Yeah, all that fairness, individualism and freedom from government control really put the kibosh on things.
SA, I disagree with a few things in your post, but I’ll try to keep this on the track of my original point.
I am not suggesting a pool as the source of income. But we use a pool approach all the time to measure the past state of the economy. We measure the Gross Domestic Product from one year to the next, and how it changes tells us something about the state of our economy.
“Distributed” is a misnomer, but it results in a “distribution”? You’re parsing the language pretty darn fine, right there. In any case, it’s the distritbution I’m talking about; how much was earned by different groups.
Is it only the (relative) poor that are subject to the pronouncements of politicians? What about the rich; are you trying to claim that they are rich because they are able to shrug off those negative influences? If we could just ignore the naysayers, would we all own thirty McDonald’s?
And is it really just a matter of psychology? Politicians pass real laws, too; tax codes, export policies, import tariffs, farm subsidies, research grants, government contracts, transportation trust funds, and probably lots more. I think a tax cut has more influence on the economy than a speech. The party in power certainly likes to claim credit for any good economic news; and bad economic news will be hung around their necks by the opposition.
And that is where I think the rich have benefited disproportionately. Not relative to the poor, but relative to the rich of previous years. Your claim that taxation by mob rule will drag the rich down (and the cartoon suggesting that we’ve already tapped that source) is not borne out by statistics. The rich are doing better now than they have for decades.
While this country has gone into debt, the rich have done very well for themselves.
Classic Starv
First, the anecdote, the favorite crutch of the lame argument. We get the beloved *Dick, The Plucky Newsboy *- Horatio Alger theme, usually offered in support of the equally beloved myth, that simple hard work and adherence to virtue will result in reward. Its a crock, of course, but never mind that. For now.
The anecdote is not offered in support of that theme, apparently. Hard to be sure, Starv’s arguments tend to skitter about like a drop of water on a hot grill. Perhaps the anecdote is offered in support of what appears to be its conclusion: that “NOBODY has suffered financially because of the money he has made!”
Regretably, the andecdote offered hasn’t the slightest bearing on the conclusion. In what way does this inspiring little tale offer any evidence towards the conclusion? Or evidence of anything, at all, ever?
Perhaps it isn’t? Perhaps its just an edifying little story tossed in for no particular reason, simply to raise the moral tone of the audience. The fact that it is followed hard on by what appears to be its conclusion is simply an accident of juxtaposition. That could be, I suppose.
I concur. He’s lost his marbles since he passed 55 years old. I attribute it to Fox News.
Therein lies the hypocrisy. He’d rather die than separate out his beer cans from the rest of the trash, lest anyone be able to count how many he REALLY drinks…
Oh, come now, luci. Shirley one with your vaunted intellect can discern the several excellent points evident in the story of my neighbor and the man she works for. But in case I’ve overestimated your intelligence after all, please allow me to, uh, elucidate:
-
A person can be poor and start with nothing, and by virtue of hard work and no more than average intelligence, achieve a very nice life indeed. (This would be my neighbor, the woman I mentioned who came here from Mexico and is now in charge of several McDonald’s and earns over $80,000 a year plus benefits.)
-
A person can be poor and start with nothing, and by virtue of hard work, an average to somewhat above average intelligence, ambition, and a willingness to invest in himself and his abilities (in other words, take calculated risks), can become wealthy indeed. (This would be the man from Mexico who started as a dishwasher and now owns thirty McDonald’s restaurants.)
-
Nobody has been deprived of so much as a dollar because of the money these people have earned. This is because the economy is not a zero-sum game in which the money supply is limited, but one in which people create additional wealth by virtue of their own hard work and individual enterprise.
-
Poor people would be much better off to take note of the success of people like these and look to themselves to get ahead, rather than to go through life feeling defeated, seething with resentment over what other people have, and looking to government to take money from the earners and give it to them so things will be more “fair.” There is no fairness in a system that takes from and penalizes the hard-working and productive and gives to people who aren’t, and which even worse convinces them that government largess is the only way they’ll get anything in life because of the lie that the rich are “soaking up” all the available money.
