Posted on 03/11/2005 9:27:36 PM PST by The Loan Arranger
Yes dear. Your rise in prices is hypothedical. When you look at actual numbers then you are completely off base.
Go. Read. Learn. The "poor" are better off now then the "middle class" was.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=53977 Don't blame the victim of government and moneylending.
Do you hear an echo? That is the biggest bunch of tripe I have ever read and your repeating it just made it riper tripe.
Amen to that!
And never lose your job or family business.
If the founders of the republic could move forward in time to today, and saw that a private bank is in control of the nations money supply they would be asking why hasn't the shooting started yet.
Let's not kid ourselves when we accept a federal reserve note for payment on anything we are already a slave to a private bank in the form of inflation and taxes.
Read the book "The Creature from Jekyl Island" if you want your eyes to be opened.
Gosh, if only everyone were as smart as you. Then no one would ever get catastrophically ill, lose their job unexpectedly, orsuffer any other unplanned financial disaster.
The good news is that when things do go wrong for "perfect" people it's the "losers" you so casually disdain that will be there to help you out.
Economics is a game with rules. Our current rule-set selects for predators -- those who are better at accumulating wealth than others naturally tend to win under the current system. (Predators are not bad people, mind; such people can't be blamed if their natural aptitude is accumulatng wealth anymore than one can "blame" Tiger Woods for being a good golfer.) But most people are not predators, and have neither the desire nor the natural ability to accumulate wealth easily. Therefore, for a stable society, it makes sense that we rig the rules of the game to limit the success of predators and allow the majority of people to live in comfort.
The best way to do this is by reorganizing the game so that the rules favor family businesses, individual entrepreneurs, local farmers and ranchers, and small businesses that provide everyday goods and services, while heavily penalizing large corporations, major financial institutions, and those who employ people in return for wages alone. This would involve adopting penalizing taxes against chain stores, international banks, agribusiness combines, and other megacorporations in order to run them out of business. In the meantime, business law would be rewritten to allow husband-wife families to incorporate their households as businesses or non-profit edcational corporations. Such incorporated families would be free to conduct any legal trade with zero tax liability on income, profit, or capital gains. Basically, families, family businesses, and privately-owned corporations with under 500 employees or so would pay no taxes whatsoever. (Taxes on property would also be done away with.) Federally-chartered trade guilds would be established allowing each family corporation to join with others engaging in the same trade; the guilds would regulate prices and allocate jobs on a private basis so that every member would get enough business to live on. The guilds would be supported by member dues and would also provide insurance, health care, and limited credit to members. In all cases, a man's homestead, tools, personal property, and livestock would be protected from seizure at law for repayment of debt; no one could be legally deprived of home or ability to support himself for any reason. A man's home would truly be his castle.
A society of independent family business owners would operate on a cash-and-carry basis to a much greater extent than our modern wage-labor system does. In such a society, default on credit would drop to low levels: since people would not be dependent upon uncertain work for wages, their ability to pay debts would be tied to their own efforts alone, not the vagaries of international commerce, labor markets, and securities trade. This would have the effect of drying up the market for easy retail credit, as people would be forced to live within their means. With retail credit widely unavailable, families would be far more likely to save for major purchases or go without. Such loans as would be available would be small and would be secured by pledges of real property (cattle, machinery, etc.)and not future wages. These loans would be provided by the dues-supported trade guilds, neighborhood community chests, or individuals, and would thus carry no interest charges. As a result, housing would become both more modest and more affordable -- if $100,000 in credit is unavailable the the average potential buyer, builders will not construct $100,000 homes. Loans for big-ticket items (farm machinery, printing presses, etc.) would be made on a cooperative basis within the guilds, with three or four family businesses sharng the lien risk and the use of the machines among themselves. (In any case, most farms would be small and would not need the kind of heavy machinery industrial farming techniques require.) Since loans for automobiles would be hard to get, most people would be forced by economics to live and work in the same building -- their homes -- and would build or buy homes within walking or bicycling distance of neighbors, shops, places of business, and recreational destinations. This would obviate the need of the average person to go into debt to buy a private car. Those who wished to buy their own vehicles would be required to pay cash, or pledge an equivalent amount of real property to the lender, in order to do so. (With big corporations taxed out of business, cars would tend to go back to being what they were in the beginning -- hand-crafted works of mobile art designed and buit by local "garages", and thus would be better-built, more beautiful, and far fewer in number than they are today.) Mass transit would be the average person's way to get around, with the federal government providing the funds to build rail, air, and ground transportation infrastructure and private operators providing the services themselves. Since all transport providers would be guild members, there would be no need for the nightmare of federal regulations we have today; any member of the Transport Guild, say, could operate his or her own private taxi service, motor coach fleet, or airline with no state or federal licensure or involvement required!)
