Economics

[StephenNichols]

Victot:
the part of the statement which i object to, is that israel doesn't see arabs as an inferior people. something like half the jews in israel are arab jews. it's just that israel views jews as jews, and jews have a special place to eachother and to g-d...
My generalizations about Arabs in Israel are too broad. Clearly it's not a racial issue, per se. It's a belief issue. If you are of the Jewish faith, then you are treated with respect and equality. If not, you are treated as a lesser person. Personally, I see no difference between the two. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the critera. Israel is a state that is based on discrimination. Such discrimination is state sponsored and supported. I think that discrimination has much to do with the continual conflict that Israel engages in.
also, i think your opinions about the usa are sorta naive, i guess in the opposite way you think mine are. i think being smart, hard working and driven are the keys to being successful. dubbing all those, or most of those who are sucessful as being "dishonest and ruthless" is kinda a joke....
I don't think that your beliefs are naive. On the contrary. They are fine beliefs that are shared by many. I do disagree, of course.

The global economy (including the US economy) can be characterized as a huge pyramid scheme. A very small minority is extremely wealthy. The rest of the pyramid exists solely to support the wealthly elite. This is an observable fact of the global economy. The USA is deeply rooted in this concept. You may choose to ignore this all you like, but it's as plain as the words on your screen! To become a member of the "wealthy elite" requires more than intelligence and a willingness to work harder than others. It requires a willingness to stand on the backs of the majority of the population. There is no wealthy person that has not done this. That is the nature of a pyramid scheme. It is impossible for the majority of people to achieve high status on the pyramid. If everyone was "rich" then there would be no concept of richness. It would cease to hold any meaning.

I make a good wage -- it's well above the national average. I'm no smarter than anyone else. I know that I work less hard than a migrant worker or a farmer -- even a teacher works harder (a LOT harder) than I. Even though this is the case, I make more than double what a well-paid teacher would make. The statement that all it takes is smartness and a good work ethic to make a lot of money in our society is patently wrong. Such statements are drummed into us so that we happily suport the wealthy elite through our hard work and smartness -- so they don't have to support themselves with hard work and smartness.

The truth is that a considerable number of Americans do not achieve the financial promises (home ownership, financial security, quality healthcare, etc.) of our culture. Even so, our poorest Americans are vastly more wealthy than the poorest of the world. American economics is based on exploitation of the masses for the benefit of the few. We are all cows for the wealthy elite to milk as they see fit. We struggle all our lives to attain a modicum of success and what we end up with is 31 million people living below the poverty level. I bet the majoirty of them are hard workers (and even pretty smart too). Yet they end up holding the bag in our "fair" society. The facts of the world are clearly against your statements...

Some links to consider:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/uspoor.htm
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/wealth_distribution1999.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income00.html

steve

[elke]

"The facts of the world are clearly against your statements..."

Which facts against which statements? It's true that few are really wealthy, in US and elsewhere; but the statement that all that is required to have wealth is the "willingness to stand on the backs of the majority of the population" is an opinion at best, certainly not a fact. What I read in your post is, by and large, what my school curriculum in '70's Russia taught.

I am one of those people you speak of: I don't own a home, work very hard, and try to raise my kids. I too look at the poor and elderly and feel horrible that they have to live the way they do. Like many others, I help any way I can. And you are right: working hard and being smart are not necessarily adequate to become wealthy. However, - and this is the clincher, - these attributes are indeed adequate to support yourself.

As always, there is room for improvement. Nothing is perfect. It may be worthwhile to institute universal healthcare, disability, etc., etc.

I don't really see how this relates to Israel's "discrimination". I am not sure where you get your information on this subject. Everything I have seen, suggests that Israelis are struggling with this issues no more and no less than other Western countries do, even though in their case it's actually a much more difficult issue than for others.

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

You're right! That has nothing to do with Israel. I was just responding to Victot's statements about the USA being such a fair, moral and great society. It's a bit of a tangent.

Also, I never said that all it takes to get rich is a willingness to stand on the backs of the majority of the population. Surely it takes more than that -- you have to commit your life to working at standing on the backs of the population (and you need the right opportunities to do so). I just said that you will not get rich without standing on the backs of the majority of the population.

steve

[cerulean]

Originally posted by StephenNichols

Also, I never said that all it takes to get rich is a willingness to stand on the backs of the majority of the population. Surely it takes more than that -- you have to commit your life to working at standing on the backs of the population (and you need the right opportunities to do so). I just said that you will not get rich without standing on the backs of the majority of the population.

steve

On the contrary. Although it's certainly possible to be a nasty, exploitative Mr. Scrooge-type businessperson, many businesspersons are doing a great service to their communities by providing employment to people. It's not a win-lose situation as you seem to be making out.

[StephenNichols]

Cerulean:

I don't mean to sound like a person that disagrees for the sake of disagreement... I agree that there are some business people that provide services that people find valuable. However, all business people are in business to make money. And, to make money, you must collect it from people that want or need your service. The amount of money charged is generally more than the cost of the service itself -- indeed, the higher the price to cost ratio, the better. So, in that sense even these "useful" business people are standing on the backs of the population to make their money. Even they are a part of this pyramid scheme. Arguably, the majority of businesses provides services we don't need, but are convinced we do.

I don't believe that all rich people are consciously scrooge-like or "evil". Indeed, I imagine that they mostly believe they are doing good. This is a side-effect of the virtues of our culture. We worship money, success and fame. But that does not change the fact that they're rich becuase they are taking advantage of the population (either consciously or not).

The fact is that most people are not rich. This has nothing to do with the willingness or ability of the masses. It has everything to do with the fact that the system is designed to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. It's a fat pyramid scheme where we all believe we can get to the top, only to waste our lives trying to get somewhere that we will most probably never reach.

You speak of employment as though it is a great good of this type of society. Yet, employment really equates to slave status. Most of us are slave-like "employees". We are forced by our society to slave for corporations for our producive lifetime, mostly giving up the things that are truly important, so that we can support the pyramid. Employee = slave.

Invariably this system will be loaded with financial "losers", but can only support a small number of "winners". We construct our daily lives on this erroneous concept -- calling it fair -- when it is just about the furthest thing from fairness you can get to.

steve

[elke]

So, you are advocating the pre-industrial economy? Everyone make their own food, clothing, etc. etc.

I don't know about you, but count me out. I would much rather pay a little extra for a dress and have someone else make it.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
It's a fat pyramid scheme where we all believe we can get to the top, only to waste our lives trying to get somewhere that we will most probably never reach.
Spoken like someone who is at the bottom of the pyramid, and for a very good reason: It's much easier to sit around all day and blame one's failure on those who are more successful.

By shifting the blame, there's never any self-accountability, nor any need to put in the effort and show actual initiative to improve one's situation.

And that's what Steve's post is really all about -- avoiding hard work by blaming others. It's the system's fault, it's the boss' fault, it's the company's fault, it's the fault of society's values, it's the fault of the Jews, it's the fault of Israel, it's the fault of the U.S., it's the fault of money being evil and turning all successful people into evil drones conciously or subconsciously, it's the fault of the workplace that forces employees to have actual jobs, which equal slavery, no doubt.

But the only one who's fault it is not is... guess who? Steve. After all, why should Steve be asked to go acquire skills that command a higher salary and then go find a better job? Or start his own business? Because then Steve would have only himself to blame if not successful, and that must be avoided at all cost.

Sorry to sound mean, but that's reality.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
If you are of the Jewish faith, then you are treated with respect and equality. If not, you are treated as a lesser person.

Absolutely false. What's your source, Steve? The Palestinian ministry of disinformation?

[L@mplighterM]

For the sake of an argument lets say being rich means you have 100 million US Dollars.

You then gave every living person in the US 35 cents.


Then 1000 individuals did the same and everyone was handed 350 dollars and so on…

If it continued in the same manner until everyone was equal the economy would eventually collapse due to inflation.

Communism and fascism =wealth for the few

Capitalism=wealth for the many and the opportunity for achieving wealth for the poor.

[StephenNichols]

NewsGuy:

I must be hitting pretty close to home for you to resort to personal attacks. I like it. :D My professional accomplishments and personal income do have something to do with my thoughts and feelings on this matter. Not because I'm at the bottom of the pyramid, as you so sorely put it. Quite the contrary. I've been quite successful in my career and have no financial worries whatsoever. Interestingly enough, my clarity on this issue comes from this success -- saturating myself with bigger, better and more for many years has opened my eyes to the shallow pursuits that our society encourages and supports.

And, you take my meaning quite wrong if you believe that I'm blaming others for this situation. It makes me smile ear to ear when I read that statement. Actually, this situation is not the responsibility of a nefarious "they". They is us. We are each personally responsible for the rampant consumerism in our world. The worshipping of money and things over what is truly important in life. We each practice it, so we are all responsible.

What's so interesting is how you blindly defend this way of life when it produces millions upon millions of poor in this country (and billions upon billions around the world). I understand your fear in confronting this in a direct way. It's completely understandable. Perhaps one day you will see through compassionate eyes.

NewsGuy, I would really like you to help me to clarity on this Israel discrimination issue. As I understand it, land ownership is limited to those of the Jewish faith in Israel. Do I understand that correctly? Or are my sources of information totally out of touch? Refer to one of my previous posts for a link and quotes from a UN report on these issues...

steve

[StephenNichols]

L@mplighterM:

I see where you're going with that argument. And it's true. However, as I'm sure you realize, money is only valuable because we say it is. It has no intrinsic value whatsoever. And, so long as we cling to the artificial value of money and the dominator culture that we are now experiencing, we will always suffer the ills of the poor and destitute. I would also say that Capitalism only provides opportunity for wealth for a minortiy of the poor. Your described systemic breakdown would occur when everyone achieved their fortunes as well. This is because the system is designed as a pyramid scheme. It is built on the concept of exploitation. And any good pyramid scheme keeps you thinking that you'll make it to the top -- but so few do. Amway, anyone?

Before the times of our western city/state cultures, humans lived in small communities where each was responsible for the entire group. There is something to be said for the simplicities of tribal life -- where the major problems are collection of food and simple survival tasks. If all we needed to worry about as individuals was taking care of survival needs, we would find that we had far more leisure time than we have today. These tribal cultures survived for over 100,000 years -- far longer than any city/state culture. Each such culture (from the Sumerians to the Romans) has ultimately consumed its resources and collapsed. Our societies are not immune from this effect.

Am I suggesting that we give up our technology and revert to a tribal lifestyle? No! There are many things that our technology affords us. And there are many things that a tribal lifestyle can afford us. But as we are living life today, we are consuming the very resources that keep us in our comfortable lifestyle. They will not last forever. We must learn to live within our means. We must learn to help our fellow men and women to survive comfortably instead of treating them as cash cows to exploit for our comfort.

Is it too much to ask for us to live simply so that others may simply live?

This strikes, I believe, at the heart of the Israeli and Palestinian mind sets. So consumed are they with keeping "their" land that they will kill their neighbors for it. It is this focus on the truly unimportant issues that fuels the fire of this conflict. Both sides must put aside these petty issues -- and they are completely petty -- and come to a real agreement on living peacefully together. And then they must stick to it. Palestinians and Jews should be able to live side-by-side in peace. There is nothing stopping that but the people's choices!

