Posted on 02/24/2006 6:24:09 AM PST by Sam's Army
Not according to the CIA World Factbook:
The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.
My guess is that if a rising economic tide lifts all boats, the bottom 80% would have seen significant gains along with the top 20%.
Well, I was with you until you said socialism is based on the desire to help. I would say that may be true of a few of the masses who get duped into it. But I would say that by far most of the masses are driven by greed, envy (of those who are richer), and fear (socialism promises security).
I have often thought that capitalism requires that the people in the system have Christian beliefs and character: in the words of our founders, that they are driven by "self-interest rightly understood." I think Ayn Rand makes the mistake of self-interest wrongly understood (it's all about me and my personal self-fulfillment).
I think capitalism with a "Christian" face, so to speak, would mean that one leaves something to be gleaned, referring to the practice prescribed in the Old Testament where the corners of fields were not harvested so that the poor would have access to food--but they had to do the work of harvesting it for themselves, so their characters were not ruined. Capitalism with a "Christian" face means that through our free wills we provide for those who are needy through no fault of their own through our families, churches and communities in ways that build strong character.
Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for your note! But the names on the deeds are still the names on the deeds. They have mortgages and they still have to buy lots of things for their homes, regardless of how long they live in them. Ownership is still, Well, ownership.
As part of my first paragraph in post 62, I also meant to say that for a few (those behind the push for it) socialism is driven by the desire to control.
It's worth noting that the bottom tier of U.S. families -- as measured in terms of household income -- include a disproportionate number of single-parent households. The mere fact that there is only one adult in these households is a huge impediment to their financial mobility. Even a household with one spouse who works outside the home and one "stay-at-home" parent will almost always have a higher income than one with a single parent.
I'd like to hear an economist explain the model where the "rich get poorer, and the poor get richer".....
Even in communism and socialism, they both just get poorer.
(notwithstanding corruption)
And yet there are numerous examples of workers willingly foregoing wage increases and even accepting wage cuts when their employer is in trouble. Its when the sacrifices are one sided that resentment grows.
You forget one very important item: Home building. That has been very strong and is likely to remain so as long as interest rates don't balloon out of proportion. True, the "pig in the python" in that biz has probably passed the middle of the creature, but it is still extremely strong in many parts of the country.
The program you refer to is silly and stupid. I agree. That's a small portion of home ownership in America, however. Very small.
Reminds me of Habitat for Humanity - one of those well-intentioned programs that ultimately leads to Hell. Like when the house increases in value and the owner now cannot pay the tax bill. Great idea, Jimmah!
I find your posts very informative and very helpful. Thank you.
Not exactly -- I said that many who promote socialist ideas are motivated by a genuine desire to help. Not all, but many. And I think that's true.
I agree with you about what socialism promises and produces, and also with the fact that causes more harm than good. But it has a powerful attraction, and it behooves us to understand where it comes from. Part of the attractions are greed and envy -- but greed and envy don't convince skeptics; rather, socialism promises to address the cases of unfairness and misfortune that we can recognize for ourselves. The problem with socialism is that it perverts our good intentions.
I have often thought that capitalism requires that the people in the system have Christian beliefs and character: in the words of our founders, that they are driven by "self-interest rightly understood."
Very much agreed. I can point to the treasures in my own city of Colorado Springs which were given to the community by seriously wealthy men and women who thought it their duty to give back. They're still revered, and we're all better off.
Yup. Good point.
Argentina comes to mind.
That may in fact be correct -- until it finally crashes and burns, and people end up having to fend for themselves again.
I can't remember whose "law" it is -- William Rusher's, perhaps -- that states, "any organization that is not explicitly conservative will become more liberal over time." Empirical observations tend to bear that out.
The CPI absolutely includes food and energy. The core rate removes those two items from the calculation because, by removing the volatility, underlying trends are better identified. Food, as a percentage of total household budget, has declined over the past 30 years.
From the BLS:
7. What goods and services does the CPI cover?
The percentage of interest-only-with-no-down-payment.loans you cite for Georgia is at least matched by California. "A hi tech form of renting." Good description.
I have no real problem with it however. As I recall Japan has multi-generation home loans and a 75-year mortgage may be coming here soon.
What I do have a problem with is the inane comparison of past generations to this one vis-a-vis home ownership.
You expressed it well by asking,
"Can you really classify these people as homewoners in the classical sense?"
Yes, at one time "burning the mortgage papers" at retirement age was once considered ideal. That's home ownership.
You make some excellent points and thanks for the Old Testament reference.
The social contract I suppose is 'self-interest rightly understood' and enforced.
Which begs a question IMO -- how can Red China be turning capitalist? It's not a question for you it just a question I often ask myself. My reply is, It cannot be.
The usual screams of "Socialist!" and snotty questions like, "So you want government to take care of you?" are mostly missing.
Thanks, all.
(Oh, and no one has posted personal attacks on Mr. Green, so far.)
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.