James Whitehead wrote:
>
> The idea was this freedom offers a general freedom - nothing to do with free
> to do the impossible. Lots of people in "free" societies work in jobs they
> would rather not do - so that doesnt strike one as ".free"
Why isn't it free? Show me the force being used to make this person work
at this job he would rather not do.
He chose the job in the first place. He chooses every day to stay at the
job. He chooses to go home, pop a cold one and veg out in front of the
TV instead of taking some night course to learn a new, higher paying skill.
Don't listen to what people say -- look at what they do. These people
who complain the have to work at a job they don't like are full of it!
They could have a better job, they could enjoy a better standard of
living -- but it will cost them time and effort and extra
responsibilities. They are more than happy to complain. That makes them
feel better. They are content with the work they do and the life they
lead. If they were really all that unhappy -- *they would go out and do
something about it*!!!
> Do you think Bill Gates labors to survive? Or anyone worth a few million
> dollars?
I can guarantee you don't work as hard as Bill Gates. He segments his
work days (usually 6, sometimes 7 days per week) into 15-minute blocks
of time and spends about an hour each week going over his schedule with
his assistant to see if there were any blocks of time that was wasted
and how to prevent it next week.
I don't work that hard? Do you? Do you work as hard as any random
millionaire? I seriously doubt it. You'd be too busy to complain as much
as you do.
And while we're at it, very few people (in Capitalist countries) labor
to survive. Our productivity is so high, it takes very little labor to
bring in enough to survive. We don't even talk about surviving. Staying
alive is no longer a goal we strive for. What we are all doing now is
growing or maintaining our *standard of living*! Maybe we can *retire
early*! But survive?! When was the last time you were concerned about
surviving?
>> If I continue to be frugal, and make sound financial decisions, there may
>> come a time when my capital provides a more valuable service to the market
>> than my labor. At that point (which we try to time to coincide with the
>> time we reach retirement age) I can withdraw my immediate labor from the
>> market and make a living by providing my stored labor.
>
> Well yes? but my ignorant point was that most people want to *not* work -
> this disrupts the naive logic of your picture above.
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Sure, there are some people who
are content to sleep in late, watch TV all day and the only work-related
effort they make each month is to go to the bank to cash the welfare
check. But most people need to work. The human psyche demands a reason
for existing. Work gives us a role, a function, a purpose. Even if the
job is personally unfulfilling, it allows us to maintain our dignity. We
pay our own way through this world, thank you.
If you have trouble grasping this concept, that may be why you have such
a negative view of life. Most people reading this, however, will know.
> Also your capitalism depends are surplus value which only has value in
> forcing someone else to work.
This is such an insanely stupid statement that you must explain it. Walk
us through an example of this, highlighting the economic principles
behind it.
> Otherwise you appear to think that you can
> generate wealth at no cost- which is physically impossible. That is the
> major flaw with capitalism - everyone cant be rich - therefore wealth =
> someone else being poor.
So, you think that if you have increased your earnings that this was
only possible because someone else had to decrease theirs. That would be
too depressing!
So answer me this: how can the world, every generation growing in
population, yet every generation growing in wealth. The US, with a
population of about 300 million, has really almost no poverty to speak
of. The average "poor" person in the US has at least one car, color TV,
refrigerator, microwave oven, has a 50/50 chance of owning his own home
and can stand to lose about 20 pounds. This is what we now consider
"disenfranchised." If you add up all the wealth of all the people living
in the "first" world, you have more wealth than existed in the entire
world just a generation or two ago.
There is simply not enough poor people in the entire world to make that
many people rich.
> Howver does the point remain that the 80%% acheived richness not through
> captialism but through state education?
Show me the person who started his education poor and completed his
education rich. Did he create his wealth in the classroom or in the
workplace? This is such an amazingly stupid statement that I wonder that
you aren't just throwing it out to get a reaction.
>> Now, when I say loan, I don't necessarily mean "I give you X now if you
>> agree to return X to me later." It could well be "I give you X now if you
>> agree to stop doing whatever you were doing to get yourself into this
>> predicament." This would seem to be imminently fair. If someone says, "I
>> can't work now because I'm an unwed mother with a small infant" and we
>> say, "Here's some help, provided that you stop having children you can't
>> provide for and, after the baby is old enough to place in childcare, you
>> obtain employment" and after a couple of years go by she returns to us and
>> says, "I can't work now because I'm an unwed mother with /two/ children,
>> one a small infant," it is not unreasonable for us to say, "Um. Wait a
>> minute."
>
> Yes - and then what? Let them starve?
This is it? This is the sum total of your response? This is the depth of
your intellectual prowess?
>> So one of the things I think most people object to is the growing sense of
>> entitlement in some people, the feeling that they have the /right/ to take
>> whatever resources they wish from the market while they continue their
>> self-destructive behavior.
>>
> well they dont - they take very little - most working people would NOT swap
> with them - so why the dislike of these poor people who are work-shy. How
> much tax is spent on them- as i've said elsewhere its from this underclass
> that most crime originates which costs the US Billions. Looking logically at
> the problem its probably far cheaper for the tax payer to pay them to do
> nothing.
Oh.
My.
God!
And just what do you call this economic system that has extortion as the
basis for operation?
>> ... Medical insurance is
>> a luxury; it is a luxury only recently available in human history; it is a
>> luxury millions of Americans elect to do without.
