Listening to his family go thru a litany of 'justice' for those who cannot pay their mortgages, school loans, car loans, whatever, I simply CANNOT escape the obvious conclusion that the justice they demand is a check from the government when things get tough.
If the nation simply CANNOT AFFORD IT, then it cannot AFFORD it.
PHYSICS.
Rather than concentrate on ensuring that this 'justice' of ENFORCED EQUAL OUTCOME is achieved via govt check at the low end, why not concentrate on raising the level of the ocean so that every boat has an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to rise with it?
Dr. King dedicated his life to achieving equal opportunity for all by nonviolent means. That is NOT what these people were talking about.
They can sqawk all they want about what they KNEW their father, 'really'wanted, but that is NOT WHAT HE DID. More over the poor of 1963 are not the the poor in America today.
As countless documentaries pointed out....
Today the poor in America are not hungry.
Today the poor in America must suffer with basic cable.
Today the poor in America usually have A/C.
Today the poor in America get electronic deposits.
It is those who REFUSE the aid that make that life possible, work 3 lousy jobs, and those who are compelled to accept that aid and HATE THAT FACT, who suffer because they NEED TO ACHIEVE AND STAND ON THEIR OWN. Those are the people who NEED EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED, AND NOT SOMEONE ELSE GIVING THEM EQUAL OUTCOME BECAUSE THEY CONCEIVE OF IT AS JUSTICE.
This is America, and no one should be without THE NECESSITIES, but this is NOT the GREAT SOCIETY of 1964 where the horizon was unlimited. The necessities are not a Ford Explorer and and Honda Accord, 55" LED Screen and 3500 square foot house with a 35 year floating mortgage for all. That is what equal opportunity to succeed SHOULD ALLOW ONE TO PROVIDE.
The difference between equal opportunity and enforced equal outcome is theft of property by the state, crushing discouragement of hard work, risk taking and invention, and assumption that the state acts with this 'justice'.
But the state is a sledgehammer trying to hit a finishing nail surrounded by china, wielded by unnamed blind men appointed by someone else who wants to get home to his dog.
52 comments:
I am not sure why anyone would be surprised. MLK, Jr. was a socialist himself. That does not diminish the good things that he worked toward in the civil rights arena, but it does let you know that his family and offspring come by their socialistic views honestly.
Anonymous, MLK was a Republican.
His political affiliation as a Republican did/does not preclude him from being a socialist or holding socialistic ideas. Some of King's closest advisers and influences were communists and he advocated a government-forced redistribution of wealth to the disadvantaged, poor, and those who had suffered historical wrongs.
This blog notes just two entries below that the current front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination (Romney) carries some pretty good socialist bona fides--support for cap-&-trade and a government mandated healthcare plan.
Sounds like you might have a very strict definition of Socialism.
I don't consider any and all taxation to be "government-forced redistribution of wealth."
I have said nothing about taxation. That is your strawman; so feel free to whack away at it.
I said that King wanted government-coerced wealth redistribution. King wanted the government to set up a fund to redistributed $50 Billion in reparations to those who suffered "historical wrongs." That is a socialist principle; just like Romney's support for government-mandated healthcare in Massachusetts.
Seeing that Romney can be a Republican front runner and embrace Socialistic ideas demonstrates with some degree of force that King's affiliation with the Republican party does not preclude King from holding socialist ideas or being a socialist himself. I think that was the argument/discussion we were trying to have.
I know of MLK holding no other redistributionist ideals.
If that was his only one, then I do not think it is fair to label him a Socialist.
He could have been a Democrat. That would have been more consistent with the Socialist ideals of the Great Society, right?
I am against reparations now. But, I am not sure that they were that crazy a notion at the time. I think they were probably perceived as a down payment on justice.
Think about it.
Our country fucked with black people for hundreds of years.
[citation]Franklin, Robert Michael (1990). Liberating Visions: Human Fulfillment and Social Justice in African-American Thought. Fortress Press. p. 125. [/citation]
Said Martin Luther King, Jr., "something is wrong with capitalism... there must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."
No sacred cows here. That is who the man was from his own mouth.
Oh, and Dr. King did not support reparation for only black people who suffered from the vestiges of slavery. The recipients were to be people of all ethnic backgrounds who had suffered historical wrongs. It was not just about slavery.
I agree.
If he was a Socialist. He was a Socialist.
I would have to read more about it, but the fact is, there is such a thing as Socialism, and while the line of demarcation is fuzzy, like the one with pornography, we know it when we see it.
