| From | Message |
|---|
|
 The Pie Grows
So, I have discussed this many times with many people here:
Socialists believe that the pie is only so large and that when rich people control the money that means there is less for the poor. I have tried many times to help others understand that the pie actually grows when businesses expand and hire and that wealth grows dramatically.
This article, which comes from a liberal source, discusses many things...but the premise underlying it all is that the PIE GROWS!
dok
|
|
One of the most famous Democrats once said: "a rising tide raises all ships". Unfortunately, in the last decade or so, the rising tide has not been raising all ships equally.
Working people can be relatively content if they see their situation as improving with a reasonable end to their lifetime of work. If they see themselves as making progress and things becoming "better" for themselves or their children, they are happy to participate in the game.
But, over the last two administrations, the middle class has seen a net reduction in their mean income and a net loss of wealth, especially when compared to the very wealthy. America is in decline and things are getting worse. We're told this is the new normal... endless low employment, long unemployment times, slow or no growth in the GDP.
We're seeing rising costs, reduced pay rates, reduced work hours, reduced employer benefits and reduced optimism. This is the first generation that sees their children as not advancing.
Most of the decline has occurred under this administration. The pie grows but only for a few.
|
jonheck
15-Oct-14, 05:02
|
deadofknight
OK, the pie is growing, but in reasonable comparison to that growth is it proportionally feeding the economy by likewise growing the purchasing power of the rank and file? No! Where is all the growth money going, (in the US)? Answer: big money, big profits, big stock prices are all growing at rates far higher than the growth seen amongst the vast majority, purchasing, and economy driving rank and file. Why? Deregulation, a good idea, but not until evolution purges us of the human greed gene.
|
|
Actually, I do like the idea that we concur on the idea that the pie grows. I also, agree that we are seeing sad results as the pie does grow.
When you say that the fat cats and big companies are the ones benefitting, that is only half the story. The fact is that the government has been growing monumentally. Taxes are at an all time record high and yet we are diving deeper into debt.
If your answer is to give more to the inefficient wasteful government then you are buying into a pie that is made of a mud-like substance with a smell like a diaper.
You want to see equal rising boats but you're asking for a scenario that will never, ever, ever happen. It isn't even realistic to conceive that human beings will ever treat each other like they do themselves -- the golden rule is actually hard to live.
So, if the government is collecting more and expanding massively and more people are on government assistance then whats the problem? Why isn't it working? The answer is simple--it doesn't work that way.
Seriously, where are all these fat cats you love to blame? We are talking about a pie that grew by 20 trillion dollars. That's a big pie...
Social programming is necessary at some level to help sustain people through troubling circumstances. Right now, it is more like an option that people turn to automatically. Healthcare, despite any claims to the contrary is not going well.
But you think we should allow the government to take control over peoples lives and their financial health. That's an idea that is never going to succeed. Mainly because it never does.
The way to succeed is to grow businesses. Particularly small businesses where most Americans find their employment. The over regulation and taxing of Americans to build more inefficient social programs is an idea that is full of idealism and hope but falls flat on its face in real-life application.
dok
|
|
The pie grows mainly for the capitalists only.
dok is right. The rich are getting richer. US will be very prosperous and peaceful if the piece of pie can be shared by everybody because the wealth of the nation depends on the collaboration of all three, that is, the government, capitalists, workers including farmers. The strength and wealth of the state depends on the revenue collected from the working class. As long as there are many unemployed or underpaid workers, our nation will be in financial trouble. In this age of globalization it is difficult to control the capitalists who can give decent jobs to Americans. Capitalists are greedy. They will do business for their own profit only and know how to evade taxes. For example, look at Apple computer Inc. which makes billions of dollars in profit but it benefits to few top executives because most of its products, I-phones, ipads are made in China where labor is cheaper. IMHO, Chinese steal our America jobs because the competition is unfair. I am not sure how we can remedy this problem.
|
|
Look. Liberals are in a complete quandary.