The key to solving this conflict will come from the populations themselves. The governments will not make change without them. The people must decide that life is preferrable to death. The people on both sides must remember how to live peacefully together. Only they can choose that path.

steve

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

Most people share your views. As a society, we value the comfort we gain through exploitation over the lives of the exploited. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I once shared your views. However, we give up a lot for the comforts we gain. I personally believe the benefits are outweighed by the detriments. Most people work far harder and longer today than they did in "the ancient times" and they rarely achieve security in their lives. I believe there is a middle ground on this issue. We don't have to renounce our technology and knowledge. Yet, we don't have to keep on exploiting people for our personal comfort either.

steve

[cerulean]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
Most people work far harder and longer today than they did in "the ancient times" and they rarely achieve security in their lives. I believe there is a middle ground on this issue. We don't have to renounce our technology and knowledge. Yet, we don't have to keep on exploiting people for our personal comfort either.


I have read some anthropological interpretations that previous societies worked less hard than currently. I find them highly doubtful. I've also read that a few surviving hunter-gatherer societies also have people who only work 3-4 hours per day, but it still doesn't seem like an inviting lifestyle somehow. In addition, this tally does not count the necessary work of continuous socialization that is required in a tribal culture as well as childcare. To name just one drawback, if you or your child became sick, there were only limited remedies that can be applied. Technology has been invented to solve problems and although there have been some mixed results, it's been a boon to humankind for the most part.

I don't think there was a hunter-gatherer paradise that was destroyed by evil agriculturalists 5,000 years ago. I don't think there was a paradisical pagan pre-civilization world that was destroyed by the monotheists.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
I like it...
Heh... :cool:

Interestingly enough, my clarity on this issue comes from this success -- saturating myself with bigger, better and more for many years has opened my eyes to the shallow pursuits that our society encourages and supports.
Wait a minute... I think that many people would agree with you that pure materialism without a substantial purpose can lead to feelings of shallowness. I have no argument with that at all. But this is most definitely not what you said before. In your posts, you wrote about "evil," "slavery," and "exploitation," and blamed these conditions on society's values, on the U.S., on businesses and on "rich" people. Those are your words.

The worshipping of money and things over what is truly important in life. We each practice it, so we are all responsible.

No, I don't worship money and I am not personally familiar with anyone who does. What people aim for is financial security and enjoyment of their lives with some of the comforts money can buy. They want their children to be free of financial worries and have a good quality of life.

And even the people I know who have very high incomes don't chase money any more -- they cherish the game, not the actual dollars.

What's so interesting is how you blindly defend this way of life when it produces millions upon millions of poor in this country (and billions upon billions around the world).

If you mean big business, yes I defend it. Business does not produce poverty. It produces jobs and quality of life for most people, and tax revenue for the government to provide for the poor and needy. It even allows for people to donate to charitable causes of their choosing.

On the other hand, laziness, lack of ambition and a sense of entitlement do produce poverty. Sure, there are some people who have ups and downs in life, but those who have the ambition and take initiative invariably get back on their feet soon enough.

NewsGuy, I would really like you to help me to clarity on this Israel discrimination issue. As I understand it, land ownership is limited to those of the Jewish faith in Israel. Do I understand that correctly? Or are my sources of information totally out of touch? Refer to one of my previous posts for a link and quotes from a UN report on these issues...

That's not correct. Land ownership is not limited to Jews and many Arabs own land all over Israel. In fact, you may even be surprised that in Jaffa (part of metropolitan Tel Aviv), the government has approved housing that is slated for sale specifically to Arabs on a preferential basis and young Jewish couples resent the reverse discrimination in favor of the Arabs.

In Israel, Arab citizens receive healthcare, housing subsidies, free and subsidized education, municipal services, welfare if needed and have full voting power equal to Israelis. Arabs have their own ministers in the Knesset and it is widely believed that the Arab vote has already determined Israel's general elections, hading Barak a victory over Netanyahu.

You may also be surprised to know that Arab citizens of Israel receive more economic and political freedom, and government benefits, than they receive in any Arab country in the world.

[elke]

We don't have to renounce our technology and knowledge. Yet, we don't have to keep on exploiting people for our personal comfort either

I am not sure what you mean by "exploiting people for our personal comfort". I provide certain services. I get paid for them. In turn, I go to the store and pay some of what I earned to get food, clothing, etc. I prefer to go to 1 store, instead of 10-15 farmers, butchers, etc. etc. Therefore, grocery stores are set up. If you saw what I can accomplish with a needle and thread, you would really understand why I would rather go to the store and buy something someone else made :D . I don't consider myself "exploited", and I don't believe I am "exploiting" others by providing them with my services. They need something I have, and I need something they have. To me, this is the fairest possible type of transaction.

We all wear different hats for different roles we have. It seems to me that the businesses' business SHOULD be to make money. In turn, taxes are paid and it is the GOVERNMENT's job to re-distribute these taxes to the less endowed.

Personally, I don't have anything against welfare (when it works to give people on the bottom a leg up, such as training, child care, medical care, etc.). I am more than willing to pay taxes for such a purpose. I understand your point regarding the poor. There is work to be done to make the "playing field" more "level". If this re-distribution can be done realistically, without going back to the stone age, and you know how to do it - I am all ears!

As far as Israeli Arabs are concerned, here is a "primer" article I found, that should give you the taste of what's happening:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/arabstat.html

And here is what the Egyptian newspaper had to say:
http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/1998/1948/363_bshr.htm

Here is a poll that was performed in 2000:
http://www.likud.nl/press34.html

I hope these help...

[L@mplighterM]

I don’t like to throw water on your parade StephenNichols but exchanges of goods have always been a reality.

Even tribal societies used bartering. It could be the exchange of anything even sexual favors.

Even in an Utopian society exchanges exist.

Are you a Muslim by any chance? The reason I ask is because I came across this:


http://islamic.org.uk/Comment/20020201_1_February_2002.htm
1 February 2002 - The Last Stand of Capitalism
"The cure to this is in implementing the laws of "ISLAM". In particular forbidding usury (interest). We must "forbid" any contract where one party can act like a parasite and prosper living off the suffering and even death of its host. Every financial contract must only give profits which are just and reasonable according to the use of the money."
"G-d (Allah)willing, justice will soon prevail and the oppression of the Capitalist bankers and their mercenaries will be at an end."
"O ye who believe! Fear G-d (Allah), and give up what remains of your demand for usury, if ye are indeed believers. If ye do it not, Take notice of war from G-d and His Apostle: But if ye turn back, ye shall have your capital sums: Deal not unjustly, and ye shall not be dealt with unjustly." (Qur'an 2:279)

If I understand the article correctly it seems like you may have posted it on another forum. Of course it could have been one of your brothers.

[StephenNichols]

NewsGuy:

Wait a minute... I think that many people would agree with you that pure materialism without a substantial purpose can lead to feelings of shallowness. I have no argument with that at all. But this is most definitely not what you said before. In your posts, you wrote about "evil," "slavery," and "exploitation," and blamed these conditions on society's values, on the U.S., on businesses and on "rich" people. Those are your words.
Yes, those are [mostly] my words and I stand by them. Nothing I said in my previous post contradicts that. Our economy is a pyramid scheme that enriches those near the top at the expense of those below them. It is a system where reaching the heights of the pyramid is systematically improbable for the majority of the populace. And, if such an event ever happened, the economic system would collapse. This is why we have over 31 million poor in the United States (with millions more above the "poverty line" but still struggling mightily to survive). This is why we have billions of incredibly poor around the world. Personally, I find this setup to be extremely unjust -- but that is just my subjective opinion.

To the point on slavery... I stand by that as well. To be an employee is to be a slave (except in rare cases of people that work for fun and are otherwise independently wealthy). This point can be taken further... The very fact that one must "earn" money to survive makes us all slaves. Slaves to the dollar and slaves to the massive corporations that feed and clothe us.
No, I don't worship money and I am not personally familiar with anyone who does.
I'll agree that most people don't worship money in the same sense as they worship God. Yet, as a society, we worship it nonetheless. Generally speaking, we adore money. Much of our lives are spent in the pursuit of it. Most of us think about it a great deal of the time. We are taught from a young age about the virtues of making money and being better than others. Our society revolves around money and commercialism far more than any other pursuit. Surely there are exceptions to this, but it is a broadly applicable generality.
What people aim for is financial security and enjoyment of their lives with some of the comforts money can buy. They want their children to be free of financial worries and have a good quality of life.
I agree that people aim for this. The sad fact is that most never find it -- not because they are lazy or dumb, but because the system is designed so that most will never find it.
If you mean big business, yes I defend it. Business does not produce poverty. It produces jobs and quality of life for most people, and tax revenue for the government to provide for the poor and needy. It even allows for people to donate to charitable causes of their choosing.
Business is the engine that moves the "wealth" from the bottom of the pyramid to the top. So long as you are not near the bottom of this system, people will see through rose-colored glasses. Of course you'll say that big business is good -- you're probably not sitting near the bottom of the pyramid. Yet, the truth is still there. Millions of Americans are poor and struggling, while the heads of these monolithic corporations reap huge financial rewards. Consider this analysis of the data contained in the Survey of Consumer Finances (http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm)
These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 39 percent of total net wealth, the top 10% of families owns over 72%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns less than 1%.
This data, if accurate, clearly shows the inequity in our financial system. Yet, you profess that big business provides income for the masses. Just enough, mind you, so that they can continue to contribute to the steady increase in wealth for the top percentage.
That's not correct. Land ownership is not limited to Jews and many Arabs own land all over Israel. In fact, you may even be surprised that in Jaffa (part of metropolitan Tel Aviv), the government has approved housing that is slated for sale specifically to Arabs on a preferential basis and young Jewish couples resent the reverse discrimination in favor of the Arabs.
Can you direct me to any resources on these developments? I am interested in reading about them. Here's a quote from the 1998 publication Israel Found Delinquint by UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Economic Rights (http://www.badil.org/Publications/Article74/1998/26n.htm)
In the long overdue investigation by the Committee on Economic, Social, and Economic Rights, composed of independent experts from 18 countries charged with reviewing Israel's compliance with the Covanent on Economic, Social, and Economic Rights, Israel was condemned for its "institutionalized form of discrimination." Regarding domestic policy, the Committee notes that
while the World Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency and Jewish National Fund were linked legally to and sponsored by the state of Israel after 1948, these institutions benifit only Jews and are systemically allocated vast amounts of confiscated Palestinian property to be used exclusively by Jews.

More specific forms of discrimination against Palestinian Arab citizens were noted in such mixed Arab-Jewish towns, such as Lod and Jaffa. The report revealed that Palestinian citizens were not provided with basic municipal services and that Arab neighborhoods had "deteriorated into virtual slums" as a result. The committee also addressed the problems stemming from the estimated 200,000 "present absentees" (property confiscated from Palestinian Arab citizens forced to leave their villages and towns during the 1948) as well as the hundreds of unrecognized Arab villages inside Israel proper whose occupants lack basic services and are constantly subject to home demolition.

The Committee also addressed Israel's manipulation of demography in favor of a distinct ethnic group. The Committee "noted with concern" that while the Israeli Law of Return allows Jews anywhere to claim citizenship, Israel makes it "almost impossible [for Palestinians] to return to the land of their birth."