Maybe we could say, Socialism is the gratuitous confiscation of wealth.
Interesting post and discussion.
Anonymous said: Some of King's closest advisers and influences were communists...
Isn't that a true statement?
We must remember that all of us have a way of canonizing any leader who was murdered (assassinated). JFK would be another example of the martyrizing the one murdered.
I freely admit that I don't have an array of facts about MLK at hand. But I DO think it's possible that MLK,Jr., is today perceived through rose-colored glasses. Maybe, just maybe, his family is correct that MLK, Jr., at heart wished for something that most of us would today spurn: the redistribution of wealth along "historically wronged" lines.
Yes, black were mistreated in America. Who could deny that?
But an attitude of victimhood regarding what happened generations ago can lead to no good place.
Hell, my own ancestors (pretty much white, as far as I know) could whine like hell about all sorts of injustices done to past generations of my family. Does that give ME the right to go over to my neighbors' house and ransack it?
Hey genius. You're forgetting one very important statistic. One which trumps all of yours: The richest one percent hold more personal wealth than the lower 98 percent combined. Do you know what that means? Any clue about demand? Economic stability? Social stability? Didn't think so.
The rest of you consider this: Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid '07' however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I'll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won't. Not by a longshot. Jobs don't necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The 'free market' just doesn't cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of '08' the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of '08', every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job production. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation's wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job production, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don't. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent already own nearly 1/2 of all United States wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
You are an idiot.
More jobs do not increase wealth?
THE ENTIRE DIFFICULTY SINCE THE 70'S IS THAT A LACK OF MANUFACTURING JOB INCREASES COMMENSURABLE WITH THE ECONOMY HID THE FACT THAT THE INCREASES WERE A REAL ESTATE BUBBLE WHICH RESULTED IN CASH IN POCKETS INSTEAD OF MAKING MORE FORDS, COMPUTERS, WASHING MACHINES AND OTHER DURABLE GOODS WHICH HAVE VALUE.
You are factually in error.
Invention =design =engineering=manufacturing = MORE JOBS at HIGHER RATES
Fixing things does NOT increase the size of the pie
Teaching, while needed, medical services at the point of the patient, counseling, social services
NONE OF THEM
INCREASES THE SIZE OF THE PIE
You want higher pay .. invent more and build it here. End the flight of manufacturing to the lowest labor cost by making free trade mean = working conditions and use the CIA to ensure unions overseas WORK FOR IT.
This occured at the BASE because GE was making your water heater in Brazil, and the lower pay and increased margin from that lowered your cost giving you more disposable income when you bought it and yielded more dollars chasing limited real estate, driving up the value so you could yank out the equity and go to Hawaii.
But it all ended when real estate values STOPPED INCREASING as they always must.
That's all there is. SHortsighted bankers simply did what humans do... got greedy and exacerbated the situation...NOT CREATE IT.
The only way out is growth. The only way to grow is BUILD MORE STUFF AND INCREASE CONFIDENCE
To paraphrase someone well versed ...capitalism SUCKS but it's just that everything else SUCK FAR WORSE.
Socialism is theft. CRIMINAL IN EVERY WAY
Einstein and Ecclles went on record with views very similar to mine. Tell you what: Tell me if and when you predicted this social and economic crisis. If you understand socio-economics as well as you imply with your very traditional conservative right wing views, then surely, you predicted this crisis in writing at least as early as '07'. Did you? Yes or no. Prove it with a link. Here is mine:
http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2006/08/paul-krugman-on-inequality.html
That is one of my earlier posts. I actually started posting similar messages in the fall of '05' in AOL chartrooms. I kept updating the essay with more details and many more predictions. Almost all of which came true. If you have two hours to spare, you can read one of my last from '09'.
Oprahangelinabradbonobill@blogspot.com
Now, show me that you made as many accurate predictions anywhere as early as I did. Then I might be willing to believe that you understand.
That's oprahangelinabradbonobill.blogspot.com
If you understand socio-economics as well as you imply with your very traditional conservative right wing views, then surely, you predicted this crisis in writing at least as early as '07'.
I respond: Yes, go back to our archives. We predicted that if Obama were to be elected, and he did what he said he was going to do, the economy would collapse.
Beyond that, I could not prove that I knew what shape the economy was in unless I showed you my my market allocations, and I'm not going to show you that.
