"You didn't build that ... "

[Thekla]

Your idealism is showing. Despite the 200 failed efforts at building a light bulb, Edison nonetheless profited immensely from the patent for the incandescent bulb, as well as from the phonograph, the carbon microphone used in telephones until the late 1980s, the flouroscope, etc. You think he gave no thought to profit? Yeah, right.But at the same time, intending to profit. That was their motive, to invent as their livelihood.

I made no claims about Edison, and I also mentioned Tesla. I'm not sure how you exactly concluded your response was even a response to my statement. [/quote]

The characterization of "laziness" as an embedded feature of socialism resulting in starvation is implicit in his statement (ie, laziness - year of starvation/ required work - not starvation and the conclusion of the latter state equated with capitalism):

When the Pilgrims came to this country, they lived as a commune. Everyone shared everything; even the lazy. That winter many of them died. The next spring a system was put into place where those who were more productive were rewarded for their efforts, and those who didn't want to work were not allowed to suck off the efforts of others. The result was a plentiful harvest. Capitalism is what caused the first Thanksgiving. Socialism nearly destroyed the colony.

Now you're either misrepresenting his comments, or missing the point. He described the "laziness" as being compensated via communal living, he didn't say it was a primary cause of the failure. What the primary cause of that failure was, was socialism. Even people who do work aren't nearly as motivated to work hard for everyone's benefit when everyone is going to benefit equally regardless.

Families are an example of communal living where unequal work still results in a parity in distribution of basic goods needed for survival.

Further, you have exactly made the point that socialism/laziness was the reason for the failure, without supporting documentation. In fact, illness was a primary problem, inadequate stores, and lack of knowledge of the environs, as well as a failure to develop tools for fishing and reluctance to (in general) fish outside the Summer months:
The Story of the Pilgrims IV: The First Year
Five Kernels of Corn
"Laziness" was a factor at the first settlement at Jamestown, as they envisioned trade as a chief source of necessary basic survival goods:
Starving Time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Additionally, countries like Sweden and Finland are mixed/socialist economies. That socialism leads to starvation is demonstrably wrong. Further, if only those who work should eat, we arrive at the situation of the aged and infirm being left to die; it times of scarcity this group would include potential workers (the very young).

When things became specialized, with each benefiting according to his own ability to produce his unique product, that is when success occurred.And they justly compensated the natives for providing the expertise that was needed. It was a quid pro quo arrangement.It is absolutely accurate. One only need look at the health care programs in Europe to see socialism's results. Doctors leaving patients opened up in an operating room while they go out for lunch. Nineteen weeks to see a specialist. Forty-seven weeks to have major surgery. Managed care that says, essentially, that a person is too old to receive certain treatment regimens, not because it is dangerous for them but because they are simply old and don't need to have that kind of money spent on them. Welcome to ObamaCare.

We don't, because they are social democracy under which private enterprise is encouraged and well compensated. What Obama is attempting to do is undermine the capitalism and free enterprise that makes this country great by robbing from the rich to pay the poor. ObamaCare is just the first step.

[/QUOTE]

Have you read much on social structures in early America ?
As for free enterprise making this country great, you seem to have forgotten the following factors:
free land, slave (cheap) labor, generous natural resources, an underpaid military (compared to the sacrifice), a sometimes violent foreign policy aimed at forcing and maintaining open markets, cheap labor, and access to cheap resources. In these days, you can include a rigged market, widespread fraud in the financial sector including collusion (Libor, Municipal bond bid rigging). Per these, I hardly call financialization and rent-seeking to be fruitful work deserving of massive profits and incomes.


In our non-socialist healthcare system, my friends mother was closed up with gauze wadding still the surgery site, developed an infection and died. In our healthcare system, inability to afford a doctors fees = lack of preventative and acute care - unless one visits a public ER. If one cannot pay, then the cost of that treatment is passed on to those who do pay.

I do not think recounting anecdotal horror stories is the same in an actual comparison. Nor did I take any position on healthcare, etc. I did point out inaccuracies in posts/s.

As for specialization - yes, that is a sort of "Econ 101" statement. I get it. But it is no replacement for a further, deeper understanding of the matter, and in no way erases the inaccuracies here presented.

For the record, I am registered to vote as "unaffiliated", did not vote for Obama, nor do I intend to this time round either.

I think all systems have strengths and flaws, so I am unaffiliated on that matter as well.

 

[Thekla]

Native Americans did not live under socialism. They knew the Bible, even though they didn't know they knew the Bible: "He who does not work, doesn't eat."

