[Preechr]

Originally Posted by davinxtk

For the most part I agree with the concepts presented here. I must concede to the fact that a decent work ethic is hard to find among many citizens, but in a society that attempts to teach us from day one that we can "do whatever we want" in this "free country" only to be delivered to harsh economic realities often in our teenage years you have to expect at least some discontent.

I submit that what you are calling "our society" is a product of our government and only a small part of our actual society at that. Additionally, I'll say that our "Entitlement Society" is what is responsible for our collective lack of the decent work ethic you mentioned. That, coincidentally, is also a product of the government for which We The People are ultimately responsible. Kahl kept bringing up the Ford layoffs as if they represented something evil. They can only be perceived as such from one perspective, and I happen to subscribe to a different one.

There is a big difference between that which is bad and that which is evil. Evil implies intention, and there is nothing but good intentions behind the Ford layoffs. They are ultimately based in altruism, yet they also carry the stink of failure. With failure, however, comes opportunity. There is also risk, but I prefer a less risk-averse life as the less stressful alternative.

The cause of the Ford layoffs is eventually the unrealistic promises made long ago to Ford's labor unions, most likely made to avoid a strike.

We actually do live in that "free country," but the idea that we can do "whatever we want" might be a bit misleading. Whatever we do must be governed by reason if we are hoping for successful outcomes. If I promise to give you something that I cannot ever hope to have for whatever reason, that might make you feel good for a while, but eventually, you are gonna get a little pissed that I led you on. I couldn't blame you for that.

I don't blame the laid off employees of Ford for being a bit upset at the loss of their jobs. I don't think they should ever have believed Ford could have violated the Golden Rule of business for any reason, even one that might serve their own interests, and stay in business without being forced to lay off employees.

When I sum this all up, I will address the difference between society as it is and society as it should be. For now, though, I'm gonna move on to your next point.

Originally Posted by davinxtk

If your argument is that Americans need to toughen up and get down to business, quit fucking around with popular culture and advertisements and bling and cribs and the like and actually do what's best for themselves... how can I argue with you?

The big thing here is that I agree with you, but I don't believe Americans should be forced to do so. I do believe Americans can be convinced to behave moreso in their best interests. I think the beauty of freedom lies in it's abuse, actually. Maybe you could argue with that.

On one hand, I guess you could say that I see the bad activity you are pointing out as healthy, but I would add to that I feel our society could be doing a much better job of encouraging people not to partake of those things. That society is sick is the reason so many of us are self-destructive.

Originally Posted by davinxtk

But this isn't going to be spurred by the poor suddenly waking up and correcting their horrendous spending habits, getting second and third jobs, and finding the motivation (and job openings) to move into management from entry-level positions. The trickle-down economy isn't quite working right, too much of the resources flow immediately back to the top. The initial sacrifices are going to have to be made by the rich, as it's the poor who need the leg-up...

There are many points to which I need to respond here. First, you talk of correcting the financial missteps of the poor. I'm from the South, and we have a saying here: If you don't fuck nothin up, you ain't doin nothin. You can't allow yourself to be distracted by focusing on the entire concept of "the poor." Look at the individuals. There will always be "the poor," but the individuals that make up that group at any given moment in time always have the option of casting aside their infatuations with various forms of self-destruction and seeking a more productive path.

You can lead a horse to water...

But are we doing that?

I say no. Our society does not encourage healthy decision making. I doubt you'd argue with that, based on your earlier comments. We are way too quick to run to the rescue of whomever might be making bad decisions at any given point in time, throwing money at them before they have a minute to sit there in the mess they created and figure their own way out. There are a lot of cases where immediate and sustained aid is necessary, but there are also a lot of cases where immediate and sustained aid is premature and unhealthy... maybe even abusive.

If your brother comes to you every week with a new song and dance about some misfortune he's had to endure, asking for some money to make it through, are you really helping him if you loan him whatever he needs whenever he asks? Isn't it your moral responsibility to investigate his financial difficulty and make a few suggestions in order to set him on a better path?

