The shifting of wealth

Sagarin wrote:

And, yes, we should be focused on balance, but, technology will solve a lot of the "sustainability" challenges, IF WE LET IT and don't get in the way. And that's the problem, this fundamental assumption that sustainability isn't sustainable. Well-intended subsidies and legislation tend to thwart advances in modern technology that could otherwise solve the world's greatest challenges. Yes, government can seed some of these nascent technologies, but then get the hell out of the way.

Interesting. I've always interpreted the capital "being plucked off" thing as a national emphasis on cooperate and economic growth. With exceptions made in regard to entitlements, of course.

That said, coming from the Transportation sector I don't buy the technology argument. What people don't seem to get about research is that it only tends to be really effective in "breakthrough areas." A hundred years ago everything was happening in mechanics and engineering. Today, it's in information technology. But, progress doesn't occur in all fields simultaneously and we really need that to happen.

To make matters worse, advancements usually only occur in the right environment. That is when there's a need, when there's money, when there's time, and with it's physically possible. Even knowing that technological development has a "sweet spot" we don't have a way of knowing what's eventually possible and impossible.

The bottom line is that, yes, technology can do a lot. But in the absence of positive proof there's no reason to assume sustainability is sustainable. Especially since this aberration of technological innovation (the past 500 years) has been driven by a scientific method which demands it.

As for getting out of the way? Well, if it works you'll find no argument from me.

Carnivore 69 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

Jonestown was Jim Jones' attempt to renounce capitalism and create a "socialist paradise". Of course the problem was that the only people who would be interested in that are poor and uneducated, those who wanted to be on the receiving end. (Obviously no productive people wanted any part of that.) That's where socialism fails, and in the case of Jonestown, it failed spectacularly. It turned into an armed prison camp within a couple of years, and resulted in an airport shootout when a congressman came to investigate, followed by over 900 deaths within 24 hours.

This utterly pisses me off. The conception that poor and "uneducated" people are "less productive" is absurd. In reality the minimum wage does not provide a full time working employee to be self-sufficient especially if the employee has a family. Capitalism is an economic system that has created enourmous social and economic inequalities due to the profit motive, created lower quality products and provisions due to the profit motive, and has DECREASED competition and quality due to the horizontal integration of corporations. Scholarly evidence shows that schools sytems are becoming INCREASINGLY segregated and the schools composed primarily of minority students have less qualified teachers and in many cases teachers not even certified their respective subjects. It makes me sick when people make statements like this....in essence devaluing human beings. The nonsense spewed out by the ruling class is intended to distort reality in an attempt for class preservation.

Mr. Price, you'll enjoy this article. I do believe some of what you say has merit, and I think that investments in technology and infrastructure on a nationalistic level are imperative, but that's not a path we have embarked upon. The lack of a truly sovereign Fed, government intrusion into the proper pricing and supply of capital, and the unwillingness of Congress to not only rein in off-balance sheet liabilities (despite the Fed's incessant protestations through the 2000s) but to not incur more and bury this inane notion once and for all that quantitative easing policies are themselves fruitful and sustainable will prove our undoing.

As I said, compare growth in government at ALL LEVELS to the rate of inflation and it should make your face turn beet red. But that's not a a conversation anyone ever wants to have. Gift wrap it and save it for the next generation, but continue to demand your entitlements, this despite the fact that you just came through an unprecedented era of wealth generation, the likes of which we'll never see again in our lifetimes. Yep, makes sense that we'll continue to subsidize the 90% of the cardiac/diatetic patients that UNNECESSARILY consume the 55% and growing of medicare, a model that we will soon be hoisting on to the public at large. In a way, I am for healtch care rationing. Ration it away from the undeserving.

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/daily/thursday.htm

Larry Layton wrote:

Jones was a nutcase, but he wanted everyone to die so they couldn't go back to the US saying that socialism had failed.

No, he wanted everyone to die so that they couldn't go back to the united states saying he had kept them prisoner and slept with their underaged girls.

I think the OP is a bit off saying the current administration just gave billions of dollars to the wealthy people on Wall Street, the same people who screwed everything up for us in the first place. Wouldn't we be better off investing in infrastructure and creating jobs?

Plus, would a redistribution of wealth really be so awful? I think that people in the Netherlands are doing pretty great right now. People always argue that "socialism" kills competition and technology advancements. Why is it so important to everyone that the US remains the hegemonic power in the world. How does it benefit the greater population that the US has such a large army, large GDP, and powerful global influence if the middle and lower classes hardly reap any benefits from it? I'd rather get rid of the commodfication of social services, and implement universal health care, education, and housing.

adddf wrote:People always argue that "socialism" kills competition and technology advancements.

It doesn't kill technology advancements. If anything, it subsidizes the stuff that wouldn't be profitable otherwise.

adddf wrote:

I think that people in the Netherlands are doing pretty great right now. I'd rather get rid of the commodfication of social services, and implement universal health care, education, and housing.

Then why in God's name don't you move there? What's stopping you? Unlike some defectors that have come to the US, you have the freedom to leave. You see, long before you were born, the USA was a dream and an idea, a beacon of light and freedom for the rest of the world. It's not like people are banging down the doors of Mexico, or Venzuela, or Zimbabwe, or North Korea, or Russia, or even tiny little Holland to move there. They could use a good little soldier like you.

Oh my God, do you realize that if Republicans don't hurry up and do something quick, we're running a huge risk that sick people could end up getting treated?

Hey, Lance-- take a pill.