Since Israel is obliged to apply the Covenant in the occupied territories, Israel was found to seriously breach those obligations by such policies as the exclusion of Palestinians from Jerusalem, discriminatory restrictions on travel, the closure on Jerusalem, and the separation of Palestinian Jerusalemite families. The Committee also deplored the continuing home demolition, diversion of water from Palestinian areas, confiscation of Palestinian land, illegal settlement expansion, and the fracturization of Palestinian land continuity by the new by-pass roads which connect the illegal Jewish settlements. The Committee expressed outrage at all policies of "population transfer," including planting Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem, and observed that the closure on of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip caused "widespread violations" of Palestinian social, economic, and cultural rights.

In its concluding remarks, the Committee recommended that Israel act immediatly to comply with international human rights law, including the right to self determination. Since Israel was negligent in its initial report to the Committee and ommitted crucial information about the occupied territories, the Committee has asked Israel for an additional report in two years that should also cover occupied East Jerusalem.

The Committee's report relied on the information of Government as well as nongovernmental sources, including several Palestinian NGOs. Though Israel had initially ascribed many of the obvious violations to faults inherent in the Oslo Accords, the omission of the Oslo Accords in the report demonstrated that the treaty does not supercede international law. Rather the report established the first legal opinion on the nature of Israeli institutions, indicating these institutions are inherently discriminatory by their preference of a specific ethnic group and by the government's reliance on population transfer as a central policy option.

Though neither the Committee nor the Convention provide any mechanism of enforcement, the legal opinion will provide human rights groups and diplomats with additional resources to advocate for Palestinian ritghts in the future. More significantly, however, the report demonstrates that the source of human rights violations on the Palestinian Arab population comes not from faulty peace treaties, not only from the occupation, but rather Israel's "discriminatory" (Zionist) nature.

steve

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

am not sure what you mean by "exploiting people for our personal comfort". I provide certain services. I get paid for them. In turn, I go to the store and pay some of what I earned to get food, clothing, etc. I prefer to go to 1 store, instead of 10-15 farmers, butchers, etc. etc. Therefore, grocery stores are set up. If you saw what I can accomplish with a needle and thread, you would really understand why I would rather go to the store and buy something someone else made . I don't consider myself "exploited", and I don't believe I am "exploiting" others by providing them with my services. They need something I have, and I need something they have. To me, this is the fairest possible type of transaction.
Do you honestly think that you are paying a fair amount for the clothes you buy in the stores? Do you think that the people working to make your clothes are well-paid? Are they well-treated? Are the destitute labor pools used by corporations in developing nations being exploited so that you can have your cheap clothing? In a lot of cases, they are! Similar exploitations and inequities exist in nearly every industry. You buy your cheap food at the super market, yet it's cost is artificially reduced through US subsidies that hurt farmers in developing nations. We drive our cars that run on oil that support corrupt regimes in the Middle-east and contribute to environmental damage. The list goes on and on...

Yes, we all get "good deals" for our money. Yet there are people out there paying the price for it -- it's just not you. This is how we are comfortable through the exploitation of others.

steve

[StephenNichols]

L@mplighterM:

don’t like to throw water on your parade StephenNichols but exchanges of goods have always been a reality.

Even tribal societies used bartering. It could be the exchange of anything even sexual favors.

Even in an Utopian society exchanges exist.

Are you a Muslim by any chance? The reason I ask is because I came across this...
:) I don't mind water...

You know, I completely agree that trading has happened for as long as people have had things to trade. I am not anti-trade. Yet, the idea of amassing great hordes of wealth at the expense of the majority of the population is not a universal concept. You can trade fairly, be it money or sexual favors. Yet, we do not live in a society where fair trade is encouraged or supported. Indeed, we live in a society where the top 10% of the population owns 79% of the wealth. And they use that wealth to get more wealth, while the "less fortunate" among us bear the burden.

Am I Muslim? What if I were? Would that lessen the value of what I'm saying here? In fact, I am not Muslim. I am not Jewish. I am not Christian. I am not a Hinu. I am not a Buddhist. I do not subscribe to any organized religion. Yet, I am a spiritual person. I do believe in God. Albeit a much different one that many. :) But I digress. This is not a forum for discussing my spiritual beliefs.

As for the posting you quoted... I understand the frustration that person feels. I see plainly the global economic system -- the global pyramid -- that is bult on the backs of the masses. However, I do not subscribe to the notion that "Allah" or God will solve these problems with divine intervention. Indeed, God has given us all free will to do with as we please. We can solve these problems easily with our free will. So, why should God come in an fix something that we can fix ourselves?

So, no, that's not from me... Or anyone I know. :)

steve

[elke]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
Elke:


Do you honestly think that you are paying a fair amount for the clothes you buy in the stores? Do you think that the people working to make your clothes are well-paid? Are they well-treated? Are the destitute labor pools used by corporations in developing nations being exploited so that you can have your cheap clothing? In a lot of cases, they are! Similar exploitations and inequities exist in nearly every industry. You buy your cheap food at the super market, yet it's cost is artificially reduced through US subsidies that hurt farmers in developing nations. We drive our cars that run on oil that support corrupt regimes in the Middle-east and contribute to environmental damage. The list goes on and on...

Yes, we all get "good deals" for our money. Yet there are people out there paying the price for it -- it's just not you. This is how we are comfortable through the exploitation of others.

steve

Yes, I do think that I pay a "fair price" for what I buy. If, and when, the price rises because of the improvements in the standard of living of the people producing these items, I will pay a higher "fair price" without complaint. Nobody has said that the current situation is perfect and completely equitable, but I don't see what exactly you are advocating.

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

Nobody has said that the current situation is perfect and completely equitable, but I don't see what exactly you are advocating.
Indeed, it's not even close to perfect. And, I'm not advocating anything, per se. This is not a problem that will be solved through massive implementation of some new social program.

What is needed in this case is exactly what is needed in the Israeli / Palestinian case: the people contributing to the problem (read: everyone) must, as individuals, move away from these destructive behaviors and toward fair and positive dealings. There is much we can do as individuals to raise consciousness about these problems and to suggest small changes for the better. You can bet your life that the government and corporate institutions will not make change -- they benefit from the current setup too much. So, it is up to you -- all of you, which is all of us -- to make change in your life for the better.

Want some suggestions?

1. Turn off your TV -- permanently. It's a mouthpiece for corporations. It's an electronic drug that keeps you from being totally self aware.

2. Do small acts of kindness for others.

3. Help feed the poor and destitute in your own back yard.

4. If you can, plant a vegetable garden so that you can claim some independence from the unfair system. Share the food you grow with others.

5. Disconnect from technology and reconnect with your neighbors. Get to know them. Build relationships with them.

6. If you can, retrofit your home with solar panels and other apparatus that helps to free you from the energy corporations.

7. Take sewing classes. :)

steve

[ibrodsky]

8. Give a terrorist a big hug -- show him/her that you really care.

[Mediocrates]

This data, if accurate, clearly shows the inequity in our financial system. Yet, you profess that big business provides income for the masses. Just enough, mind you, so that they can continue to contribute to the steady increase in wealth for the top percentage.


It shows a degree of inequity in the structure of the generation of wealth. Not the financial system. About 100 Trillion, thats right, Trillion with a T dollars in electronic wealth flow through the world daily. Virtually all of that wealth is held not by people or even corporate organizations but transfer agents, banks, debt service companies, monolines, primary seconday and tertiary insurance carriers, and to a small degree, governments.

BTW the US ranks somewhere around fifth-seventh in the world in terms of the disparity between the aggregate wealth of the top quintile vs. the last quintile. I believe Brazil, Hong Kong and South Africa or Congo and probably Saudi Arabia rank higher. And the differnce between capitalist America and socialist Europe exists but's fairly thin. The main reason that the range in Europe is narrower is largely because of taxes that make compensation ownership schemes prohibitively expensive at the high end. For example a German executive is more likely to get a company car than stock options because options are extremely tax expensive as are all direct compensations, compared to the US.

What you allude to is I guess the broad issue of the fairness of globalization. On the one hand a cheap factory moves to Thailand and makes people work for low wages in poor conditions for long hours and on the other hand the alternative is to not work at all or to subsistance farm. Somewhere in the middle of that - we're supposed to have, as a concerned society some notion of justice and equity. I don't think most people in the US can solve that problem because they don't have their hands anywhere near the levers that control it. Simply put, most of us, even most of us here even the profressionals are wearing smocks and work to feed ourselves out of the company store, in 21st C terms that is. In my own little corner of the world we have the classic disconnect between cheap labor, H1B visas, and the highest local unemployment rate in nearly 30 years. Our 'indigenous' population has been 'colonized' by cheap foreign labor or been outsourced there altogether. Seeee-ucks to be us. Its the OTHER edge of globalization - we are just as disposable as an Indian cotton farmer. The difference is that we live in a modern semi-caring society that provides options, both economic and governmental/social to that problem.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by StephenNichols



5. Disconnect from technology and reconnect with your neighbors. Get to know them. Build relationships with them.


steve

Why don’t you lead the way by unplugging your computer and throwing it in the garbage?

[elke]

1. Turn off your TV -- permanently. It's a mouthpiece for corporations. It's an electronic drug that keeps you from being totally self aware.

What do you mean "totally self aware"? While TV is used by corporations, it also happens to be a useful information-disseminating tool. As human beings, we have sufficient analytical abilities to separate the wheat from the chaff.

2. Do small acts of kindness for others.

I am sure we all do what we can, - from opening doors for others, to donating whatever funds we can spare.

3. Help feed the poor and destitute in your own back yard.

See No.2

4. If you can, plant a vegetable garden so that you can claim some independence from the unfair system. Share the food you grow with others.

I am not at all sure just how unfair the system is. Some of those "poor and destitute in our own back yard" are the American farmers.

5. Disconnect from technology and reconnect with your neighbors. Get to know them. Build relationships with them.

How is this supposed to improve the lot of the destitute around the world?

6. If you can, retrofit your home with solar panels and other apparatus that helps to free you from the energy corporations.

I used to sell solar heaters, to help with college costs. Solar heat is unrealistic in moderate climates, such as NJ - where I live.

7. Take sewing classes.

Somehow I think that I would find rocket science easier than sewing. :D

Look, there are serious discrepancies between the various people's lots. Much of the time, it's not their fault. There are many things that need to be done, improved, agitated for and against, etc. Collectively, we - the humanity - have accomplished a great deal in the 10,000 years we have been in the process of building civilization. IMHO, our job now is to continue this process.

[Mediocrates]

If you want to help the developing world - support a process to get cheap used computers and free software. This is for many poor smart people the only way out of poverty particularly in the third world.

[elke]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
If you want to help the developing world - support a process to get cheap used computers and free software. This is for many poor smart people the only way out of poverty particularly in the third world.

Very good point!

[Mediocrates]

Yes - the third world can't afford to buy Microsoft licences nor can they afford the bloated hardware required to run it. But if you get them Linux or BSD based cheap used systems running on low end hardware and give them enough education they will build software and services that can't be touched by the expensive massive software death march mentality of the US or the West.

[StephenNichols]

Mediocrates:

Have a look at the information on this page, as it graphically describes the vast inequities of income and wealth in our nation.

The L-Curve! (http://www.davidchandler.com/lcurve/)

steve

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

What do you mean "totally self aware"? While TV is used by corporations, it also happens to be a useful information-disseminating tool. As human beings, we have sufficient analytical abilities to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I mean that the more time you spend watching TV, the less time you spend being aware of yourself and others. I'll agree that some programming on television is not without value. But the vast majority of programming serves only to entertain you so that you will sit to watch the next advertisement. Television does you no favors. Indeed, all the "information" you get from it you can get from other, less corporate sources -- and said information will probably be more complete to boot.