The Scriptures do not say that. The passage states:
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

The term translated as "would" is thelw/ meaning will, desire.

How many of the unemployed actually would like a job ? Many, I would think.

What to do with those who cannot work ? Cannot is not the same as refuse to.

 

[IisJustMe]

The Scriptures do not say that. The passage states:
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

The term translated as "would" is thelw/ meaning will, desire.

The word is thelo and it means "to have a mind to, to have an intent." If they have no desire for work, they do not deserve to eat. So how is that different? Try this translation on for size:

2 Thessalonians 3 NASB
10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.
​

Perhaps you won't allow yourself to see the truth of that passage, but it cannot be said any more plainly. It is an indictment of unwillingness to support oneself.

How many of the unemployed actually would like a job ? Many, I would think.

There is a difference between being unwilling to work, and not having a job. This passage does not indict those who are unemployed, only those who will not look for work, or hold a job once it is acquired.

What to do with those who cannot work ? Cannot is not the same as refuse to.

And that's what I said. So, my original point stands, and unassailed, I might add.

 

[ProScribe]

They haven't asked me to build anything yet

 

[Thekla]

The word is thelo and it means "to have a mind to, to have an intent.. If they have no desire for work, they do not deserve to eat. So how is that different? Try this translation on for size:

2 Thessalonians 3 NASB
10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.
​

Perhaps you won't allow yourself to see the truth of that passage, but it cannot be said any more plainly. It is an indictment of unwillingness to support oneself.There is a difference between being unwilling to work, and not having a job. This passage does not indict those who are unemployed, only those who will not look for one, or hold one once it is acquired. And that's what I said. So, my original point stands, and unassailed, I might add.

The translation you quoted was : "He who does not work, doesn't eat.".

The infirm, the aged, the very young, the unemployed etc. do not work.
The sense of the passage you give is very different from the sense of "He who does not will to work doesn't eat." (I used w to represent the omega.)

So then also the question becomes, what is work ? Is financialization and rent-seeking work ?

 

[IisJustMe]

The translation you quoted was : "He who does not work, doesn't eat.".

Which, if you will recall, was from the Native American philosophy, not the Bible. When I quoted the 2 Thessalonians passage, it was in response to your posting of it.

The infirm, the aged, the very young, the unemployed etc. do not work.

Tell me something. If you're not going to read what I post, why should I continue this conversation? You're trying to be argumentative about a point that is inarguable. I agree with you that the passage does not apply those who are unable to work, whether for lack of employment or inability to work. I think we're in agreement that the verse in the Bible applies to those who are unwilling to work, and not the formerly mentioned infirm and unemployed.

he sense of the passage you give is very different from the sense of "He who does not will to work doesn't eat." (I used w to represent the omega.)

I disagree. It refers to those unwilling to work, of which there are (unfortunately) millions in this country. Work is work. There is only one definition: gainful employment. Why are you trying to over-complicate things?

 

[freezerman2000]

As a former business man, I can assure you that without MY hard work and business savvy, my shop wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.I had help with inventory(it was a consignment shop), but the everyday decisions and stocking were on me.
If I had hired help, they would have worked according to MY policies..I would have paid them for the work they would have done, out of the money that was taken in from the items sold that were entrusted to ME and ME ALONE (I'm the only one who could sign contracts with my con-signers)...
I built that business from the ground up..no one else did.
The only reason I am no longer in business is the landlord doubled the rent, in effect, putting me out of business.
Barry put his foot in his mouth!

 

[Thekla]

Ii

Which, if you will recall, was from the Native American philosophy, not the Bible. When I quoted the 2 Thessalonians passage, it was in response to your posting of it.Tell me something. If you're not going to read what I post, why should I continue this conversation? You're trying to be argumentative about a point that is inarguable. I agree with you that those who are unable to work, whether for lack of employment or inability to work. I think we're in agreement that the verse in the Bible applies to those who are unwilling to work, and not the formerly mentioned infirm and unemployed.I disagree. It refers to those unwilling to work, of which there are (unfortunately) millions in this country. Work is work. There is only one definition: gainful employment. Why are you trying to over-complicate things?

Then my apologies on the passage misquote; it has been qmisquoted numerous times (without the thelw). As for what qualifies as work, it is a pertinent question. Investing ones money is not work per se, reflected in the tax code.

 

[Thekla]

I am also a former small business co-owner.
I cannot honestly say that no benefit was derived from others that contributed to the success of the business -from myw parents and teachers to those who built the infrastructure that benefiitted the business, etc.

