Distributism

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1076749' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:00 PM']
Compared to the rest of the word is certainly not saying much at all. Maybe it grows wealth. But nobody sees this growth except the upper echelon.
The fact that all of this wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few is evidence enough. Maybe there is more money, but it's circulated in such a small population so as to make it obsolete.[/quote]
You're missing the fact that in "capitalist" America, people have far higher standards of living than in most of the rest of the world, and much higher standards than people have had through most of human history.
Most of the "poor" here enjoy things that would be the envy of most of the world's population through history - a roof over their heads, adequate clothing, four square meals a day, even a car, t.v. set, etc. Think about it - never before, and nowhere else has [b]obesity[/b] been declared an "epidemic" among the "poor."

America's poor are the envy of most of the rest of the world, and the actual wealth of people in Europe, America, and other industrialized "capitalist" countries has increased dramatically since the industrial revolution and the growth of "capitalism."

For much of history, and still in many countries, for the poor starving to death was a constant and very real threat. I am not saying everything is perfect, nor denying that real poverty does in fact exist in America; I am just saying we need to put things in proper perspective, and face the undenyable fact that "capitalism" has in fact increased
the material wealth and well-being of most people, rather than taken it away.

It seems you are basically playing the politics of envy here - some people are much richer than others; therefore capitalism is evil. (Ignoring the fact that most people, rich and poor alike, are materially much better off under "capitalism" than they would be otherwise.)

[quote]So the fact that Americans are losing jobs doesn't bother you in the slightest? After all we're paying all the citizens of other countries. So it's all good right? Maybe you missed this part:

“. . . 400,000—600,000 professional services and information sector jobs moved overseas in the past few years, accounting for about half of the total net job loss in the sector over the period . . . employment in U.S. software-producing industries fell by 128,000 jobs from 2000 to early 2004, while about 100,000 new jobs producing software for export to the U.S. were created in India over the same period of time.”

Software production, professional and information services. These aren't exactly the cashier and janitorial positions that most people you refer to, who "don't want to work", would most likely encompass. It is very true that there are many many people who are too lazy to get a job. Which is why I don't believe an egalitarianism type of economy would work either, because laziness does not need to be rewarded. But taking this, only one example, we can see it's more than coincidence. 128,000 jobs lost in software production in America. At the exact same time 100,000 gained software production jobs in India. We didn't lose those jobs. We moved them to India. 100,000 Americans who were in the software production industry were out of work because their employers could make more money by providing cheaper products if they could pay Indians far less to do it.[/quote]
I'd actually agree with you to an extent here. I would not be opposed to restirctions on free trade in order to help American workers. (I'm probably in disagreement with Anomaly on this particular issue.) This was a problem that did not exist when it was more practical for American companies to hire American labor.
However, I would still say that free market capitalism should be practiced within these limits (being practiced on a more local level), rather than replacing the economic system all together.

[quote]Who said anything about white and english? There is no need to make this into a racial or ethnic deal. I know many companies are led by non-white citizens, that should not factor into the equation at all. Yes some work extremely hard and are benefited by this by moving themselves into the upper echelon by taking over corporations. Fine. People should be able to work to their potential. But this cannot continue into taking advantage of their workers. When a worker is laid off simply because his boss can find cheaper work, in order make himself more money - this is going beyond the boundaries. People should not be kept from doing well for themselves. I never said that at all. I'm saying there's no need to be obsessive. As I already pointed out 39% of our wealth is in the hands of this 1%. That is far more than enough to make themselves a very good living. They could scale WAY back and still have enough to do well, and yet enable many more people to get by as well.[/quote]
Not clear what you're saying here. Wealth comes from labor; the wealthy 1% or whatever use this wealth to create more labor. (your ignorance of basic economics is showing here.) Are you saying the wealthy CEOs, etc. should simply giver away their money to people, despite what work they do or don't do, in order to create more financial equality?
It sounds like what you are advocating here is socialist redisribution of wealth, which quite simply does not work. (Unfortunately, don't have time to go into all the reasons here.) Personal charity can be a good thing, but government-forced redistribution of wealth results in failure for all parties.