I am not at all sure just how unfair the system is. Some of those "poor and destitute in our own back yard" are the American farmers.
Our economic system is fundamentally unfair. It's a big, fat pyramid scheme. The majority of the money you pay for your food goes right to an agricultural corporation or some other big-business. That's exactly one reason why the "American Farmer" is becoming a rare beast.

steve

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
Our economic system is fundamentally unfair. It's a big, fat pyramid scheme.

So sad how this society of ours requires education, skills, hard work and savings to be at the top of the pyramid.


The majority of the money you pay for your food goes right to an agricultural corporation or some other big-business.

i.e., straight into the pockets of the big company's employees, their children's college funds, health insurance, retirement accounts, etc.

[StephenNichols]

NewsGuy:

You can pretend that the inequities aren't here all you like, if that's what comforts you. Pretend that all anyone has to do is get education, skills and be willing to do hard work to get to the top of the pyramid. Of course, that fantasy has nothing to do with reality, but hey... so long as you're comfortable. And, for goodness' sake, don't actually respond with new information that might bring this discussion forward -- that would require taking the time to understand the problem. Odd, with a name like NEWSguy, I'd expect you to do just that.

Why not look at the very data that the US government provides on this situation. You might even be able to educate yourself some. The fact is, the distribution of wealth and income is incredibly skewed. The system is designed to create this inequity. It is impossible for the majority of smart, hard working and skilled people to reach the top of the L-curve. You can ignore it all you like, but that changes nothing.

This situation is a global one... and it is a symptom of the lack of love that we all have for each other. Nothing will change -- not for Israel or anyone -- until we individually make changes in how we see and treat the people around us.

i.e., straight into the pockets of the big company's employees, their children's college funds, health insurance, retirement accounts, etc.
Obviously, some of the money goes to employees and their supporting infrastructure. But a significant portion goes a corporate profits. And you can bet that the upper-management of the huge Agribusinesses are sitting very close to the top of the pyramid -- while the employees are struggling just like everyone else to "make it" in a company and country where "making it" it almost as likely as getting struck by lightning.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/hfpintro.htm

steve

[Mediocrates]

"Our economic system is fundamentally unfair. It's a big, fat pyramid scheme. The majority of the money you pay for your food goes right to an agricultural corporation or some other big-business. That's exactly one reason why the "American Farmer" is becoming a rare beast. "


The family farm effectively died out 50 years ago and was replaced by industrial agribusiness. About 5% of the total foodcrop value in the US is produced by family farms. By the way did you know that almost all tobacco growers are in fact sharecroppers who rent land and pay a crop rent to finance their crops? One reason why this is even possible is because tobacco has the highest dollar yield per acre of any legal crop except for herb farms which allows the 'family' business to make a living off small plots of land. OTOH for foodstuffs - the main three grains of corn, wheat, oats, industrial combines produce almost all of it because it is cheaper and easier to do it that way. The US has about 7% of the worlds population and consumes ~35% of the worlds food. And about 20% of total energy consumption and energy products consumption in the US goes to the production and processing of foodstuffs. The average family farmer feeds 24-48 people while the average industrial combine is about 10x more efficient.

Why is this in and of itself a bad thing? I don't own a handmade car or loom stitched clothes either.

[elke]

The real question is not the shape of the economic scheme, but rather the standard of living for the largest part of the population.

US and other free market societies have the largest "middle class" populations of any economic schemes ever tried. They also show the least rigid social and economic structure of the population: those moving between the various economic levels.

The driving engine for these movements seems to be, to a large extent, techonogical advancement. The caveat of such reliance on technology is the high demand for education.

To me, the biggest problem in the American society today is the inequality of educational opportunities among the various demographic groups. This is due to many factors, which I am sure other people are far more qualified to expound upon than I will ever be. However, my family has chosen to live in the town we live in specifically for the school system for our 3 children. We are paying a premium for this privilege. Others less fortunate, may not have the opportunity to do the same, however, so this is indeed a major problem.

[victot]

StephenNichols,

just out of curiosity, what country's economic system do you think the us's economy should strive to be like?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by StephenNichols NewsGuy:

You can pretend that the inequities aren't here all you like, if that's what comforts you. Pretend that all anyone has to do is get education, skills and be willing to do hard work to get to the top of the pyramid. Of course, that fantasy has nothing to do with reality, but hey... so long as you're comfortable. And, for goodness' sake, don't actually respond with new information that might bring this discussion forward -- that would require taking the time to understand the problem. Odd, with a name like NEWSguy, I'd expect you to do just that.

Why not look at the very data that the US government provides on this situation. You might even be able to educate yourself some. The fact is, the distribution of wealth and income is incredibly skewed. The system is designed to create this inequity. It is impossible for the majority of smart, hard working and skilled people to reach the top of the L-curve. You can ignore it all you like, but that changes nothing.

This situation is a global one... and it is a symptom of the lack of love that we all have for each other. Nothing will change -- not for Israel or anyone -- until we individually make changes in how we see and treat the people around us.


Obviously, some of the money goes to employees and their supporting infrastructure. But a significant portion goes a corporate profits. And you can bet that the upper-management of the huge Agribusinesses are sitting very close to the top of the pyramid -- while the employees are struggling just like everyone else to "make it" in a company and country where "making it" it almost as likely as getting struck by lightning.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/hfpintro.htm

steve And from the "For What It's Worth Department," as Paul Harvey would say, Americans are some of the most affluent people in the world. Many make more in one hour at minimum wage than their counterparts in the Third World make in a day. Look at the median income from nations around the world and then cry about how bad the common man has it. Come on.

In the US there is nothing to keep you from achieving anything you want in life. You can be as rich as you want, work as hard as you want, and have as much free time as you want. You may not be able to have them all at the same time, but you can have them. Most Americans buy into the lie that someone else is limiting their lives. Then along comes a Vietnamese entrepreneuer and does what the American only gives lip service to. I know guys who sit at home and collect from the state because they "can't find a job." What they really mean is that they can't find a job they want to do or that pays what they think it should. Time to quit making excuses for the lazy and visionless and provide leadership and challenge to those who truly want to succeed. My children will far outstrip me in their lives. I gave them nothing but education, love, and encouragement. The rest they have had to earn for themselves. My oldest makes almost three times what I do. Whine to someone else about the "unfair inequities" of the American way.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
Mediocrates:

Have a look at the information on this page, as it graphically describes the vast inequities of income and wealth in our nation.

The L-Curve! (http://www.davidchandler.com/lcurve/)

steve

Yes I understand that. Compared to many nations in the world though, the disparity between the top decile and the last decile is not as wide in terms of multiples of incomes. I believe that in Brazil for example the gap averages about 22:1 where the corresponding gap in the US is about 8:1.

I think it's misleading to look at the total wealth of the wealthiest households because they are almost outliers from a statistical perspective. Bill Gates is worth more than Peru.

I don't disagree that it's not 'fair'. I disagree that it's important. Of course if you look at one version of aggregated global statistics you get a distored picture like this one:

http://poorcity.richcity.org/entundp.htm

But much of this is besides the point. Clearly the question is not, that the root cause or a root cause of Palistanian violence is poverty. Because a) that's simply not the case, and b) large numbers of Palistanians are not poor, but instead are middle class.

The next question is, how does one create or jumpstart a developmental economy like the smashed up one for the Palistanians?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
Pretend that all anyone has to do is get education, skills and be willing to do hard work to get to the top of the pyramid. Of course, that fantasy has nothing to do with reality, but hey.

I stand by what I said earlier, which is that anyone who gets a proper education and marketable skills, and is willing to put in the hard work can succeed in the U.S. and in most other civilized countries.

But everyone makes their own calculation as to how much time and effort they invest in making money, as opposed to other important undertakings, like child-rearing, spiritual pursuits, hobbies, etc. There are successul people in all these areas, and some can even succeed in more than one category.


And, for goodness' sake, don't actually respond with new information that might bring this discussion forward -- that would require taking the time to understand the problem. Odd, with a name like NEWSguy, I'd expect you to do just that.

You're a funny guy, StephenNichols, so I've got some NEWS for you: For many people, the need to stop shifting the blame for their own failure to other successful people is an important newsflash.

Why not look at the very data that the US government provides on this situation. You might even be able to educate yourself some. The fact is, the distribution of wealth and income is incredibly skewed.

Luckily, I've already educated myself. For you, apparently, the fact that a few people earn a lot more money than most others is the result of some kind of imaginery nefarious plot. When you recover from your paranoia and conspiracy theories, you may be able to get a little more education for yourself about why it's ok that only a handful of people are great artists, or great actors, or great athletes, or great businesspeople.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by victot
StephenNichols,

just out of curiosity, what country's economic system do you think the us's economy should strive to be like?

How about Vatican City.

[Mediocrates]

Mr. Nichols' facts are in many respects correct, when looked from a particular direction. Are there disparities? Yes of course there are. But what are the remedies? A simple redistribution - a-la high taxes? Well that's one approach and one that works in some places like France.

But there there is a strong cultural impetus to be French. That is, it is more important to be like one another than it is to be something else. For American 'Freedom' the French analog is "Equality".

So the basic questions you have to ask yourself are:

Is it that a few people have so much or that many people have less than they deserve or need?

I for one wouldn't bother too much with trying to redistribute the Bill Gates' wealth, not when people like that donate 24 billion dollars to biomedical research and jumpstart an industry that multiplied its earning effect by an order of magnitude through the economy. But is it reasonable for execs like the recently fired CEO of Tyco to run their company into the ground while collecting 300 million in compensation the last 3 years. Hell No!

How does that help the 30 million people who have no health insurance? How does that help the 10 million adults who are functionally illiterate? How does that help the millions of children who go to school, just to get 2 free meals? How do you effectively short circuit poverty, ignorance, shame, substance abuse...?

Certainly something is wrong with this picture. We Westerners, Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Japanese, etc. have the capital the technology and the know how to make more than enough of EVERYTHING. So why not? It's not simply a matter of making more than enough of everything and it's not simply a matter of tendering services and offering support. Capitalism will not save us, but neither will socialism either.

I think this is where the American Right/Libertarians simply break down and fall into the morass of carping about 'values' and 'initiative'. The problem is that all of that is theory and of no practical use other than blaming someone or some group for their lot in life.

"It's not because you're poor and uneducated, it's because you have the wrong values."

Well thanks a lot for that uplifting message.

I simply don't have the answers, I wish I did.

[cerulean]

Proper nutrition and nurturing during the prenatal period and the first three years are of vital importance to a person's later intelligence, initiative, health, and general capability. It's a given that some people get a much better childhood than others. This is not something that can necessarily be fixed by income redistribution, however.

It isn't necessarily the case that someone who has all the cards stacked against them will not triumph eventually. Some do, against all odds. As a systemic matter, though, the vast majority of people who have inadequate nutrition, nurturing, and education during childhood will be stuck in a morass.

I don't have a solution either. It's easy to say "change the culture," but harder to figure out how. Sociological evidence shows, however, that education for girls and women is an extremely significant factor for lifting a community's standard of living generally.

