Credit and the poor

[smaneck]

You just said you feel better off now. Just kidding.

Pres Bush also was in a recession.

Actually there were two recessions during the Bush administration. The recession we are just now climbing out of was started in the Bush administration.

And I repeatly asked for evidences and none was provided except I was called ignorant.

And when it was presented you ignored it and simply raised the bar by demanding contradictions rather than the original differences. But yes, I would call any Christian unfamiliar with the Doctrine of Justification ignorant just as I would call any Muslim who knows nothing about Tawheed ignorant. These things are too central to their religion.

Me too! We are actually not as different as we thought. I saw many people just hate capitalist with a passion without reason.

The problem is that when anyone tries to bridle capitalism so it can be a service to mankind people start shouting "socialism."

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

[

The problem is that when anyone tries to bridle capitalism so it can be a service to mankind people start shouting "socialism."

This, basically.
I also cannot escape the impression that few people know what these terms even mean, particularly on the right end of the political spectrum.

Personally, I think that certain areas of life (education, health care, public transportation) should not be in the hands of private companies whose primary goal is accumulating profit.
I also think that natural monopolies (such as drinking water) ought to be communally owned, as -again - a private company's quest for profit (low costs, high yield) clashes with the best interests of consumers. Lastly, it is vitally important that there are some legal saveguards that amend the power disparity between the rich and the poor, ascertaining that the former cannot freely exploit the latter just by virtue of having the means to do so.

And a HUGE part of the problem is the whole issue of credit and interest. If capitalism aims to be fair, it needs to create a semblance of equal opportunity and just distribution based on individual performance. As it is, neither of these exists.

 

[smaneck]

Personally, I think that certain areas of life (education, health care, public transportation) should not be in the hands of private companies whose primary goal is accumulating profit.
I also think that natural monopolies (such as drinking water) ought to be communally owned, as -again - a private company's quest for profit (low costs, high yield) clashes with the best interests of consumers.

I agree, primarily because capitalism is based on a premise of free market competition. In areas where there can't be free markets, capitalism doesn't work.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I agree, primarily because capitalism is based on a premise of free market competition. In areas where there can't be free markets, capitalism doesn't work.

True.

Although "true" proponents of the "free market" (i.e. people who think along the lines of "state=evil, entrepeneur=good") always fail to explain how an unregulated market could possibly prevent monopolies from forming.

Say what you will about Karl Marx, but his analysis of where capitalism would head was spot-on, and pretty much describes the global status quo as we experience it right now.
His proposed solution might be nothing more than a fatal pipe dream, but that does not subtract from the fact that he spotted our current problems 150 years ago.

 

[dcalling]

True.

Although "true" proponents of the "free market" (i.e. people who think along the lines of "state=evil, entrepeneur=good") always fail to explain how an unregulated market could possibly prevent monopolies from forming.

Say what you will about Karl Marx, but his analysis of where capitalism would head was spot-on, and pretty much describes the global status quo as we experience it right now.
His proposed solution might be nothing more than a fatal pipe dream, but that does not subtract from the fact that he spotted our current problems 150 years ago.

I actually agree with you on somethings needs to be community owned (basic utilities) and there needs to be regulation in the market.

Disagree about:
1. School
2. Karl Marx.

Reason:
1. School. Initially I though state should provide education. True to some degree. What happened in US is because of the teaches union, public schools can't fire teachers, so some really bad teachers (short of sexual predators) got to stay on job, collecting salary but don't need to teach. Also because of the district, even if some poor kids want to move out of some bad schools, they can't, essentially became a barrier for poor kids to success.
I think the solution is school voluchers, where state provide money for education, and people can choose their own schools use that volucher money no matter where they live.

2. Karl Marx. I studied rather extensively on that, and he is a brilliant man. However unlike what you said, what he said didn't come true. Capitalism is not dead, and the countries build on his idealogies almost all changed direction (except North Korea, where the iron fist prevented that).

The beauty of Capitalism/Democracy is it changes, where Capitalism provides the best drive for economy and Democracy provides a way of self adjustment.

You seems to be a communist, but you should base on your assessment on data and facts, not on emotion. As I told smneck, when I come to the US I perfer communism, but the raw facts changed my mind (not an easy change due to my initial favor in communism).

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

2. Karl Marx. I studied rather extensively on that, and he is a brilliant man. However unlike what you said, what he said didn't come true. Capitalism is not dead, and the countries build on his idealogies almost all changed direction (except North Korea, where the iron fist prevented that).