 

[Yarddog]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304388004577533300916053684.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

​

It isn't. America isn't ready for a socialist. It appears we elected on in 2008. Time to vote him out in 2012.

This man seriously thinks that message resonates with the majority of Americans? Good. Hopefully he'll stuff his foot in his mouth up to his hipbone between now and November. That's doubly good. He looks the fool he is, and with that much leg in his mouth, he won't be able to talk.

For those who want to read what the President actually said, in context, so you might understand what he meant, here is the context.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...rks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.



So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The President wasn't taking away from all the people that worked hard to invent the things which made our country great or the people who started businesses that put millions to work, he was saying that they were not done just by individual work. Everybody who has been a success in this country has had help along the way.

 

[SoundDoctrine]

For those who want to read what the President actually said, in context, so you might understand what he meant, here is the context...

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.



So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The President wasn't taking away from all the people that worked hard to invent the things which made our country great or the people who started businesses that put millions to work, he was saying that they were not done just by individual work. Everybody who has been a success in this country has had help along the way.

Thank you for this post. President Obama's statement certainly is a lot better than what the OP and others made it out to be. He admitted the value of individual initiative and the need for community cooperation.

 

[SearchingStudent]

As a former business man, I can assure you that without MY hard work and business savvy, my shop wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.I had help with inventory(it was a consignment shop), but the everyday decisions and stocking were on me.
If I had hired help, they would have worked according to MY policies..I would have paid them for the work they would have done, out of the money that was taken in from the items sold that were entrusted to ME and ME ALONE (I'm the only one who could sign contracts with my con-signers)...
I built that business from the ground up..no one else did.
The only reason I am no longer in business is the landlord doubled the rent, in effect, putting me out of business.
Barry put his foot in his mouth!

And if it hadn't been for your customers, your hard work would have meant NOTHING AT ALL!!! So...once again, you were not in it alone. (And if you'd been my boss with that attitude, I'd have gladly quit in a heartbeat).

 

[freezerman2000]

Business people NEED to have strict policies...Without them, the business will fail. Don't worry, I treated my limited staff fairly and with dignity.

My customers bought my wares because I charged them fair prices,The customers did not dictate my prices to me, that was MY decision. I knew what to look for when it came to procuring merchandise.I offered a product, they bought it..they were not attached to my staff in anyway.

 

[SearchingStudent]

Business people NEED to have strict policies...Without them, the business will fail. Don't worry, I treated my limited staff fairly and with dignity.

My customers bought my wares because I charged them fair prices,The customers did not dictate my prices to me, that was MY decision. I knew what to look for when it came to procuring merchandise.I offered a product, they bought it..they were not attached to my staff in anyway.

They may not have been "attached to your staff" but they were the ones coming up off their hard earned money to give to YOU to put in YOUR pocket. Your store wouldn't mean squat if you didn't sell. Your success was directly tied to your customers. No customers, no $. So...again, your success was the product of outside influences...you didn't do it all by yourself.

 

[freezerman2000]

I built that business.I was the one that took the risks..no one else did.

 

[IisJustMe]

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.

And as I told Searching, that's nonsense. The "great teacher" or whoever can't take credit for your success, as Odumba is attempting to do here in robbing the entrepreneur of his/her uniqueness.

Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Most major business in this country were built long before there was an Internet, and many were built before there were roads. For example, the railroads were built by the steel companies, which have since become manufacturing firms of appliances, electronics, etc. They built themselves from the ground up. Obama, as is typical, is trying to rewrite history.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Not anymore. The man who spoke these alleged words of wisdom is doing everything he can to undermine the ability of business to grow successfully on its own, and in delivering this tome is, as I said, attempting to rewrite history and redefine success as it has been understood in the US.

There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

And how exactly does fighting fires affect entrepreneurial enterprise? He's stretching, because his fabricated scenario doesn't even make sense to him.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class.

"We" didn't create the middle class. The middle class created itself by taking advantage of the opportunies created by the corporations that built on their financial success from supplying the war effort and turning their talents, time, ideas and resources into commercial production that created the jobs the middle class leaped into straight out of the military. Again, Odumba is taking credit for something he wasn't even born to be part of, and claiming it for his idealistic socialist agenda.

That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.

Make-work projects of the WPA and CCC under Roosevelt that cost far more than the revenues they generated for the limited base of contractors the government allowed. Most were cronies of Roosevelt from his days as governor of New York City. Certainly the bridge and the dam have served a great purpose, but they didn't "build" anything for anybody.

