog slowly, by gradually turning up the heat a degree every few minutes. So he/she doesn't jump out of the frogpan. Some of the more sensitive frogs may have been trying to get the others interested in this, but so many are of the "Stop whining. A little warm water never hurt anybody" school. If things eventually separate out like they do in many countries, where there is a huge gap between people of wealth and the poor ( dwindling middle class ) , then those same naysayers will change their tune and say instead "Bear your burden with dignity, like other disenfranchised people have throughout the centuries," instead of telling you that the water is just fine. It will be too late ( and useless then ) to remind them of their original weather forecast.

Meanwhile I'd agree that "God" helps those who help themselves. If you can become an independant agent, beholden to no one but your customers, do it where feasible. Or become part of a company that is a real team. Semmco is an example of this.

Purple-Silver Fox

3 Dec 2005, 09:01 PM

Yes, Americans do not lack willingness to take up responsibility, individually as well as collectively.. to the point of overthrowing various regimes, to reshape the government. Which only makes it more amazing that so little energy is directed at reform of their proper institutions.
Is that because government is somehow considered as an alien element in society? Or a very individualist approach? Or attachment to tradition?

Braggi

3 Dec 2005, 09:06 PM

what i find amusing is that americans are so concerned about corruption in foreign governments, and changing the regimes of poor third world nations, or even second world nations like iraq, and not their own

kuranes

3 Dec 2005, 09:13 PM

It only took a limited number of people in positions of command to decide to overthrow Iraq, if that's what you're talking about Silver Fox. It was the last thing on most average citizens' minds. Bush was granted authority to do certain things by Congress, based on his claims of WMD etc. in the wake of 9/11. Will we ever see a real grassroots revolution in the US? Who knows? Its unlikely, as the powers that be will continue to turn up the temperature on the frog quite slowly, as I said. They may even offer brief reprieves, here and there. My understanding is that the structure of the government in England, for example, allows for a lot more heat to be turned up under the leaders, and this is done by a more informed populace.

Purple-Silver Fox

3 Dec 2005, 09:40 PM

Not only Iraq, Vietnam and the general meddling in the Middle-East and South-America that generally are justified to the population by an appeal to responsibility.
An organisation that could form a link between local information networks and the internet would be the best bet, if both the rural and the cosmopolitic part of the population has to be included.

Even in England, the political scene is dominated by two players. That kind of monopolization is almost inevitable when only the largest party or parties in a district are represented. There is the argument of clarity in a single-party government, but a systematic exclusion of smaller and potentially growing parties and their voters seems against the concept of representation.

Then again, I'm living in a country where the official copy of the constitution had been subject to so much cutting and pasting recently that it had to be reprinted. And there's another round of reforms coming up.

kuranes

3 Dec 2005, 09:41 PM

Don't forget Indonesia.

Architectonic

4 Dec 2005, 01:37 AM

indie

4 Dec 2005, 02:45 AM

The problem with the US corporate structure is lack . . . lack of care for the depletion of natural resources, for one. It tends to exploit the resources of other countries (human, natural, and other) at the minimum cost to the exploiter and at the maximum long-term (but unrealized) loss of the exploitee; in order to derive maximum "in-house" benefit to the corporations. And guess who gets the greatest benefit from the "in-house" benefit? Not the employees or shareholders, that's for sure. The customers? Maybe, but at an non-liable level in the grand scheme . . .since corporate structures don't like to set themselves up for liability, they like that it works for them.

This is why the public sector is necessary. Perhaps it could even be argued the *only* viable reason for a public sector is to keep the private one in check. Without some sort of overseeing entity, the private sector could easily conspire amid and among itself to control any one of various facets of the economy and prices for a given region, thus literally draining an area for its natural resource(s) before moving onto greener pastures, and leaving the exploited region with nothing.

I disagree that supposed "homogenous" products (such as milk, gasoline) should be regulated to the extent that they are. Most economists view such products as static. . . that they are basically the same in that people will buy whatever is the cheapest, regardless of origin. This view fails to consider transportation costs, and thus an (obvious) externality of negativity upon the environment. There's a fine line between optomizing a given terrain for its economic benefits of locale vs. economic benefits for a larger realized profit outside the terrain.

And the worst thing is . . . those highest on the "totem pole" at the corporations derive the most benefit. The highly paid CEOs and CFOs and CIOs etc are given far too much power over their power. In other words, their status entitles them to seemingly limitless property ownership. They control the property and the distribution of goods to that property. Their "wealth" becomes increased at an exponential decrease to their non-immediate surroundings.

Much more to say about this, but need time to . . .intuitively absorb.

(moving to Canada . . . that idea is starting to sound better every day)

Hypnos

4 Dec 2005, 03:59 AM

coffeezombie:

You so went there! I think we agreed last time that the local gov't does have a role in planning around utilities like roads, water, electricity and natural resources. But, I'll paint my house any damn color I please! Oh, and let's not forget my private brothel and heated motorcycle garage.

Kuranes:

* I was using the rhetorical 2nd person -- I have no knowledge about your personal situation; if you've given info about it elsewhere, I have not seen it. My point is that it's not cut-and-dry for _anyone_, so it's best to leave everyone to their own devices.

* Yup, business subsidies (esp. agricultural subsidies) are as big a waste as anything. And, indeed, welfare spending is small compared to defense, social security and medicare. All entitlements should be eliminated from the federal budget and left to states and locales.

* The private sector does provide educational assistance. Work-study, tuition remission for advanced degrees, and subsidized loans and leaves of absence. Many of my peers used these. There is also private charity in the form of scholarships.

placid_panic:

* I admire your work ethic. Your intelligence is obvious, and the time spent on volunteer work could just as well be spent on school (maybe night school) or learning some skill Hustler could be proud of. You can help a lot more people after you boost your own productivity, if that's important to you.

* Minimum wage is an unfortunate artifice. If the market-determined labor price point is less than the legislated minimum wage, then it means that to obtain such labor small businesses have to overpay for it. For industries with no remote competition (such as the service industry) it's just a wealth redistribution program; for industries with remote competition (in another state or country), it means fewer jobs.

* There's no free lunch. Taxes in Canada are outrageous and health care is a kafkaesque nightmare in the more populous provinces (a homegrown take (http://imdb.com/title/tt0338135/) on the subject, though health care efficacy is a complicated subject of its own). At least, they don't imprison their own citizens over petty drug offenses and blow through cash on unjustified wars.

Purple-silver fox:

People in the US view the government the same way that most people in the world view their own: lazy, ineffectual, overpriced and corrupt. And, like the rest of the world, they scream bloody murder if you cut their favorite pet entitlement. I view it as a necessary evil that should only do what no other entity can, with as much local control as possible. Prior to the 16th amendment, I think the model proffered by the US consitution was sound; Architectronic describes something similar.

indiejade:

I think you're trying to say that CEO pay is too high, and that corporate boards don't represent shareholders or employees well. This may well be so. In fact, it is likely that while executive remuneration has grown exponentially, constant-currency salaries at the bottom of the "totem pole" have decreased. This is precisely as it should be: outsourcing, offshoring and downsizing are all good things if long-term profits go up -- these are real gains in efficiency overall.

placid_panic

4 Dec 2005, 07:45 PM

coffeezombie:
* I admire your work ethic. Your intelligence is obvious, and the time spent on volunteer work could just as well be spent on school (maybe night school) or learning some skill Hustler could be proud of. You can help a lot more people after you boost your own productivity, if that's important to you.

* Minimum wage is an unfortunate artifice. If the market-determined labor price point is less than the legislated minimum wage, then it means that to obtain such labor small businesses have to overpay for it. For industries with no remote competition (such as the service industry) it's just a wealth redistribution program; for industries with remote competition (in another state or country), it means fewer jobs.

* There's no free lunch. Taxes in Canada are outrageous and health care is a kafkaesque nightmare in the more populous provinces (a homegrown take (http://imdb.com/title/tt0338135/) on the subject, though health care efficacy is a complicated subject of its own). At least, they don't imprison their own citizens over petty drug offenses and blow through cash on unjustified wars.

i'd probably be attending community college but the federal government refuses to assist me financially without the cooperation of my parents. maybe when i turn 24. i'm still not sure it would be worth my time or money to sit in a classroom and listen to somebody talk about something i can read in a book. high school was such a waste. helping people is paramount to me but at this point in my life i'm very unsure of the best way to go about doing it. the problems seem overwhelming and the people oblivious.

if businesses can't afford to pay their employees a decent wage should they be in business? i think we should err on the side of protecting workers. society isn't just a machine, it's made up of individual people with basic needs. when people have to struggle to meet their basic needs they become a problem for the whole society. i think it's very important to have a wealth distribution system, and i think we need a more effective one. i think a maximum wage is a good idea. maybe four or five times the minimum. i'm not sure of a good solution for the outsourcing problem. perhaps higher taxes on imported goods? we shouldn't be supporting companies that go to less developed nations to exploit their people. and we should be training our own people to give them an advantage in the job market.

i would love to give up half or more of my paycheck in order to give every person a place to live and sleep and food to eat and healthcare when they require it. i think every person should have the same security and opportunity to fulfill his or her potential.

Hypnos

4 Dec 2005, 10:57 PM

[...] i'm still not sure it would be worth my time or money to sit in a classroom and listen to somebody talk about something i can read in a book. high school was such a waste. [...]
If you can learn with rigor, without the discipline and feedback of discussion and testing, you are better than most; or, you're just too deep inside your comfort zone.

i think it's very important to have a wealth distribution system, and i think we need a more effective one.
Assuming that the poorest people can still meet their basic needs, why?

[...] i think every person should have the same security and opportunity to fulfill his or her potential.
You assume a few things with this principle:

* Everyone wants security.

* Security and opportunity provided by gov't is not more stultifying than working for it.

* People will in fact live up to their potential if afforded security and opportunity, and that they will appreciate having these resources at their disposal instead of merely feeling false pride.

I agree that widely available education is a public good (if students are held to standards), but having freely available material resources is limiting to those who can do better, as well as begging for abuse.

coffeezombie

4 Dec 2005, 11:07 PM

Assuming that the poorest people can still meet their basic needs, why?

But that doesn't happen in the present system. Of course, I consider medical care a basic need, and until we all get that paid for us I don't think we'll ever have our basic needs met.

Hypnos

4 Dec 2005, 11:11 PM

But that doesn't happen in the present system. Of course, I consider medical care a basic need, and until we all get that paid for us I don't think we'll ever have our basic needs met.
I don't think health care should be paid for. I was just posing a hypothetical to investigate if placid_panic has some other motive for wealth redistribution -- he did suggest a maximum salary, after all.

placid_panic

5 Dec 2005, 12:30 AM

If you can learn with rigor, without the discipline and feedback of discussion and testing, you are better than most; or, you're just too deep inside your comfort zone.

i'm learning constantly, whether i like it or not. discipline is never a problem if the subject matter is engaging and useful. i truly enjoy learning about things that matter to me. however, i am very deep inside my comfort zone where it applies to social contact. i tend to isolate myself as much as possible, which limits helpful feedback. so on the one hand i think school would be helpful as it would force me to interact with others, learn to better express myself orally and expose me to new ideas, but on the other hand i fear a litany of useless content and required courses that i have no interest in.