[StephenNichols]

NewsGuy:

Luckily, I've already educated myself. For you, apparently, the fact that a few people earn a lot more money than most others is the result of some kind of imaginery nefarious plot. When you recover from your paranoia and conspiracy theories, you may be able to get a little more education for yourself about why it's ok that only a handful of people are great artists, or great actors, or great athletes, or great businesspeople.
lol When did I ever claim that there is a nefarious plot?! That's pretty funny. There's no grand scheme or some evil plot that is being implemented to keep the majority of people poor. It's just how the system is designed to work. Our economic system cannot exist as it is without the concepts of "haves" and "have-nots". Everyone cannot be rich -- or even close to it -- or the concept of being rich would be meaningless. This is why inflation exists -- as everyone gets more money, money becomes less "valuable" and prices increase. Wealth would further concentrate, creating more "haves" and "have-nots". This is the flaw with our system as it is designed. It's not the fault of individuals that this is the case -- at least not in a conscious way. But the current situation is everyone's responsibility.

You're right to point out that I don't think that it's OK for just a minority of the population to hold the majority of the wealth. In our society, wealth = influence = power. I believe that the majority of the people should have the influence and power in the society, not just the rich elite. Why aren't there viable political candidates that don't have access to great hoardes of cash? Because the non-rich cannot compete with the rich elite in getting the public's attention. Do you believe that we're getting the best choice of political ideas because of this? I don't. I believe that there are many people that would make great leaders, yet they will never have the chance to be those leaders because they are not competitively wealthy. This is just one example of how concentration of wealth is BAD. Another good reason is the fact that powerful and influential organizations exert great influence over the media. This all but guarantees that we will not get the true information on things that reflect badly on said organizations.

I also believe that it should be the responbility of society to ensure that its members live with basic dignity. The world has enough resources for everyone to have a place to live and food to eat. Must we all have to work our assses off simply to survive? In a country where we have more than enough food to feed every citizen, why should someone die of hunger -- or live on garbage? It's only our societal lack of caring that makes this possible. The only thing that keeps the poor so poor is the unwillingness of the rich to help them out. The rich simply don't care.

I'm not suggesting that we should evenly divide the wealth of the world. But I am suggesting that each person should be provided basic (just basic) provisions for living in dignity. Nobody should worry about starving to death or living on the street. If you want to have nicer housing, clothing, food and "stuff", then go out to the "free" economy and get it. But you should not have to work simply to survive.

It's not a "nefarious plot" that keeps the system the way it is. It's an epedemic lack of love and respect for our fellow human beings. We're all so worried about making our next buck and "getting ahead" that we do little to meaningfully help out the "less fortunate" among us. It's a crisis of conscience we face. Not only in economic areas, but social and political as well. Each of our problems can be tracked to a fundamental lack of love and respect for our fellow men and women.

steve

[StephenNichols]

Victot:

just out of curiosity, what country's economic system do you think the us's economy should strive to be like?
I believe that our economy should remain a capitalistic economy based on free market trading. However, I believe that society should insist that a percentage of our vast wealth be diverted to ensuring that every citizen lives in basic dignity. Every citizen should be guaranteed basic clothing, food, housing, health care and education. There is no reason that the two ideas -- capitalism and basic survival -- cannot coexist. It's only our insistence that everyone must work for basic survival that makes it so. It's simply a lack of love and caring for others that allows this injustice to take place. Would you let your mother be homeless? How about your sister or brother? If not them, then why anyone?

steve

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
Everyone cannot be rich -- or even close to it -- or the concept of being rich would be meaningless. This is why inflation exists -- as everyone gets more money, money becomes less "valuable" and prices increase.
Not true. There can be more money circulated in society without causing inflation if there is a rise in productivity.

Not to be patronizing, but it is a basic fact of macro-ecomonics that inflation is defined as too much money chasing too few goods. Therefore, if there are more goods being produced, i.e., a rise in real productivity, then inflation is kept in check, even when there is more money injected into the system.

Why aren't there viable political candidates that don't have access to great hoardes of cash? Because the non-rich cannot compete with the rich elite in getting the public's attention... I believe that there are many people that would make great leaders, yet they will never have the chance to be those leaders because they are not competitively wealthy.

The inherent cost of running a national campaign needs to be addressed through legislation -- it's not really a flaw of economics.

But now things have changed to a great extent, and we will get the chance to find out just how "viable" these fringe candidates really are.

As you might be aware, most of the expense of running a national campaign is due to the cost of buying air-time to broadcast political commercials. But these days, there has been created an opportunity for a grassroots candidates to get his/her message in front of the voters much more cost-effectively on the Internet. The Internet is the perfect medium to run cheap political ads and also to spread the campaign by word of mouth on the Web. So, let's see what candidates do with this cost-effective way of campaigning nationally.

I also believe that it should be the responbility of society to ensure that its members live with basic dignity... In a country where we have more than enough food to feed every citizen, why should someone die of hunger -- or live on garbage?

No, people should not be dying from hunger, and in fact, in the U.S. no one dies from hunger. There are social programs in place to provide housing and food to every citizen, and even costly social benefits to non-citizens.

But it is not society's responsibility alone to ensure the dignity of its citizens. Individuals also need to take responsibility for their own lives and put in the time and effort to support themselves independently.

In fact, I don't know what kind of dignity you think able-bodied people will find by having someone else support them and by perpetually living off society's handouts.

As for people who legitimately cannot work for a living because of age or health problems, I agree that a wealthy society should provide for them. The ability to help the needy is a privilege.

[StephenNichols]

NewsGuy:

Here's a definition of inflation that I've found:

inflation, in economics, persistent and relatively large increase in the general price level of goods and services. Its opposite is deflation, a process of generally declining prices. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics produces the Consumer Price Index (CPI) yearly, which measures average price changes in relation to prices in an arbitrarily selected base year. While the CPI is usually considered the most reliable estimate of inflation, some economists have questioned whether it overstates inflationary trends.

Inflation results from an increase in the amount of circulating currency beyond the needs of trade; an oversupply of currency is created, and, in accordance with the law of supply and demand, the value of money decreases. Deflation is brought about by the opposite condition. In the past, inflation was often due to a large influx of bullion, such as took place in Europe after the discovery of America and at the end of the 19th cent. when new supplies of gold were found and exploited in South Africa. In modern times wars are the most common cause of inflation, as government borrowing, the increase in the money supply, and a diminished supply of consumer goods increase demand relative to supply and thereby cause rising prices.

I assume that when you say "rise in productivity" you mean that there is a corresponding increase in needs of trade. That is, there is always something expensive to spend your money on. That's very true... but you side-stepped the thrust of my post.

Everyone cannot be rich -- or even close to it -- or the concept of being rich would be meaningless.

This is the fundamental problem with relying solely on capitalism for the needs of individuals. This is because such a system ALWAYS produces "have-nots". Such a system always contains a large number of strugglers that never quite "make it". For the rich to exist, there has to be non-rich. This is the core of the inequity in the system. It is impossible for everyone (or even a majority) to be wealthy.

I still believe that redirecting a portion of our vast wealth to ensure a basic standard of living for everyone would be in our best interests. I'm not talking about a simple handout for the poor either. I'm describing a system that would provide basic dignities such as food, shelter, clothing, health care and education to everyone. This support would always be available to anyone that wanted it, without limitation or restriction. This support would only supply these basic needs. Anything else that you wanted to accomplish or undertake would be of your own initiative.

There are social programs in place to provide housing and food to every citizen, and even costly social benefits to non-citizens.
That's a good one! If there are programs in place to provide housing and food to every citizen, why do I keep seeing homeless people on the streets every day? Where are their homes and clothing? Why must they eat out of trash cans? These must be pretty useless programs!

steve

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
As for people who legitimately cannot work for a living because of age or health problems, I agree that a wealthy society should provide for them. The ability to help the needy is a privilege.

But should help be provided by government using taxes or charities using donations?

There are several reasons why it is best if such help is provided by charities:

Because of the huge number of people it serves, government is rather faceless. Recipients tend to view monetary assistance as an entitlement rather than what it really is: a gift.

Government is bureaucratic. Mistakes are common. People who are deserving may be denied assistance, while people who are not deserving manage to receive assistance for years before they are discovered -- if they are ever discovered.

When people are in need of monetary assistance, they should have some sense of who is helping them. We need to restore the sense that we help others because it is a good thing to do and because we can afford to do so, not because we are forced to. More important, we need to return to an arrangement in which the recipients of assistance know to whom they are indebted and show their gratitude.

People would be less prone to cheat a system based on charity, both because there is a greater chance of being discovered and because they understand they are being helped by specific people rather than just a faceless bureaucracy.

Reliance on charity would also get families more involved. With all of the government assistance that is available for free, why should family members help out? Such government programs have actually contributed (unwittingly) to weakening the family as an institution.

[Mediocrates]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also believe that it should be the responbility of society to ensure that its members live with basic dignity... In a country where we have more than enough food to feed every citizen, why should someone die of hunger -- or live on garbage?



I'm with Steve on this. It is a basic responsibility and one of the many costs and responsibilies of citizenship to insure the welfare of one another. It's a profoundly basic attribute of what a community is. It's the parameters of what kind of society you want to live in and what kind of society you think represents you.

Tzedakkah is commandment, not a suggestion and tikkun olam is a real living breathing thing-at least to me it is.

My wife once taught in an upstate NY school where some of the kids had rickets. That's an abomination.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
But should help be provided by government using taxes or charities using donations?
First, help should come from people's own insurance coverage, then from family assistance, then from charity organizations, and only then should the government be asked to step in.

All along the way, I would like to see better fraud detection and less bureuacracy.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

My wife once taught in an upstate NY school where some of the kids had rickets. That's an abomination.

Rickets are an example of an entirely preventable disease. Essentially the children needed Vitamin D at negligible cost, or sunlight at no cost. Presumably they were not milk drinkers, or they would have gotten the Vitamin D in their milk. It would seem their mothers (or other primary caregivers) were not aware of the children's basic needs. The traditional remedy to prevent Vitamin D deficiency was cod liver oil. The only way I can think this could be prevented is if the mothers had been better informed and the families had been checked on regularly to ensure that the children were getting some sort of Vitamin D.

The situation with blindness caused by Vitamin A deficiency in India is similar. The cost to provide the needed Vitamin A is pennies per person. The cost to solve the blindness problem once it occurs is, of course, many orders of magnitude larger.

Well-considered public health funding is usually very justifiable, no matter what one's ideology, just because the expense and suffering caused by someone getting a preventable disease is so much higher than the cost of preventing it in the first place.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
I assume that when you say "rise in productivity" you mean that there is a corresponding increase in needs of trade. That is, there is always something expensive to spend your money on. That's very true... but you side-stepped the thrust of my post. No, but there may be a greater variety, or a greater quantity of goods. They need not be more expensive necessarily. The point is that you think that there is some kind of artificial system in place to raise the price of goods if more people are affluent. I say that is not necessarily the case if there are simply more goods introduced into the market to "absorb" the extra cash.


Everyone cannot be rich -- or even close to it -- or the concept of being rich would be meaningless... For the rich to exist, there has to be non-rich.
"Rich" is always in relative terms. What's "rich" anyway these days? $100,000 in the bank? $1 million? $10 million? It really depends on who you ask and what their expenses are. The label is really meaningless.

You might see things differently if you think in terms of "financially successful," and there is certainly nothing standing in the way of most anyone to become financially successful in the U.S.