Suffice it to say, and decide whether you want to believe me or not, I took all my money out of the market back in 2006/2007 and have not had my money in anything but interest accruing account since then.
Why?
Because of two things;
1) homes were way over-valued. I knew there would be a crash. When a regular income family can not afford a home, and in California where the average home price was $600K the average person could not afford a home, then prices are too high. When the average family is still being allowed to buy homes even though they can not afford them (which is what was happening) then prices are REALLY too high.
2) Iran and Islamofascism in general (until we settle our scores with these assholes, there will be no stability in our economy
Idiotic red herring argument.
Roubini predicted it WELL BEFORE THAT.
Even Milton Friedman, as far back as the 80's warned
That is irrelevant to the fact that
1) Socialism is STATE THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL AND ACTUAL PROPERTY
2) As economagic's very nice allowance of non subscribers shows w data from the US dept of Labor, actual employment in EVERY FIELD which produces goods declined since the 80's
Greed has no 'ISM'. Stupidity and shortsightedness has no ideology.
Except maybe the apple.
What I invent is NO ONE'S RIGHT TO HAVE..what you want is the opposite of this....
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
-- John Adams (A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787)
You are entitled to want the opposite of that, but don't think for a second, it's american in ANY WAY, nor, is my defense of that RIGHT WING in any way ... you know NOTHING about me so the accusation is somewhat laughable
You really think that Obama's election caused this or prevented a recovery? I don't. We were screwed either way. I do agree with you on the home issue. In fact, those first two lines regarding homes were dead on in my opinion. But we were on a crash course regardless of housing values. I stand by everything I posted in that long paragraph and nearly everything I wrote in the long essay/manifesto from '05' - '09'. In particular, I stand by my view that economic growth has become an incredibly shallow and misleading concept. In order for the majority to benefit, the growth must take place almost exclusively at the low end. Or even better, growth at the low end and recession at the high end. In order for the majority to gain relative buying power (regardless of job creation), the rich must lose relative buying power. Much like they did from the mid '40's to the mid '70's. No redistribution. No recovery. And no way in hell will the little guy get ahead without tripping the big guy first. No way in hell.
""Hey genius. You're forgetting one very important statistic. One which trumps all of yours: The richest one percent hold more personal wealth than the lower 98 percent combined.""
Hey genius, what happened to the other 1%?
If your household income is ~$48k/yr. you are one of the richest 1% in the world. Stupid-assed spoiled Americans don't realize how good they have it.
Do you 98%-ers (/sarc) think the rest of the world will let the richest nation in the world skate if this comes down to war between the haves and the have-nots?
I don't think so.
They'll do a "Camp of the Saints" and we're all screwed.
Are you really trying to tell me that the richest one percent earned nearly 1/2 of all United States wealth? And that a Hollywood firefighter deserves to be paid 500 times that of a real firefighter? Do you really believe that an economy can be sustained indefinitely when it's wealth is being concentrated? Are you aware of the Greenspan quote from spring of '05' regarding income disparity? Just coincidence? What about the views of Einstein? Eccles, Reich, Wolf?
And please. Show me specifically that you or any public figure predicted this social and economic crisis (not just another recession or falling home values). This one specifically with no doubt. Not some vague or long winded "what if" crap. Show me that you or any conservative saw it comming and tried to warn others. I was all over the web and all over talk radio as far back as '05'. I was regarded as a doom and gloom freak by virtually everyone until about '08'. So if you or anyone else trumped by credibility with opposing views but accurate predictions as far back as '07' or earlier, then show me.
I made those accurate predictions because I understand relative buying power. It's very much like a game of Monopoly. When one player pulls too far ahead, the others are screwed.
I saw it coming. Pulled all my 401K money and parked it. Told a friend who believed me and saved his money.
Also saved my mom's IRA and got her out of Fannie and Freddie before they crashed. It wasn't really that difficult to see.