First of all, you act like I am some stereotypical strawman conservative that only exists in your fevered imagination. Believe it or not, I care deeply about the poor, both collectively and individually. And as a teacher in the inner city, I've put more sweat equity into working on helping poor kids break the cycle than all the pontificating on letsrun put together. Moreover, I've also taught in an elite private school, so I've met just a couple of rich people. I know some trust fund babies, and also some self-made millionaires. I also have a little personal experience with changing social status--my grandmother was the only one of her 12 siblings to finish high school. My father was a college dropout without a nickel to his name who worked hard, took risks, and eventually became a successful small business owner (and who eventually made poor decisions and lost it all, which was his fault and nobody else's). I worked and borrowed my own way through school, and although I suppose I can thank God and my parents for my gene pool, besides that nobody ever gave me a damn thing. I was TRYING to admit in my earlier post that some small percentage of the rich (i.e. Paris Hilton, or some illiterate tattooed thug who is blessed to be 6'8" and coordinated in the era of ESPN) can do what is stupid and still be wealthy. But those exceptions are far from the rule. For every Paris Hilton, there are dozens of people who either spent lots of time and effort in school to acquire skills that pay a lot, or in some way built a better mousetrap. For all your whining about how life just somehow isn't fair and ought to be, you have yet to suggest a scenario in which it all magically gets fixed.

Don't get me wrong--I'm in favor of the social safety net, public schools with free buses, breakfast, and lunch, the progressive tax code, affirmative action, need-based financial aid for schools... pretty much every imaginable invention that is designed to ensure equality of opportunity. But I'm not so naive as to think that will ensure equality of outcomes, and I think all of the items I have listed can be abused. It is those abuses which I oppose and would like to reform. If that's what it takes to make one a heartless conservative who hates the poor, count me guilty as charged.

Good post. I think many of us feel the same way, came up the same way, and have done MORE of the charity than those who promote it the LOUDEST on here. As Lou Holtz once said, "At the end of the day, more gets said than done." I'd bet that holds for 98.5% of libsrun.com.

I don't agree with all of what you wrote, because Ithink there are better ways of pulling fiscal levers to create windows of abundant opportunity, but I'll bet you and I have done more on average for inner-city youth or African refugees or sick children or other worthy causes than 80% of the preachers here.

Thanks, Sagarin. If you and I were to sit down and talk, we'd probably had some good discussion about the best ways to run everything from the IRS to public education. We'd almost certainly not agree on everything, but I doubt seriously we'd devolve to screaming and name-calling. And we'd probably also be able to start with some realistic ideas about what is possible, practical, and in line with human nature. I'll bet none of our plans would involve suspending the laws of economics, paying for programs with unicorn droppings, etc. But that wouldn't happen on letsrun. Merry Christmas!

Mr. Price wrote:

It doesn't kill technology advancements. If anything, it subsidizes the stuff that wouldn't be profitable otherwise.

Of course it does.

Aside from war, the only thing that incentivizes technological advancements is the profits people can make off of it. In a socialist society, there are none.

What technological advancements have arisen out of socialism? Can you name any? Compare whatever you can come up with to what has arisen out of capitalism. It's no contest.

People are too banging down the doors of tiny little Holland to move there.

How is it good for the commonwealth that a few people have billions and tens of millions have nothing but debt?

How can you claim to have a democraxt with so much wealth and power in the hands of the few?

Why would any rational person who is not a greedy uber rich psychopath actually support a system that creates such disparity in wealth, power, and opportunity?

UncleB wrote:

How is it good for the commonwealth that a few people have billions and tens of millions have nothing but debt?

How can you claim to have a democraxt with so much wealth and power in the hands of the few?

Why would any rational person who is not a greedy uber rich psychopath actually support a system that creates such disparity in wealth, power, and opportunity?

Easy. The "bottom 10%" of our capitalist society is INFINITELY better off than the "bottom 10%" of a socialist society. That's why people around the world still want to come here. The people at the bottom still enjoy most of our modern conveniences that would not have existed without capitalism. Like others have said, imagine a world without tall buildings, the Internet, cars, planes, trains, electricity, indoor plumbing, etc., and you are imagining our world had capitalism been stifled.

I don't think the bottom 10% is willing to make that trade in exchange for "income equality" or whatever the socialist garbage-of-the-month is.

Sarah Palin, is that you?

me no read gringo wrote:

Funny how the proponents of socialism are always the ones who stand to benefit the most by screwing over the rich guy. It comes down to getting votes in poor areas every time.

Truly productive people don't believe in socialism; they are too busy changing the world to worry about being a parasite off of someone else's efforts.

Socialists are germs that attack you when you are most productive and most successful. They wait to see who the winners are and then try to (legally) steal from them. They don't think; they loot. They believe in the fixed pie instead of the expanding pie that benefits everyone. In fact, they often cause the pie to shrink, hurting themselves as well as others.

Socialism is only one step away from fascism and totalitarianism - do not forget that.

Uncle B-

I assume you're being sarcastic with your first question? Even your following two questions are a mess. What the hell country do you live in?

please educate yourselves:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

If you are too lazy to read the document, one of the main points is "let's keep screwing the bottom 95% as hard as possible, but not so hard that they start voting meaningfully, or physically revolt and kill us."

it is truly disappointing, but not surprising, to see how many of you defend the very system that oppresses you.

This tragedy is most acute in the Sarah Palin/ Teabaggers demographic: blue collar trash violently defending the practices of the top 1%.

People enslaved in a world of shopping and working at WalMart fighting to preserve the lifestyles of the corporate elite.

As the years pass, and the quality of life for the average american dwindles ever further, the middle class disappears, and the rich get richer, you will come to realize that the only "wealth transfer" going on in this country since Reagan is FROM working people TO the super-rich.

And to the knaves who say things like, "don't like it, move," I propose we stay and try to make it a country worth living in.