Family Incomes Slipped In 1st Part Of Decade ("Rich getting richer" alert)

Do you see the irony of taking such a position on a thread titled, "Family Incomes Slipped In 1st Part Of Decade?" [shaking head in wonder]

Do you see the irony of taking such a position on a thread titled, "Family Incomes Slipped In 1st Part Of Decade?"

Families lucky we let them keep any income. Greedy Kulaks!!

RE: "Having a lot in common with Karl Marx, by being anti-capitalism, is not something conservatives should strive for - although many here appear to be trying."

I have not read the entire thread. But I see that accusation over and over on free-trade threads.

I am "anti-capitalist," I suppose, because I oppose "free trade" -- but I do support free trade. The former is transfers of technology, wealth, and production to developing countries and the latter is traditional trade with advanced countries, European and Asian.

. The former is strongly advocated by New Democrat Third Way "progressives" (see New Democrat On Line, ndol.org). "Rules-based" free trade they call it. Whose rules? Theirs. Who runs Davos, the U.N., and other one-world government groups? Who wants the WTO to enforce "social justice?" They do.

What do they want? "Social justice!" When do they wanted it? "Now!"

That kind of "free trade" is a Marxist revolution from the top down, IMO.

(With a little of Lenin's NEP mixed in to attract the "useful idiots" with immediate profits and cheap labor.)

It's a fine distinction, and beyond the grasp of some, but I don't think a typical "free-trader" really cares one way or the other if he is called a Marxist. But using Marx's words anticipating a proletarian revolution as a result of free trade while arguing that social/economic unrest results from free trade is downright comic.

Rich getting richer

The dumb are getting dumber, also.

The rich just don't get richer by rule. The dumb idiots in our society who refuse to train themselves into higher wage earning postions (21st century technology; professional certifications, etc) are much to blame. The Marxists schools who do not teach computer skills or science or math, but spend nearly all day teaching about western civilization, black history, American Indian history, easter culture, lesbian and gay history, etc. are to blame also.

Schumer is a total idiot for saying this has anything to do with tax policy.

By and large, America is an ignorant society, with RAT politicans playing on the fears of the morons of society.

Thanks for the ping. This is one of the bigger problems I see - that "unskilled" work is being offshored to other countries leaving no opportunity for unskilled workers in a society where not everyone can afford college much less a degree. This would seem to be a case os social engineering at work. And I agree both with your Battlestar allusion and your summation of the French tack. Both are proper forms of retaliation IMHO. What's good for the goose as it were..

Unless at some point, which is in the distant future so ti is moot for us that we are so over capitalized where our needs and wants can be taken care of with no or little trouble, ala "Star Trek, The Next Generation, we might end up with some "powers that be" stepping in with such "no labor robot" laws like in "Battlestar Galactica."

Speaking of the "Twilight Zone," I found the perfect quote from Rod Serling that could be applied to this. This was the episode where Burgess Meredith played an old man who was going to be executed live on TV by a Nazi-like State but Meredith plays with the Leader's mind so well, the Leader cracks up and he is executed later on. At the end, one of Serling's quotes was: Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state (or ideology - my addition) is obsolete." The episode was, "The Obsolete Man" whic first aired, June 2nd, 1961.

If they're going to create the world of shadowrun for us to live in, they should well expect the war that comes with it.

BTw, I have an online friend who has his webpage devoted to many role playing games like Shadowrun and one like it called "Dark Consipracy."

Wapahani.com

From what I remember, "Shadowrun," is a role playing game where you have a corporate driven world where a lot of large nations including the US, breaks up into smaller nations and I think there was an atomic war or two that was the result of this.

Ready for this? The Science Fiction writers of the 60s throughout today were [and are] almost always pink on the inside or were overtly red on the outside. Pay close attention to the social messages in every episode of The Twilight Zone and they are far, far left. I've seen some episodes that took their obligatory swipes at totalitarianism and tyranny but, in general, they always took swipes at the American-style capitalism and our way of doing things and always portrayed the Left's message as Utopian.

I think you are a bit extreme on your take of many science fiction writers. Since Serling is front and center, I would most likely see him as more of a conservative Democrat perhaps (by today's standards) or at the time, more like a supporter of FDR, JFK, Harry Truman, pretty much a Scoop Jackson type. I have no problem with that and on many of his points, I do agree with Rod Serling on. One interesting thing is he was ahead of his time where he was opposed to the Vietnam War where it kind of showed in "In Praise of Pip" (aired Sept, 27th, 1963) where Jack Klugman played a man who wishes he could have been a better father to his son who was killed in Vietnam. I think there were hints of that in other episodes too. I can respect his views, at least he wasn't a barking moonbat.

I see the pictures of totalitinarianism as one extreme and the rampant corportism as the other extreme, one is as bad as the other, they are different sides on the same coin, or as I like to say, "same song, different jukebox."

I think you are a bit extreme on your take...

You do, huh?

I see the pictures of totalitinarianism as one extreme and the rampant corportism as the other extreme, one is as bad as the other, they are different sides on the same coin, or as I like to say, "same song, different jukebox."

At least with 'rampant corporatism' [whatever that may mean - but I'll play along for the sake of taking you seriously and in order to try and persuade you], the consumer can decide to stop buying from the 'rampant corporatist' at any time. The two are night and day different and in no way belong on the "same coin" much less the same genre of music - a reference to your absurd jukebox analogy.