The problem is that you seem to think that it is too much to ask of people to work hard and to have the discipline that success requires. You seem to think that since others have worked hard and have been successful, then the rest of society is entitled to free food, housing, education, healthcare, etc. I disagree.

I think that people should have a choice to decide how much time and effort they wish to dedicate to financial goals vs. other important pursuits, but once the decision is made, there's no entitlement and no one to blame.

btw - if you want to know the true definition of "Rich," it is found in the Jewish "Mishna," a rabbinical commentary on the Bible. It is found in a portion called the "Chapters of our Fathers." The answer found there is the the Rich man is defined by being content with his lot. This means that the person who can be satisfied with the level of their income qualifies for being rich. On the other hand, there are people who can earn millions, spend it all, actually go deeper into debt, and never be satisfied anyway.


That's a good one! If there are programs in place to provide housing and food to every citizen, why do I keep seeing homeless people on the streets every day? Where are their homes and clothing? Why must they eat out of trash cans? These must be pretty useless programs!

The programs are only as useful for people being willing to make use of them. If you do a little research, you will find that the homeless are those who choose not to accpet the food and shelter offered by Federal and state programs, as well as by charitable organizations. Mostly, it is a matter of mental illness, so far as I know.

Here's some food for thought:

http://www.hud.gov/homeless/index.cfm

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I'm with Steve on this. It is a basic responsibility and one of the many costs and responsibilies of citizenship to insure the welfare of one another. It's a profoundly basic attribute of what a community is. It's the parameters of what kind of society you want to live in and what kind of society you think represents you.

Right, but there is a shared responsibility between the individual and the community. I don't think that it is everyone's responsibility to support people who made a personal decision not to acquire marketable skills or not to work.

To be clear, I think that everyone should have the freedom to determine their lifestyle, and I wouldn't presume to pass judgment. But at the same time, I say to those people who are needy by choice, not to shift the blame to anyone else.

[cerulean]

Has anyone read Barbara Ehrenreich's book
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805063897/qid=1023316043/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-4676768-4087223

It received some attention when it came out a year or two ago. I admit I haven't read the actual book - just a long article she wrote in (I think) The Atlantic. This is not the article I recall, but it does touch on the same themes:

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/fallows/jf2001-05-02/

In any event, her thesis is that surviving as a working-class person in the United States at a wage of $6 or $7 per hour is just about impossible. She hid her background and set out to work in these types of jobs to see what it was like, and then wrote the book based on her experiences. (Of course in real life she's a well-known writer and societal critic.)

On the other hand, I know from the businessperson's perspective that many businesses are operating close to the edge and a sudden hike in labor costs would often be sufficient to put them out of business. Such an effect would be disastrous for the same persons who are scraping by now.

[StephenNichols]

NewsGuy:

The problem is that you seem to think that it is too much to ask of people to work hard and to have the discipline that success requires. You seem to think that since others have worked hard and have been successful, then the rest of society is entitled to free food, housing, education, healthcare, etc. I disagree.
No, that's not what I think at all. I believe that it is every human's right to basic food, housing, clothing, health care and education. As basic a right as freedom of speech and religion. I don't believe that you should have to work at all to achieve these basic dignities. In a world with so much resources, it's crazy that you should have to work at all for basic survival. The only thing that makes such work for survival necessary is our unwillingness to make a system that does not require it.

What would be the harm in creating a system that guaranteed everyone basic food, housing, clothing, health care and education? Surely, some people would not contribute to the system at all -- but that would be the minority. Most people would take comfort in knowing that they are going to be cared for no matter what. Cradle to grave security would be a great thing. People would then have the necessary support to move forward in truly bettering themselves -- unlike now where it takes a large amount of "success" simply to obtain basic food, clothing and housing. Not to mention education and health care (which most people simply don't get).

As I said before, it's a crisis of conscience we face. We're so busy tring to achieve "success" that we've learned to dehumanize our fellow man. Why must someone work to achieve basic food, housing, clothing, health care and education? Why is it that we think it's okay to let people suffer that cannot achieve these basic goals on their own? We have the resources to make such a system happen. We simply don't care enough about our fellow man to implement it.

A true community is one where each individual is concerned with the survival and welfare of all.

Mostly, it is a matter of mental illness, so far as I know.
Yes, there is a lot of mental illness in the homeless population. All the more reason to create a better program that directly assists them. However, not all homeless people are able to take advantage of the HUD programs. Such housing is not free. There is far more that can be done to assist the homeless. It's just not a priority for our society. We do much more to feed, clothe, house, heal and educate our criminals in prisons than we do for the homeless. That shows where our priorities are.

steve

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by StephenNichols
I don't believe that you should have to work at all to achieve these basic dignities. In a world with so much resources, it's crazy that you should have to work at all for basic survival. The only thing that makes such work for survival necessary is our unwillingness to make a system that does not require it.

That "system" is called "reality". No matter how basic, the food has to be grown, medicines made, doctors paid, etc. etc. All these things require the input of resources, physical and human. Somebody has to provide those resources. I don't understand... It's one thing when someone is not capable of earning their keep because of either physical or mental disability - I am all for that! But just because they don't feel like working? That's absurd!

What would be the harm in creating a system that guaranteed everyone basic food, housing, clothing,

It doesn't work: communism has failed in almost all its incarnations. It only works under very specific circumstances - namely, families (and Israeli kibbutz, as I was privileged to experience, is really a "family", even if the people are not blood relations)

health care and education?

Here I agree with you. IMHO, healthcare and education both, contribute to the society much more than the investment the society makes in them.

Surely, some people would not contribute to the system at all -- but that would be the minority. Most people would take comfort in knowing that they are going to be cared for no matter what. Cradle to grave security would be a great thing.

I don't think so. Look at the precedents: the USSR failed PRECISELY because most people WILL take advantage of the situation and produce less than they consume. Remember, unlike in 1917, there was no bloody revolution in the '90s. The system collapsed from within.

Yes, there is a lot of mental illness in the homeless population. All the more reason to create a better program that directly assists them. However, not all homeless people are able to take advantage of the HUD programs. Such housing is not free. There is far more that can be done to assist the homeless. It's just not a priority for our society. We do much more to feed, clothe, house, heal and educate our criminals in prisons than we do for the homeless. That shows where our priorities are.
steve [/B]

Certainly, you are right that better programs need to be in place for the homeless and disabled to prevent hunger and homelessness, healthcare needs to be available for all in some way prior to emergency room care, and my personal pet peeve: high-quality education must be available to all willing and able to learn. Unfortunately, these things cost resources - whether you call these "money", or "grain", or "land", or whatever else. It's not just the "lack of will" that prevents realization of social welfare for all, it's also reality.

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

That "system" is called "reality". No matter how basic, the food has to be grown, medicines made, doctors paid, etc. etc. All these things require the input of resources, physical and human. Somebody has to provide those resources. I don't understand... It's one thing when someone is not capable of earning their keep because of either physical or mental disability - I am all for that! But just because they don't feel like working? That's absurd!
Clearly someone must grow the food and manufacture the necessities of life. And there would be plenty of people to do that. I believe that most people would contribute to such a system freely and happily. All I'm saying is that you should not have to work 8 hours a day for basic survival.

It doesn't work: communism has failed in almost all its incarnations. It only works under very specific circumstances - namely, families (and Israeli kibbutz, as I was privileged to experience, is really a "family", even if the people are not blood relations)
Of course communism fails. Communism stifles the ability of the individual to better him/herself. Communism tries to create equality through force on its citizens. Equality is not an admirable or desirable goal. This is why the USSR failed. The human spirit, if not allowed to flourish with oppurtunities, will degenerate and support consumption of more than it produces.

I'm not at all suggesting a communist approach to society. What I am suggesting is a capitalistic approach to society with basic food, clothing, housing, health care and education guaranteed for every citizen. If you want more than basic amenities, go out into the work force and earn the extra cash. If you're happy on basic levels, great! All I'm suggesting is that we can take a percentage of the vast wealth we all generate and redirect it to ensuring basic survival and well being for everyone.

Such a system does not preclude having a $20,000,000 home or driving limousines around all day. What is does is reflect the value that we place on the individuals in our society -- which right now is a pretty poor reflection.

steve

[StephenNichols]

Cerulean:

Thanks for the recommendation of the book: Nickel and Dimed. I just finished reading it and I have to say that it really captures the difficulties that the "working class" endure. I think everyone that thinks all you have to do is "work hard" to make it in America should read this book. It'll change your mind.

steve

[elke]

Actually, those who work for minimum wage or close to it, are in a worse position than those on welfare. If you have kids, the day care alone eats up most of what you earn. Healthcare insurance is usually not provided by the employer and even if it is, there are usually co-pays, deductibles, and other ways of draining your pocket.

No question that there are things that should be done to make such people's lot easier; but doesn't it stand to reason to concentrate helping those who at least TRY to make something of themselves? If $5-$7 an hour (about $10,000-$15,000 a year!) does not do the trick of supporting a person, how much would working people have to contribute in order to support all those you are speaking of, when they don't work at all? Plus the education, medical care, etc. etc. The dollars and cents simply don't add up.

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

It's not a matter of having enough money and resources to create a system where everyone is guaranteed basic food, housing, clothing, health care and education. We have all that we need to make such a system happen. It would take a refocusing of our societial goals, to be sure -- but we don't lack the money or resources to do it. We lack the will. The people and organizations that control the majority of the resources in America have no interest in supporting such a system. It would cut into their profits and wealth, you see. They are much better off by continuing to exploit the poor.

You seem to think that just because basic survival would be assured that most people would never contribute to the system. I disagree completely. However, the way they would contribute to the system would be very different than what it is today -- unless compensation and working conditions for "low end" jobs were brought into line.

I believe that most people would take advantage of the education so that they could find work that they really like to do. And here's the catch: Without people needing to work the "low end" jobs, nobody would work them. They pay too little for the work involved and you have to give up your dignity to be employed by many. The resulting lack of low wage workers would bring about serious changes in our society (for the better) -- perhaps even a limited implosion of business as it is. Yet, the truth is that restaurant workers, hotel staffers, store clerks, baggers, checkout ladies, maids and the like support our economic pyramid. We have created a system where these people are exploited for their labor and are paid sub-livable wages in compensation. They are virtual slaves. We can get away with this because these people have no alternative. We (the upper percentage of the pyramid) are all comfortable because we exploit the people under us.

Again, it's not a matter of resources -- it's a matter of will. As a people, we simply care more about being materially "successful" than we do about the people that we are exploiting to achieve that "success". All we must do is decide whether everyone has the right to basic food, housing, clothing, health care and education. Right now, as a people, we have answered this question with a resounding HELL NO! Yet, as compassion and understanding are allowed to take root, the answer to this question can change. We have more than enouge resources to solve this problem, but we're severely deficient in the love department.

steve

[cerulean]

What are basic food needs?

One professor I had suggested the following as essentially constituting a basic diet, although I do not recall the exact quantities. At that time, he said the cost would be $90 per year per person.

Navy beans
Powdered milk
Cabbage
Rice

Of course, no one could be expected to live on such a spartan diet without any variety. (Especially children!) However, it would be helpful to know what you would classify as basic food needs.

Also, what about basic shelter needs? This could range anywhere from a tent to a centrally-heated apartment with one bedroom for each child and one indoor bathroom for every three people.

In any event, how would you define basic food and shelter needs, and what do you think the costs would be if these were provided with no qualifiers to everyone who wanted them in the United States?