And I'm just a regular guy. Nothing special. Ask Pasto. :)
Here is the world wealth calculator site. It's begging for cash and so it may be skewed.
http://globalrichlist.com/
The 2nd percentile was left out because I don't think their scale of pay is the real problem. I'm all for a reasonable pay scale. No economic system would last without it unless it were totally isolated. I have no desire to live on the high end of that scale (I don't). I already addressed the global issue in the long manifesto. I don't blame any group in Western society specifically for the obscene population growth in the third world. But I do believe that we as a species should know better than to squeeze out children that we have virtually no chance to provide for. Especially if the region doesn't have ample fresh water and food to support the population. Widespread prosperity depends upon these things. I do have issues with our food and energy consumption. But I don't blame the Western masses for concentrating the world's buying power in their own pocket. Only for giving it away like a bunch of morons. It's all in the essay/manifesto. I did take a long break after June of '09' because I got sick to death of having the same circular debates over and over and over and over. I've had this one many times. I'll be surprised if you can hrow anything new at me. I've already stumped two nationally known economists. Neither of which would give me a straight answer about the relationship between distribution of wealth and economic stability. Care to give it a shot? How can the rich continue to get richer without reducing the relative buying power of the masses? What happens as the wealth becomes more and more concentrated? How in the name of all that is logical can the trend be sustained? Isn't a massive multi-trillion dollar correction inevitable?
The problem was/is - the gov't didn't/won't let people take their medicine. The banks leveraged their collective butts off and kited MBS's etc. Instead of forcing them to sleep in the bed they made the gov't papered over everything and all the banks started cooking the books. Everything must run in cycles of boom/bust because of the math of it all, ie you can't have 8% growth forever. Or 6,4,2. Eventually it doubles too much and becomes impossible. Thus a bust. Everything resets and you start over. The gov't didn't let it reset, so now we're screwed because the problem is still there and bigger, so when it crashes now it will be from a higher level. Anon. kinda sounds borderline communistic in the comments.
I'm fairly certain that Denninger @ MarketTicker was yelling his head off about this stuff in at least '07.
I realize this thread is about MLK.
By the way. I practice what I preach. My income is well under $48k per year. Way under in fact. I keep it there intentionally. I don't feel that I deserve anywhere near as much as a firefighter and I will not seek anything even close. I do just fine because I also conserve energy and I have no desire for upscale homes, cars, electronics, cable/satelite TV, fashion, or even high speed Internet. I practice everything I preach in that manifesto. Everything.
I agree with almost everything in your last post but I see all of that as the straw that will break the camel's back. Not the pile of bricks.
You are a thief, ANON
"In order for the majority to gain relative buying power (regardless of job creation), the rich must lose relative buying power."
That is ZERO SUM GAME logic.
The essence of capitalism is that invention, entrepreneurship and risk taking grows the entire gestalt.
Social justice logic makes theft, coercion, and the violence to back it up a 'good' to allow those who perceive themselves disadvantaged to steal what they want from those who have what THEY imagine was stolen.
In reality only a FEW such as Immelt and others who earn 300+ x times the avg of a line worker and use the govt including Obama as a protective agent to ensure the masses remain believing in social justice while they dupe them are the guilty.
The vast majority of those who have earned great sums DESERVE IT. You are simply invented a thought system to make those who have not feel better about the theft they are considering.
Why not have world govts control competition and thus have stability in labor costs, and profit (or just distribute it), and why not train workers to their task and offer benefits to remain and penalties if they change to as to minimize disruptions and thus stabilize society?
For the greater good, and societal egalitarian equality. We can fix the most a CEO and CIO can make and ensure that nothing gets out of line (of course that might diminish the enthusiasm key personnel may have for 65 hours weeks, but hey it's for your neighbor's well being). We can limit the fiscal benefit received by inventors, I mean Steve Jobs should have only had 10 million, right? Gates, I think maybe 8, but we can leave that up to a board of some sort, appointed by..... someone appointed by someone else. Someone who thinks 'correctly'
No it's not zero sum logic. I never said that creation of wealth was impossible. Only that 'net' creation was rare (it in there). Regardless, in order for the masses to purchase life sustaining resources like food and energy, they must have the relative buying power to do so. I'm sure we can agree that currency loses value as you print more. Hopefully, we can agree that record setting corporate profits tend to make executives and investors richer. And that those profits can't be made unless their products and services are sold or otherwise billed to the masses? So another $5000 per year won't help the average American if the richest one percent see another $50,000 per year? Do you even see what I'm saying? It's not necessarily a zero sum game but the relative buying power of the lower majority will always depend on the relative buying power of the top minority.
I refuse to let the market determine the true value of our respective contribution's to society. There are way too many market tricks and I think on a much deeper level. Don't confuse that with Marxism. It's not. Would I take back a few trillion that has accumulated at the top and give it to the lower majority? Damn right I would. But under these obscene circumstances, I wouldn't view that as theft. Justice.