The details are arguable; the important thing is to build a system where the majority of people are free -- i.e., they own their own homes and businesses and do not depend upon employers for their living or retail credit lenders for the basics of life. In such a world the standard of living would be much lower than it is today in terms of material wealth, but the average person would be much richer overall than they are today, since they would be safe in their homes and personal property, would be eatng locally-grown food and drinking locally-brewed drink, and would no longer be subject to the whims of wage labor nor the tyranny of usurers.
I'm willing to bet the average person would rather live a a 1950s standard of living and be free than have all the toys and be a wage-slave or debt-slave. I know I would -- and I do.
Whoa there. Where did I say that? I have had all those things happen. I am aware that they do happen. Quite painfully.
However if you have planned for bad things to happen you come about much faster. That is basically my point. You do not run yourself into debt thinking that you will pay it off tomorrow. Tomorrow is never guaranteed.
The good news is that when things do go wrong for "perfect" people it's the "losers" you so casually disdain that will be there to help you out.
Nope the losers will be sitting in a corner whining about the situation because they have no idea how to deal with it.
I'm willing to bet the average person would rather live a a 1950s standard of living and be free than have all the toys and be a wage-slave or debt-slave
Then they are free to do so. I know any number of people who have learned how to manage money and are now happy and debt-free.
You can be the guard ;)
It's just how I was raised.I was taught to never charge anything that I couldn't pay for right then and there and I've followed that rule all of my life. I've NEVER carried a balance on any charge or credit card. If I can't afford something,I don't buy it.
Not at all. That's the fact. A home purchased for around 40K in 1955 is now worth 600K or MORE! That may not be true everywhere in the country. But it is true in certain urban areas. I know of one that cost 35K in 1960, that probably could sell for a million, today. Same property. The home was improved with a new floor in the meanwhile. I was pointing you to the broader point, in a couple of cases, which you haven't addressed. You can say it's ridiculous. And I can say the same about what you've written as protest. But you should consider this, at the very least. It might be a point of view you've not seen.
In certain areas that might well be true. Those areas were not so popular and they are now desirable. So I was right in saying that the price has risen because of location.
But over all it is not true. So I was right again.
But you should consider this, at the very least. It might be a point of view you've not seen.
Oh I have seen it. Repeatably. It is the yearning for a mythical golden time. It is, however, statistical and historically speaking BS.
That time was not so golden and times now are better then they were then.
You have to admit the obvious. The 1950s were a more prosperous period for the nation. There wasn't the global competition of today. Japan and 'euro' were devastated. That's why. The US was a manufacturing center to the world. Good were made in the USA, unlike today. And this very nation helped them to rebuild, partly out of our own national interest in light of Soviet expansionism. We all knew this time was coming. And its been here for a few years, now. There's no good in denying the obvious. You really shouldn't.
"If credit cards with rates above 13% or 14% were illegal, there would be no sub-par retail lending."
But then people will whine "I can't live without credit"......"without credit I can't better myself"....etc.
"Let's not kid ourselves when we accept a federal reserve note for payment on anything we are already a slave to a private bank in the form of inflation and taxes."
Tell ya what, let me take on the burden of all your federal reserve notes and set you free.
BS, the customers pay for the risk. The risk is what the lender accepts for the business he gets. If he can't stomach the risk, then he should get a stable job at Wally World. These bozos are looking to protect high interest rates and lower the risk.
"If the employer fires the employee so that the employer can improve their own profit margin isn't the employer the actual cause of the bad debt?"
No way, the employee no doubt is fired for not performing and that's entirely their fault.
I've fired hundreds of employees for not meeting production minimums or quality standards.
I never left the office without a payroll checkbook with me.
I never hired anyone because they needed a job it was because I needed the employee and I don't owe then anything but a paycheck for properly and timely performed work and then only as long as I have that requirement.
No way, the employee no doubt is fired for not performing and that's entirely their fault.
I've fired hundreds of employees for not meeting production minimums or quality standards.
I never left the office without a payroll checkbook with me.
I never hired anyone because they needed a job it was because I needed the employee and I don't owe then anything but a paycheck for properly and timely performed work and then only as long as I have that requirement.
I've had to hire and fire employees many times for both reasons. If they can't or won't do the job then I don't need them. But I have never fired an employee just so I can improve my bottom line. About once a month I receive an offer from India or Eastern Europe to outsource our work. I could cut labor costs by almost 90% and pocket the difference but I won't do it.
I believe any company that does so should be responsible for paying the bills of any employees who lose their jobs because of outsourcing. I'll back any politician who supports such a Bill with campaign contributions and personal support.
In 1968,for example,a new teacher's salary in the N.Y.C. area was about $5,000,or a bit more.Today,it is around $39,000; which is about 8 times more.Now,compare the prices of the same things,then and now and you'll see that there is no loss in buying power.
And if you want to talk about housing, comparing co-ops in Chicago with the same one's cost in the mid '20s,to today's price (and I am talking about the same apartment !),some are actually a bit cheaper today...including many updates.
If you don't mind my asking...how old were you in the '50s?
Right you are! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.