I am not talking about his solution to the problem (i.e. a socialist revolution followed by a true communist utopia), I am talking about his description of Capitalism and its subsequent stages. And what he said there is spot-on.

The beauty of Capitalism/Democracy is it changes, where Capitalism provides the best drive for economy and Democracy provides a way of self adjustment.

Proponents of unregulated Capitalism often use the term interchangeably with democracy/freedom - but if you look at different countries around the globe, you find that the most unregulated markets exist in autocratic dictatorships that are LIGHTYEARS away from democracy and a free society. China, the Arabian emirates, Augusto Pinochet's Chile, and diverse corrupt states where people nominally get to vote, yet decisions are effectively made by banks and corporations who sometimes do not even bother to disguise the fact that they are writing the laws.

You seems to be a communist, but you should base on your assessment on data and facts, not on emotion.

Communism is as much of an utopian fiction as Right Libertarianism: both hold that if you only tried hard enough and went a couple of steps further than anybody else has ever gone before in attempting to realize these visions, mankind would live in a terrestrial paradise.
Even their apologetics are strikingly alike:
"No, that wasn't an example of TRUE Communism/a pure free market! If only somebody implemented it as it should be, everything would be okay."

As far as I am concerned, both ideals have already been revealed to be absolutely dysfunctional, with Leninism/Maoism jumping the shark first. The error that so many people committed was to believe that these two alternatives were the only ones available, and that the failure of the one meant that the other was right. Yet Capitalism is just as much of a road to extinction as its traditional enemy, with overconsumption, pollution, environmental degradation, and an ever-widening gap between a few winners and many losers taking its toll on our species as well as on the planet.

 

[smaneck]

1. School. Initially I though state should provide education. True to some degree. What happened in US is because of the teaches union, public schools can't fire teachers, so some really bad teachers (short of sexual predators) got to stay on job, collecting salary but don't need to teach. Also because of the district, even if some poor kids want to move out of some bad schools, they can't, essentially became a barrier for poor kids to success.

Except bad schools rarely have anything to do with unions, etc. Bad schools exist in bad neighborhoods.

I think the solution is school voluchers, where state provide money for education, and people can choose their own schools use that volucher money no matter where they live.

And how are poor people supposed to get to those schools? Furthermore vouchers typically only cover a portion of the schools tuition. Where do they get the money to pay the rest?

2. Karl Marx. I studied rather extensively on that, and he is a brilliant man. However unlike what you said, what he said didn't come true. Capitalism is not dead, and the countries build on his idealogies almost all changed direction (except North Korea, where the iron fist prevented that).

Apparently you didn't understand what she said or what Karl Marx predicted. He predicted that that under a capitalist system fewer and fewer people would control more and more of the wealth and that it would eventually collapse because capitalism actually militates against a free market by forming monopolies and cartels. What he didn't predict is that governments would eventually regulate the formation of monopolies and cartels and that labor would be enabled to protect its own interests through labor unions. But those are precisely the things which right wing would like to get rid of. What has happened in most Western Democracies as well as nominally communist countries like China and Vietnam, is that we have all increasingly moved to a mixed economy. In my view Capitalism died at the end of the 19th century with the advent of Social Welfare legislation. Communism died a century later. However globalism, in the economic sense, has wiped out many of the gains of the mixed economies that replaced them because it is able to avoid government regulation by moving to countries with less. That way they can hire children to make their shoes for pennies an hour.

The beauty of Capitalism/Democracy is it changes, where Capitalism provides the best drive for economy and Democracy provides a way of self adjustment.

As did Communism. Look at China and Vietnam.

You seems to be a communist, but you should base on your assessment on data and facts, not on emotion.

Jumping to the conclusion that Jane is a communist demonstrates the extent to which your own assessments are based on emotion rather than data and facts.

As I told smneck, when I come to the US I perfer communism, but the raw facts changed my mind (not an easy change due to my initial favor in communism).

Facts or the ideologies of your right-wing evangelical friends? Because you are running really short on facts here.

 

[dcalling]

I am not talking about his solution to the problem (i.e. a socialist revolution followed by a true communist utopia), I am talking about his description of Capitalism and its subsequent stages. And what he said there is spot-on.

Nope. Capitalism existed since the start of the age and it didn't go away, but the countries that went for Marx's idea pretty much all give it up. So Marx's vision has failed.

Proponents of unregulated Capitalism often use the term interchangeably with democracy/freedom - but if you look at different countries around the globe, you find that the most unregulated markets exist in autocratic dictatorships that are LIGHTYEARS away from democracy and a free society. China, the Arabian emirates, Augusto Pinochet's Chile, and diverse corrupt states where people nominally get to vote, yet decisions are effectively made by banks and corporations who sometimes do not even bother to disguise the fact that they are writing the laws.