By the way, I think there are plenty of thieves and losers on the low end. If they don't want to contribute, f&$@'em. But my primary concern will always be for the majority. The lower 90 percent own well under 10 percent of all United States wealth. You can't justify that. If you could, I wouldn't be here.
I'll tell you what I would like to see more than any government policy. I would like to see the masses grow a fxxxxxx brain and stop giving so much of their money to filthy rich pigs. Most of it, they gave without the slightest regard for anything but the moment. Stupid.
Let me put it this way for you... I was in cardiovascular pharmacology in the software end ...I and everyone around me was in the business of invention and making things that never existed, so while you claim that is rare, in fact, it was my EXPERIENCE. And you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to whatever that netted us.
"Would I take back a few trillion that has accumulated at the top and give it to the lower majority? Damn right I would. But under these obscene circumstances, I wouldn't view that as theft. Justice."
Sorry, but that makes you a bolshevik. They would resist as would I and you would have to justify force. Even if Jeffery Immelt is a PIG.
And you have proven my point precisely.
That you live at 48k on purpose probably makes you a purposeful non contributor. There is nothing to stop you from aspiring to Buffet like numbers and resditributing your own wealth, but that is not your choice, it is YOUR DEMAND to steal others and send it where YOU decide justice is.
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management."
The health care industry has become a train wreck of greed and fraud. The industry hasn't earned it's record-setting profits. Not by any moral standard. The legitimate market for commercial health care is a fraction of the artificial market that has been created through scare tactics, outright fraud, and drug related side effects.
I don't live at $48k. I live well below it by choice. I charge a fraction of 'market value' for my work. Like I said before, I practice what I preach.
You don't practice what you preach.
You cut corners to intentionally keep yourself on the low end. If you practiced what you preached you would make as much as you could and give it away. If you have that altruistic gene, that you want for others at the point of a gun by the way, you would be making what the market would bear and giving away your excess. That you don't speaks volumes to what you really believe.
If you won't do that, you are no different than the fat-cats you falsely accuse of hoarding their money. They are 'hoarding' $$, you are hoarding your ability to make $$.
Most, if not all of the problems you site are caused by gov't and therefore gov't cannot be the answer.
Your solutions bend too much toward collectivism for my tastes.
You're missing the point. I don't have any millionaires as clients. My clients are mostly middle and lower class. I charge way below market value because A. Everything I own is paid off and I live modestly so I can easily live on under $20k per year. And B. I don't want to concentrate more wealth. I don't even want to join the upper middle class. If I take less, a little more is left circulating for the other guy. I have considered working for those who have much more and charging much more just so I could give it away. But if I were to charge much more for my work, that would approach market value. I'm not a conformist. Far from it. I won't even alter my appearance for work or any other reason. I won't be working for any millionaires. So if I were to charge market value for my work, those who I work for would find it difficult to afford. I'm no hypocrite. I know you're looking for a weak spot to exploit but you won't find one. I've given this issue many thousands of hours of thought over the years. I've had this debate many times. I am what I am, I believe what I say, and I practice what I preach.
Now, let me ask you a few questions: Hasn't there ever been a charge that you thought was unfair? How were you with $4 for a gallon of gas? What about Al Gore and is global warming movie? Was the price fair for a documentary? What about Michael Moore and his documentaries? Did he earn his money? What about Kieth Oberman? If I make up some stories about Sarah Palin and my dog, compile them, and sell the book for $20, would I earn that $20 fair and square? Is there a single example you can acknowledge in which an individual followed the law (just barely) and made a profit but didn't really earn it? Are you going to say 'no' just to deny me the satisfaction of making a hint of progress with you?
You missed the point,not I. All I owe is paid off. I live modestly. Old car. Old house. No vacations. I have this yr. given away ~$10K to charities and/or people in dire straits. Not counting volunteer work to help those in need. I was able to do that because I have excess income and am not living hand to mouth.
My point is you could do the same and the money would go to help people you know are in need.
Instead you want to cast your morality onto others and force them to do what you won't do ie give of their plenty. You want to make sure you have no plenty/excess to give.
You taking more money does NOT mean there is less money circulating. It just means that people valued your expertise more than the time they spent making the $ they gave you. You will/would then do something w/that $ and the velocity of that chunk of $ would change and others will benefit from that. The pie is not forever static, with only a certain amount of $ ever available and that's all there will ever be. You need to study financial and economic theory a little more.
Your questions reveal a lack of knowledge or a whacked out collectivist/totalitarian mindset.