>>
> elect or cant afford. Obviously its stupid to not get health insurance -
Not, it not stupid. There is a risk involved, sure. Even when we are
young, healthy and strong, we could still be struck down in an accident
or come down with a debilitating disease. But when we weigh the risks
against the benefits of that extra money early in our working lives, it
can be quite a wise financial move NOT to get health insurance for, say,
the first decade or so of our working lives -- or buy just the much
lower cost hospitalization insurance.
It's a bit of a risk. Everything we do comes with /some/ risk. We each
weigh how much risk we feel comfortable with against the reward we
expect to receive from our action.
>> In a way, it speaks well of the success of Capitalism that we have
>> forgotten that subsistence living has been the normal state of human
>> existence for most of history. We are no longer occupied daily with
>> staying alive until the next harvest. When we have reached the point that
>> lack of medical insurance is seen as a crisis, it would seem that we have
>> solved all the difficult problems facing life and we're just looking
>> around for something to keep us busy.
>
> sure. We have people in society who do not want to work. The problem is what
> to do with them.
Yes, that is the problem. Your solution, as expressed above, is to keep
paying them so they don't turn to crime and rob us.
>> OK, I'm looking. What has [socialism] achieved in the USA? While you're looking,
>> shall we count the bodies of its murdered victims just during the 20th
>> Century? What are the latest estimates -- about 150 million? And you look
>> to this force to educate us?
>
> Now you've lost me - you seem to argue against state education - its lack is
> not life threatening - yet such an education you argue accounts for 80%% of
> rich Americans - which is i think - you think - a good thing. Now thats
> called a "contradiction."
Not my contradiction. /You/ are the one arguing that the 80%% of the
people who are wealthy but not born wealthy are wealthy because of
Socialized education. Oh, but you don't call it "Socialized education."
You call it "state education."
Most people arguing from your point of view have this annoying tendency
to think of any government expenditure or program as examples of
Socialism. State funded education may be a Socialized educational system
or it may not be. Whether or not it is Socialist in nature is a good
deal more than who is footing the bill up front.
First, let us consider a program that definitely /was/ Socialist in
nature: Hillary-care of '92-'93. I don't want to hit every point but the
most important was the restrictions. Government appointed agents matched
doctors with patients, you couldn't just pick a doctor out of the Yellow
Pages and call for an appointment. No person could pay for medical care,
from any one under any circumstances. No doctor could charge the patient
for any part of medical care. These were /imprisonable/ offenses!
This is /control/ and it is /this/ that marks it as Socialist.
Now take state funded education. States differ, but people generally
have at least some option of sending their kids to /this/ public school
or /that/ public school. Even those who live in areas of strict
districting still have the choice of whether or not to send their kids
to public school at all!
This ability to select private schooling has maintained a small but
steady level of competitive pressure on the public school systems. I
won't go into a tirade about the quality of public education, but I
don't any will argue that it could be better than it is. But it could
also be much worse than it is. It is the non-Socialist, door to the
marketplace ajar nature of the system that keeps it at a reasonable quality.
That's one point. Another point is your attempt to place a direct link
between education and wealth. Yes, a certain level of education is
necessary in a Capitalism, industrialized workplace. But if you consider
those 80%% wealthy-but-not-born-wealthy, you will find few advanced
degrees, a few business degrees, a few degrees of any sort, quite a few
non-degreed and even a fair number of high school dropouts.
Education, as important as it is, does not lead automatically to great
wealth.
> I don't ignore the evils of socialism - i think its stupid as it thinks
> humans are by nature good.
> It doesnt work - socialism that is... as for evil i think you mean
> communism.
Communism or Socialism. Would you rather get shot between the eyes or
die of starvation? A distinction without a difference.
Communism is to Socialism the same way Democracy is to Capitalism. One
is a political system and the other is an economic system. It is even
theoretically possible to have a Communist political system with a
Capitalist economic system. This is unstable and usually results in the
collapse of the political system, as all who have tried such a "third
way" has found out.
> Not true in the UK - private health care is in decline
That's not what a quite glance of recent news articles would lead us to
believe. It would appear to be the other way around.
>> So far, no one has been able to explain why the market is able to supply
>> us with 99.999%% of all the goods and services we consume, and supply it at
>> the price and quality we demand but somehow can't do the same with
>> education and, we are now led to believe, medical care.
>>
> True - and a decent infrastructure - roads - rail networks - why is the best
> rail service in the world State owned? Some things work better - if we had
> no state schools your 80%% would never have become rich. I think a free
> health service is a good thing in terms of efficiency - But the private
> sector only exists with a state run legal structure backed up by state run
> police and military. Remove this and we are left with a third world country.
Utter nonsense. The legal system in the US (Canada and UK, also) are not
Socialist! This is one of your major problems. You think anything
provided by any government is Socialism. Your arguments would be much
more meaningful if you would study a little bit and learn the meaning of
the words you are using.
> What is vital to Capitalism is a trusted legal system - which underpins it.
Absolutely. This is the first clear thought I have managed to get out of
you so far! I give myself full credit and thus I am very proud of myself.
TommCatt
--
Scientists have shown that the moon is moving away at a tiny yet
measurable distance from the earth every year. If you do the math, you
can calculate that 85 million years ago the moon was orbiting the earth
at a distance of about 35 feet. This would explain the death of the
dinosaurs. The taller ones, anyway.