Sure they have. I don’t know all the details of fast-food franchise agreements, but there can’t be a McDonald’s on every corner. The market wouldn’t support it. McDonald’s knows that, and I’m sure they won’t sell a franchise to someone to build on the same block. Whoever was the second-highest bidder lost out on the chance to make those millions.
Which is perfectly fine. This guy out-competed everyone else. He worked hard, played it smart, and has been handsomely rewarded. Good for him.
To some extent, I agree with you. My grandparents were farmers. My dad served 20 years in the military and then worked for an airline. He is comfortably retired. Anybody can become rich.
But we can’t all become rich. There aren’t enough McDonald’s to go around.
That last line sounds like the “pool” argument all over again, but it’s not. People invent new things, and find untapped markets all the time. Their hard work makes the pie bigger every year (generally speaking). But this guy couldn’t run his restaurants if there wasn’t someone around to wash his dishes.
Any comment on my claim that the rich have benefited disproportionately from government policies over the last few decades?
Oooh, snap! Come up with that all by yourself, or lift it from the one hundred other posters who have used it? Well, whatever, haven’t heard it all week. Been a pretty good week.
But thanks for clarifying your anecdote, however pointless. No, I quite understood the story, it wasn’t complicated. But its a story, isn’t it? Should I offer a counter-anecdote, about someone who worked hard, etc., and ended up with diddly-squat? Would that nullify yours, or would it simply be lowering myself needlessly?
But at least you clarify that the bald dogma that follows it was in no way supported by the anecdote, it was simply a simplistic assertion offered as irrefutable fact. Nothing of the sort, of course. Simply another line from the Capitalist Catechism, no more worthy of consideration than any other statement of faith.
Maybe post the glurge about the guys who were in hospital beds, and the one who was close to the window told the other guy about the great view, and then the guy who didn’t have the view was glad when the guy with the view died, so he could get his bed, but then it turned out the window just faced a brick wall.
It’s a real tear-jerker, and it makes you think.
I think that people can look at our posts and see where the substance lies.
Time is of the essense, RA, so my response unfortunately has to be brief. It is of course true that everyone can’t become a McDonald’s millionaire and somebody has to man the garbage trucks. But many people are satisfied manning garbage trucks. In fact, most people are satisfied just slogging through their daily grind and then coming home to watch TV, drink beer, play with the kids, whatever.
The point I’m making is that if you are poor, and you don’t like it, you can work your way out of it and that no one else’s money is keeping you from earing all that you can.
Most poor people are poor because they aren’t willing to work and/or exercise the discipline necessary to climb up out of it.
Then, when they find themselves without the wherewithal to take care of their needs, it’s easy to be fooled into voting for politicians who claim they are only poor because the rich are getting richer, and that if elected, said politicians will force those rich bastards to “pay their fair share” and divert that money to them.
The notion that because the rich are getting richer, the poor are therefore necessarily getting poorer is an utterly, utterly specious one.
Wait a minute. I’m I misreading what is being posted here? 'Cause it sounds like “if one person in this country can become rich, any person can become rich.” Please correct me if I am misunderstanding.
Because, that seems like bad science.
Starving Artist is Herbert Hoover!
I won’t join into the economics debate.
But, as to the motivational basis of Joe Sixpack, it is fairly obvious.
He knows that the only reason he, himself is not rich is that the gummint took all his money. It could not be because of the economics of capitalism, or his own lack of initiative. To change that dreadful fact, he relies on the wisdom of his political heroes. They tell him he is right.
And the arithmetic bears him out. Joe works hard for a living, and gets 35 thousand dollars a year. The government takes half that. He knows this, because his political heroes assure him that it is so. Now Joe has been working for twenty years. half of 35 thousand is 17,500 dollars a year, for twenty years. That is $350,000.00 dollars!! Not even counting the interest his wise investments would have made him, had not the jackboot of the gummint been on his neck!