We can use this analogy on the larger scale in a couple of ways. I tend to opt for smaller, more localized government structures, as they are always more efficient, but you could also go for the alternative of developing a federal "Big Brother" program that actively educates those that meet financial misfortune in hopes of helping them out in the larger sense.

You said these folks are owed a leg-up. What I am asking you to consider here is the form of that help. They would not be in need, generally speaking... and I'm not really talking about those with medical issues here... had they been making excellent financial decisions. Simply giving them a check isn't gonna help them in the big picture, is it? Can we expect more than just additional bad decision making from them?

Part of our society, to move on, is represented by your comment concerning "job openings." Again, we reference the "Entitlement Society" on which I previously commented. Before, I talked about my view of work. I trade my time for money. It is up to me to make a wise trade. It is also up to me to make sure that the time I'm trading has value to whomever I'm selling it to, right? It is unreasonable to assume that I might insist I do nothing and get paid, and it's just as bad to insist I be hired to do a job for which I lack the necessary skills.

I value my time very highly. Personally, I would not want a job that was not challenging. I would not take a job where I got paid to sit on a couch and eat Twinkies. I value my time more than that. The more responsibilites I assume in my job, the more valuable I am to my employer and thus the higher my pay... at least in a theoretical sense... right? If I have and then lose that Twinkie job, I think I should consider myself lucky to have had it when I did. I probably should not expect to be so lucky in whatever source of income I find next, should I?

I may even need to develop some more marketable skills at this point. I may need to make my own "job opening." Nobody owes me a couch-sitting, Twinkie-eating job. The reason companies "down-size" their employees is because their jobs are deemed to be unnecessary or unprofitable to the company. In many cases, these jobs were a bad idea from the start for the company... and in such cases: Shame on the company for hiring folks for stupid reasons. Often, though, technology makes certain jobs obsolete. Should we stop technology? People that used to make horse drawn carriages or TV antennae learned new skills and got new jobs.

Here's a timely example: It seems that the Democrat impetus behind protesting the sale of those American ports doesn't actually lie in real concern for security. In reality, they are attempting to protect the jobs of longshoremen who might get down-sized if the firm from Dubai were to take control and automate some of their jobs. The same thing happened a few years ago when new technology threatened to streamline the process of unloading ships, and they pulled a big strike, remember?

Speaking of that Twinkie job, did you know union longshoremen make around $100k/year to drive forklifts and cranes?

Originally Posted by davinxtk

Once again it's hard to argue these points. There is, however, quite a difference between trying to provide for your family and trying your damnedest to live like a king.

How so? Who's responsiblity is it to provide for my family? Your family? Max's family? It is up to each of us to make the best of our lives. I understand your example of Travolta's daughter, and I see where you are going with it. What you are not seeing there is that the daughter is obviously not being raised to survive in the real world... and one day she just might have to do that.

Even with the benefit of her dad's money, she will not be able to remain completely insulated from real life. She might go all Willie Nelson or Michael Jackson and squander her wealth on bad ideas, or she might hire some consultants to help her make some good decisions. Either way, that wealth will bleed back out into the economy because John Travolta apparently sucks at raising children, at least as I can assume from your anecdote.

So, she's got that job we were talking about: eating Twinkies on the couch for a living... and she's getting WAY overpaid for it. As I said up there, she should consider herself lucky, and be preparing herself for the inevitable end of her luck by educating herslef and attaining other skills. If she chooses to stubbornly insist someone else provide her with more found money when she eventually pisses hers away, do you think we should oblige her?

Wouldn't it be more moral to educate her at to how she lost all her Daddy's money, and help her to find a better path in life?

Originally Posted by davinxtk

Not only are these people privileged, they don't know how privileged they are. Remember when Bush said at a press conference that that lady lived a "uniquely American" life, working three jobs to feed her children? This capitalist economy has become little more than modern feudalism.