[quote]In this we agree. People deserve what they earn. But your second sentence makes the point. People, all people, are deserving of the opportunity to do well. What they do with this opportunity is their own business. Capitalism, through outsourcing, takes away this opportunity for hundreds of thousands of Americans. This goes exactly against your principle that we are owed the opportunity. Capitalism even without outsourcing puts many businesses out of competition. About 9 out of 10 small businesses fail within the first year. How are they given the chance to compete when the big corporations have a lock-down on everything? The problem is not that we shouldn't be allowing people to do the best they can. The problem is that way too many companies are in competition trying to provide the same products to the same people. In this type of format there is only one outcome: One business comes out on top. It is impossible for all of the businesses to succeed if they are making the same products because consumers will logically buy the cheapest one. Instead companies should not be so global and should not be so diverse. Companies should stay local and provide one or few types of products. This way all the companies in an area can provide what they produce to the people in that area without fear of another company trying to outdo them. This is much like the guild system of the Middle Ages. You had your blacksmiths and your bakers and your cobblers. But there was usually only one or two in each locality. They all provided people with what they needed, and they all, all that tried anyways, succeeded. [/quote]
So how would this be acomplished? By the government? That simply gives government more control over people's property, and creates many problems, both economic and ethical. I'm for giving tax-breaks and removing red tape that strangles many small businesses. But having the government heavily regulate businesses, and what they can and cannot own and do amounts to socialism, and would result in economic disaster, as well as give government wrongful power over people's property.

[quote]Just address the last section. That is my proposal.
See my proposal above. I propose the exact OPPOSITE of providing everything to everybody. I propose business provide one or two quality products to the people in their immediate areas.
One word. Generic. Take your pick as to which kind. There are some that are fairly decent, but for the most part are all cheap knock-off's of a real product.[/quote]
"Generic" is a descriptive word rather than a specific product. If they are cheap knock-offs of a "real product," that emplies that a "real" (name-brand) product is on the market, and can be bought if people choose to. In almost everything, people are free to pay more for higher quality. It seems that you want some kind of utopian system in which everyone gets name-brand quality products at generic prices or something.

[quote]Of all the countries in the world, which capitalist country has a fairly equal distribution of wealth?[/quote]
And since when is equal distribution of wealth the ultimate goal? There has never been equal distribution of wealth in the world, and certainly not in the medieval period so much lauded by self-described "distributivists."
Christ Himself said "the poor you will always have with you."
The fact is that the "capitalist" free-market economy has created the most actual material wealth for the most people. By complaining of "equal distribution" you are engaging in socialistic thinking.

I know this is isn't exactly a scientific treatis, but I'd suggest you listen to "The Trees" by Rush (the 70s/80s Canadian band, not Limbaugh). Great song with a great point (if you can tolerate Geddy Lee's frighteningly high-pitched vocals).

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]You're missing the fact that in "capitalist" America, people have far higher standards of living than in most of the rest of the world, and much higher standards than people have had through most of human history.
Most of the "poor" here enjoy things that would be the envy of most of the world's population through history - a roof over their heads, adequate clothing, four square meals a day, even a car, t.v. set, etc. Think about it - never before, and nowhere else has [b]obesity[/b] been declared an "epidemic" among the "poor."

America's poor are the envy of most of the rest of the world, and the actual wealth of people in Europe, America, and other industrialized "capitalist" countries has increased dramatically since the industrial revolution and the growth of "capitalism."[/quote]

In comparison America certainly is much better off than most other places, for sure. But then, is there just that much more money being circulated? Because to say that there is that much more money among the poor, doesn't quite square with the statistics that 40% of people have to share .2 percent of all the money. And if there is more money being circulated. Then what does this mean. Does it mean things have been grossly inflated, and money is become worth less and less? We know that is a fact at least in the case of the penny, and some other currency, such as the dollar. So, if the money is worth less and less, eventually it'll come back to bite us when everything is realigned again.

[quote]For much of history, and still in many countries, for the poor starving to death was a constant and very real threat. I am not saying everything is perfect, nor denying that real poverty does in fact exist in America; I am just saying we need to put things in proper perspective, and face the undenyable fact that "capitalism" has in fact increased
the material wealth and well-being of most people, rather than taken it away.[/quote]

Well the poor will always exist. There's no denying that. But I still don't see how this statement can be true, unless there is just that much more paper money available. In which case the money itself isn't going to be worth as much, which to me seems to be the trend anyways.