I have a friend who wrote/published a book. It didn't sell for $20 a book because NO ONE WANTED THE *#$&&$&** BOOK!! HE gave them away. You can't sell something no one wants. If you write a book about farting and it sells 1million copies and it's the stupidest book since Gutenburg, it just means that people value a book on farting more than they valued the time it took to make the money they gave you. If you make a $ selling worthless dog crap, you EARNED the $. (Note the multiple scatological references.) No one ever went broke betting on the stupidity of the American buyer.
You don't understand economics. You don't like or understand capitalism.
""Is there a single example you can acknowledge in which an individual followed the law (just barely) and made a profit but didn't really earn it?""
Have you heard the story of the Boiler Mechanic?
The boiler at the factory went down. The in-house mechanics could not fix it. They called in the boiler technician, who crawled up on top and hit a certain spot on the boiler w/a hammer and the boiler started working.
The bill was $6000. The plant manager goes crazy and cusses the guy out and makes him redo the bill because just hitting the boiler w/a hammer is not worth $6K. It might be worth $100.
The tech take the bill back and rewrites it thus -
Hitting the boiler w/a hammer-$100
Knowing where to hit the boiler w/a hammer- $5900.
Sometimes it's not what you do, it's what you know.
Anon, whoever the hell you are, "The health care industry has become a train wreck of greed and fraud." is a piece of dialectic TRIPE not indicative of ANYTHING which people like you use to dismiss objective reality rather than deal with it.
Next time you have a relative who has bypass surgery, any transplant, something piece of their heart, a valve, an ASD or VSD repaired, and aortic aneurysm ..
YOU
ARE
WELCOME
PERSONALLY
If you REALLY practiced what you preached you would go after the big $ and send it to your local clinic struggling to pay it's bill, but you are taking the easy way out with less effort at low pay to make yourself feel better about it and telling yourself you are a good guy because in REALITY, like any salesman who doesn't do the most, you have decided to accept less and have an easier time of it, and by spouting this absolute leftist CRAP which sounds good to you, you look in the mirror and hallucinate your way to excusing yourself from the REAL battle.
Every graphics designer, web developer, anyone involved in art CREATES WEALTH that wasn't there and that's thought of in 5 seconds.
Ask yourself this... suppose I had decided in the society YOU WANT that it was easier for me to hang with my family on the lake here at $48k a year rather than fly around 150k miles a year and work 60+ hours to do what I did? My ceiling earnings as a business owner was to be limited so why strive for it? Life is short and my family needed me. I had a nearly fatal heart attack at 56, so maybe in the socialist society that you want that would have been a better path for me.
Would there be the same kind of technical help for people awaiting transplant surgery? Would there be new anesthetics which protect the heart while it is stopped for intervention? If I hadn't been involved would some of my friends have been working on the imaging technology they did to measure what we were doing?
Maybe, but MAYBE NOT.
But I'd have been happier, fishing and swimming. I could have been the IT guy at a local clinic M-F and been home in 10 minutes. And I could tell myself I was helping.
And if more take the latter choice I have outlined, then society will be what?
I never said that the pie was stuck at one size forever. Of course, it fluctuates. I never said that it didn't. But there is ALWAYS a relative limit at any given time. When a doctor decides to charge a patient $150 for 5 minutes of tine, God doesn't immediately replace those funds in the account of the patient or the local community. The funds leave one hand and enter another. Leave one community and enter another. Of course, they fan as more transactions take place out but not evenly or consistently. The same holds true on every scale. There is ALWAYS a relative limit at any given time. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as widespread or long term poverty, debt, or deficit. The housing prices you mentioned would have remained stable. The market never would have crashed. Banks would not have been bailed out. There would have been no shock to the market whatsoever if the 'pie' you refer to grew with each transaction. The pie you refer to represents economic activity. The pie I refer to represents wealth and resources. There is a huge difference. C'mon already. I know about growth, recession, depression, debt, deficit, money supply, ect. So don't feed me that grade school crap if you don't want it thrown back in your face.
I don't want to know how much you 'give back' unless you are willing to let me in on the other side of the equation. It matters. After all, Bernie Madoff 'gave back' too (by the way, ponzi schemes Eventually fail because there is ALWAYS a relative limit at any given time?) So does Nanci
Palosi, Al Gore, Barack Obama, and every top executive at every 'green' corporation you can name. I don't want to know how much you 'give back' unless you are willing to let me in on the other side of the equation.