That’s how we invented the Internet.

I thought Al Gore invented the Internet. Oh, wait, that's was the verbiage of another delusional socialist. The Internet was built by the military for communications purposes and when the potential was realized, it was turned over to private concerns for development because it was far too big for the government to manage. Of course, if it had come along under our nimrod of a president now, he would have nationalized it and taxed the hell out of it and it would no longer exist.

That’s how we sent a man to the moon.

Without the aviation and technology corporations which were well underway long before anyone thought we ought to go to the moon, Kennedy's speech would have simply been another bump in the road of technological lip service presidents have served up to the public and quickly forgotten. Those presidents have been trying to duplicate the excitement Kennedy generated with his speech, but we don't have a Cold War enemy to embarrass anymore, and the attitude of the 60s was that we were scared to death of the Soviets and wouldn't allow them to "claim the moon for their own" as was the general concept adopted by the average American as a solid reason to go. If we go back to the moon, it will be on the basis of private enterprise again rising to the occasion and doing things betters, faster and cheaper than the government could dream of doing them.

We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

We're not in this together, because his concept of "together" is to equalize everyone's share of income, robbing from the rich to pay for the poor and gradually institute nationalized everything. The man is a socialist, the product of a mother who was also a socialist and the son of a sworn communist, indoctrinated at the their feet in false utopian delusions of grandeur.

The President wasn't taking away from all the people that worked hard to invent the things which made our country great or the people who started businesses that put millions to work, he was saying that they were not done just by individual work.

He was taking from their accomplishments and trying to paint them as "everyman" deeds of daring-do when in reality they were the work of a very few visionaries who had the courage to risk the capital, the reputation and the potential for failure on a venture they believed in. Joe Six-Pack and Percival Stockbroker had nothing to do with that enterprise, and they deserve none of the credit for it succeeding.

Everybody who has been a success in this country has had help along the way.

Some, but not to the extent that everyone gets to share in the credit. You're buying into Odumba's revisionist socialistic propaganda, and will do quite nicely serving in his government-run version of 1984. Good luck with that. I plan to do otherwise, assuming the American people are so dense as to re-elect this buffoon, and I really don't think they are that stupid.

 

[SearchingStudent]

And if there hadn't been a market? And if there hadn't been customers? Once again, you have yet to show me that you built a business as an island. You said it was a consignment shop, right? Well, then people brought you merchandise. You rented the building? Someone else put up the capital to build the building your store was in. Again, your success was part of a puzzle with other people putting pieces in it. IF you had created the land, the building materials, built the building, outfitted it, made the merchandise with your own two hands and marketed it to yourself, then yes, you are the product of a singular success...since you didn't...you aren't. Is it really that hard to understand????

 

[freezerman2000]

And if there hadn't been a market? And if there hadn't been customers? Once again, you have yet to show me that you built a business as an island. You said it was a consignment shop, right? Well, then people brought you merchandise. You rented the building? Someone else put up the capital to build the building your store was in. Again, your success was part of a puzzle with other people putting pieces in it. IF you had created the land, the building materials, built the building, outfitted it, made the merchandise with your own two hands and marketed it to yourself, then yes, you are the product of a singular success...since you didn't...you aren't. Is it really that hard to understand????

If I hadn't taken the risks and put in up to 14 hours a day 6 days a week..invested in merchandising..dealt with the customers and consigners..THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BUSINESS! I was the one who built the business, no one else! END OF STORY!

 

[IisJustMe]

If I hadn't taken the risks and put in up to 14 hours a day 6 days a week..invested in merchandising..dealt with the customers and consigners..THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BUSINESS! I was the one who built the business, no one else! END OF STORY!

The president is a socialist. We are to expect no better understanding than he has, I suppose, and he has none.

 

[SearchingStudent]

If I hadn't taken the risks and put in up to 14 hours a day 6 days a week..invested in merchandising..dealt with the customers and consigners..THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BUSINESS! I was the one who built the business, no one else! END OF STORY!

Sorry buddy but no.

Your success was immediately dependent on myriad other factors. So was mine. So is everybody else's. You did not spring from the ether fully grown, business savvy with a head full of ideas of how to make money. Your success was influenced by your parents, your peers, your education, your customers, etc. Nobody is an island.

Honestly...your argument is starting to sound like someone stomping his foot and saying "because I said so" even when faced with logic demonstrating that what you are saying is demonstrably false.

Go in peace...I shake the dust of this display of selfishness and arrogance off my feet.