Assuming that the poorest people can still meet their basic needs, why?

i suppose that depends on how you define "basic needs". when i think of needs i usually think of maslow's heirarchy. i know from firsthand experience that our poorest people struggle to get food and basic hygiene, and safety and social acceptance are out of the question. the homeless are simultaneously feared and despised, ignored and exploited. the working poor (especially those with families to support) must devote so much time and energy to maintaining safety and a basic level of social acceptance that they have none left for higher aspirations.

You assume a few things with this principle:

* Everyone wants security.

* Security and opportunity provided by gov't is not more stultifying than working for it.

* People will in fact live up to their potential if afforded security and opportunity, and that they will appreciate having these resources at their disposal instead of merely feeling false pride.

I agree that widely available education is a public good (if students are held to standards), but having freely available material resources is limiting to those who can do better, as well as begging for abuse.

that first one's tricky. my first thought is that some give up security in a desperate attempt to secure more fundamental needs. however, i would totally give up my security if i thought i could change the current social order, and that's just an ideal. i guess i'll amend my statement to allow for security being optional as a personal decision. i still think everyone should be have the option of being safe.

if government actually provided security and opportunity it would be doing its job. it would truly be a government of the people and there is no difference between that and "working for it". i just think the positive and negative consequences of our decisions should be collectively felt. we are all dependent on each other and that is something we cannot change. what we can change, at least temporarily, is the general awareness of that fact.

as for the third bullet, i don't see why not. then again, i'm pretty drunk.

i'm not advocating a system where everyone is handed whatever they want. people need to be challenged and face periods of hardship. i simply think that those challenges and hardships can be faced collectively, can be a unifying factor rather than a divisive one, and that every person should bear an equal share. "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs."

placid_panic

5 Dec 2005, 12:32 AM

I don't think health care should be paid for. I was just posing a hypothetical to investigate if placid_panic has some other motive for wealth redistribution -- he did suggest a maximum salary, after all.

maybe i just think paul allen could do without a 600 foot yacht while children are still starving in africa.

Hypnos

5 Dec 2005, 01:08 AM

if government actually provided security and opportunity it would be doing its job. it would truly be a government of the people and there is no difference between that and "working for it". i just think the positive and negative consequences of our decisions should be collectively felt. we are all dependent on each other and that is something we cannot change. what we can change, at least temporarily, is the general awareness of that fact.
It's a fact, but only in the most technical sense. Apart from this little thread, you and I have don't have much to do with each other. By contrast, my family and friends are a much larger factor in my life. Consequently, they are a higher priority to me, and more deserving of my compassion. Similarly, my relationship with computer makers and motorcycle vendors is more important than whatever connection I have with the quilting industry. A free society is built upon these voluntary associations. IMHO, gov't's job is to enforce and protect agreements made in these relationships, and handle some externalities -- that's it.

"from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs."
This might be convenient for those who are in need, but it's dehumanizing for those who is able in the least, as I describe above. As a result, it's economically inefficient and cancerous to honest governance.

maybe i just think paul allen could do without a 600 foot yacht while children are still starving in africa.
Paul Allen's money won't help. The equivalent of his net worth is funneled to sub-Saharan Africa every year, for minimal results. Economist James Shikwati explains why (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html).

Same story as above: love might make the world go round, but accountability keeps it from falling apart.

placid_panic

5 Dec 2005, 01:49 PM

It's a fact, but only in the most technical sense. Apart from this little thread, you and I have don't have much to do with each other. By contrast, my family and friends are a much larger factor in my life. Consequently, they are a higher priority to me, and more deserving of my compassion. Similarly, my relationship with computer makers and motorcycle vendors is more important than whatever connection I have with the quilting industry. A free society is built upon these voluntary associations. IMHO, gov't's job is to enforce and protect agreements made in these relationships, and handle some externalities -- that's it.

which externalities? i think i have a different idea of government. i think it should also protect the poor and vulnerable from exploitation; those who would make "agreements" of dubious benefit out of desperation.

This might be convenient for those who are in need, but it's dehumanizing for those who is able in the least, as I describe above. As a result, it's economically inefficient and cancerous to honest governance.

"convenient"? what's dehumanizing for those who are able in the least is subjugation to an upper class that controls societal structure with no regard for their wellbeing. what's cancerous to honest governance is the ability of industry leaders to buy it.

Paul Allen's money won't help. The equivalent of his net worth is funneled to sub-Saharan Africa every year, for minimal results. Economist James Shikwati explains why (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html).

perhaps that money isn't being applied efficiently. no amount of food sent to a nation will allow that nation's people to feed themselves. "teach a man to fish" as the saying goes. however, that statement was only semi-serious. i believe we have plenty of starving children to take care of here on our own continent.

sbw

5 Dec 2005, 04:48 PM

"convenient"? what's dehumanizing for those who are able in the least is subjugation to an upper class that controls societal structure with no regard for their wellbeing. what's cancerous to honest governance is the ability of industry leaders to buy it.

I don't feel subjugated by the upper class at all. and I don't see how engaging in commerce is dehumanizing. I call bullshit.

Scott

sbw

5 Dec 2005, 04:49 PM

maybe i just think paul allen could do without a 600 foot yacht while children are still starving in africa.

do you honestly believe that productive people (like paul allen, whose corporation employs thousands, to use your example) do not have the right to spend the money that they earn, as they see fit?

Scott

floid

5 Dec 2005, 06:08 PM

do you honestly believe that productive people (like paul allen, whose corporation employs thousands, to use your example) do not have the right to spend the money that they earn, as they see fit?
Scott The word earn has a "business definition" which essentially means "take whatever you can get" and the classical definition that means to "acquire or deserve by one's efforts or actions".

If you say that Paul Allen took whatever he could get you make a correct statement.

If you say that he aquired or deserved the wealth he holds by his own efforts or actions then your are simply deluded.

If Paul Allen's wealth was actually "earnable" in the classical sense there would not be a great gap between the rich and the poor people because humans are only capable of working so much and then they drop dead from exhaustion.
Paul Allen, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Rupert Murdoch are not supermen and they did not acquire or deserve their wealth by their own efforts or actions.
They are simply some of the world's most well endowed welfare cases and they share the human tendency to take whatever they can get with all the rest of us.
Their greed is our greed unbridled by circumstances.
Some people pretend that they are heroes and want to be like them.
They don't want to be like them at all.
They want to have what they have.

ptGatsby

5 Dec 2005, 06:33 PM

The word earn has a "business definition" which essentially means "take whatever you can get" and the classical definition that means to "acquire or deserve by one's efforts or actions".

How did he 'take' anything?

If you say that Paul Allen took whatever he could get you make a correct statement.

I know I 'took' whatever job I could get. I don't believe this is what you are implying. What exactly are you saying? That he stole money?

Or did I steal someone else's job? Is that unfair?

If you say that he aquired or deserved the wealth he holds by his own efforts or actions then your are simply deluded.

How's that? If Paul Allen didn't do anything at all, then... what? His actions led to disportionate rewards but it was his actions that did it.

If Paul Allen's wealth was actually "earnable" in the classical sense there would not be a great gap between the rich and the poor people because humans are only capable of working so much and then they drop dead from exhaustion.

But he did earn it. He did something and he was rewarded. He didn't take a gun and steal it. People handed it over to him, willingly. He earned it by classical sense. That he earned more by being in the right place is secondary. Equal actions do not have equal rewards.

No more than me getting a goal in hockey would be the same as a professional player. No more than me inventing the wheel now... no more than me building a widget machine that they used in the industrial revolution... or no more than me building a steam engine, a lightbulb, a radio...

Paul Allen, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Rupert Murdoch are not supermen and they did not acquire or deserve their wealth by their own efforts or actions.

I'm pretty sure that these people managed to get on top through their actions and efforts. Even lottery winners get it through 'their actions', if only extremely loosely.

They are simply some of the world's most well endowed welfare cases and they share the human tendency to take whatever they can get with all the rest of us.

What? You equivalent someone who goes on welfare living off of 'stolen money' because he doesn't want to work... to someone who built a company from the ground up?

Just to define as well;
Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.

If anything, Microsoft was one of the lesser evils when it comes to welfare and government lobbying. Look where it got them...

Their greed is our greed unbridled by circumstances.

:rolleyes:

Some people pretend that they are heroes and want to be like them.

I'll pass, since I'm not really like them. And some people want to be like rap stars and coke snorting football players. I'd rather they model themselves after something else, yes.

And a decent businessman seems like a pretty good ideal to me. Maybe not the top 0.00014% of the US population that are billionaires... on paper... but the run of the mill business man.

They don't want to be like them at all. They want to have what they have.

Ah, certainly better not to have than to have, of course.

Not like its a generic INTP dream to have enough money never to worry about trivial details like earning a living...

placid_panic

5 Dec 2005, 07:31 PM

do you honestly believe that productive people (like paul allen, whose corporation employs thousands, to use your example) do not have the right to spend the money that they earn, as they see fit?

Scott

are these (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/230510_laborers29.html) people not productive?

i guess even the average (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/224532_overextendhousing17.html) person isn't productive enough: The median annual income for a family of four in King County is $72,250. According to the Center for Housing Policy, it would take an annual income of $76,350 -- more than $4,000 above the median -- to qualify for a $245,000 home in the Seattle metropolitan area. The difficulty for would-be homeowners is that the median home price in King County is now $355,000.

what about teachers, nurses and police officers? (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20050524/workpoor.gif)

this is in the city that provided the freedom and opportunity for paul allen to "earn" all that money. it's also the city that paid 300 million dollars for a stadium for his football team, and is now about pay 50 million for his streetcar.

placid_panic

5 Dec 2005, 07:35 PM

How did he 'take' anything?

I know I 'took' whatever job I could get. I don't believe this is what you are implying. What exactly are you saying? That he stole money?

Or did I steal someone else's job? Is that unfair?

How's that? If Paul Allen didn't do anything at all, then... what? His actions led to disportionate rewards but it was his actions that did it.

the emphasis should be on "whatever he could get" rather than "took". whatever paul allen could get is a lot different than whatever you or i could get. the problem is that our society rewards people who have been able to get a lot by giving them more and more and punishes people who haven't been able to get much by taking more away from them.

floid

5 Dec 2005, 08:00 PM

the emphasis should be on "whatever he could get" rather than "took". whatever paul allen could get is a lot different than whatever you or i could get. the problem is that our society rewards people who have been able to get a lot by giving them more and more and punishes people who haven't been able to get much by taking more away from them. Yes that is the way it works and that is the way it will continue to work for as long as sufficient numbers of people continue to believe the mindless dogma that sustains it.

Believing that Paul Allen "earned" his billions is as archaic and stupid as the belief that monarchs ruled by "divine right".

A picture is worth a thousand words:

http://members.isp.com/arc_o_blue@isp.com/pyramid.jpg

If you get tired of shit stop sitting under assholes.