You either missed the point about 'earning' or deliberately danced your way around it. You also seem to hold the principles of 'the market' way above the principles of morality or ethics. I was trying to lead you into a deeper discussion of how they relate and often contradict. A profit doesn't necessarily represent a contribution to society or even an agreement between parties. If it did, we wouldn't be in this mess. Like I said before, I think on a deeper level.
What about the executives at Fanny and Freddy? The traders who bet on and sold the 'worthless paper'? The politicians and attorneys who wrote the bail out bill and voted it in? The investors who's dividends were paid as a direct result? Did they 'earn' their money?
I understand economics otherwise I never would have been able to make all those accurate predictions. My record so far isn't perfect but it is better than any public figure.
I don't hate the basic concept of capitalism. Only what it's become. If it worked anywhere near as well as you right wingers swear it does, we wouldn't be having this debate.
You got some weird issues going on there dude.
You kinda argue apples and oranges and pureed bananas all at the same time.
You are conflating ideas and concepts.
Study some more finance and economics and get back to me.
Sameno,
What is sad is he is conflating ideas (the hallmark of confused, illogical thought) and then living by the results.
Most people just kind of live by reaction. To this man's credit, he is trying to be pro-active, intentional in his way of living.
But, his ideas are confused, and thus he is living a confused life, even as he works so hard to be intentional.
When I was in college, I knew a guy almost just like this guy. He had himself so confused and tied up in pretty little doilies of logic that he would have a anxiety attack anytime the grocer asked him, "Paper or plastic". The guy was an artist who lived in an apartment, all by himself, with "Energy-saving lightbulbs" which not only save him money, but also were supposed to be good for the environment. He sacrificed his life on the altar of Gaia, and the result was this man of aesthetic refinement lived with the ugliest green/yellow lighting cast like piss and baby shit mixed together and flung all over his apartment like vomit on the artwork he created.
Imagine that a Art Gallery, or a Museum, like the Tate or the Norton Simon, would use such lighting in their beautiful halls.
They wouldn't dream of it.
They paid the best architects in the world huge amounts of money to create the perfect space in which to show hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars worth of artwork. They're not going to fling vomit light around the room and onto those transcendent canvases.
And yet, this man, this artist with whom I was friends set his life awash in puke light and anxiety over plastics, and never being able to go anywhere because gasoline is made out of oil which destroys the earth, etc. etc. etc.
He was the most intentional of men, and he was the least intentional of men.
How long did it take for the boiler mechanic to figure out where to swing the hammer? What was the profit margin?
Doctor discovers cure for AIDS. Sells discovery for $5,000,000,000,000. Same doctor discovers cure for brain cancer. Sells discovery for $1,000,000,000,000. Same doctor discovers cure for stomach cancer. Sells discovery for $1,000,000,000,000. Lung cancer. Skin cancer. Bone cancer. Pancreatic cancer. Colon cancer. Cervical cancer. Ovarian cancer. Testicular cancer. Banks cover all investments. Cures are put on the free market at a 20 percent markup. Nobody stops to consider that the lower 99 percent of AIDS and cancer victims and their families would never be able to afford treatment. But they try desperately because they want to live. So they liquidate all their assets to the top 1 percent for pennies on the dollar. The lower 99 percent still can't afford all of the cures. Not even close. Now, they all live in poverty. They can't even afford a pack of aspirin. The health care industry tanks. Then the banks. Then everything else. Unemployment in America reaches 90 percent. The global economy tanks. Chaos breaks out worldwide. Meanwhile, the richest man in the world spends $500,000,000 to build a safe house to store his $15,000,000,000,000. He spends another $500,000,000 to hire a small army. 5000 jobs are created. More as the richest one percent worldwide hire additional security. Unemployment drops to 80 percent in each of the G20. 99 percent everywhere else. Chaos remains worldwide. Entire cities burn to the ground. The masses converge on the richest one percent in every corner of the world. As the bodies pile up, disease breaks out worldwide. When the dust settles, and the bodies rot away, only a few hundred million remain worldwide. Those few hundred million must find a way to get along. Hopefully, with a more reliable and ethical system of economics.
Did the doctor earn his $15,000,000?
That's $15,000,000,000,000. Did he earn it? Did the pie grow? Before you say, that nothing like that would never happen, check the news. It's already happening on a much smaller scale. Now, try to imagine what will happen as more and more wealth in concentrated worldwide. I'm telling you that this relentless concentration of wealth and resources will eventually cause the fall of modern society.