[elke]

People needing to work the low-end jobs is one of the reasons they exist, it's true. Is your suggestion that we as a society, pay people to do nothing, while things like sweeping the streets remain undone? How does that make sense?

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

What makes you think that just because basic survival is assured that street sweeping would no longer take place? Sure it would. It's just that pay for such "menial" but important tasks would need to be adjusted to attract people to the work. We would not be able to rely on the fact that low-wage workers must choose between a pittance and homelessness to get our streets cleaned. Is that so bad?

I wonder what the percentage would be of people that would just sit on basic levels and do nothing. I'd guess that if true opportunity for education and betterment existed that the percentage would be very low (~10%). Must we threaten the people we help with starvation and homelessness to get contributions to society?

If we cared about one another, society would refocus its efforts toward creating a system that ensures basic survival for everyone -- not outrageous wealth for a tiny minority.

steve

[StephenNichols]

Cerulean:

Those are very good questions... and to be honest, I hadn't gotten that far in my thinking. However, I can hazard some guesses as to what I would consider basic levels in clothing, housing and food.

A lot depends on what kind of basic housing society would guarantee. You can even take prisons as a model of how such a system might work. Statistics are that it takes an average of $40.00 a day to house an inmate in an average prison. My guess is that such a figure could be reduced if the accomodations were not prison-like, but similarly frugal in construction. That $40 includes food, clothing and administration staff in the prison. Such a system of freely accessible, clean and well-administered housing could be provided for less than it costs to house inmates. That's the cheap approach. A more expensive approach would be to build individual homes for people. If a home costs $40.00 a square foot, then a 1500 sq/ft house would cost $60,000 (assuming you don't get any economies of scale for building so many homes). We could theoretically build 1 million such homes a year for a mere 60 billion dollars. I assume that some reductions in this estimate are possible. Then comes the costs of maintaining such housing. You know, providing water and electricity. I can estimate needing about $75/month per house to support such utilities. That would come to $900 million per year per million homes. This would be the more expensive route.

Estimating food is a similar exercise. Lets take your professor's estimate of $90 a year and triple it. It would cost $270 million dollars to feed a million people at that rate. This would provide some variety as well. Not to mention that the rate could be even less if food were produced by society (without profit) toward feeding such people in need.

So, in summary, my estimates for building housing would be:

$60,000,000,000 per million (expensive) homes @ 1500 sq/ft

To support such housing:

$900,000,000 per million homes per year

To feed said people:

$270,000,000 per million mouths

These are, of course, very rough back of the envelope estimates. But it seems doable... America takes in over $2,000,000,000,000(trillion!) a year in tax revenue.

I'll have to do more research and see if I can cook up some more concrete numbers on this. :)

steve

[elke]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
Elke:

What makes you think that just because basic survival is assured that street sweeping would no longer take place? Sure it would. It's just that pay for such "menial" but important tasks would need to be adjusted to attract people to the work. We would not be able to rely on the fact that low-wage workers must choose between a pittance and homelessness to get our streets cleaned. Is that so bad?

I wonder what the percentage would be of people that would just sit on basic levels and do nothing. I'd guess that if true opportunity for education and betterment existed that the percentage would be very low (~10%). Must we threaten the people we help with starvation and homelessness to get contributions to society?

If we cared about one another, society would refocus its efforts toward creating a system that ensures basic survival for everyone -- not outrageous wealth for a tiny minority.

steve

Because, quite frankly, I would PERSONALLY rather sit on my behind on pittance than sweep the streets. I don't think you have ever done menial tasks, but I have. It's VERY boring. Even for more money, I would not do that again. Face it, Steve, "Love is NOT all we need".

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

Let's take your idea to conclusion...

Fine, so there might be no street sweepers. And there might be no house maids. Perhaps all of the menial jobs would lose the people willing to work them. Personally, I would prefer a society with no motels or restaurants that gave everyone guarantees of basic survival over the exploitative society that we have today. If society focused on ensuring the survival and well being of all its members instead of providing massive wealth and benefits to a minority, wouldn't that be better for everyone? And is such an idea incomaptible with free trade and capitalism?

steve

[Mediocrates]

But we DO have street sweepers and lawn mowers and menial wage slaves. We call them illegal immigrants. Poor countries export their un/underemployment to the US in the form of undocumented workers. If this country had a guest worker policy how that affect the influx of illegal immigrants? Well for one it would inflate the wages of guest workers in relation to illegal immigrants. Second it would generate a more predictable tax stream in the form of payroll taxes. Next it would provide a stronger predictor for municipal and county services and their budgets. But it would also make the lives of illegal immigrants harder because they would be deeper in the black economy than before (it has to do with quotas).

Similarly this is why there are property taxes to support school systems - because it provides rough one to one metric of the number of households who need the service. It is also why illegal subdivision renting is such a problem for suburban school districts. Once a large enough percentage of houses are cut up into illegal apartments you overcrowd the schools in relation to the property tax receipts.

[elke]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
Elke:

Let's take your idea to conclusion...

Fine, so there might be no street sweepers. And there might be no house maids. Perhaps all of the menial jobs would lose the people willing to work them. Personally, I would prefer a society with no motels or restaurants that gave everyone guarantees of basic survival over the exploitative society that we have today. If society focused on ensuring the survival and well being of all its members instead of providing massive wealth and benefits to a minority, wouldn't that be better for everyone? And is such an idea incomaptible with free trade and capitalism?

steve

I don't know, Steve. When you come home from work, after 12 hours in the furnace, and you have to help the kids with Homework, go to a school play, or whatever, it sure is nice to know that there is a MickeyD nearby. These restaurants, motels, etc. are there because there is demand for them, not the other way around. No matter how you slice it, IMO those who CAN have "gainful employment" should do so.

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

You call it "gainful employment" -- I call it "virtually slavery". Low wage workers are not paid a livable wage. I've got nothing against restaurants, motels or any other business. But I do have something against the fact that the people that work those businesses don't make enough to survive comfortably. The menial laborers that make our service businesses work are paid horribly -- and we directly benefit from it.

That's the problem I see... business owners reaping profits off the backs of underpaid workers. We could always increase the minimum wage to $15/hour. That'd help the working poor. But it would also severely impact the costliness of the services that we get so cheaply. I really wonder how destabilizing such an increase would be to our economy. Clearly, the higher the minimum wage is, the more impacting it would be. If, for example, it were increased to $100/hour the impact would be catastrophic. I wonder what the balance point is for increasing the minimum wage. What's the maximum it could be before impacting the economy in too negative a way?

I imagine that the demand for services would be fairly sensitive to increased costs -- especially optional services. My guess is that increasing the minimum wage to a truly livable amount (and passing those increases on to customers) would be pretty devastating to many services. This is why the government has not made such a change. The minimum wage is woefully below what is required to make a living, yet the government does nothing to change it.

This comes right back around to the core issue. Our economy is designed to exploit the masses so that a minority can get rich. To do anything to even the playing field -- even just so that all workers can make a living -- is very difficult because the rich employers don't want to give up their profits. It may even be that passing the increases on to customers would really mess things up. I believe that it is impossible to have a solely capitalistic economy that does not have a large number of poor within it.

Of course, nothing but our greed and lack of caring keep us from creating a community where this is not the case. So long as consumers value their cheap meals and motel rooms over the quality of life of those who provide those meals and rooms we will continue to live in this system of inequity. If society decided to ensure that everyone were fed, clothed and housed then it could be done.

steve

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by StephenNichols
If a home costs $40.00 a square foot, then a 1500 sq/ft house would cost $60,000 (assuming you don't get any economies of scale for building so many homes). We could theoretically build 1 million such homes a year for a mere 60 billion dollars. I assume that some reductions in this estimate are possible.
steve


You forgot the soft costs and the cost for the land.

[elke]

But you have to understand something, Steve:
the minute the wage of that motel clerk rises to $15 per hour from $5, the rate for the room will rise exponentially. There is a concept in Economics called "supply-push inflation". This is the type of inflation that is driven by the labor cost increases, rather than by other overhead. A stark example of such inflation is what happened in the US after WWII, so it's not just a theoretical concept, it has happened before.

Many businesses operate on a very narrow profit margin. In addition, the business results are very volatile. This is especially true of the smaller businesses, who are the largest employers of the minimum-wage workforce.

A better solution, IMHO, would be a subsidy for the "working poor", which would assure ample food, rent, and other necessities. The result of such government intervention would be a more equalized burden.

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

...the minute the wage of that motel clerk rises to $15 per hour from $5, the rate for the room will rise exponentially.
That's my point exactly. A purely capitalistic society will always have a large number of poor within it. That's why we must resort to paying millions of our workers sub-livable wages. That's the fundamental flaw with how our economy is structured currently.

I'm all for some sort of subsidy for the poor that ensures basic food, clothing, housing, education and health care. However, such a subsidy would have to be unlimited in duration (unlike today's welfare). This is because the economy makes it impossible for the poor (which will always exist) to have a comfortable life.

steve

[Nesher]

And not just a minority can be achieved only by forbidding Credit.

Credit makes the Rich Richer and the Poor Poorer

[Mediocrates]

Stephen we don't have a purely capitalistic society or economy. Nothing of the sort. While the wage slaves and the middle class bear the brunt of the tax burden, corporations do not. I challenge you to find large corporation that pays anything like their fair share of the tax burder in relation to the taxes they deduct from the people who work for that corporation. For example I worked for large insurance company. And in simple terms, insurance companies keep 2 sets of books - one for investments and one for operations. Most Federal tax is based on operations. If the company shows a loss on operations the tax liability vanishes while at the same time that loss becomes 'experience rated' so the subscriber rates go up. The net result is that large insurance companies pay no Federal tax. There are other examples in terms of the net effect of subsidies, tax allowances, write offs, etc. that yield the same result. While you or I pay ~1/3rd of wages in direct tax no counting FICA or state, local, the company you work for, if it is large enough, pays nearly nothing. Now to be fair, I'm also a stockholder so I see the benefit of that tax allowance, but then I have to pay it back in the form of capital gains anyway...

So if you want to redistribute wealth, start there.

[StephenNichols]

Mediocrates:

Explain to me how the tax structure has anything to do with how capitalistic our society is? As I understand it, you can have capitalism without taxes of any kind.

I do agree with your point, however. Corporations and rich individuals do not pay enough in taxes. However, I don't see that changing any time soon. Corporations and rich individuals have a great deal of influence in our government -- far more than you or I.

The point I'm trying to make is that the idea of "market economy" is fundamentally flawed. Well, it's not flawed if you're part of the 20% getting all the benefit. Such an economy will always -- ALWAYS -- have a large contingent of poor. There is no way around this, without forcing a redistribution of wealth. Personally, I'm leaning toward the idea of a minimal restructuring of society that would ensure that the basics are met for all people. We have the resources and technology to do it -- we just lack the will.

steve

[Nesher]

Because of the Infinite Leverage of Credit There Is no Tax Structure That Would Make the System Just. The Minimal Change You Can and Must Make is Abolish Credit. How? Both Torah and Koran Forbid Credit With Interest Rate :p

[Mediocrates]

(First off - if you want to look at purely 'unfettered' capitalism then look at the Mafia. I don't think we're talking about that.)