Hypnos

5 Dec 2005, 08:04 PM

are these (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/230510_laborers29.html) people not productive?
Not really -- they're the human equivalent of rented mules. Paul Allen used his brain a little to create a software base that most of the world finds valuable.

Perhaps here's the difference: you think each person is intrinsically valuable, and potentially has a universe of wealth to offer to the rest of us if just given a chance. I only find people valuable if they have something to offer and don't feel sorry for themselves. As I've said, I think education should be widely available, but that's it -- show people something, and others will invest in you.

Hypnos

5 Dec 2005, 08:10 PM

If you get tired of shit stop sitting under assholes.
That would make sense if the poorest people now didn't have wealth unimaginable to kings only 100 years ago: miraculous health elixirs (e.g., drugs brought to you by the pharma industry, most of which are affordable), magic communication devices (cellphones and computers), etc. etc.

The hard fact is that the open market, with its limitations, is an unmatched engine for growth. The way people talk about getting shat on and "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" it's as if the 20th century didn't even happen.

floid

5 Dec 2005, 08:29 PM

That would make sense if the poorest people now didn't have wealth unimaginable to kings only 100 years ago: miraculous health elixirs (e.g., drugs brought to you by the pharma industry, most of which are affordable), magic communication devices (cellphones and computers), etc. etc.

The hard fact is that the open market, with its limitations, is an unmatched engine for growth. The way people talk about getting shat on and "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" it's as if the 20th century didn't even happen. You appear to be ignorant of one very important fact -- if the poorest people did not support the infrastructure of your fantasy world with their physical labor the entire thing would collapse in a day.

If the grubby oil field worker didn't keep the pumps pumping the oil you use you might find yourself with a rake and a hoe next spring growing your own food because there was nothing in the grocery store to buy.

If a million other "rented mules" decided not to show up to work there wouldn't be and electricity to run your phone, computer, television, or ipod, you wouldn't have a structure to live in, and you might have to clean your own toilet when it got nasty.

If the open market is a powerful engine for growth then those who make it run on a daily basis should receive more reward for it than those who supervise, theorize, or had a good idea twenty or thirty years ago that the "mules" are still marching to.

Lee

5 Dec 2005, 08:41 PM

You appear to be ignorant of one very important fact -- if the poorest people did not support the infrastructure of your fantasy world with their physical labor the entire thing would collapse in a day.

If the grubby oil field worker didn't keep the pumps pumping the oil you use you might find yourself with a rake and a hose next spring growing your own food because there was nothing in the grocery store to buy.

If a million other "rented mules" decided not to show up to work there wouldn't be and electricity to run your phone, computer, television, or ipod, you wouldn't have a structure to live in, and you might have to clean your own toilet when it got nasty.

If the open market is a powerful engine for growth then those who make it run on a daily basis should receive more reward for it than those who supervise, theorize, or had a good idea twenty or thirty years ago that the "mules" are still marching to.Ha! you seem to be ignorant of the fact that they do receive more reward, but that reward is simply spread over a larger group of people. It is why the largest and most successful companies sell to ordinary everyday people, and those that specialise for the rich only fulfil a niche role.

Besides, why should they individually get more reward? since their skills are more widely available and their individual day to day decisions have far less impact than those who supervise and theorize. Just because the impact of those who supervise and theorize is not always tangible, does not change the importance or impact.

floid

5 Dec 2005, 09:04 PM

Ha! you seem to be ignorant of the fact that they do receive more reward, but that reward is simply spread over a larger group of people. It is why the largest and most successful companies sell to ordinary everyday people, and those that specialise for the rich only fulfil a niche role.

Besides, why should they individually get more reward? since their skills are more widely available and their individual day to day decisions have far less impact than those who supervise and theorize. Just because the impact of those who supervise and theorize is not always tangible, does not change the importance or impact. Human nature does not change from cradle to grave.
You put a bowl of candy on a table in front of a group of preschool children the greedy ones closest to the bowl will grab all they can, the greedy ones farther away from the bowl will take from the greedy ones who grabbed first until they work out a system of "sharing" among themselves and all the rest will have it eked out to them as rewards for doing "work" for the greedy ones.

It isn't fair and life isn't fair. Never was.

But the intrinsic value of what Paul Allen does/did for a living is no greater than the value of the Central American fieldworker does. The "value" judgment is the agreement that has been made between the powers that be to hold onto the candy they grab from the bowl and slowly eke it out to everyone else in a "system" they ostensibly call "an economy". The "value" propostition is completely a product of human psychology, even though many people would like to call it a natural law.

Fact is this world would be better place if the poor were much, much less poor and the rich were much, much less rich --- locally, nationally, and globally.

Purple-Silver Fox

5 Dec 2005, 09:23 PM

People in the US view the government the same way that most people in the world view their own: lazy, ineffectual, overpriced and corrupt.
True, but in other places the reactions vary: there are also demands for the government to do more, or to reform, not only to withdraw.

And, like the rest of the world, they scream bloody murder if you cut their favorite pet entitlement. I view it as a necessary evil that should only do what no other entity can, with as much local control as possible.
Yes, there should be local democratic control. The centralization of the previous ages should be selectively undone. But why shouldn't that exist for other centralized entities, like corporations?

i think it's very important to have a wealth distribution system, and i think we need a more effective one.Assuming that the poorest people can still meet their basic needs, why?
Assuming that; because of democratic principles. Money is power, and democracy abhors uncontrolled concentration of power.

... i think every person should have the same security and opportunity to fulfill his or her potential.
You assume a few things with this principle:
* Everyone wants security.
* Security and opportunity provided by gov't is not more stultifying than working for it.
* People will in fact live up to their potential if afforded security and opportunity, and that they will appreciate having these resources at their disposal instead of merely feeling false pride.

I agree that widely available education is a public good (if students are held to standards), but having freely available material resources is limiting to those who can do better, as well as begging for abuse.

* Look at the money in insurance companies. It is not an economic imperative to organize insurance privately or publicly, but a political choice.
* Like you said, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Paying taxes is no joy, neither is following the law or keeping an eye on politics.
* Yes, they will do better because they have less external circumstances to blame it on - whether they are a real impediment or an imagined.

Assuming that everyone in an open market gets a reward appropriate for their efforts, is assuming they have equal opportunities. If the socio-economic strata differ so widely, some people are going to have a head start and others will have severe handicaps - regardless of their abilities or efforts. Paul Allen is an example of this: he started in higher social circles and thus had enough free time, funds and education available to start up.
If such resources are available for everyone, then we can judge people by their wealth.

Paul Allen's money won't help. The equivalent of his net worth is funneled to sub-Saharan Africa every year, for minimal results. Economist James Shikwati explains why.
The misuse of money is to blame mostly on the absence of a functioning government, according to the article. Lately, micro-credit has been given more attention and that is a good thing. The market would not supply it, because micro-credit yields interest only slowly.

The hard fact is that the open market, with its limitations, is an unmatched engine for growth. The way people talk about getting shat on and "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" it's as if the 20th century didn't even happen.
The 20th century was also the century of the social security, while a free market has existed from the dawn of time. Capitalism took its form between 1000 and 1500 AD, and has always been a force that increases wealth and freedom for few, while externalizing the costs to whatever is available, be it colonies, the lower class or the environment.

The free market is a powerful force, but is up to us to draw the lines between which it has to function.

DevRock

5 Dec 2005, 09:27 PM

placid_panic

5 Dec 2005, 11:05 PM

That would make sense if the poorest people now didn't have wealth unimaginable to kings only 100 years ago: miraculous health elixirs (e.g., drugs brought to you by the pharma industry, most of which are affordable), magic communication devices (cellphones and computers), etc. etc.

The hard fact is that the open market, with its limitations, is an unmatched engine for growth. The way people talk about getting shat on and "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" it's as if the 20th century didn't even happen.

the poorest people now don't have those things. they are sleeping in the park. they are asking me to spare any change on the way out of the grocery store. they are finding that the only people willing to employ them are pimps and drug dealers. oh, and this guy (http://www.bumvertising.com/). it's horrifying and i see it with my own eyes every time i leave the house. on my way home from work, on cold, rainy december days nearly every intersection is occupied by one or more persons with a handmade cardboard sign asking for help. it only continues to get worse.

modern hooverville (http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0419/040512_news_tentcity.php).

vastly outnumbering them are the ranks of the working poor, those lucky enough to be employed and still struggling to support families and stay afloat. someone being paid minimum wage must work more than twice the standard 40 hour week in order to afford a fair market value two bedroom apartment. all it takes is an injury or illness to leave these folks without a place to live and food to eat. and welfare is a joke. it would take less time and energy and be more profitable to have a part time job than to navigate the dshs gauntlet in return for their paltry offerings.

Hypnos

6 Dec 2005, 01:37 AM

floid:

So, in your opinion, all the wealth generated over the ages is by toil, and never by using one's brain? That organization, resource allocation and technological innovations are illusory, and just codewords for exploitation of laborers? Next time you use your computer, medicine, synthetic textiles, etc. etc. please reevaluate your position. Physical labor goes only as far as the physique; ideas are exponential. Capitalism provides the incentives for ideas.

And, of course there's not intrinsic value -- value is subject relative. Paul Allen's wealth is not a question of fair or unfair, because that would presuppose an objective value system. He simply created a product people like, so people paid for it.

placid_panic:

* You're just describing your locale -- how do you know that's not an outlier? Please provide statistics.

* The poverty rate in the US is quite low. It's even lower in European states with large welfare systems, but overall economic growth is far lower over there -- it's ultimately self-defeating, and they're beginning to feel the fiscal crunch already in maintaining their welfare states.

* What you describe is unfortunate, but it's really not that bad. Spend some time in a communist or highly corrupt country or province (e.g, West Bengal, India), and you'll see suffering of a scope and depth that you cannot imagine -- I'll spare you the examples. Everyone's so busy trying to get a handout there's no economic growth, and the bottom falls out. This is borne out by statistics: economic growth, low poverty rates, low infant mortality are all correlated with economic freedom.

PSF:

* Corporations are held to account by two forces: shareholders and the law in case of fraud -- that's all there should be. If profits are going up with lawful operation, they're doing something right for both investors and customers. Any attempt at intervention, i.e. economic planning, will fail as it always does. America's shining example is Amtrak.

* Money is political power insofar as the gov't is charged with intervening in the economy. Moderate regulation, open up trade, eliminate subsidies and retract our military influence, and the problem will go away.

* Why would anyone judge another by his wealth? Wealth just indicates he provided a desirable product or service -- good for him. What you should care about is what he's done for _you_.

* On the benefits of welfare:

- Are you claiming that insurance administered and underwritten by gov't bureaucracy would be as efficient as the many private alternatives? In fact, it's not -- social security and gov't pensions vastly underperform private annuities and funds.

- None of paying taxes, following byzantine laws nor having to kowtow to politicians should be necessary. It's just money, time and effort funneled to people, politicians, who have little to offer.

- That would be rational, but in my experience people are more prone to feel entitled than gracious when they can expect handouts.

As I've already stated, education should be freely available. With family advantages, at least one is accountable to the parent; in any event, it should be the parent's prerogative to dispose of wealth as they see fit. This is an important incentive in the market, and something people would find a way to do even if prohibited.