[quote]It seems you are basically playing the politics of envy here - some people are much richer than others; therefore capitalism is evil. (Ignoring the fact that most people, rich and poor alike, are materially much better off under "capitalism" than they would be otherwise.)[/quote]

Not necessarily. I'm playing the politics of equality of opportunity. I don't stand for people taking advantage of other people in order to get rich, whether it works or not.

[quote]I'd actually agree with you to an extent here. I would not be opposed to restirctions on free trade in order to help American workers. (I'm probably in disagreement with Anomaly on this particular issue.) This was a problem that did not exist when it was more practical for American companies to hire American labor.
However, I would still say that free market capitalism should be practiced within these limits (being practiced on a more local level), rather than replacing the economic system all together.[/quote]
And I would say it should be practiced on an immediate local level, ie. companies work and serve only those in their vicinity.

[quote]Not clear what you're saying here. Wealth comes from labor; the wealthy 1% or whatever use this wealth to create more labor. (your ignorance of basic economics is showing here.)[/quote]

But are they creating labor for ppl in this country? Or just shipping it overseas? That is the question. Jobs certainly aren't disappearing. I never said that. But they have to be somewhere. They are. In India, and China, and Mexico etc.

[quote]Are you saying the wealthy CEOs, etc. should simply giver away their money to people, despite what work they do or don't do, in order to create more financial equality?
It sounds like what you are advocating here is socialist redisribution of wealth, which quite simply does not work. (Unfortunately, don't have time to go into all the reasons here.) Personal charity can be a good thing, but government-forced redistribution of wealth results in failure for all parties.[/quote]

err... no I've said many times I am also against a socialist form of economy. Egalitarianism is just as bad as capitalism, in taking the other extreme. Capitalism is bad in that it takes away the jobs of Americans, and shuts down small businesses, thus benefiting from others. Socialism goes in the opposite direction and would give money freely to those who do nothing to deserve it. I would stay away from both extremes.



[quote]So how would this be acomplished? By the government? That simply gives government more control over people's property, and creates many problems, both economic and ethical. I'm for giving tax-breaks and removing red tape that strangles many small businesses. But having the government heavily regulate businesses, and what they can and cannot own and do amounts to socialism, and would result in economic disaster, as well as give government wrongful power over people's property.[/quote]

I don't think businesses should be able to expand beyond the local landscape. Serve those in their area to the best of their ability. But don't go into another business' domain. Provide a good that others in the area are not producing yet something that the people need and would buy. I think some form of government intervention is needed if companies overstep their boundaries and affect another man's ability to thrive. Governments are given the right to enforce the law. I think protecting a man's freedom to excel in what he does should be a law. Otherwise how is a country providing for the well-being of it's people? Something that is more theoretical would be maximum prices allowed. Because the one downfall I see in the system (mind you the only one I can see) is that in this system people would jack up their prices way high and yet would still get the traffic because people are in need of their services. That would be taking advantage of the system. So I do see some governmental moderation necessary. Neither should they allow free reign for businesses, nor take part in physical distribution of wealth among the populace. But they do serve a purpose.


[quote]"Generic" is a descriptive word rather than a specific product. If they are cheap knock-offs of a "real product," that emplies that a "real" (name-brand) product is on the market, and can be bought if people choose to. In almost everything, people are free to pay more for higher quality. It seems that you want some kind of utopian system in which everyone gets name-brand quality products at generic prices or something. And since when is equal distribution of wealth the ultimate goal? There has never been equal distribution of wealth in the world, and certainly not in the medieval period so much lauded by self-described "distributivists."[/quote]
I'm not sure if you understand the concept of distributism yet. It is FAR from advocating equal distribution of wealth. Instead it's for the equal distribution of OPPORTUNITY for this wealth. Whether people choose to take it or not is their own business. But the option needs to be available.


[quote]Christ Himself said "the poor you will always have with you."
The fact is that the "capitalist" free-market economy has created the most actual material wealth for the most people. By complaining of "equal distribution" you are engaging in socialistic thinking.[/quote]

I have never advocated equal distribution. Maybe you haven't read my posts carefully enough. But I've pointed out well enough clearly in my posts that I was clearly against both capitalism and socialism. I am totally against distribution of wealth. It's unfair and it simply doesn't work. Same I say for capitalism.