They want to do the right thing for the poor and the weak.
They are mostly very anti-religious.
These two positions are at odds with each other because human beings are naturally greedy and imperfect and selfish.
You have two choices:
1. Change man.
2. Deal with man.
Dealing with man means using his natural tendencies to provide the best, though imperfect situation for us all.
Changing man means adopting the golden rule and convincing people that there are altruistic or spiritual reasons to change and become united in their faith to provide for each other out of love.
Man isn't going to change.
So deal with him.
Liberals, despite their desire to achieve positive ends cannot accept that mankind is not going to behave in ways that support their idealistic desires.
Sad but true.
That is why capitalism works best.
Make it the interest of the individual to behave in positive ways and he will.
Punish him and he will rebel.
Ignore him and he will swindle you and do what he wants.
It isn't complicated. But liberals cannot see the realistic adventure we are on--and they abuse religion when it really is their best ally. Its odd.
dok
|
saintinsanity
16-Oct-14, 00:49
|
What is this pie? Show me a pie that can be sliced into millions or billions of pieces.
Show me a pie that can grow. I'd like a pie tree.
|
jonheck
16-Oct-14, 02:01
|
deadofknight
I don't know how the pie increase in the rest of the world was distributed, I was focused on the US's $8.9T piece of it. It is well known that in the US that the most wealthy has managed to squeeze off the proportionately lions share of it. The screams about regulations come from the fat cats and their cronies crying into their daily serving of caviar. What evidence do you have that deregulation works in the long run, Reaganomics? "Man isn't going to change---so deal with him". Sounds like effectively regulate, "by by Wall-mart law", to me, with effective oversight and strong legal means for dealing with those who don't go along.
|
jonheck
16-Oct-14, 02:15
|
deadofknight
You may have noticed that the government has been growing for some time now. It is abundantly clear that the modern US government redistributes it's revenue back into the economy in a significantly more equitable manner than the private sector is inclined to.
|
jonheck
16-Oct-14, 03:16
|
My laymens observations
In the early 70's the company I worked for had maintained employee satisfaction as their number 1 priority and it had abundantly thrived. Falling behind in the corporate trend of the day they quickly moved to relegate employee satisfaction to priorities below profits, growth, share holder return, later other things, and, although cleverly omitted as a priority, rapidly growing executive level compensation. Thriving had ceased by the late 70's or early 80's, in part I concede, due to foreign competition product value return that the company had fully failed to step up to! Reaganomics did not cause the earlier mentioned trend but it did gave it the go ahead of legitimacy. The rest is history, although many corporations that did not fully fall down that sewer continued to thrive. The solution to the current economic situation and similar future events, the long term effect of unconstraned deregulation, I believe, lay somewhere within legislatively correcting that behavior.
|
|
Well, thats too bad you think that.
Because what it sounds like is that you distrust people so much and are so angry about some people doing well that you want to force away from people what they have legitimately earned and giving it to people that have done nothing to earn anything.
And where are these caviar eating fat cats you always talk about? Are you talking about a very minute fraction of the population? Are you talking about the 1%? Who is it that you think is doing all this damage?
And what is it about them that you feel like you should create an edict that plunders them to others benefit?
Im interested in knowing if you are talking about the local dentist, surgeon, or banker...ot is it some mythological beast you create to excuse dictatorships?
The truth is, that had we responded in a market driven way in the 7o's the auto industry would still be ours. So, would the computer industry...but we failed and Jimmy Carter tried your way. Reagan released the enterprising human spirit and we got a myriad of large and profitable entities providing great products and services and employing millions...all while defeating our enemies abroad...
Who are these fat cats??? They sound horrible...is it Buffett? Gates? The late Jobs?