* Tch, read more carefully: free money is what's propping up these malfunctioning governments. Free money is what always props up gov'ts -- people beg for handouts, sociopathic politicians shore up their power with these handouts.

* Colonialism was a free market, with the huge tax burden of monarchies on their economies, corporate charters granted by royal edict, class divisions encoded by law, etc. etc.? I'm afraid you are grossly misinformed. Furthermore, colonial mercantile prosperity pales compared to the economic growth of modern quasi-capitalist states.

Hypnos

6 Dec 2005, 01:40 AM

Bravo, jread. I completely agree with you! Sadly, I have NO faith whatsoever that the majority of this country is altruistic enough, smart enough or whatever to ever achieve a level of greatness we once desired. I really do feel like this culture has been absorbed by consumerism, greed, status, religious extremism, false heroes, incredible selfishness, arrogance, etc. and there is no turning back without a major effort on the part of a small group of very smart and influencial people.

:shock:
And the "small group of very smart and influential people" would not typify arrogance? Would not their particular vision of greatness amount to tyranny? What do you think is happening right now with current administration, with the tacit approval of the electorate who are riven by an irrational fear of terrorism?

The US, and the world, would be a much better place if people just minded their own damn business. Make money, not war.

placid_panic

6 Dec 2005, 12:21 PM

* You're just describing your locale -- how do you know that's not an outlier? Please provide statistics.

* The poverty rate in the US is quite low. It's even lower in European states with large welfare systems, but overall economic growth is far lower over there -- it's ultimately self-defeating, and they're beginning to feel the fiscal crunch already in maintaining their welfare states.

* What you describe is unfortunate, but it's really not that bad. Spend some time in a communist or highly corrupt country or province (e.g, West Bengal, India), and you'll see suffering of a scope and depth that you cannot imagine -- I'll spare you the examples. Everyone's so busy trying to get a handout there's no economic growth, and the bottom falls out. This is borne out by statistics: economic growth, low poverty rates, low infant mortality are all correlated with economic freedom.

official poverty statistics in the united states (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf)

"The official poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 2003."

that's according to the federal government's definition of poverty. in 1965, when food accounted for about a third of most families' expenditure, the government defined the poverty level as three times the cost of the "economy food plan" as defined by the usda. that definition has remain unchanged to this day. however, food no longer occupies so great a proportion of the average budget.

"In 1999, the income of a family at the poverty line was $17,020. This was 28.49 percent of the median income in the U.S. In 1959 a family at the poverty line had an income that was 42.64 percent of the median income. Thus a poor family in 1999 had relatively less income than a poor family in 1959." - wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States)

the intro to a study by the economic policy institute (http://www.epinet.org/books/hardships_intro.pdf). they found that families making 200% of the federal poverty level or less experience about the same level of hardship as families making less than the federal poverty level. about 29% of families fall into this category. this was in 2001, and the administration certainly hasn't been doing anything to improve those numbers.

it is lower in european states. those same european states that host about four times as many seekers of political asylum as north american states. people here complain about illegal mexican immigrants; imagine living next to an eastern europe that has fallen to pieces since switching to an "unmatched engine for growth."

i know there are places where things are a lot worse. i don't buy bananas, chocolate or coffee. this thread started off being about americans, and america is unmatched in terms of economic disparity. it's absurd to have a few people with the power to buy out whole countries while millions can't afford basic necessities.

Biff_Loman

6 Dec 2005, 03:04 PM

* There's no free lunch. Taxes in Canada are outrageous and health care is a kafkaesque nightmare in the more populous provinces (a homegrown take (http://imdb.com/title/tt0338135/) on the subject, though health care efficacy is a complicated subject of its own). At least, they don't imprison their own citizens over petty drug offenses and blow through cash on unjustified wars.

I dunno about the kafkaesque nightmare. It's actually quite convenient when one has to deal with minor and/or strange complaints. Got a weird mark on your neck? Just go into a walk-in clinic and someone will check you out in an hour.

Also, a friend of my wife had some strange symptoms, so she went in for an examination. Bloodwork revealed leukemia, and her prognosis was two months left to live. Let me tell you: the system moved in a hurry! They admitted her immediately and had her on chemotherapy that same day. They had her hooked up before her admittance paperwork was processed.

Canada's healthcare system gets a bed reputation precisely because it is "universal" (i.e., we have no private health care option). My wife's friend needed medical attention immediately and got it. You know what? That means that someone else who was scheduled for chemotherapy that day, at that hospital, was probably bumped. "Sorry, but you have six months to live; someone who will die in two months will get chemo today and you'll have to wait until tomorrow." Many people find this disconcerting, and yet I tell you: both patients will receive adequate treatment.

My wife has a bachelor of science in health science. Canada's health care system is NOT worse than America's in terms of service. I'll have to cite some of the research she's done, perhaps in an edit. People get jumpy when the system screws up because there is no private alternative.

One more anecdote, for those of you who can stomach anecdotal evidence: my one American friend went into surgery for kidney stones. They had to patch a piece of skin, which he was told prior to surgery would be taken from his cheek. During the operation, the surgeon changed his mind and removed the skin from my friend's penis. . . only, he took too much. My friend has been having difficulty with erections after this. Much pain. Now, he's SOL - he doesn't have enough money to sue for malpractice, and he can't pay for corrective surgery. In Canada, he could just march down to the hospital and say "Look, something bad happened, and I need some surgery that isn't really optional," and have his unit fixed for free.

We can argue economics all day long, but I'm a strong supporter of public health care, and this is directly due to my very positive experiences with the Canadian system.

ptGatsby

6 Dec 2005, 03:10 PM

We can argue economics all day long, but I'm a strong supporter of public health care, and this is directly due to my very positive experiences with the Canadian system.

I would like to say the opposite. Multiple of my family members have passed through it with cancer, all of which were misdiagnosed among many other problems. I've collected enough stories from friends and family to no longer believe this in any sense whatsoever.

I will say, however, that Canada's system is very good... for healthy people.

Purple-Silver Fox

6 Dec 2005, 03:44 PM

... Physical labor ... Capitalism provides the incentives for ideas.But opportunity depending on position.

And, of course there's not intrinsic value -- value is subject relative. Paul Allen's wealth is not a question of fair or unfair, because that would presuppose an objective value system. He simply created a product people like, so people paid for it.And then he used that position to obstruct free market-mechanics.

* The poverty rate in the US is quite low. It's even lower in European states with large welfare systems, but overall economic growth is far lower over there -- it's ultimately self-defeating, and they're beginning to feel the fiscal crunch already in maintaining their welfare states.There are two problems: unemployment and too early pensioning. This is caused by an exaggerated increase of the pressure on the job. This was allowed by labor unions ánd companies because it allowed them to raise wages and still cut total labor cost. The solutions: redistribution of labor and reallocation of taxes away from labor to consumption.

* What you describe is unfortunate, but it's really not that bad. Spend some time in a communist or highly corrupt country or province (e.g, West Bengal, India), and you'll see suffering of a scope and depth that you cannot imagine -- I'll spare you the examples. Everyone's so busy trying to get a handout there's no economic growth, and the bottom falls out. This is borne out by statistics: economic growth, low poverty rates, low infant mortality are all correlated with economic freedom.Corruption and lack of democracy are the problems. All countries with a planned economy have never been democratic; we have yet to see a democratic planned economy. Still, even with that handicap - and a boycot - Cuba is doing better than Haiti.

* Corporations are held to account by two forces: shareholders and the law in case of fraud -- that's all there should be. If profits are going up with lawful operation, they're doing something right for both investors and customers. Any attempt at intervention, i.e. economic planning, will fail as it always does. America's shining example is Amtrak.
So slavery is allowed? Corporations must function within the limits set by democratic procedures.
Don't tell me that corporations don't do economic planning! They are prime examples of planned economies.
The subsidies and priviliges given to Amtrak are negligible in comparison to those given to airline companies.
"Much is made of the $30 billion spent on Amtrak over the last 30 years, but in that same period the federal government spent $1.89 TRILLION on air and highway modes, according to the New York Times and Washington Post." (http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm)

* Money is political power insofar as the gov't is charged with intervening in the economy. Moderate regulation, open up trade, eliminate subsidies and retract our military influence, and the problem will go away.If you have no money, you have no economic rights, except as potentially harvestable resource. The initiative lies entirely with the "haves".

* Why would anyone judge another by his wealth? Wealth just indicates he provided a desirable product or service -- good for him. What you should care about is what he's done for _you_.
You do, since you seem to consider a person's economic position to be depending largely on his/her personal efforts, ideas, work ethic and other qualities.

* On the benefits of welfare:
- Are you claiming that insurance administered and underwritten by gov't bureaucracy would be as efficient as the many private alternatives? In fact, it's not -- social security and gov't pensions vastly underperform private annuities and funds.Because they can blacklist anyone they deem to high a risk. It's like the non-public education here: any problem student is thrown out, to be taken care of by the public system.

- None of paying taxes, following byzantine laws nor having to kowtow to politicians should be necessary. It's just money, time and effort funneled to people, politicians, who have little to offer.Politics is solving conflicts in a peaceful way. I prefer saliva and ink to flow above blood.

- That would be rational, but in my experience people are more prone to feel entitled than gracious when they can expect handouts.Handouts can be made conditional. It is possible to require efforts in education or jobs, and it is possible to monitor and support their progress. Private charity cannot do that. I never give to beggars.

As I've already stated, education should be freely available. With family advantages, at least one is accountable to the parent; in any event, it should be the parent's prerogative to dispose of wealth as they see fit. This is an important incentive in the market, and something people would find a way to do even if prohibited.

* Tch, read more carefully: free money is what's propping up these malfunctioning governments. Free money is what always props up gov'ts -- people beg for handouts, sociopathic politicians shore up their power with these handouts.There were bad governments before the free money, they won't disappear if that is taken away. Though I do agree that a government is not the appropriate channel. Anyway, there are enough examples of non-profit organization that have set up structures that made it possible for farmers to earn their livings and have withdrawn afterwards.

* Colonialism was a free market, with the huge tax burden of monarchies on their economies, corporate charters granted by royal edict, class divisions encoded by law, etc. etc.? I'm afraid you are grossly misinformed. Furthermore, colonial mercantile prosperity pales compared to the economic growth of modern quasi-capitalist states.Compare with China, which is definitely part of the capitalistic world. Companies also tax their employees to hand out profit. Banks decide whether someone without sufficient funds is allowed to start an enterprise. Class mobility is dwindling. The proportions of the classes have not changed very much.

In...TP

6 Dec 2005, 04:02 PM

Now, he's SOL - he doesn't have enough money to sue for malpractice, and he can't pay for corrective surgery.