[quote]I know this is isn't exactly a scientific treatis, but I'd suggest you listen to "The Trees" by Rush (the 70s/80s Canadian band, not Limbaugh). Great song with a great point (if you can tolerate Geddy Lee's frighteningly high-pitched vocals).

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.[/quote]

haha interesting song.

In closing a couple points that obviously haven't been made clear enough. I am NOT for the socialistic notion of distribution of wealth because gives a free ride to people who have not earned it. I am against capitalism because it takes away an ability for those to succeed who would like to. Both I think are bad policies and both I think are even sinful. Instead a fair chance at the OPPORTUNITY (notice I didn't say everybody should actually get an equal amount of wealth) to succeed should be everyone's for the taking. This can be done if businesses were kept local and specialized in one or few product(s). This way each business can thrive and the people can also recieve high quality products (because businesses will not be trying to use cheaper and cheaper materials) and it can all be affordable if companies are not allowed to post ridiculous prices.

[Justified Saint]

Why have we turned efficency into an idol? I keep hearing this argument "Well, America is the richest country so capitalism must be the best and only solution!" Yet, this line of reasoning is such a fallacy. It kind of reminds me of how my Western U.S. history professor mockingly recalls the mentality of the froniter types; "if it makes us rich, then we must be right and God must approve!"

This kind of reasoning has a name -- it is called utilitarianism and it basically collapses ethical concerns into useful ones. Taken to its logical extremes it is a base philosophy and can hardly be entertained by a serious Christian.

[quote]The US did not become wealthy from exploiting other regions as much of colonial Europe did.[/quote]

That is because the U.S. had thousands of miles of "God's country" to exploit and steal from the Indians and Mexicans! The U.S. has a different name for its empire -- it is called continental North America.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1077660' date='Sep 28 2006, 01:44 AM']
Why have we turned efficency into an idol? I keep hearing this argument "Well, America is the richest country so capitalism must be the best and only solution!" Yet, this line of reasoning is such a fallacy. It kind of reminds me of how my Western U.S. history professor mockingly recalls the mentality of the froniter types; "if it makes us rich, then we must be right and God must approve!"

This kind of reasoning has a name -- it is called utilitarianism and it basically collapses ethical concerns into useful ones. Taken to its logical extremes it is a base philosophy and can hardly be entertained by a serious Christian. [/quote]

This is one of my main points. Just because something works, and I'm still not convinced Capitalism actually works all that well, doesn't make it right or good.

[quote]That is because the U.S. had thousands of miles of "God's country" to exploit and steal from the Indians and Mexicans! The U.S. has a different name for its empire -- it is called continental North America.[/quote]

Yes. We did just as much conquering as any other nation, save possibly the early Roman Empire. We aren't any different in that regard.

P.S. Justified Saint... Where in Arizona are you at?

Edited September 28, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1077672' date='Sep 27 2006, 11:59 PM']
This is one of my main points. Just because something works, and I'm still not convinced Capitalism actually works all that well, doesn't make it right or good.
Yes. We did just as much conquering as any other nation, save possibly the early Roman Empire. We aren't any different in that regard.[/quote]

Exactly, once the comparison and contrast starts hinging on what is more "efficient" and "useful" then the capitalist is begging the question since it is a capitalist presumption that what is the most efficient is the best.

[quote]P.S. Justified Saint... Where in Arizona are you at?
[/quote]

Glendale/Phoenix (ASU) -- so technically we are rivals

[goldenchild17]

From Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891):

"Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which is their own; nay, they learn to love the very soil which yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of the good things for themselves and those that are dear to them . . .The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many people as possible to become owners". (no. 35)"

Men are to be provided ownership of something because it is in this that man most fully prospers and loves what he does.

