Capitalism and the American dream (was: Anti-Americanism?)

That is the lazy man's mantra. In-other-words "I don't WANT to try something". You are simply satisfied with the statis-quo for you, stuck in the rut you can't see because you have closed your eyes to the possibilities.

I want to incinerate an entire city's population with my mind. Can I do that? Well, according to you anything's possible. Saaay...what town do you live in?

 

I want to incinerate an entire city's population with my mind. Can I do that?

I would not say that you couldn't. Only that nobody has ever accomplished your goal yet. A little advice though.

Get a vision.
Set a goal.
Plan your work.
Seek council.

And if Mesa spontaneously erupts into flame I'll know that you were successful. (It is warmer than usual... )

 

I did all of that, and I still can't blow people up with my mind. Damn you liars!

 

What? It didn't work so you just quit? Ya won't giterdone that way son!

 

Yes, everyone has strengths and weaknesses, but you imprison yourself with that kind of thinking. Focus on your strengths, but also work on improving your weak areas. It's all about continuous learning. As far as "going with the flow":look at what most people are doing (stuck in a rut, heavily in debt) and do the opposite.

 

There is a finite amount of matter in the universe, so some resources are bound to be scarce. It's not a matter of believing in as much as it is fact.

That is partially true. The idea that resources are scarce is attributed to the fact that not everyone can have everything of a particular rescource they want. For instance, there is only so much gold in the world. If everyone had their way, each person on earth would have hordes of it; the problem is that there is not enough gold for everyone to have hordes of it. Scarce resources.

Your "perceived" scarce resources abounds from the fact that the liberal media and Democrats (and some Republicans) sound doomsday warnings about running out of certain resources in order to further their unspoken agenda.

Are you sure it's not a universal healthcare system that takes from the rich to give to the unmotivated?

Is that your way of refuting his point?

 

This is a very interesting post by Kevin Drum over at The Washington Monthly:

[image=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_Income_35_44.gif]

It's a chart that shows median income for 35-44 year old men and women since the end of World War II....The average 40-year-old guy made $44,000 in 1973, and that was as good as it ever got. Today that number is about $40,000. It's gone down even though the American economy has nearly doubled on a per-person basis during that time.

This is what is a perfect illustration of how capitalism does not benefit all equally. The economy is much larger than it was in 1973, yet the median wage was higher. Why aren't the people in the middle of the wage spectrum seeing increases corresponding to increases in the economy?

 

Simply because the wealth isn't "tricking down," it remains in the hands of the capitalist unless either the supply of workers shrinks to the point that the wages must go up or the workers force concesions from them capitalists through unions or laws.

However, it should be noted in the interest of fairness that because more of our resources are going towards capital production, ie producing things that make things, our economy grows faster than it would if the wealth was spread out more evenly because then we would be spending more of our resources on consumer goods, things we just use.

So if we just want growth, then our current system is fine, but like it has been said, this does not equally spread wealth.

 

Hold on Flyer. Assuming those numbers are correct, you also have to realize that most families are duel income, and they weren't in '73.

Also, is this income from jobs or from all income sources? It doesn't say.

EDIT: And, if it is taken from the cencus it also includes the poverty we are importing through illegal immigration.

 

Also, is this income from jobs or from all income sources?

It says wages, so it is from jobs.

Secondly, why does dual income matter? Why should a person be paid less because their spouse also works?

 

No. But household income would rise on the scope of 100%. Thus creating more Capitalism but not more individual income.

 

Meaning that the average person has to work harder to get less...

 

However, we have more millionaires than ever and no significant increase in poverty. These two facts leave me wondering about your article from a self-proclaimed "progressive" newspaper.

 

However, we have more millionaires than ever and no significant increase in poverty. These two facts leave me wondering about your article from a self-proclaimed "progressive" newspaper.


That is what I'm saying. The rich get richer and the middle class and below generally stay were they are, despite larger GDPs and such.

 

However, we have more millionaires than ever and no significant increase in poverty. These two facts leave me wondering about your article from a self-proclaimed "progressive" newspaper.


Hey, didn't you repeat this the last 4 billion times? And hasn't it been refuted that that's not the only thing that matters to an economy? Get the lead out.

 

No, we didn't. An economy that doesn't create millionaires can't create jobs. And like I said, anybody can be a millionaire.

 

anytime i see people trying to say we're getting poorer/less economically healthy as a nation, i have to laugh:

in 1966, the unemployment rate was 3.9%, now it is 4.7%, not up too much at all. the poverty rate for all families, with or without kids, was 11.8% in 1966, in 2003 it was 10%. with kids it went from 13.4% in 1966 to 14.8% in 2006, a slight overall rise (though it's lower now than 10 years ago, when it as 16.5%). the near-poverty (125% of poverty level) results are even better... from 21.3% in 1966 to 16.9% in 2003.

the median (which is just the middle number and not affected by how much the top 10% makes) income (inflation adjusted) for the overall working age population was 11,500 in 1967 (oldest year in the chart i found at census bureau), in 2003 it was 23,276.