If he can't find a lawyer that would take this on a contingency fee, he is in sad shape. There has to be more to the story.

sbw

6 Dec 2005, 05:35 PM

are these (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/230510_laborers29.html) people not productive?

i guess even the average (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/224532_overextendhousing17.html) person isn't productive enough: The median annual income for a family of four in King County is $72,250. According to the Center for Housing Policy, it would take an annual income of $76,350 -- more than $4,000 above the median -- to qualify for a $245,000 home in the Seattle metropolitan area. The difficulty for would-be homeowners is that the median home price in King County is now $355,000.

what about teachers, nurses and police officers? (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20050524/workpoor.gif)

this is in the city that provided the freedom and opportunity for paul allen to "earn" all that money. it's also the city that paid 300 million dollars for a stadium for his football team, and is now about pay 50 million for his streetcar.

you didn't answer my question. I asked you if productive people, in a general sense (while using your paul allen example), deserved to keep the money that they earned...and you didn't respond to that query at all, instead providing us with completely irrelevant data which does not have anything to do with the original topic. typical commie-lib bait and switch when your utopian idiocy has painted itself into a corner.

oh, and floid was totally incoherent...as a result, I don't think he repudiated my point at all.

Scott

sbw

6 Dec 2005, 05:38 PM

the intrinsic value of what Paul Allen does/did for a living is no greater than the value of the Central American fieldworker does.

I'm sorry, but this is just fucking stupid. really, NOBODY agrees with this. well, placid panic, but that's it.

look up the definition of "scarcity"...the fact is that a "fieldworker" does work that you, me, or anyone else can do. it's not intrinsically valuable if it can be replicated endlessly. it by definition has very little value. this all supports hypnos' "rented mules" comment earlier.

Scott

floid

6 Dec 2005, 05:59 PM

I'm sorry, but this is just fucking stupid. Until someone decides that you're a "rented mule" and you disagree with that, I suppose it could seem that way.

look up the definition of "scarcity"...the fact is that a "fieldworker" does work that you, me, or anyone else can do. it's not intrinsically valuable if it can be replicated endlessly. it by definition has very little value. this all supports hypnos' "rented mules" comment earlier.

Scott A little more research into the history of Microsoft will show you unequivocally that any average human being from anywhere in the world can/would/could be as innovative technologically as Microsoft has been given the cash and being in the right place at the right time. They have consistently "bought" or "pirated" their advancements from elsewhere -- very little orginated within the ranks of Microsoft. They are marketing geniuses but technical morons as anyone who has had to clean up their messes for the past twenty years will tell you.

So no, they did not earn their billions unless you consider duping a computer illiterate populace into throwing money at you to be a form of earning -- sounds more like large scale panhandling to me.

You could argue that their abysmally substandard code has "created a lot jobs over the years" and be correct. But all the armies of workers who've been troubleshooting BSOD's could have spent that time doing something far more useful than fixing Microsoft mistakes.

sbw

6 Dec 2005, 06:12 PM

Until someone decides that you're a "rented mule" and you disagree with that, I suppose it could seem that way.

that's the whole point. nobody can make me into a rented mule, because I am not completely bereft of job skills.

Scott

floid

6 Dec 2005, 06:25 PM

that's the whole point. nobody can make me into a rented mule, because I am not completely bereft of job skills.

Scott The person who works in the fields is not bereft of job skills either.
Elitists merely choose to look upon his skills as not as valuable as their own so that they can justify the exorbitant pay they receive for plying them.

I am not saying everyone should be exactly equal in what they are compensated for their work, just that the current inequalities are so great as to be completely insane and if people do not voluntarily change then they will be eventually forced to change by circumstances beyond their control.

kendoiwan

6 Dec 2005, 06:28 PM

that's the whole point. nobody can make me into a rented mule, because I am not completely bereft of job skills.

Scott

But if your skills can be taught to someone in another country who is willing to do the work for a third of the price you are, how would you make out then? What's at question imo is how do the weathiest societies in the world make provisions for the less fortunate among them. Because under the current system having winners mean there will be losers, in most cases being a loser isn't your fault. I don't believe that we should just toss them by the wayside.

placid_panic

6 Dec 2005, 07:56 PM

you didn't answer my question. I asked you if productive people, in a general sense (while using your paul allen example), deserved to keep the money that they earned...and you didn't respond to that query at all, instead providing us with completely irrelevant data which does not have anything to do with the original topic. typical commie-lib bait and switch when your utopian idiocy has painted itself into a corner.

oh, and floid was totally incoherent...as a result, I don't think he repudiated my point at all.

Scott

"commie-lib bait and switch"? for christ's sake. i provided a relevant response. you are trying to force me to answer "yes" or "no" to a loaded question. why so hostile?

i believe productive people deserve to have their needs met. i believe allowing a few individuals to hoard resources at the cost of other individuals being unable to meet their needs is not only morally wrong but unsustainable and bad for the whole society. do you believe that a person whose early life was spent helping his family work to support themselves rather than exploring new technology and attending a private school doesn't deserve a house to live in?

placid_panic

6 Dec 2005, 07:57 PM

that's the whole point. nobody can make me into a rented mule, because I am not completely bereft of job skills.

Scott

thanks, in part, to a whole bunch of "rented mules".

ptGatsby

6 Dec 2005, 08:03 PM

The person who works in the fields is not bereft of job skills either.
Elitists merely choose to look upon his skills as not as valuable as their own so that they can justify the exorbitant pay they receive for plying them.

Ridiculous.

Economics 101, stripped away from moral views, states that the more people who are capable of filling a job, the less valuable the job is.

It has nothing to do with elitists. At any given time, those that are capable of filling the void determine the amount of supply. The available jobs, demand, determines the other side.

What is unfair is that not everyone is given an equal chance to have those skills, not that some earn more.

Even in microsoft's chance, they should never have been able to do it. All these people didn't fill in a void. They had it done! Why didn't they make it happen? Even the companies that could of done it at the time failed to provide it. It took systematic stupidity for them to succeed.

Monopolies are inherently bad - sometimes the capital needs are just so huge that development wouldn't occur without a monopoly pricing. Like trains in the old days, I guess.

I am not saying everyone should be exactly equal in what they are compensated for their work, just that the current inequalities are so great as to be completely insane and if people do not voluntarily change then they will be eventually forced to change by circumstances beyond their control.

Yes, that is true.

Yet, if the top ten richest people in the US gave away all their their net worth (ignoring that Bill Gates, for example, gives it away by the billions... truely evil he be), it would amount to no more than $1000 one time purchase for everyone in the US.

Every one of them have created a company that provides 5 digit+ salaries to thousands of people+ Those companies create jobs upon themselves in way of cafeterias, coffee shops, etc.

But if your skills can be taught to someone in another country who is willing to do the work for a third of the price you are, how would you make out then? What's at question imo is how do the weathiest societies in the world make provisions for the less fortunate among them. Because under the current system having winners mean there will be losers, in most cases being a loser isn't your fault. I don't believe that we should just toss them by the wayside.

How about we reverse the viewpoint...

That means that someone with no skills can learn what I do and get a job! Isn't that the point? Or should only the 'elite' have access to jobs?

Though I do agree on the less fortunate. I also believe in charity... which ironically was more effective in keeping wages more equal than government intervention - at least, in the US. And it seems true in Europe as well, where saving and getting ahead is a futile excersize.

To put that in perspective, Tokyo/Osaka are the most expensive places to live - London is 3rd. with 4-12 being in Europe alone... 13 is NY.

Even as a measure of PPP ( http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm ), the US ranks fourth... though in general it should rank 3rd.

To further highlight this;

That pattern began to change in the 1970s. Since 1979, for example, the incomes of families in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution have grown by less than 1 percent each year, and only households in the top 20 percent have enjoyed income growth comparable to that in the earlier period. For a small group at the very top of the economic ladder, however, incomes have been growing explosively.

There are tons of correlations during this time. Removal of gold and the use of fiat currency... That alone gave elites the political power to create money. That's basicly what it comes down to - unequal distribution and first rights to money.

Even a great amount of problems started with various other programs; 1964 was food stamps, 1965 for mediaid, 1974 with SSI. Those are the foundations of the systems you currently have in place.

The problems aren't 'social' or 'capitalism'. Its a problem with the fundamental nature of humans - we want something for free. We gave the power to government, to lobbyists, to unions... and that power has turned on us. You can't legislate morality. Doing so tends to have the exact opposite effect.

kendoiwan

6 Dec 2005, 08:18 PM

How about we reverse the viewpoint...

That means that someone with no skills can learn what I do and get a job! Isn't that the point? Or should only the 'elite' have access to jobs?

Though I do agree on the less fortunate. I also believe in charity... which ironically was more effective in keeping wages more equal than government intervention - at least, in the US. And it seems true in Europe as well, where saving and getting ahead is a futile excersize.

To put that in perspective, Tokyo/Osaka are the most expensive places to live - London is 3rd. with 4-12 being in Europe alone... 13 is NY.

Even as a measure of PPP ( http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm ), the US ranks fourth... though in general it should rank 3rd.

To further highlight this;

That pattern began to change in the 1970s. Since 1979, for example, the incomes of families in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution have grown by less than 1 percent each year, and only households in the top 20 percent have enjoyed income growth comparable to that in the earlier period. For a small group at the very top of the economic ladder, however, incomes have been growing explosively.

There are tons of correlations during this time. Removal of gold and the use of fiat currency... That alone gave elites the political power to create money. That's basicly what it comes down to - unequal distribution and first rights to money.

Even a great amount of problems started with various other programs; 1964 was food stamps, 1965 for mediaid, 1974 with SSI. Those are the foundations of the systems you currently have in place.

The problems aren't 'social' or 'capitalism'. Its a problem with the fundamental nature of humans - we want something for free. We gave the power to government, to lobbyists, to unions... and that power has turned on us. You can't legislate morality. Doing so tends to have the exact opposite effect.

Sorry try again. Take Detriot for example. For at least a century the auto industry has been the primary provider of well paying jobs. Now that the work can be done in, Mexico for instance, for 1/3rd of the price, those jobs are being relocated and there are no equivalent replacements being created in Detriot... the result is Detriot has been in the top ten in Murder and Crime rates since the 1980's and the advent of crack...

Why? Because human beings are going to feed themselves one way or the other... And I can continue because all over the nation locales are seeing their primary industries leave for overseas and NOTHING is replacing those industries.

And yet although we claim to be unable to pay workers a living wage we can afford to pay ceo's 350 times what the entry level employee makes... Something is broken face it my friend...

ptGatsby

6 Dec 2005, 08:32 PM

Sorry try again. Take Detriot for example. For at least a century the auto industry has been the primary provider of well paying jobs. Now that the work can be done in, Mexico for instance, for 1/3rd of the price, those jobs are being relocated and there are no equivalent replacements being created in Detriot... the result is Detriot has been in the top ten in Murder and Crime rates since the 1980's and the advent of crack...

Why? Because human beings are going to feed themselves one way or the other... And I can continue because all over the nation locales are seeing their primary industries leave for overseas and NOTHING is replacing those industries.

You are extrapolating your own position without looking at the mexican position.

How about you write about the underdog, rather than the American elites - yes, that includes you common workers who 'have everything'.

Disportionate levels of wealth aren't a US problem. They are a world problem and the Western world is viewed as the 'CEO'. They aren't 'stealing' anything from you. They are taking what is their's... same as the viewpoints expressed here.