Am I being to extreme with my take now? Could it be that you might have an extreme take? Just food for thought.

At least with 'rampant corporatism' [whatever that may mean - but I'll play along for the sake of taking you seriously and in order to try and persuade you], the consumer can decide to stop buying from the 'rampant corporatist' at any time.

This I would take you to task on. If the corporatist is providing a service no one else is then, no, the public cannot simply decide to stop buying from them at any time. There are certain things in life required nowdays to get by. You can't just buy your electricity from whomever you choose to. In some cases, you can't just buy your groceries from whomever you choose to as the choices have been obliterated by competition from the corporatitsts. Poor people will shop at Walmart even if they detest Walmart because it is all they might be able to afford. This flies utterly in the face of your own statements.

There were early warnings about what the end would be of allowing the existance of corporations and mega-companies. Now that their existance is reality, so too are the warnings - the divedends being paid are exactly as predicted or worse. Greed is an addiction. Any addiction left untreated feeds upon itself and becomes worse to a point of abusiveness that is predictable. When that abusiveness is aimed at all of society, the end result is a sort of tyranicism mot unlike the marxists, socialists and fascists who function by undermining, demeaning and denying the worth of average people. The institution is the thing of worth, not the individual. The individual is expendable. That is the situation we have under corporatist reign. And the attitude is on display here daily.

As for the argument that SF writers have been by and large leftist, on that I would generally agree. There are exceptions; but, given the mentality of a corporatist system ruling the roost on who gets published, this is no more a surprise than Ann Coulter being a best selling author despite the fact that she had to go to lesser publishers to stand a chance of getting published. This is not to say that leftist and Conservative presses function differently. If the goal is power and/or money, the outcome will be predictable as to the goal. Leftists valued power over money and would risk printing books that would not sell rather than risk printing books that would sell but that might undermine their power if people started thinking.

When it comes to political debate in this country, the same mindset is evident. The way to keep political power is to keep the people from setting the agenda. Power comes from controlling the message. So if you keep the messages out that you don't want heard or dealt with, just as in publishing, people might loose or be kept in the dark; but, the people in power stay in power.

We don't have to accept the politicians marched out in front of us that we are told we can vote for. Nor do we have to necessarily put up with the further existance of corporatism. Neither of those messages is particularly pleasing to the crowd in DC or here. But it's a message coming from America. Average people are sick of being seen as expendable. If they can't afford an education - which many cannot, then they are treated as refuse. They are human beings and they are not expendable. They have worth that is not dependant upon money or education. And they deserve to live and make a living just like anyone else. Hacking their opportunities away and sending them abroad in order to enrich the few at the top even more is disgusting in the extreme. Average people don't need less opportunity, they need more. The wealth game today has turned into a power struggle even more than it ever was. When single individuals have so much money and control so much in America that they could stop now and no family member would ever have to work a day in their life for generations upon generations, the money is no longer the goal - power is. Oil companies bring in profits in the Billions each quarter. That's Billions with a "B". Yet they still find the need to raise prices? Billions. Common sense tells us that's "screw everyone" money. But, it's "screw everyone" power that is in play - not the money.

The bottom line here is that corporate power begets corporate power and the end of it is a society that is as throw away to the Corporatists as the paper plates and plastic forks our microwave meals are served on. Money and power are the only things that seem to matter. And the lust for both is dehumanizing all of us.

All that math and you've not once took a course in Microeconomics? Everything you wrote about their not being alternatives is just plain bunk...it's the same line of thinking that leads collectivists to unite and develop market power on their own [only they don't call themselves conservative while "hating the man that keeps them down"]. Because of 'rampant corporatism' or the pursuit of profits, we now have those "certain things in life required nowdays to get by". That's a fact! capitalism lead to the innovation of these 'required' things.

I put the word "required" in those little thinggies because in some countries where 'rampant corporatism' wasn't allowed to take hold, they do not have the benefit of these 'required' things...yet they still live - and they don't live like a bunch of candy-asses who look for 'unfairness' and 'injustice' throughout society because some business owners have what they do not. You and your like-minded thinkers on this topic have a lot of nerve talking about how the corporatist 'keep you down' or that there is some kind of 'faceless capitalism' going on. You may not of used those particular phrases but it's just the same old crap only it's different flies.

And what of those people in non-industrialized countries? Do you have any soft spot for them? Do you care that by pining for socioeconomic justice in the domestic society [a society with an unemployment rate below 5%, Real GDP over 3%, home ownership hovering at 70%] that you not only hurt those who live in real misery but you also make those quoted domestic statistics worse? See that's the part you probably disagree with. You probably believe that trade and commerce lead to socioeconomic decline yet you'd be hard pressed to come up with the proper prescription for what ails the non-indstrialized countries and you would not be able to answer the empirical evidence that shows that America is better off when it trades/ engages in commerce more and worse off when she does not.

Enough! This rant is getting incoherent and I'm not staying on topic...it's because I'm sickened that I have to defend capitalism so vehemently on a conservative Internet forum. It's your turn to respond.

Meanwhile, Senator Schumer, did you know that nearly 70% of Americans own their own homes?

Better question is WHY 70% own their own homes...

One answer: absolutely shitty underwriting standards.

Boy, everybody's a critic!

Karl Marx, in making that statement, anticipated neoliberalism. Of course I abhor what Marx wrote, but in terms of his strategic ability to anticipate the areas where we capitalists would eventually make ourselves vulnerable geopolitically, I cannot argue with his logic.