for households, the median income (inflation adjusted) was 35,629 in 1967 and it was 51,407 in 2001. the mean income (which is affected by top 10%) went from 41,758 to 66,863 in that same time period (which is a notably greater percent increase than the median, so the rich ARE getting richer, that much is true... but then Bill Gates and Donald Trump alone probably mess up that figure).


income up (over 100% for families, 44% for individuals), poverty down ~2%, unemployment only slightly up... if this is america falling to pieces, i'd like to see what we'd be like with a good economy over the past 40 years!!! not to mention every one of these numbers blows the global average away. we have the 14th best poverty rate in the world, 33rd unemployment rate (including small islands and communist countries), and 3rd highest GDP per capita. we have no right at all to complain about our economny on a national level. individual people may have it bad, i won't deny that. but as a whole, we're doing amazingly well and have for the past 50-100 years. and if we can find a way to do without oil, i don't see that changing in my lifetime.

 

the median (which is just the middle number and not affected by how much the top 10% makes) income (inflation adjusted) for the overall working age population was 11,500 in 1967 (oldest year in the chart i found at census bureau), in 2003 it was 23,276.

But as the post I linked to points out, the population has gotten older; the median has shifted up. That you are comparing a say, 25 year old's wages with a 35 year old's wages. If you want to make a valid comparison, you need to isolate an age group and take the median from that, as the post I linked to did.

I'm not saying capitalism is a bad system, only we should recognize its flaws and try to compensate for them.

saber_death, what do you say about the post I linked to?

 

Your point is that over the past 30 years we have gotten richer? You might as well argue that over the past 300 years we have all become kings.

None of those facts address rebutt the point that the middle class is being destroyed. They are either becoming rich or becoming poor.

And like I said, anybody can be a millionaire.

PPOR. Unless everyone can be a millionaire, then it is simply not true that "anyone" can. If your point is that anybody can be a millionaire IF they perform better than someone else, then the above statement is catagorically false. Anybody cannot be a millionaire given the fact that no matter how hard you try, if everyone else tries just as hard as Bill Gates there will still be people who will not be millionaires.

Just so everyone in the world could be a millionaire, you would need at the very minium
$6,000,000,000,000,000, that is 6 quadrillion dollars, and that is assuming eveyone would only have 1 million dollars. It is interesting to note that there is only $760 billion dollars in the world. Even if you said only eveyone in the US could be a millionaire, you would still need $300,000,000,000,000, or 300 trillion dollars. Of course if you count all the assests in the world I guess you could devide them among 300 million people to make them all millionaires, but that would require we enslave the rest of the world. When you say anything is possible, is this what you mean?

 

PPOR. Unless everyone can be a millionaire, then it is simply not true that "anyone" can.

Don't misunderstand. Just because anyone can be a millionaire, not everyone will do what's necessary to become a millionaire. It does, of course, take sacrifice and discipline.

 

Hello? Even if everybody did "what's necessary" not everyone could be a millionaire, and you offer nothing to show that everyone can. You can have all the sacrifice and discipline you want, but from a macro-economic perspective, increasing production has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth. On the micro-economic pespective it does, but if everyone was a millionaire, a million would be nothing. The millionaires could not live the way they do without people to provide labor at a fraction of what they make. The demand for a million dollars would be nothing if everyone had it. The rich need the poor just as much if not more than the poor does the rich. You say the rich "gives" a job to the poor, but it is really the rich person that is dependent on the poor to provide labor, otherwise they would just have a bunch of meaningless pieces of paper.

If we all had the same mental capacity, perhaps there might be some truth to the idea that if anyone tries hard enough they can become rich, but through nature and nuture we are not created equal. Some of us are smarter than others. I would like to see the average IQ of the richest compared to the poorest. J-Rod, you continually remark that the poor do not read and thus deserve whatever they get, but you ignore that perhaps they might have a much lower reading level than those who are afforded the benefits of educated parents who might start a child's reading ability at a young age. Of course a child who does not read well will not want to read, and this tread continues through adulthood. Instead of complaining about the poor choices of adults who are in poverty, why can you not recognize that if they had the same education they might have known better than to make the poor choices? Because our education is handled by state and local government, there is a great disparity in the quality of schools across the country. Schools in rich areas perform better than those in poor areas. You can blame this on parent involvement and societal factors, but in large groups you really can't blame the children.

Some might slip through the cracks and actually educate themselves so that they can progress, but it is incredibly irresponsible for us to just sit by while we let that be the exception rather than the rule.

I am not saying we don't have a meritocracy, luckly we do, but it isn't perfect and there is a heck of a lot more we can do to make things more equitable. I believe education can become the great equalizer if we work harder at making education better for all, not just for the rich. The rich have the advantage of parents who are educated, and it is those children that are least able to learn at home that we should help the most.

It should be noted that not everyone can be a lawyer, we will always need blue collar workers.

Ever read Brave New World? The world would not function if we were all Alphas, the only way we can be fair is to let everyone have a chance at becoming an Alpha, choose the best, and make sure the gammas aren't totally screwed.