Who?
dok
|
|
Who are these fat cats?
money.cnn.com
Bill Gates top the list with 81.5 billion in wealth. He is a Harvard dropout. He is self made multibillionaire. He has some kind of luck and business acumen. He annihilates his rivals in cutthroat competition but he is a great philanthropist and donated billions of dollars for the welfare and health of African children. Consider his billions he can live and retire extravagant life styles for many lives. Poor thin cat like me, when I get old and retire I have to depend on my social security, a little bit of savings and pension. Is it possible to copycat those fat cats to alleviate my poverty ? Correct me if my interpretation of fat cats is wrong.
|
anomalocaris
16-Oct-14, 18:25
|
Heres my question/observation
What is it about the rich that people hate so much? I can see where at a certain limit having so much money that you don't invest and create jobs etc. that it could hinder growth but for the most part I think the rich help. I mean who gets employed by a poor person? No one.
If you took all the money in the world and divided it evenly, it wouldn't take long until a few individuals had more than anyone else again. So you would have to repeatedly take from the rich and give to the poor. This is not fair and its stupid.
One more thing. Not everyone can be rich but we all have the opportunity to be somewhat successful. There are very few people who have really really tried and failed. Most of a persons situation can be blamed on the individual not on the rich. There are choices people make that lead them down certain roads. The path to success has been laid out time and time again. Too many people want a get rich quick scheme. It rarely happens.
|
|
It is always the loser who blames somebody else, or something else... like luck.
There was a sign on the wall going into the wrestling gym in high school. It read:
"Success is a matter of luck...
The harder I work the luckier I seem to be".
|
jonheck
17-Oct-14, 00:25
|
Softaire
Fat Cats: In reference to persons, organizations and bureaucrats who use their positions to siphon off excessive cash from the economic engines cash fuel tank.
|
|
Define excessive.
Is that just 'more than you'....because your last post was probably the most revealing introspective on your positions to date.
dok
|
jonheck
20-Oct-14, 04:19
|
deadofknight
Excessive: Milking the economic engine for all one can grab without providing an equitable and reasonable proportion of fuel to the tank, (rank and file), that keeps the engine running, and other economy busting deeds, (see Walmart).
|
|
What is "reasonable"...not trying to argue, just asking you what that is...Im very interested. And who determines that?
|
jonheck
20-Oct-14, 10:35
|
deadofknight
I don't have a number but in general reasonable should be associated an equitable and responsible balance between what is taken out and what is returned to keep the economy running smoothly. The Economy can only run smoothy if the vast majority rank and file have the buying power to keep it doing so. I use Wall Mart as an example of not supporting the economy. They take out huge amounts and have large numbers of rank and file employees who have inadequate buying power to maintain the economy, many qualify for and receive government assistance, literally a tax payer subsidy to Wall Mart profits. Their suppliers are forced drop their profit margins and generally must make economy busting adjustments to do so. They sell reduced quality at a somewhat reduced prices to those trying to get a piece of the pie although they would be better off in the long run to pay a bit more for a bit more quality. They are not putting enough into the economy to justify what they take out.
|
|
Okay, I think I understand what your are saying here. I mean I think I do. You are looking for the profits to be returned into the economy...if I understand you right.
But, when you say "they...sell reduced quality....they are not putting gin to the economy..." meaning WalMart, who is it that you mean by they? Are you talking about the CEO and High level officers of the company, or the owners of the company?
dok
|
|
Walmart's reduced quality and or reduced prices ?