Pius XI Quadragesimo Anno:

"59. The redemption of the non-owning workers - this is the goal that Our Predecessor declared must necessarily be sought. And the point is the more emphatically to be asserted and more insistently repeated because the commands of the Pontiff, salutary as they are, have not infrequently been consigned to oblivion either because they were deliberately suppressed by silence or thought impracticable although they both can and ought to be put into effect. And these commands have not lost their force and wisdom for our time because that "pauperism" which Leo XIII beheld in all its horror is less widespread. Certainly the condition of the workers has been improved and made more equitable especially in the more civilized and wealthy countries where the workers can no longer be considered universally overwhelmed with misery and lacking the necessities of life. But since manufacturing and industry have so rapidly pervaded and occupied countless regions, not only in the countries called new, but also in the realms of the Far East that have been civilized from antiquity, the number of the non-owning working poor has increased enormously and their groans cry to God from the earth. Added to them is the huge army of rural wage workers, pushed to the lowest level of existence and deprived of all hope of ever acquiring "some property in land,"[43] and, therefore, permanently bound to the status of non-owning worker unless suitable and effective remedies are applied.

60. Yet while it is true that the status of non owning worker is to be carefully distinguished from pauperism, [b]nevertheless the immense multitude of the non-owning workers on the one hand and the enormous riches of certain very wealthy men on the other establish an unanswerable argument that the riches which are so abundantly produced in our age of "industrialism," as it is called, are not rightly distributed and equitably made available to the various classes of the people.[/b]

61. Therefore, with all our strength and effort we must strive that at least in the future the abundant fruits of production will accrue equitably to those who are rich and will be distributed in ample sufficiency among the workers - not that these may become remiss in work, for man is born to labor as the bird to fly - but that they may increase their property by thrift, that they may bear, by wise management of this increase in property, the burdens of family life with greater ease and security, and that, emerging from the insecure lot in life in whose uncertainties non-owning workers are cast, they may be able not only to endure the vicissitudes of earthly existence but have also assurance that when their lives are ended they will provide in some measure for those they leave after them.

62. All these things which Our Predecessor has not only suggested but clearly and openly proclaimed, We emphasize with renewed insistence in our present Encyclical; and unless utmost efforts are made without delay to put them into effect, let no one persuade himself that public order, peace, and the tranquillity of human society can be effectively defended against agitators of revolution. (59-62)"

See the bold. I'm not the one to make this stuff up. If you have an issue with it, take it up with the Pope.

And this is what it comes down to. We shouldn't think of things in terms of how much cash we get out of what we do, but instead in terms of ownership because it is in this that a man becomes truly rich in this world:

"When men have become wage slaves they think in terms of income. When they are economically free they think in terms of property. We propose to re-establish the peasant, the craftsman and the small (and secure) retail tradesman." — Hilaire Belloc

G.K. Chesterton sums it up well:

"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists" ("The Uses of Diversity", 1921).

The idea is not to eliminate peoples ability to capitalize on their opportunity. The idea is to give as many people the chance to capitalize as possible.



[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1077679' date='Sep 28 2006, 02:05 AM']Glendale/Phoenix (ASU) -- so technically we are rivals
[/quote]

haha you smell of elderberries :

[Anomaly]

g-child,
Provide some historical statistics about home ownership in the US compared to the rest of the world and you will see the real economic betterment. Talk about ownership... We are not just an agricultrual economy where a single family farm can support a family +. The economic analysis of the popes do NOT have a significant impact on me. Even if I was a practicing catholic, I'm not sure I'd look to the popes for economic expertise. Secondly, are they addressing the US economy, or the European or Asian economies.

You have to dig a bit deeper into economics to evaluate the performance of an economic system. It isn't just a matter of more money being printed, wealth is created via capitalism. That is a very significant fact. Allowing access to that wealth and income bracket mobility are more of a function of governmental regulation than a symptom of captalism. Overall creation of wealth is the function of the economic system.

Don't make the mistake that government policies that restrict the ability to acquire and make use of wealth is a problem of capitolism. The strictures now are the heavy tax burden that people pay are a mis-managed government attempt to re-distribute wealth. It really is a problem of creeping socialism.

Capitalism is the economic version of free will. Competition is the equalizing operating force in capitalism. Distributism is no solution because it tries to over-regulate competition by government. That is the big WARNING, WILL ROBINSON!

Captialism's problems are the age old problems, too much government intervention that creates solutions that are politically motivated, not economically motivated.

To Justified,
The reason the US excelled is not because of the 'wild resources' available, it's the captialist economy in effect that allowed many people to make the most use of them. The Boston Tea Party was more about economic freedom than taxing without representation. The brits wanted to maintain the monopoly on tea, exporting it to the colonies, instead of the colonies growing their own and possibly creating exports. The same story repeating now. Governmental regulation for political gain, not economic sense.