Capitalism in non-democracy countries still made people's life better, just with more corruption.

Communism is as much of an utopian fiction as Right Libertarianism: both hold that if you only tried hard enough and went a couple of steps further than anybody else has ever gone before in attempting to realize these visions, mankind would live in a terrestrial paradise.
Even their apologetics are strikingly alike:
"No, that wasn't an example of TRUE Communism/a pure free market! If only somebody implemented it as it should be, everything would be okay."

As far as I am concerned, both ideals have already been revealed to be absolutely dysfunctional, with Leninism/Maoism jumping the shark first. The error that so many people committed was to believe that these two alternatives were the only ones available, and that the failure of the one meant that the other was right. Yet Capitalism is just as much of a road to extinction as its traditional enemy, with overconsumption, pollution, environmental degradation, and an ever-widening gap between a few winners and many losers taking its toll on our species as well as on the planet.

You forget how easy people are to adapt and change. See how much talking are here for green energy? Notice the acid rains are long gone?

 

[dlamberth]

Me too! We are actually not as different as we thought. I saw many people just hate capitalist with a passion without reason.

In looking around at all of the poor, capitalism has failed many people. That's the reason they dislike it.

.

 

[dlamberth]

I agree, primarily because capitalism is based on a premise of free market competition. In areas where there can't be free markets, capitalism doesn't work.

It doesn't work for the elderly, the disenfranchise, the poor, the mentally unstable, ect. In order for Capitalism to work for the greater good of a society it needs to be helped with a bit of Socialism.

.

 

[dcalling]

Except bad schools rarely have anything to do with unions, etc. Bad schools exist in bad neighborhoods.

So you decide to not letting people who are poor out of that neighborhood?

And how are poor people supposed to get to those schools? Furthermore vouchers typically only cover a portion of the schools tuition. Where do they get the money to pay the rest?

The voucher pays for everything, just like government already pays for the schools. They calculated that the government spend about 10k per student a year, with that money, the schools that performs best will be rewarded, so all schools will have to compete for resources. Don't you think they might server you better if they have to compete for you?

Apparently you didn't understand what she said or what Karl Marx predicted. He predicted that that under a capitalist system fewer and fewer people would control more and more of the wealth and that it would eventually collapse because capitalism actually militates against a free market by forming monopolies and cartels. What he didn't predict is that governments would eventually regulate the formation of monopolies and cartels and that labor would be enabled to protect its own interests through labor unions. But those are precisely the things which right wing would like to get rid of. What has happened in most Western Democracies as well as nominally communist countries like China and Vietnam, is that we have all increasingly moved to a mixed economy. In my view Capitalism died at the end of the 19th century with the advent of Social Welfare legislation. Communism died a century later. However globalism, in the economic sense, has wiped out many of the gains of the mixed economies that replaced them because it is able to avoid government regulation by moving to countries with less. That way they can hire children to make their shoes for pennies an hour.

I know what Max's prediction is, but Max predicted communism will take over the world, which didn't happen. The other prediction didn't happen either, remember capitalism was there for ages, why will the dooms day on capitalism happen only after Max?

As did Communism. Look at China and Vietnam.

Yes, changed to capitalism

Jumping to the conclusion that Jane is a communist demonstrates the extent to which your own assessments are based on emotion rather than data and facts.

She definitely have communist leanings

Facts or the ideologies of your right-wing evangelical friends? Because you are running really short on facts here.

You can call me names all day long, the fact remains. Also you seems to assume a lot. Evangelical does not equal to right wing. Among my friends (who are evangelicals) many are liberals, some even campaigned for Pres Obama or other demos. One of my closest friend's thought about economy is almost like Jane, the believe in God has no impact on the believe in social systems.

 

[smaneck]

So you decide to not letting people who are poor out of that neighborhood?

I'm saying giving them a voucher does not give them a way out of the neighborhood. In most cases what it does is help fund the private education of the upper-middle class.

The voucher pays for everything, just like government already pays for the schools. They calculated that the government spend about 10k per student a year, with that money the schools that performs best will be rewarded, so all schools will have to compete for resources. Don't you think they might server you better if they have to compete for you?

Public school education in my states costs about 9K a year. The tuition at the best private school here (where I sent my son) is over 15K. Where are the poor going to come up with the extra 6K? The fact of the matter is that better educations cost more. Yeah, I would have loved to have voucher to cover my son's private schooling, but I am no illusions that it would help the poor.