Incidently, a major reason the auto workers are failing is because of pension funds, etc, for the average worker. Along with other benefits and wage hikes. And its going to get worse across the board. Asking for 'more' is a good way of losing everyone. Economic reality rears its ugly head.

And yet although we claim to be unable to pay workers a living wage we can afford to pay ceo's 350 times what the entry level employee makes... Something is broken face it my friend...

And maybe you can explain why lower income wages stopped growing in 1970s instead of saying its broken. What is broken? Taxes have increased, with negative effects. Social services has increased, with negative effects. Legislations passed, negative effects... And so on.

How about instead of saying 'its wrong', you tell me *why* its like this and *why* it wasn't before? This extreme growth is a new development.

I put forth that a large reason for this is because of unintended economic consequences from policies put forth to help the average worker. And the evidence for this is fairly solid, if indirect. Not that you are going to get a thinktank working for the government to make a full study, heh.

floid

6 Dec 2005, 08:42 PM

Ridiculous.
Economics 101, stripped away from moral views, states that the more people who are capable of filling a job, the less valuable the job is.

It has nothing to do with elitists. At any given time, those that are capable of filling the void determine the amount of supply. The available jobs, demand, determines the other side.
If you make things really simple and remove some of the layers of economic obfuscation that are used confuse the issue what do you have left?

You are a father with four children.
You inform them that their paid weekend job is to clean the backyard of leaves and sticks.
There is only one rake and only one child is tall enough to use it effectively.
Three pick up sticks by hand and one rakes.
Do you pay the one that rakes more than you do the three that pick up sticks by hand?

If so how do you explain it them?

Whatever you say and however you try to explain it the three who got less because they didn't have a rake are going to think you're stupid, unfair, and a pretty lousy father -- and they'd be right.
The one who got paid more for using the rake won't complain even though, he too, is aware of the "unfairness" of you compensation system because he doesn't want to give up what he got.

It works exactly the same in the big wide world where everybody thinks that they are a sophisticated adult.

More complexities are introduced as the scale enlarges but the artifices of "Economics 101" described above are designed to skew basic principles of fairness that even small children have no problem understanding so "Daddy and the boy with the rake" never have to explain themselves to everyone else.

kendoiwan

6 Dec 2005, 08:45 PM

You are extrapolating your own position without looking at the mexican position.

How about you write about the underdog, rather than the American elites - yes, that includes you common workers who 'have everything'.

Disportionate levels of wealth aren't a US problem. They are a world problem and the Western world is viewed as the 'CEO'. They aren't 'stealing' anything from you. They are taking what is their's... same as the viewpoints expressed here.

Incidently, a major reason the auto workers are failing is because of pension funds, etc, for the average worker. Along with other benefits and wage hikes. And its going to get worse across the board. Asking for 'more' is a good way of losing everyone. Economic reality rears its ugly head.

And maybe you can explain why lower income wages stopped growing in 1970s instead of saying its broken. What is broken? Taxes have increased, with negative effects. Social services has increased, with negative effects. Legislations passed, negative effects... And so on.

How about instead of saying 'its wrong', you tell me *why* its like this and *why* it wasn't before? This extreme growth is a new development.

I put forth that a large reason for this is because of unintended economic consequences from policies put forth to help the average worker. And the evidence for this is fairly solid, if indirect. Not that you are going to get a thinktank working for the government to make a full study, heh.

I don't recall saying anything about anyone "stealing" anything from anyone... if you wish to make the arguement global then by all means... to put it as concisely as possible... Those with means wish to be compensated for their means while simultaneously spending as little as possible to gain resourses... the current system is one base on exploitation pure and simple... say you grow bananas in a given country. I the "western world" will proceed to force you to sell the banana to me at the cheapest possible rate, I will then turn around and sell it for an inflated price, I win, you lose.

Or let me pose it to it to you like this. Why is it that countries which have large quantities of natural resources rarely benefit from those resources (with the exception of oil because Arabs don't play that shyt, which is why they are public enemies #1) The m.o is the same, if a given gov't has the notion of benefiting from the arrangement we will proceed to destabilize/undermine that regime, and the support one more favorable to our way of thinking the people in that nation be damned ie South America... This is not a mystery.

ptGatsby

6 Dec 2005, 08:59 PM

I the "western world" will proceed to force you to sell the banana to me at the cheapest possible rate, I will then turn around and sell it for an inflated price, I win, you lose.

Completely agree. The word 'Force' is key in this. That makes it an unfree market.

Or let me pose it to it to you like this. Why is it that countries which have large quantities of natural resources rarely benefit from those resources (with the exception of oil because Arabs don't play that shyt, which is why they are public enemies #1) The m.o is the same, if a given gov't has the notion of benefiting from the arrangement we will proceed to destabilize/undermine that regime, and the support one more favorable to our way of thinking the people in that nation be damned ie South America... This is not a mystery.

Again, agree. I don't hold the US to any great halmark of what things should be, that's for sure.

I'm saying the problem is with our solution. That's why it is getting worse! Maybe I got lost in this thread, popping in and out, but I assumed (egad!) that you saying that further intervention is needed. That's the part I disagree with. I believe that the original interventions were largely responsible for the problems we have now! Including the military ones in SA that you are referring to, both past and present.

Losing jobs to mexico is because our standard of life comes at a cost to them, just as you say. And so on.

So maybe we agree more than I thought and was misinterpreting what you were saying. I definately don't deny there is a problem! I dislike the interpretation of the problem, especially when loaded with a lot 'exploitation' -like words. I just want to know *why* its happening. And it hasn't always happened, so its not much to say 'that's the way it is, we need to do something to fix it'. The more we try, the worse it gets. I just want to know why!

kendoiwan

6 Dec 2005, 09:22 PM

Completely agree. The word 'Force' is key in this. That makes it an unfree market.

Again, agree. I don't hold the US to any great halmark of what things should be, that's for sure.

I'm saying the problem is with our solution. That's why it is getting worse! Maybe I got lost in this thread, popping in and out, but I assumed (egad!) that you saying that further intervention is needed. That's the part I disagree with. I believe that the original interventions were largely responsible for the problems we have now! Including the military ones in SA that you are referring to, both past and present.

Losing jobs to mexico is because our standard of life comes at a cost to them, just as you say. And so on.

So maybe we agree more than I thought and was misinterpreting what you were saying. I definately don't deny there is a problem! I dislike the interpretation of the problem, especially when loaded with a lot 'exploitation' -like words. I just want to know *why* its happening. And it hasn't always happened, so its not much to say 'that's the way it is, we need to do something to fix it'. The more we try, the worse it gets. I just want to know why!

Problem is huge. And to be as concise as possible: All of the nations we consider third world and backward are victims of imperialism... "The West" came in fucked shyt up and left it fucked up. They (the 3rd world or the more pc developing nations) are struggling with trying for right the wrongs, accept what was done and move on, and still hold "the west responsible" and that equals chaos, for more reasons than i care to get into. So now you have "The West" wagging fingers for conditions it helped create without taking any responsibility for the conditions. While those nations battle a rightful sense of entitlement, while at the same time wishing to be free of western interference. And meanwhile "the west" continues to undermine those nations in various ways for various reasons that all boil down to exploitation. That's it in a nutshell.

ptGatsby

6 Dec 2005, 10:13 PM

Problem is huge. And to be as concise as possible: All of the nations we consider third world and backward are victims of imperialism... "The West" came in fucked shyt up and left it fucked up. They (the 3rd world or the more pc developing nations) are struggling with trying for right the wrongs, accept what was done and move on, and still hold "the west responsible" and that equals chaos, for more reasons than i care to get into. So now you have "The West" wagging fingers for conditions it helped create without taking any responsibility for the conditions. While those nations battle a rightful sense of entitlement, while at the same time wishing to be free of western interference. And meanwhile "the west" continues to undermine those nations in various ways for various reasons that all boil down to exploitation. That's it in a nutshell.

That much I can agree with. Apologies for misdirecting my complaints about local effects! :)

Hypnos

7 Dec 2005, 12:31 AM

placid_panic:

What would be useful would be to compare poverty statistics using the same measures between the US and other countries, then observing the correlation with economic freedom. According to the UN (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/pdf/hdr04_HDI.pdf), the US ranks 17th in poverty. If you discard non-peer states (small, ethnically homogeneous), the US ranking rises to ~8. Not great, not bad. The US ranks between 4 and 9 on most indexes of economic freedom, with no peer states ranking higher. So you can say on poverty alone, the US is -8, i.e. lagging.

Taking the UN Human Development Index overall, the US ranks 4th among peers, with the highest economic freedom. I think that's pretty good, esp. considering the piss-poor state of education in the US and the economic upside.

PSF:

* Mobility: Do you have any good global stats on income mobility? I can't find any. According to the Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/publications/306775.html), income mobility in the US is as high as 60% over the long term, which is comparable to that of peer states.

* Planning: the difference is that corporations are answerable to shareholders, as are individual units with corporations -- economic planning is decentralized and accountable. The gov't has no such accountability -- it can borrow, print more money, and go into deficit. If a corporation tries the same, shareholder value crashes.

This is why planned economies are inevitably corrupt economies: the temptation is too great.

* Paul Allen's monopoly: Is Microsoft a monopoly? Is there a deadweight loss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss) in the computing industry? It's far from clear, and Microsoft's monopoly is laughable compared to historical monopolies which invariably have gov't assistance (e.g., the Bell telephone company).

* Money and economic rights: that's not quite right. If you have no assets, tangible as in money, or intangible as in education, then you're dead in the water. For example, I have very little money, but I have quite a bit of power due to my education -- I'm currently choosing to be impoverished.

* Capitalism and ethics: You are mistaken. Paris Hilton has no work ethic or discernible skills, and while I don't think very highly of her, I do not begrudge her wealth.

* Peaceful conflict resolution: I think this is more the role of the judiciary, not the legislature, ie. interpretation of voluntary contracts versus negotiation over gov't coercion.

* Private charity and accountability: If anything, private charities hold their beneficiaries more accountable than public entitlements because they don't have a political axe to grind. Drug treatment programs are an example -- most have strict rules.

Finally, I quote your last paragraph:

Compare with China, which is definitely part of the capitalistic world. Companies also tax their employees to hand out profit. Banks decide whether someone without sufficient funds is allowed to start an enterprise. Class mobility is dwindling. The proportions of the classes have not changed very much.

* China is hardly capitalist -- it's just less socialistic. It's economic freedom is far behind that of European states or the US.

* Companies tax their employess? That's quite sophistic. Shareholders own the company, not the employees, who have agreed to work-for-pay. If they want to do it differently, they should buy shares or demand options.

* Banks are not parasitic. If they think they can recoup the interest in the money they lend you, they'll lend you the money -- a win-win proposition.

* Class mobility and proportion: as discussed above in the Urban Institute survey, mobility has not waned, and inequality has only increased because productivity has. But, again, why does inequality matter?

indie

7 Dec 2005, 06:42 AM

I think you're trying to say that CEO pay is too high, and that corporate boards don't represent shareholders or employees well. This may well be so. In fact, it is likely that while executive remuneration has grown exponentially, constant-currency salaries at the bottom of the "totem pole" have decreased. This is precisely as it should be: outsourcing, offshoring and downsizing are all good things if long-term profits go up -- these are real gains in efficiency overall.