I like to dispute the fact that Walmart can sell its goods cheaply because of reduced quality. I sometimes go to different stores other than Walmart to buy for my daily needs including grocery. I compare the prices from Walmart to that of others. According to my experience, most of the time if the quality and quantity of things you want to buy is the same, Walmart is much cheaper. You can also see much variety at Walmart so that you don't need to go to many stores to get all the things you need daily. The only reduced quality I can think of is, most of the things sell at Walmart are made in China. Be careful when you buy foods made in China. I was surprised that Tilapia, a kind of fish was imported from China. Why can't Americans farm Tilapia in our homeland USA? I don't trust Chinese food because dog food imported from China killed many dogs and also baby formula killed many babies in US. The food are either contaminated or to look and taste better, they put toxic chemicals to the food. China is much polluted with industrial waste, chemical fertilizers and insecticides. You never know, fish such as Tilapia is grown and farmed in contaminated, polluted fish ponds. So, I buy foods made in America at Walmart. To make more profits with reduced price, naturally Walmart will pay minimum wage to its workers but how can the workers complain if Walmart act according to US rules and regulations ?
|
|
Ace, of course you are right. I have found their meats--beef to be quite good. And many items don't change in quality when you talk about the staples of life. Cereal, milk, eggs, bread etc...
They are not doing anything wrong...except that jon believes, as far as I am able to see, that walMart makes too much money and because they are successful enough they should return more of their profits to their workers---mainly because the states that if they paid their workers more then that money would be directed back into the economy more efficiently and he seems to also believe that they have a moral responsibility to their employees to pay them more when they are more profitable.
At least, thats what I gather---I am waiting for him to respond to my last questions.
dok
|
jonheck
22-Oct-14, 05:36
|
ace-kyi Deadofknight
Tilapia is farmed in the US but perhaps wholesaled at a price that Wall-mat is not willing to pay. Perhaps the US fish farmers have not had to succumb to Wal-mart's economy busting tactics. Many items sold by Wal-mart have little visible difference other than a Wall-mart specific bar code and frequently marked something to the effect: sold only at Wal-mart. Why? Commonly the items are different than near identical items sold at other retail stores. Why? Wal-mart has squeezed the manufactures profit margin so severally that something had to give, cost of materials, labor, etc. I agree that Wal-mart's food is competitively priced and of good quality although I would prefer Tilapia raise in the US. Beyond that without saying it is true, you might want to closely check the cereal for slight changes in, ingredients, weight, and volume. I'll relate a story of mine and you can take it for what it is worth. Among other food items we would buy a large container at a popular brand of chocolate syrup at Wal-mart. I like my chocolate milk but prefer a softer chocolate taste. My wife, in a pinch, bought a smaller bottle at the local grocery store and it took me 3 glasses to adjust the syrup volume to my taste. The difference in the amount needed was amazing! Note, chocolate is by far the most expensive ingredient in chocolate syrup. Wal-marts arrival in any town is followed by the closing of smaller businesses. Those who worked at those businesses will typically find that Wal-mart, now the only game in town, pays significantly lower wages for the same job, and as I mentioned earlier the incidence of Wal-mart employees qualifying and receiving government assistance is rampant. My common use of "The By By Wal-mart Law is in my conviction that they are among the high end benchmarks for developing government regulations intended to curtail economy busting practices! Jon
|
|
My mom, who lived in a small Minnesota town, hated Walmart with a passion for those very reasons. The big Walmart came into town and did drive several other small "mom and pop" stores out of business. Main street became semi-empty street which changed the features/novelty of the town. (This town was the home of Sinclair Lewis who wrote "Main Street").
I am still undecided on how to feel about the big stores like Walmart. On the one hand, they do inflict damage on other small business owners, and sometimes change the nature of small communities.
However, they make available to the people of the community many, many products that were not previously available to them. And, they do it at a significantly lower to the people.
The reduced cost of the many, many more available products is a benefit to the entire community. The loss of small specialty businesses is important to a few people.
|
jonheck
22-Oct-14, 07:00
|
Softaire
I agree that there are some benefits to a community when Walmart moves into to a town, however I judge your mom to have seen the truth or at least part of it. The big picture of Walmart's economy busting business practices is harder to see. I regret that I did not retain an extended 2 week, (conservative), newspaper article on Walmart that I read over a decade ago, it was dramatically eye opening. "You", could not read it and not whisper, "By BY Walmart, and good riddance! Jon
|