I know what Max's prediction is, but Max predicted communism will take over the world, which didn't happen.

And isn't that exactly what Jane said? That capitalism acted precisely as Marx predicted but that his communist utopian vision never materialized?

The other prediction didn't happen either, remember capitalism was there for ages, why will the dooms day on capitalism happen only after Max?

LOL. I'm a historian. Capitalism as an economic theory has existed only for a little more than two centuries, not ages. It was a reaction to the state controlled economies of Europe at the time. But I supposed you could say that the Islamic world was much more capitalistic. Muhammad, after all, was a merchant.

She definitely have communist leanings

She most definitely does not and if you really understood anything about communism you would know that.

You can call me names all day long,

LOL. You are the one who was labeling Jane a communist.

Evangelical does not equal to right wing.

You are right. In the African American community it most definitely does not equal right wing politics. In the white community it largely does.

One of my closest friend's thought about economy is almost like Jane, the believe in God has no impact on the believe in social systems.

We aren't talking about the belief in God, we are talking about certain theologies associated with that belief. The Southern Baptists split from the American Baptists, for instance, because the Southern Baptist Church believed in slavery whereas the American Baptists did not.
Do you think it is an accident that the church is the most segregated institution in America?

 

[dcalling]

I'm saying giving them a voucher does not give them a way out of the neighborhood. In most cases what it does is help fund the private education of the upper-middle class.

The money will definitely help the poor more then the rich, the same amount of money will be much more use to the poor than rich.

Look at most of immigrants, without government help, the first gen will work hard labor, the second gen will have education and went middle class. Give the the choice, why don't you want to give the poor kids that chance??!!

Public school education in my states costs about 9K a year. The tuition at the best private school here (where I sent my son) is over 15K. Where are the poor going to come up with the extra 6K? The fact of the matter is that better educations cost more. Yeah, I would have loved to have voucher to cover my son's private schooling, but I am no illusions that it would help the poor.

It helps people who want to send their kids to private schools. One of my friend (middle class) send their kids to a private school, that money will help them a lot.

And other public/private schools will want to expand their operations to attract more money, 9k/kid come on!

And isn't that exactly what Jane said? That capitalism acted precisely as Marx predicted but that his communist utopian vision never materialized?

LOL. I'm a historian. Capitalism as an economic theory has existed only for a little more than two centuries, not ages. It was a reaction to the state controlled economies of Europe at the time. But I supposed you could say that the Islamic world was much more capitalistic. Muhammad, after all, was a merchant.

The action of freely selling production, hiring labor have existed for ages, the accumlate of wealth just got easier later on due to increased productivity.

She most definitely does not and if you really understood anything about communism you would know that.

LOL. You are the one who was labeling Jane a communist.


You are right. In the African American community it most definitely does not equal right wing politics. In the white community it largely does.

Come on, I am not white lol.

We aren't talking about the belief in God, we are talking about certain theologies associated with that belief. The Southern Baptists split from the American Baptists, for instance, because the Southern Baptist Church believed in slavery whereas the American Baptists did not.
Do you think it is an accident that the church is the most segregated institution in America?

Really? I am not white but I am in church? In fact most my church is not white. The Gospel is about God and Love, find one instance of race in the Gospel for me.

 

[dcalling]

We aren't talking about the belief in God, we are talking about certain theologies associated with that belief. The Southern Baptists split from the American Baptists, for instance, because the Southern Baptist Church believed in slavery whereas the American Baptists did not.
Do you think it is an accident that the church is the most segregated institution in America?

By the way, can you find one Southern Baptist Church that believes in slavery today? People's believe can always be in error. Muhammad believed in slavery as well last I checked.

 

[smaneck]

The money will definitely help the poor more then the rich, the same amount of money will be much more use to the poor than rich.

You're missing the point. The poor can't use these vouchers at all because they can't make up the difference between what the government pays and what private tuition costs at a good school. They may not even be able to get transportation to a school outside of their neighborhood.

A poor person makes maybe $1100 a month before taxes if they are lucky enough to a have a full time job. If the difference between the voucher and private school tuition is 6K, that is more than half of what they make! What are they going to live on now?

Look at most of immigrants, without government help, the first gen will work hard labor, the second gen will have education and went middle class.

What makes you think they didn't have government help?

Give the the choice, why don't you want to give the poor kids that chance??!!

If you were paying attention you would see that what I'm pointing out is that vouchers don't give poor kids a chance! I live here in the South. Vouchers here would only be used to further segregation.