No matter how you choose to sell your time, the value of your trade will obviate what you were working for. In your "these people" example, I tried to show that Ms. Travolta (I assume) that is probably not trading time for money so well, as she is wasting her time and her money in such a wholesale fashion. Not that I wish to be labeled as the guy that likes to portray poor people as delightfully noble... though still poor... but what is so "uniquely American" about that broke lady is that she has a shot at being one of those folks that help to bilk Ms. Travolta out of her Daddy's money and teach her the lesson it sounds like she so dearly needs to learn.

Ever stop to think, by the way, that it would be nice if she was able to find education in order to develop better jobs skills? Back we go to the shameful mess that is government run education.

Originally Posted by davinxtk

The upper echelon of the economy hordes the wealth and lets just slightly less enough than the barest essentials slip out to keep us working.

So, Ms. Travolta has all your money? I thought she got it from her dad? Maybe he got about twelve bucks of it from you, as long as (and God I hope this isn't true) you didn't pay to see him in "Michael" at the theater... but... I hope you aren't one of those slave people I heard that live on his private island, sewing shoes for gruel.

You do know that Trump is doing TV now because his chips are down, right? Did you hear Ted Turner still has yet to make good on that $Billion he pledged to the UN back in his heyday? Ran out of money. Poor Ted. Remember back when Bill Gates was worth $180 Billion? He was the richest man in all human history then. His net worth hovers around $50 Billion today... AND THESE GUYS WERE SMART ENOUGH TO EARN THEIR MONEY.

Each of these men, through their own decisions, accumulated vast sums of money and then, through their own decisions, RE-DISTRIBUTED Billions of their dollars back into the economy. Add in the heirs to Wal-Mart, and we've easily got a Hundred-Billion-Dollar-Over-About-Five-Years example of voluntary wealth re-distribution by just 1% of the top 1% of earners that pay half the tax money collected in this country each year.

The wealthy just do not hold on to their money, generally. Those that do so, especially over several generations, can easily be said to have invested some time into skill development (the skill of managing finances.) The best way to maintain fortunes is to invest them. Investment of fortunes create jobs. Yes, they can also allow for extravagent, even repulsive, lifestyles... But we can easily deduce that those extravagent lifestyles are always either leading up to either voluntary re-distribution of wealth through stupid decisions or jobs: The creation of wealth for those that work.

I'm not, by the way, a zero-sum guy. American English was the first language subset that phrased earning pay as "making money." Did you know that? Think of the implication there. To make something is to bring it out of a place where it did not previously exist. Thinking of finance this way shows us that there is not necessarily a finite amount of money in this world, factoring in for time. While each day may only have a specific amount of money to made, a product of the energy expended by all of us together, since money is a unit of measurement for time we can extrapolate that the exchange of time for money is only limited to the current exchange rate for every trade.

Thanks to Moore's Law, we have a neat little illustraion of this process. Techonology increases productivity, and technology is evolving at an exponential rate. Productivity is also increasing... go figure. With productivity increases, the sum total of wealth in the world increases. Wealth often encourages innovation, which creates technology. When wealth does not encourage innovation, providing jobs, it is said to be poorly invested and falls back into the general economy through various inevitable means.

Originally Posted by davinxtk

This is where your naivete complicates things. Business isn't the root of all evil, Preechr, this 'human nature' is.

Well, I think I just showed you how wealth follows more closely than you thought more naturally fair rules. This is social physics. Universal Rules based on every example with which we can experiment. What works for poor people works for rich people, as long as we don't accidentally build a society that screws with the natural order of things.

Ideally, we can trade our time for money using our formula involving only the variables of effort and ingenuity... until we add in for the pseudo-altruistic aftermath of the Post-Modern Era. When we multiply class envy into the formula, we have to chunk a fraction off our productivity and thus, wealth.


Man, I'm tired. Forgive me, but that's all I got for tonight...

I'll pick up here either late tomorrow, or Friday night. I've had a very busy week. Sorry.