So who should benefit from long-term profits? Technically, shareholders should benefit from long-term profits. That is usually why people invest in corporations. The downside is that those at the top of the "totem pole" are more concerned with keeping their status and wealth intact than they are of their duty to the shareholders. The sheer enormity of their dilemma (especially for those in the highest positions of power in the most conglomerated corporations) creates problems. Especially when "offshore" lack of laws are to be considered.

Take this example:

Corporation Q is successful. It makes profit. What to do with that profit?

A ---> invest or reinvest in the company for supposed "long-term" wealth creation for the company's long-term potential to create wealth

B ---> dividend it to shareholders for immediate "short term" benefits gained from paying dividends (hmm. . . I'm thinking of the tax benefits and losses from both sides)

Option A yields: higher "realized" salaries or wages according to those who get to decide how much people should be paid AND the greater benefit from those who decide who gets the benefit from that long-term wealth creation. It's intuitively obvious where the flaw is here.

Option B yields: higher "unrealized" wealth for the supposedly most "valued" owners of the company (according to supposed corporate bylaws) . . . the shareholders. And most often the shareholders held in highest esteem, "preferred shareholders" they're called, get say before anyone else does. And how, exactly, does this happen? Corporate entities create "packages" of salary and benefits and stock options that are usually structured around self-preservation.

When "realized" wealth > "unrealized" wealth, those in charge like to keep it that way. Their incentive is to keep paying employees the least possible wage, while upgrading their lifestyles accordingly, at the hidden expense.

When "realized" wealth < "unrealized" wealth, those in charge are likely to structure the system to tailor their supposed "expenses." Lavish corporate vacations or retreats of tax-deductable expenses and such.

Naive as it may be, I do maintain a strong belief that small business is the true engine of genius behind the wonders of this modern capitalism. Problems arise when small businesses become eaten or taken over by the massively delusional "Fortune 500" crowd with plans for world domination and seemingly infinite growth.

Hypnos

7 Dec 2005, 07:01 AM

You're supposing a moral hazard where there is none.

If the executives can keep total expenses low while increasing shareholder value, good, that's what they're supposed to do. If this means keeping worker wages low while they fly around in supersonic corporate jets, fine. It's fine because if this lavishness starts to hurt the bottom line, the shareholder can move his stake to a more profitable competitor In doing so, the executives' own stock holdings will diminish in value, whether preferred or common.

When to pay dividends and when to reinvest is an interesting issue. Again, the shareholder can always move his money if he feels like profits are not being put to good use. For example, Microsoft has $43B in cash, and people getting pissed; still, most are holding out in case Longhorn really takes off.

Also, you're underestimating the power of corporations. The lone genius might have an interest in running his own firm or creating a start-up (e.g., Google), but corporations can realize economies of scale. A simple example is computers: they would not be cheap if mega-corps like IBM and HP hadn't pushed the envelope. It's nice to root for the little guy to shake things up (again, like Google), but only because we hope they bring something to the table even more valuable than scale.

indie

7 Dec 2005, 07:29 AM

Also, you're underestimating the power of corporations. The lone genius might have an interest in running his own firm or creating a start-up (e.g., Google), but corporations can realize economies of scale. A simple example is computers: they would not be cheap if mega-corps like IBM and HP hadn't pushed the envelope. It's nice to root for the little guy to shake things up (again, like Google), but only because we hope they bring something to the table even more valuable than scale.

The difference between companies like IBM and HP vs Google is that Google does not sell tangible products. Its once-upon-a-time statement to: "Do No Evil" is inherently correct (and should be standard) for companies of its kind: data mining/identity theft are minefields for people who wish to "do evil." The difference between Microsoft and Google is sooo glaringly obvious. Microsoft merges with and conspires with promising tech to make a profit and exploit or spam users at the expense of the users (zero sum game), whereas Google invests in promising tech at the expense of those *interested* in the tech, to give it to users. (+1 game).

And I'm not sure how much this analysis of the tech industry fits with "does America even care any more?" ;)

Hypnos

7 Dec 2005, 08:07 AM

Eh, we'll see what Google is up to in a few years. Microsoft was similarly bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in the 80s. In any event, I don't think Microsoft has done anything wrong -- they filled a void for user-friendly software on IBM's PC platform, then provided continuity and expanded features for its users. It's easy to call users stupid, but MS hit a sweet spot between usability and flexibility; perhaps the balance is changing with OSX.

jread's inital post was a rant -- don't feel bad! ;)

sbw

7 Dec 2005, 04:17 PM

But if your skills can be taught to someone in another country who is willing to do the work for a third of the price you are, how would you make out then? What's at question imo is how do the weathiest societies in the world make provisions for the less fortunate among them. Because under the current system having winners mean there will be losers, in most cases being a loser isn't your fault. I don't believe that we should just toss them by the wayside.

every society in human history has had a lower class--it's completely unavoidable. it's less that "under the current system having winners mean there will be losers" than "under EVERY system having winners means there will be losers." statistics conclusively show that the standard of living (as measured by lifespan, infant mortality, etc.) is highest for the lowest class of society in the nations with the greatest degree of economic freedom (i.e., the losers eat better and live longer in the countries where non-interventionist economic policy allows the winners to get rich.)

ptgatsby already flipped your argument to illustrate that everyone can go and get the job skills that I have--I didn't even go to college!

Scott

Lee

7 Dec 2005, 04:46 PM

Most "class" statistics are very misleading.

In 1st world countries, those who are in the poorest 20% actually have good reason for being there. This is because these class boundries are transient. A study conducted in the 90's found that over the course of about a decade, only 3% of those in the lowest 20% income bracket were still in that bracket 10 years later.

This is simply because age is a major factor in life. Knowledge and experience accumulate over many years, social contacts are made, promotions occur and wealth is built. Most of those in the lowest income brackets are also very young, and are starting out in their careers, without a family to support or a business of their own, a pension etc. so even though their wage may be in the lowest 20%, that does not mean they are poor.

The statistics can also be very misleading, because accumulated capital is very difficult to measure, and often not measured at all. There are business owners who may go through a couple of bad years, and rely on their accumulated capital to support them, but during this time they may actually have negative income and may be considered poor through misinterpretation of the statistics.

The majority of millionairres in the US are not the upper class snobs depicted in the movies, but are self made men who were not always rich e.g. most of them do not own luxury vehicles, buy extremely expensive suits or eat gourmet food. This was highlighted by an amusing story I read of where journalists were conducting interviews with about a dozen local millionaires. They rented an expensive hotel room and hired gourmet chefs for these millionaires, yet none of the millionaires touched the gourmet buffet (except the crackers) and squirmed around uncomfortably in an unfamiliar environment.

My point is that the economic freedom offered by a free market allows for movement between these "classes" that no other system can match.

I would also like to point out that the "free market" is not free, because like political freedom, it is subject to the same paradox. A system of absolute freedom means freedom for nobody, because everyone is potentially at the whim of a person who is bigger and stronger than they, because they are free to do as they wish. In the same way, a free market requires a government legal system so that it can actually be a free market.

In a nutshell: A free market is only free if there is a legal system in place to prevent destructive competition between individuals, thereby forcing individuals to out compete each other in a constructive sense, which leads of a snowball affect of increasing the efficieny at distributing limited recources to people in a way that they actually want.

kendoiwan

7 Dec 2005, 05:28 PM

every society in human history has had a lower class--it's completely unavoidable. it's less that "under the current system having winners mean there will be losers" than "under EVERY system having winners means there will be losers." statistics conclusively show that the standard of living (as measured by lifespan, infant mortality, etc.) is highest for the lowest class of society in the nations with the greatest degree of economic freedom (i.e., the losers eat better and live longer in the countries where non-interventionist economic policy allows the winners to get rich.)

ptgatsby already flipped your argument to illustrate that everyone can go and get the job skills that I have--I didn't even go to college!

Scott

Doesn't answer my question. If you live in Detroit and your entire industry up and goes. That's all you've ever done for 20 yrs. what happens now? That is the issue at stake for me... Your pension goes the way of Enron. Now what? That is the question.

DevRock

7 Dec 2005, 09:07 PM

And the "small group of very smart and influential people" would not typify arrogance? Would not their particular vision of greatness amount to tyranny? What do you think is happening right now with current administration, with the tacit approval of the electorate who are riven by an irrational fear of terrorism?

The US, and the world, would be a much better place if people just minded their own damn business. Make money, not war.

True. However, I don't think it's a stretch to say the "smart" people in power now don't have many good intentions unless it benefits a few. I guess I should have stated that more clearly. :)

placid_panic

7 Dec 2005, 09:47 PM

every society in human history has had a lower class--it's completely unavoidable.

even if the first part of that statement were true the second part would not be true. here (http://www.twinoaks.org/) is one example of such a society. i could give many others.

statistics conclusively show that the standard of living (as measured by lifespan, infant mortality, etc.) is highest for the lowest class of society in the nations with the greatest degree of economic freedom (i.e., the losers eat better and live longer in the countries where non-interventionist economic policy allows the winners to get rich.)

i would like to see those statistics, because i have already posted links to statistics that contradict that statement.

placid_panic

7 Dec 2005, 10:52 PM

In 1st world countries, those who are in the poorest 20% actually have good reason for being there. This is because these class boundries are transient. A study conducted in the 90's found that over the course of about a decade, only 3% of those in the lowest 20% income bracket were still in that bracket 10 years later.

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/image013.gif

that's just one study, but it sharply contradicts what you're saying.

placid_panic

7 Dec 2005, 11:17 PM

What would be useful would be to compare poverty statistics using the same measures between the US and other countries, then observing the correlation with economic freedom.

i also think it is important to observe the correlation between poverty and "economic freedom", but i don't think that means only comparing the u.s. with nations that are similar in said characteristic. if economic freedom means greater levels of poverty than what is the benefit?

planned economies are inevitably corrupt economies: the temptation is too great.

that's pretty simplistic. every economy incorporates some planning and regulation. what aspects of an economy do you think cannot be regulated without corruption?

why does inequality matter?

i think this is turning into a debate about morality. i believe that, as social animals, we have a responsibility to promote the welfare of our society. as kurt vonnegut's son said "we're here to help eachother get through this thing, whatever it is" (not a direct quote). i believe that if one man has two coats he should give one to the man who has none. i don't think it's just for a few people to have billions of dollars when nearly one in three american families with children regularly face hardships like being unable to afford enough food, pay utility bills and rent, and having to use the emergency room for primary medical care. not only that, but allowing so many people to live in those kinds of conditions when we have the ability to help them is going to negatively impact the world we live in. the children of those families are more likely to end up in prison than to develop into productive, healthy people.