But of course, that would only happen if Obama gets re-elected right?
Two responses from two individuals who both take the same view on the same site a day later when activity generally slows way down. Interesting. Tell you what: why don't both of you tell me his I could have made so many accurate predictions while so many 'experts' were proven dead wrong? Why don't both of you show me where you tried to warn others of the greatest socio-economic crisis since the Great Depression? Show me where you tried to warn others going back several years. No? That's what I thought. You can call me an idiot ideologue all you want. I got the same crap for the first two or three years on talk radio. Then almost all of the 'experts' were proven wrong as more and more of my predictions came true. Now, I'm treated with respect. I've had this debate many times.
By the way did you read the Greenspan quote regarding income disparity yet? Was he right? Before you answer, check the news.
You writing a fiction novel?
The very fact that you set up a fantastical question then assumed a static outcome shows that you don't understand a dynamic capitalist economic system.
I have an actual experience on a regular guy scale.
I worked at a university physics dept. in the early '70s. Calculators were all the rage w/the profs. TI came out with a spiffy calculator and the profs were all excited that the price was only $100. I didn't buy one for a while and decided the price would never go down so I bit.
A calculator w/more functions is now at times given away. It's $5 to buy.
The first VHS/BETAs were 2 grand and only the filthy stinking rich could afford them. They bought and absorbed the start-up costs and now you can buy a cd/dvd/vhs combo for <$100.
The same would happen w/your mythical cancer cures too. The rich would pay any price to live, absorb the initial costs and the price would go down.
(The greater likelihood is that the gov't would confiscate it all and sell it for $1000 so the 99% could continue to get their free $#!T)
We're actually the same person posting under different niks. Happens all the time on IBA.
I did save my own 401K. I did save the investments of at least 2 other people.
You're not a genius. I know, 'cause I'm not a genius and I saw the problem too.
You're not a genius. I know, 'cause I'm not a genius and I saw the problem too.
Heh. I was going to write the same response. But, I guess that isn't surprising since you and I are the same guy.
;-)
That 'you don't understand' crap is getting old. I'll remind you again. Albert Einstein went on record with very similar views after the Great Depression. So did Mariner Eccles (chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR). More recently, there was the Greenspan quote from '05', Ron Paul in November of '07', Robert Reich, and Edward Wolf. In fact, most professors of economics will admit that a heavy concentration of wealth causes economic instability. If you don't want to look it up or acknowledge their views, then tell me this: What causes the economy to grow during a game of Monopoly? If you were to keep printing money and piling on hotels, would that economy continue to grow indefinitely?
The answer is hell no. It would grow until one player pulled way ahead of the others. Then slow down and eventually stop. In order to revive the game or prevent the recession, you would have to hand more money out to the players with less. I don't care what rule or concept of economics you bring up. There is a way to simulate the effect in a game of Monopoly. Regardless, when the winning player pulls way ahead, there is no way to views the game unless you subsidize it, hand money to the players with less, or stop the winning player.
Your views on price drops were more true 30 years ago than they are today. They generally haven't applied in health care for decades. CAT scans are given much more often now than they were 30 years ago. Still, they are more expensive than ever. Still, I agree in part with your views regarding price drops. Those rules still apply some of the time. Regardless, when the relative buying power increases for the top minority, it drops for the lower majority. This results in lower demand for product and services intended for the masses. Higher demand for some high end items like expensive jewelry.
No way. The government would never confiscate those cures. You're forgetting who our government works for.
I strongly suspected you were both the same person trying to make me feel outnumbered. It's a common psychological trick. I've seen it before. I've had this debate many times. I've never claimed to be a genius or an expert in any field. But I am a free thinker. And a few experts have gone on record with similar views.
No redistribution. No recovery.
I know damn well just how intoxicating greed has become. Those who want the most will say or do anything to justify their position. Those who have the most money will always have the most power and influence.
There was a massive redistribution of wealth after the first Great Depression. There will be no redistribution this time. No way in hell. No redistribution. No recovery. Not one of us will live to see it.
This will drag on for years, get much worse, and eventually cause the fall of modern society. The class of 2100 is as good as dead.
Thank you Super Samson.
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Well, it was a good debate. We don't agree on much but I do appreciate you letting me post.
People, trying to argue the dialectic with a convert is no different from arguing faith.
IT CANNOT BE DONE WITH LOGIC.
Post a Comment