 

It's true not everyone is capable of performing a high paying job. But if you're not smart enough to land a job that pays 6 figures, and you don't have the guts to dabble in stock and realestate speculation or open your own business, maybe you don't deserve to be a millionaire.

If the only thing you have to sell is your time and you have no skills beyond answering a telephone and filing documents in a competent manner, no one is going to pay you like a lawyer or doctor.

Is this the "unfairness" you're saying we need to compensate for in a capitalist system?

Because that's crazy. In the vast majority of cases in the first world, people are rich because of brains and hard work. To suggest that we should compensate for stupidity or laziness is nothing short of the worst form of communism.

 

First, espy, reread this post as it answers some of your questions.

My point is this: There is a limitless amount of money in the world. It is impossible for the poor to be poor because the rich have all the money. It doesn't work like that.

And yes, if you gave everyone a million dollars then a million dollars would become worthless. I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the fact that everyone can be a millionaire. Keep in mind that not everyone would do it using the same talents or methods. There would be diversity and exchanges of goods, services and ideas for money...just like we have now. But everybody would involve themselves in the process, instead of waiting for a low level job to be created so they can work that job created by the person taking most of the profit for that job.

If schools properly taught capitalism, a large part of the population would not work past the age of 30 or 35. By that time they would have built a system that continually generates an income that would sustain a good lifestyle.

I don't really give a damn about how people were raised. I don't care if they can't read very well. These are simply more reasons for them to read, they are not excuses for them to not read.

Very few people in this country were raised worse than I was. The difference is I didn't use that as a crutch to avoid my responsibility as an adult living in a capitalist society. In short, I didn't listen to the very same opinions you have.

 

I won't deny that a good work ethic and a decent brain won't get you far. Economically speaking, it doesn't matter if you give the people the money or they earn it. If everyone had a million dollars it wouldn't matter how they got it, it would be worthless either way. The reason why money works as a concept is because it is scare.

Your arguments really do not hold up to macroeconomics. You say that in a perfect world nobody would have to work past 35, but if the government decided nobody would have to work past that age, you would say we would have a disaster.

You have the idea that the world's poor are somehow all like the lazy bums that have learned to live off welfare in the south. If you look at the amount of work people do, for example the Chinese. They work their butts off, but they are still poor, and have only increased wealth differences. Were the rich harder working or smarter? Maybe, but most of them were from families with good conections. You might say this isn't true capitalism, but to a smaller extent the same thing goes on everywhere.

There are five different kinds of resources, land (all "gifts of nature"), capital goods (manufactured aids used in producing consumer goods and services), Labor (all physical and mental talents of individuals available and usable in producing goods and services), and Entrepreneurial Ability.

You are confusing Entrepreneurial ability with labor. The entrepreneur 1) Takes the initiative in combining land, capital, and labor to produce a good. 2) Makes the strategic business decisions, is an innovator, and the Risk bearer. By being a smart entrepreneur, you are correct in that your background will only limit you however much you let it. What you totally ignore is the fact that not everyone can become a successful entrepreneur, no matter how hard they try. Not everyone has equal abilities, and some will win out over others. This means not everyone can be a millionaire, even if they try.

From my econ textbook: Our planted contains only finite, and therfore limited, amounts of arable land, mineral deposists, capital equipment, and labor. Technology might increase the usefulness of a scare resource, but that doesn't change the fact we are left with only one planet. If we can measure it, it is limited. We know how much land there is on the earth. There are only so many people, and we have only so many factories. I am sure the economist you quoted used the idea of flint to show that we no longer view flint as a scarce resource because we discovered new technology. That doesn't change the fact that we went a long time without flint where we only had as much flint as we could get out of the ground, and it was limited because we only had so many people able to get it out. Animals are a resource. If there is no such thing as a "scarce resource" then there would be no such thing as extinction. Technology doesn't always keep up with our rate of expansion, and if we use our resources faster then we develop technology we most certainly will have scarce resources. Otherwise we would have cloned animals before we made them extict.

 

Not everyone can be a millionaire. And the chances are not all equal, J-Rod. If they were your whole, "We have more millionaires than ever," spiel wouldn't sound so stupid. Your chances of attaining any sort of wealth are rather slim if your options are limited. And your options greatly depend on what state you live in (at least in the US). For example, while Rockville has BethesdaSoft, I will probably not be able to work there once I get out of college. I'll have to go somewhere else first. And that involves possibly moving to another state for my career. Moving in-state is enough trouble, moving out of state is quite worse unless you already have something setup. So I'm going to end up spending more money to start at the bottom rung of a profession just so I can even have work. That's not necessarily the rosey picture you're painting.

And if I can even accomplish that much I'm fortunate as most people cannot. Your, "Anyone can do this," is rather stupid as well for the reasons I laid out. Your state economics depend on how far you go. Since we cannot all choose where to be born; it's rather silly of you to say that anyone can do it when no, not everyone can do it, there's factors you're leaving out in that simple-minded statement.

BTW: I forgot to mention (at least around where I live) the medical profession is booming. My mother made 98,000 last year through not having a life. So, if I wanted the easy-easy route I could just go into the medical profession. But I'd rather have more of a life and it doesn't interest me.