Hypnos

8 Dec 2005, 06:15 AM

i also think it is important to observe the correlation between poverty and "economic freedom", but i don't think that means only comparing the u.s. with nations that are similar in said characteristic. if economic freedom means greater levels of poverty than what is the benefit?
My point is that it prevents poverty through long-term economic growth. The benefit of comparing with other countries is to demonstrate the trend. This is shown nicely by cross-referencing UN development indicators with economic freedom -- the correlation is quite high.

that's pretty simplistic. every economy incorporates some planning and regulation. what aspects of an economy do you think cannot be regulated without corruption?
Anything planned is prone to corruption:

* The gov't is not accountable for efficiency, because it can print or borrow money, or raise taxes.

* Because there's not real accountability, there is no disincentive to nepotism or hiring people for some other agenda, such as by political party

* Because people are hired on a basis unrelated to job performance but through connections or manipulating the hiring process, the worst kind of people (unproductive, manipulative, entitled) progress in the organization.

* Without the constraint of accountability, venal bureaucrats can exercise power profitably. Because they have the power to control economic interests, they can trade favorable gov't actions for personal benefits. If not direct monies or gifts, but future high paying jobs in the private sector.

This problem is mitigated when there is an ulterior motive, such as research or maintaing military cohesion, and it is exacerbated when there is direct influence on private enterprises through regulation and subsidies.

If you doubt this chain of reasoning, you should see it in action :)

i think this is turning into a debate about morality. i believe that, as social animals, we have a responsibility to promote the welfare of our society.[...]
If the feeling is genuine, people will act upon. In fact, they do -- private donations total $200 billion/year in the US.

It's awfully presumptuous to tell someone how or when they should be generous, just as it is to tell them whom to love and how much.

Purple-Silver Fox

8 Dec 2005, 07:02 PM

Hypnos:
US is as high as 60% over the long term, which is comparable to that of peer states. mobility has not waned, and inequality has only increased because productivity has."
That is correct, but income mobility is declining: see http://fmwww.bc.edu/ec-p/wp398.pdf: p.41-42. Also, mobility did not suffer from governemental social security in EU countries.

"Is Microsoft a monopoly?"
I didn't say it was a monopoly, but Microsoft uses its dominant market position to reduce the possibilities for other companies to break through. This is confirmed by European en South-Korean trials.
It's similar to 'la trahison de la bourgeoisie'. Medieval merchants, when rich, tended to buy theselves into the nobility, hereby giving up their merchant function. When companies conquer a large share of a market, they want to make it less free to keep their share.

"* Money and economic rights: that's not quite right. If you have no assets, tangible as in money, or intangible as in education, then you're dead in the water."
Still, these assets only count if they are convertible to money, something that person has no control of: he is at mercy of the market, i.e. the people with the money.

"* Capitalism and ethics: You are mistaken. Paris Hilton has no work ethic or discernible skills, and while I don't think very highly of her, I do not begrudge her wealth."
So if the free market apparently does not reward these qualities, nor punishes their absence, where lies its advantage?

"* Peaceful conflict resolution: I think this is more the role of the judiciary, not the legislature, ie. interpretation of voluntary contracts versus negotiation over gov't coercion."
Courts need laws or at least tradition to judge. Voluntary is important here: most pollution impact is indiscernible until the damage has been done, the company has disappeared, and the profit is cashed in. The air we breathe is used globally, so it would be very difficult to consult every earthling to negotiate about the compensation for e.g. mowing your lawn. Here a governmental standard is more efficient.

"* Private charity and accountability: If anything, private charities hold their beneficiaries more accountable than public entitlements because they don't have a political axe to grind. Drug treatment programs are an example -- most have strict rules."
That can apply regardless where the money comes from. Admittedly, the difference I marked is rather a difference between organized or non-organized charity.

"* China is hardly capitalist -- it's just less socialistic. It's economic freedom is far behind that of European states or the US."
This is probably a matter of definition. China exports, imports, attracts investments, invests, etc.: it is part of the capitalist world-economy. It is not a free market, but as a whole it is a player on the global free market, although it's internal policies are definitely dictatorial.

"* Companies tax their employess? That's quite sophistic. Shareholders own the company, not the employees, who have agreed to work-for-pay. If they want to do it differently, they should buy shares or demand options."
Companies withhold money they could put in wages or investments to give it to the shareholders. Employees are necessary to run a company, while shareholders don't need to do anything but own money and receive the dividend. A difference between shareholders and employees is that shareholders can choose where and when to invest, while employees need to make a living - immediately. For them, it's not a free but a compulsory market.

"* Banks are not parasitic. If they think they can recoup the interest in the money they lend you, they'll lend you the money -- a win-win proposition."
The same here; banks can choose when and where to invest. And while they are entitled to receive something in exchange for the financial coordination services and the risk, anything they gain beyond that is essentially due to use of financial coercion. This problem is caused by the absence of a face-to-face relation: anyone who asks for a loan is number xxxxx, while that will be much easier for everyone who is part of the higher circles.

"But, again, why does inequality matter?"
For four main reasons:
- Efficiency: more options for a larger part of the population means more development.
- Pragmatism: to avoid crime and pauperization.
- Ethical: people don't like to be poor.
- Ideological: it undermines democracy.

Hypnos

8 Dec 2005, 11:12 PM

Hello PSF,

* Thanks for the article link. Two comments:
- The conclusions in the text (pg. 25) says that mobility is staying the same more than it's decreasing. And, that the poorly educated and those in the inner city are the least mobile. To reiterate, education should be widely available; also, drugs should be legalized -- this would reduce inner-city devastation.
- Lowest quintile mobility is increasing according to the last chart! It sucked for everybody in the late 70s.

* The courts are using a broken economic standard. There is no such thing as nobility in the open market -- you earn what you can sell. The only way you have a stranglehold on a market is if the gov't hand it to you -- this is how historical monopolies gained their power.

* Of course someone has control over how marketable they are. Learn skills for which there is demand, and buy a tie.

* Who cares if work work ethic and skills are rewarded or not? I only care about the bottom line -- productivity and choice. There is a correlation, but to reward personal qualities directly is ultimately limiting. Sometimes, not-very-admirable people get the job done, or bring us innovations.

* You're right that having gov't standards for things like pollution levels might be more efficient, because it's impractical to have voluntary agreements between all affected parties. However, it's not that cut and dry (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/The_Swedes.html).

* Companies pay employees what their work is worth; any excess goes to people who put up the money for the enterprise in the first place. Employees who don't think they're being rewarded for their producitivity (bonuses, options) can move to a competitor. As for affording to move jobs, whose responsibility is that? You know you could get laid off, or that you'll want a better/different job in the future -- plan ahead. The shareholder has opportunity costs (and transaction costs and taxes) as well.

* Banking is necessarily usury? Why would a bank pass up an opportunity to make money? If they charge you too high an interest rate, you go to a different bank. If you can't get money anywhere, maybe you're asking too much.

* On inequality:
- It's not more efficient to give money away just so others have more money to spend. Productivity must be cultivated, and private investment and education are the best way to do it.
- Indeed, crime is correlated with pauperization. However, nothing reduces the general quality of life than perverse incentives, such as those attending income redistribution.
- I sympathize with suffering, but I'll decide for myself whom I'll help and when, while recognizing that it's ultimately most efficient if people learn to help themselves.
- Democracy is overrated -- people should mind their own damn business.

kuranes

9 Dec 2005, 02:05 AM

I haven't checked the details out in a while, but many of these programs that are supposed to help pay for education, do nothing for other expenses besides the tuition, and they may only pay for part of THAT. If a person is just hanging on - perhaps working two jobs at once, as someone like D-Man or yourself might suggest in a different argument - then where do they find the time to go to school? Or to commute to a school that may be far away? To deal with what happens when their job is gone in the middle of this, or their shift changes? Sometimes people are trying to juggle things like "Do I pay the doctor this month, or the car repair people?" If they HAVE a car. Assuming these problems don't exist, and they are able to work part-time on a degree, how long will it take? Quite some time, I imagine. Will the degree even be as marketable as they thought it was way back when they first signed up to try it by then? Will they have the math skills to cut the mustard, assuming these other factors do not come into play? Maybe not. ( It may not be just a simple matter of not being "trained" in Math either. Some people are just naturally poor at this. ) To say nothing of trying to deal with family problems on top of it all. Or God forbid, having a little fun once in a while. Is all this just "friction?" It's possible to do it, sure. And plenty of people HAVE done it in the past, one way or another. Others gave it their best shot and didn't make it.

I agree with you that it would be a good idea to make education available. My point is to make it VERY available. Maybe you agree with me. Maybe not. But it's not a simple matter, as I've said. Some people apparently think it is. I've heard comments like "Poor and out of work? Why not try your hand at day trading? Write your own ticket, etc. etc. " Cut_and_Dry Marie Antoinette. "Let them eat stock options."

Hypnos

9 Dec 2005, 06:37 AM

I agree with you that it would be a good idea to make education available. My point is to make it VERY available. Maybe you agree with me. Maybe not. But it's not a simple matter, as I've said. Some people apparently think it is. I've heard comments like "Poor and out of work? Why not try your hand at day trading? Write your own ticket, etc. etc. " Cut_and_Dry Marie Antoinette. "Let them eat stock options."
We are in general agreement. There are a few issues: to what level of suffering should educational aid be calibrated? What constitutes education? Given the current abysmal state of public education (including the political pandering of the Kansas school board), who can be trusted to educate?

This may be one place where private giving should be substantial, as well as primary, so there is both choice and access. I.e., the one civic duty any good capitalist has is to fund educational institutions he likes ;)

kuranes

9 Dec 2005, 07:22 AM

We are in general agreement. There are a few issues: to what level of suffering should educational aid be calibrated? What constitutes education? Given the current abysmal state of public education (including the political pandering of the Kansas school board), who can be trusted to educate?

This may be one place where private giving should be substantial, as well as primary, so there is both choice and access. I.e., the one civic duty any good capitalist has is to fund educational institutions he likes ;)

As far as what part of the tab is picked up by something other than the person him/herself, it should be focused vocationally vs. "electives" courses. In fact, I think that's how public ed should work too, with the early years deciding which kind of apprenticeships a person is best suited for. There might be a few other infrequent "gates" down the road in case they change their mind and want to switch tracks, but then . . .the course is set and your entire focus is on achieving competence in the industry you've picked. No turning back. Once you're a successful pro there, you can always come back to school and study "History of Geography" or whatever, on your own dime. You should also get a few basic courses in Elementary about how your country is run and how it came to be etc.. And some classes that supply an overview etc. But not a lot of time spent on things like "Idaho - the potato state" etc. unless you're going into Agriculture.

The current state of the system is an absolute shambles, with kids who don't want to be there bringing everything down to their common denominator, and classes teaching things most will never need to know. Just as a prison should do, they should sort people into categories. Not just treat them all exactly the same. By this, I don't mean to say give the slow learners short shrift, but they should be in a class with other slow learners, until they demonstrate otherwise. ( Having checked for dyslexia, etc. ) . The slower learners classes would not be called "Special Education" either, as that would make the kids feel bad. The kids who do well should be able to feel pride in doing well vs. being treated like a nerd/spoiler etc. Bullies would be quickly weeded out and put in special programs until they had shaped up.