Because taxes are a kind of exogenous factor, a kind of corporate welfare that distorts 'free markets'. Corporations can have marketly different invenstment and operations risk behaviour if they know that tax laws can swing those risks in their favor. For example in graduate school we learned about the ris-return investment efficiency horizons where the return is roughly gagued to the predictability of the return on an investment. Corporate tax laws allow corporations to stand that on it's head in many cases and invest in high return strategies with little or no risk. The risk is offloaded to the taxpayers. Farm subsidies, set asides, guaranteed contracts are examples of that.

But here is the thing, compared to what, does a quasi capitalistic economy produce MORE poor people than something else? It's not enough to say "Europe has closer ranges between poor and rich". That is capitalism too - it's just more heavily taxed to support social welfare programs (70% is about the top rate in France for example). But they are still capitalist or quasi captialist economies. There is no notion of Stalinist central planning or central management of capital markets or flow. There is no notion of fixed currency rates or non capitalized eg. non cash bartered transactions on any appreciable scale?

I think the closest you get to what you allude to is in South America. Argentina and Brazil, because of their central control, synthetic currencies, state owned industries, weak central political control and regional semi-autonomy and artificial capital planning models are as close to non-capitalism as you can get. And both of those countries inspite of an abundance of natural resources, an educated population, a developed infrastructure and access to capital and investment are in dire straights. Argentina may decend into civil war and economic anarchy. Brazil is slightly better and their neighbor to the north, Venezuela is in even worse shape. And in Argentina's case it's not enough to say that the root of the problem is the IMF and World Bank. The government went to them to borrow to dig themselves out of deep hole caused by poor planning and flawed political control over the economy to begin with.

I don't dispute that there is always more to be done. I don't even dispute that the IMF is frequently too driven by markets to make rational, useful lending decisions to the countries that need DEVELOPMENT the most and not simply short term revolving trade credit. I do dispute that there is any meaningful alternative to capitalism tempered by progressive social goals.

[Nesher]

That Closes the Debate at Leat for This Millenium! :p

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Nesher
That Closes the Debate at Leat for This Millenium! :p

you think so, how so?

[Nesher]

I Have Demonstrated it http://550.org.il/44/75.htm NewsGuy excuse me for the reference. :confused:

I have also a document that shows that the fall into the Liquidity Trap is the reason of the fall of the Empires: Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, Russia.... contact me if you want a Copy.

If we let things going the Anti-Semites will get better and better organised like from 1924 to 1929. In 1930 Hitler got 100 in their parliament (from less than 10). :(

The Fall into the Liquidity Trap makes the Anti-Semite Stronger. :eek:

Regards,

Shalom

[StephenNichols]

Mediocrates:

It seems to me that you're saying that capitalism is the best system. I disagree. Society could survive wihout money. We do not need money to survive. Of course, money has it's benefits, but it is not necessary for life. If society decided to ensure that it was important for everyone to survive in dignity, it could be done. I say again that it is only our lack of will, greed and willingness to better ourselves at the expense of others that stops it.

steve

[Mediocrates]

how do you keep the power plant operating w/o money, how do you process food and ship it, how do you keep the computers running, the airliners flying?

[Nesher]

I didn't Say Without Money, I Said Without Credit. You Can Have Money Without Credit! :p

[StephenNichols]

Mediocrates:

Money does not make anything work. People do. It's only the idea that people have that they need money that keeps money around.

The only thing that makes money "necessary" is that we believe we need it. The only thing that stops us from openly sharing everything that we can produce is our desire to have more than another. If we all shared the fruits of our labor freely, there would be no need for money.

Individials have made a choice to not contribute to the system unless they are getting money in return. Our priority is money and wealth for the individual, not security, survival and well being for all. Why not contribute to the system simply for the good it provides to everyone?

steve

[Nesher]

The Problem is When Money is Linked With Power.

Credit Is What Makes the Link.

In Psychiatry it Is Very Well Known that Money Is not Neutral.

In Fact Credit Discriminates: Imagine That you Get Into a Bakery and the Seller Ask you How Many Breads you Already Own in Order to decide how Many Breads he Can Sell you, if at all, and at What Price he Will Sell to you? :confused:

Money in a Credit Free Economy is a Fair Broker. :p

[elke]

Steve, this is the most naive thing I have ever heard! "Money" is nothing more nor less than an exchange medium. It is worth nothing when the country has nothing to exchange (look at Argentina or Iraq). Money does not determine how well or how poorly everyone is taken care of in a society, since it's simply the matter of convenience to use it.

You could have capitalism without taxes, but you could not have a government without them. Someone has to be paid to pick up garbage and field a military, and since all residents of a political entity benefit from such services, they share their costs. These costs are levied proportionally (albeit, arguably, not necessarily fairly) onto the population; and these payments are called "taxes".

(BTW, Mediocrates, insurance companies' real federal tax rate is about 6-7% in recent years, even though corporate tax rate has been 34-35%. This has to do with the 2 sets of books, which are kept according to 2 different sets of accounting principles. A topic too boring to even contemplate! :D )

[StephenNichols]

Elke:

Explain how what I've said is naive... The truth is that money is only needed because we all expect to get something in return for our contributions to society. More specifically, most of us strive to get as much compensation as possible for the least amount of work performed. Money is just a generic commodity that is used to settle these debts. My argument applies just as easily to a barter economy or a system where rocks are traded as currency.

If everyone made their contributions without thought of what they would get in return, money would not be necessary. This is precisely the economic model used by tribal societies. Each member of the society provides their labor to ensure the survival of all tribe members, not just for themselves and their immediate family.

Society, in general, does not need money to exist. I know... Without money, there would be fewer (if any) workers available to perform unrequired menial labor. That, in my opinion, would be a good thing. I say again, I would rather live in a society that ensured everyone survived comfortably than a society that exploits the poor so that a minority can be rich.

Answer this question: If everyone always shared everything they had and produced with everyone else, what need would there be for money?

Here's another interesting point... Have you ever heard of Pareto's 80/20 Rule? Here's a basic definition...
Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) was an Italian economist who, in 1906, observed that twenty percent of the Italian people owned eighty percent of their country's accumulated wealth. Over time and through application in a variety of environments, this analytic has come to be called Pareto's Principle, the 80-20 Rule, and the "Vital Few and Trivial Many Rule." Called by whatever name, this mix of 80%-20% reminds us that the relationship between input and output is not balanced. In a management context, this rule of thumb is a useful heuristic that applies when there is a question of effectiveness versus diminishing returns on effort, expense, or time.
It's interesting to note that our own economy follows closely with this very percentage breakdown. 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth. This seems to be unavoidable in a market economy. Here's an interesting economic simulation you can run in your web browser to view this rule in action: NetLogo Simulation of Wealth Distribution (http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/WealthDistribution)

steve

[Vic]

A sad article from the "Jerusalem Post":

Jul. 18, 2002
Killing time in Kiryat Gat
By LARRY DERFNER
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1025787831382
[...]

The official unemployment rate in this city of 51,000 stands at 13.5 percent, but that figure only captures those who show up at the state Employment Service office to go through the motions of looking for work. Many more, whose benefits have run out and who've quit trying their luck through the Employment Service office, don't even show up in the statistics.

"There's no future in this city," declares Goldhammer. "Anybody going to America can take me with them," says Barad.

[...]

So it is in Kiryat Gat - and Netivot, Sderot, Ofakim, Dimona, Mitzpe Ramon, Yeroham, Kiryat Malachi and other Negev "development" towns: Palestinian violence has passed over them, but Israel's second biggest crisis, the economic one, is falling squarely on their heads.

Ever since the late 1980s, when Israel's textile factories began closing because they couldn't compete with cheap labor in Asian and Arab countries, most of the Negev's development towns have been in an economic depression. Now things are getting even worse, and there is no bottom in sight.

The problem has gone nationwide. The current situation has thrown a spanner into the Israeli economy, and the national unemployment rate - a true rate, surveying all jobless people - now stands at 10.6 percent, higher than it's been in a decade. But reports from the Finance Ministry predict that by early next year, the rate will rise to about 14%, which would be the largest proportion of unemployed people this country has seen since the 1950s, when hundreds of thousands of immigrants, many unskilled, were pouring in.

KIRYAT GAT, like other Negev towns, began with Sephardi immigrants in the Fifties, then saw the entry of Russian and Ethiopian immigrants in the Nineties. Economically, it was essentially founded on the Polgat textile factories built in the mid-Fifties, with extremely generous government benefits, by the late Yisrael Pollak.

"Once about 75% of the people here were employed by Polgat plants," says Yossi Cohen. No more. Now the closed-down storefronts and poorly-maintained stucco tenements attest to the city's difficulties. In the Kiryat Gat Employment Service office, about a dozen people are waiting to collect unemployment benefits.

Michael Levy, 47, says he's been on welfare for four and a half years since getting laid off from his job at a steel plant. He has four grown children at home. "None of them work either," he says.

Kiryat Gat is probably better off than any other development town. It has the Intel plant, which, together with its service and subsidiary companies, employs some 1,300 people from the Kiryat Gat region. (See box.) "Without Intel, the situation here would be catastrophic," says Cohen.

Ironically, the outbreak violence actually created about 300-400 jobs for Kiryat Gat residents. That is the number of Palestinians who used to work in local textile plants. Like 120,000 other Palestinians working in Israel, they were forced to go home and have remained there, behind closure. Their jobs were taken by Israelis.

Bagir, which held out against cheap foreign competition by manufacturing high-end men's suits, threw in the towel when it lost its contract with Marks and Spencer. The Shalon gas mask firm, which employed 900 local people during the salad days of the Gulf War, closed after its back orders from the Defense Ministry ran out.

[...]

WITH THE government evidently helpless to get the economy going again and put people back to work, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has taken to blaming the unemployed. Recalling the old days when Israelis were happy to do backbreaking physical work for subsistence wages, Sharon recently denounced Israelis who collect unemployment wages while turning down job offers.

"From this point on, we should not give to anyone without receiving something in exchange," Sharon said, pounding the table at a meeting of the cabinet's socioeconomic caucus. "Let them clean the streets - our cities are filthy - or work in hospitals or guard kindergartens."

Sharon's outburst came as the cabinet approved a pilot project for an Israeli version of America's "Wisconsin plan" - which would force the long-term unemployed who receive welfare payments to accept any reasonable job offer or give up their benefits.

The question is whether it will help the masses of Israel's unemployed - people who have worked all their lives and want to continue, but can't because the weakening economy forced their factory to close or lay them off.

[...]

The mother of all contrasts - The Intel plant in Kiryat Gat's southern industrial zone is an anomaly in the city, and in the Negev as a whole. It is the summit of hi-tech, built in a region known for mimimum-wage, menial jobs for badly-educated working-class Israelis. Intel came to Kiryat Gat in 1999 in return for an unprecedented government inducement of $600 million, to which the US-based company added $1 billion of its own.

Local critics still see Intel as a "snob," a luxurious workplace with an in-house gym and other perks for executives who drive in from Jerusalem and the Dan Region, while bypassing the lower-status, lower-qualified locals.

Yet this is largely a myth.

Intel hires people with high-school diplomas and some fluency in English. This may cut out all the middle-aged textile workers who've lost their jobs in recent years, and youngsters who dropped out of school and fell through the social safety net.

But it has provided hundreds upon hundreds of good jobs to people in Kiryat Gat and the surrounding area. Maybe more importantly, it has given local young people something to strive for, and shown them that their town isn't strictly a dead-end place.