It helps people who want to send their kids to private schools. One of my friend (middle class) send their kids to a private school, that money will help them a lot.

That's exactly my point. It helps the Middle Class not the poor.

The action of freely selling production, hiring labor have existed for ages, the accumlate of wealth just got easier later on due to increased productivity.

Capitalism is much more complicated than that. Of course buying and selling have existed for ages and it continued even under communist rule. But in what sense was it 'free'? The guilds controlled the prices and quality of goods. The state issued charters for international trade. Capitalism was a reaction against mercantilism. It wasn't merely a matter of buying, selling and hiring labor. In Adam Smith's thought Capitalism was an anti-imperialistic ideology. It was never intended to prevent or control social welfare legislation. In fact Adam Smith in his book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" speaks in favor of those things. It was Industrial Capitalism a half of century latter with its Malthusian premises which turned Adam Smith's thought on its head to prevent the poor from getting a fair shake.

Come on, I am not white lol.

I figured that. But I'm guessing it was white evangelicals that converted you to Christianity.

I am not white but I am in church? In fact most my church is not white. The Gospel is about God and Love, find one instance of race in the Gospel for me.

I'm talking about American Evangelical Christianity which is no older than my own religion, not historical Christianity.

 

[smaneck]

By the way, can you find one Southern Baptist Church that believes in slavery today? People's believe can always be in error. Muhammad believed in slavery as well last I checked.

Muhammad allowed it, as did the Bible. Baha'u'llah is the first prophet to prohibit slavery. However, only in America was slavery based on race.

As for Southern Baptists who still believe in slavery, I suggest you check out those churches attached to the movement called Christian Reconstructionalism and read their literature. Or you can check out a summary of their beliefs here:

Beliefs and practices of Christian Reconstructionism

 

[dcalling]

Muhammad allowed it, as did the Bible. Baha'u'llah is the first prophet to prohibit slavery. However, only in America was slavery based on race.

As for Southern Baptists who still believe in slavery, I suggest you check out those churches attached to the movement called Christian Reconstructionalism and read their literature. Or you can check out a summary of their beliefs here:

Beliefs and practices of Christian Reconstructionism

There will slways be people believe in different things, but if they are doing that according to their scripture is a different thing

 

[dcalling]

You're missing the point. The poor can't use these vouchers at all because they can't make up the difference between what the government pays and what private tuition costs at a good school. They may not even be able to get transportation to a school outside of their neighborhood.

A poor person makes maybe $1100 a month before taxes if they are lucky enough to a have a full time job. If the difference between the voucher and private school tuition is 6K, that is more than half of what they make! What are they going to live on now?



What makes you think they didn't have government help?



If you were paying attention you would see that what I'm pointing out is that vouchers don't give poor kids a chance! I live here in the South. Vouchers here would only be used to further segregation.



That's exactly my point. It helps the Middle Class not the poor.



Capitalism is much more complicated than that. Of course buying and selling have existed for ages and it continued even under communist rule. But in what sense was it 'free'? The guilds controlled the prices and quality of goods. The state issued charters for international trade. Capitalism was a reaction against mercantilism. It wasn't merely a matter of buying, selling and hiring labor. In Adam Smith's thought Capitalism was an anti-imperialistic ideology. It was never intended to prevent or control social welfare legislation. In fact Adam Smith in his book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" speaks in favor of those things. It was Industrial Capitalism a half of century latter with its Malthusian premises which turned Adam Smith's thought on its head to prevent the poor from getting a fair shake.



I figured that. But I'm guessing it was white evangelicals that converted you to Christianity.



I'm talking about American Evangelical Christianity which is no older than my own religion, not historical Christianity.

To your first question, if the family use that voucher in a public school, he doesn't need to pay a thing. It just give him choices.

To your second question, have you ever considered that it is by God grace that I choose Christianity? There were white blacks and other race who helped me, my decision is made on my own in the local church, and just recently I realized I need to focus more on the blood of Jesus, because the diary of a preacher in the 1920s in Asia. God is in control and we all need to trust in God

 

[smaneck]

There will slways be people believe in different things, but if they are doing that according to their scripture is a different thing

The whole basis of Christian Reconstructionalism is implementing the scripture in our political system. Since the Bible speaks of the institution of slavery, they think we should re institute it.

 

[smaneck]

To your first question, if the family use that voucher in a public school, he doesn't need to pay a thing. It just give him choices.

Not so. The voucher is only worth what the voucher allows. Parents must make up the difference. And except in Pennsylvania they won't have school buses to get their kids to school.