Joe wants his money back. Simple.
Tris
Is that your only point, is that why you keep bringing it up all the time?
If the wealthy manipulate the political process to favor themselves, doesn’t that mean that the wealthy have more political power, person by person, than others? Is that your notion of democratic equality?
Behold Richard Mellon Scaife. rich tighty righty extraordinaire.
Quite possibly, without him the entire Whitewater “scandal” might never have happened. Why does his inherited wealth entitle him to a louder voice in the public arena than yours or mine? Why do his children deserve better health care than yours or mine? Why do they deserve better educational opportunity than yours or mine? Because they had the good sense to pick a better parent?
Even if we grant your faith as fact, it is not the only inequity attached to wealth in America, they are legion. Perhaps its that it is the only inequity you can address, so you’d like us to pretend that none of the rest of them are there? Crush one locust, and the swarm disappears?
And if a rich man can manipulate the process so that one less dollar of his money goes to further the common good, as determined by our legislators, well, that dollar comes from elsewhere, no? If the dollar is to be taken, and he ensures that it won’t be taken from him, how is that substantially different than ensuring it is taken from me, or you?
Money is power in America, perhaps more so than any other country. I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Do you disagree? If not, how do you justify inordinate political power by way of economic status? Even if you could justify it by way of earned income and ruthless ambitions realized, how do you justify such power when inherited?
If you can explain these inconsistencies without leaning back and giving us another cracker-barrel story, that would be good. Actually, that would be amazing. Astonish me.
Nonsense. Herbert Hoover, despite his failings as a President, was a good and decent man, famous in his time for his humanitarian work during and after WWI.
No, that is not what anyone is saying. Unless you are born into it, it is extremely rare for ANYONE to become super wealthy because it generally requires an extraordinary amount of talent, ambition, drive and luck.
It’s a lot easier to just be “well off”, making a decent salary and wise investment choices while preparing for the occassional unforseen contingency.
I find it much more useful to look at the factors and choices that keep people from becomming wealthy:
-Did you graduate high school?
-Did you go to college or some other form of higher education?
-Did you study something relevant?
-Did you perform well academically?
-Did you choose a profession that pays well?
-Do you live in an economically vibrant area?
-Do you perform well at work?
-Do you have desire or ambition?
-Do you get along with people?
-Are you generally intelligent and creative?
-Do you make sensible financial decisions?
-Are you involved in constructive activities or interests?
-Do you abuse drugs or alchohol?
-Do you have a criminal record?
Some of these factors may not be in your control, but some are. So a lot of conservative types who have traditional values and the old Protestant work ethic see a lot of people making terrible life decisions, getting stuck with the resulting financial consequences and then asking the government to help them out of their mess. And they resent that they are being punished for their hard work, good decisions and success with higher taxes.
Well, it must be true, we have reliable testimony. You read these guys, its always they done it with hard work and pluck. You never read a guy says “Well, part of it was I got real lucky, and back-stabbed a couple competitors…”
My personal belief is that luck is a big factor; of course being able to take advantage of luck requires skill, hard work, discipline, etc.
Back stabbing comes under the general heading of “pluck”. 
They don’t do it with a lot of bitching and moaning and complaining about how unfair life is.
One thing wealthy people seem to have in common is a single-minded determination to achieve their goals regardless of the obstacles.
One thing poor people seem to have in common is a consistant belief that they are not in control of their lives. That is why they frequently turn to God or luck (ie the Lottery).
And what do you care about those “competitors”? If they were too stupid or too weak to see what was coming, why do they deserve to be in control of great wealth?
That’s very true; however, most millionaires are SELF-MADE MEN. It’s true, there was an article about it a couple of years back, where they found out most millionaires were SELF-MADE MEN by asking them.