Efficiency is not an idol, but being a good steward of God's resources. Efficiency allows mankind the freedom to devote time and energy to the arts and explore the many gifts God created us with. We aren't all created with equal talents or abilities, so end results will differ. We are created with equal dignity and that is not denied if Bill Gates has $90billion dollars and I have $900. Bill was not given $500,000 at birth, it was capitalism that allowed his talent to create wealth. It isn't how much of your wants you can fulfill, but how much of your needs you can fulfill. It isn't about having your needs met for you, but about having the opportunity to meet your needs.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1077749' date='Sep 28 2006, 07:07 AM']
To Justified,
The reason the US excelled is not because of the 'wild resources' available, it's the captialist economy in effect that allowed many people to make the most use of them. The Boston Tea Party was more about economic freedom than taxing without representation. The brits wanted to maintain the monopoly on tea, exporting it to the colonies, instead of the colonies growing their own and possibly creating exports. The same story repeating now. Governmental regulation for political gain, not economic sense.

Efficiency is not an idol, but being a good steward of God's resources. Efficiency allows mankind the freedom to devote time and energy to the arts and explore the many gifts God created us with. We aren't all created with equal talents or abilities, so end results will differ. We are created with equal dignity and that is not denied if Bill Gates has $90billion dollars and I have $900. Bill was not given $500,000 at birth, it was capitalism that allowed his talent to create wealth. It isn't how much of your wants you can fulfill, but how much of your needs you can fulfill. It isn't about having your needs met for you, but about having the opportunity to meet your needs.
[/quote]

Anomaly, genocide has been commited in the name of so-called "efficiency". I suspect American expansionists were saying the same thing. "Look at all this land and resource! Sure there have been people living on it for generations, but they aren't rich off of it like we could be. Let's be God's good stewarts!"

Again, the same theme is evident. Once the commandment to be rich is idolized, then of course all that will matter is competition and the survival of the fittest.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1077890' date='Sep 28 2006, 10:24 AM']
Anomaly, genocide has been commited in the name of so-called "efficiency". I suspect American expansionists were saying the same thing. "Look at all this land and resource! Sure there have been people living on it for generations, but they aren't rich off of it like we could be. Let's be God's good stewarts!"

Again, the same theme is evident. Once the commandment to be rich is idolized, then of course all that will matter is competition and the survival of the fittest.
[/quote]
What does that have to do with the reality of today? Is it a policy of capitalism or was it a cultural/socio phenomenon. The US isn't taking countries away from people now, are they?
You equate captialism as a commandment to be rich. That's a falsehood. Captialism can thrive quite well with christian principles, they aren't at odds. God blesses people with material wealth too, money isn't a crime.

Following the line of your argument, murder has been committed in the name of Christianity. Is that a symptom of christianity or a cultural/socio phenom?

Hmmm.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Anomaly

[goldenchild17]

[quote]g-child,
Provide some historical statistics about home ownership in the US compared to the rest of the world and you will see the real economic betterment. [/quote]

Maybe you could do your own research... So far I'm the only one in this discussion that has provided any support whatsoever. You just expect me to take you at your word and, frankly, that's not going to happen. Yes, the U.S. is better than most other countries. However this doesn't make any comparison because capitalism and socialism are pretty much all that exists. So it means nothing at this point. Again, even if it did work, that doesn't make it right.

[quote]Talk about ownership... We are not just an agricultrual economy where a single family farm can support a family +. The economic analysis of the popes do NOT have a significant impact on me. Even if I was a practicing catholic, I'm not sure I'd look to the popes for economic expertise. Secondly, are they addressing the US economy, or the European or Asian economies.[/quote]

Well that's a big part of it for me. So unless you want to start providing at least some sort of data, which up to now you haven't, then I'll take their word over yours any day.

[quote]You have to dig a bit deeper into economics to evaluate the performance of an economic system. It isn't just a matter of more money being printed, wealth is created via capitalism. That is a very significant fact. Allowing access to that wealth and income bracket mobility are more of a function of governmental regulation than a symptom of captalism. Overall creation of wealth is the function of the economic system.[/quote]

Again, all words no data. Back it up with something please. You call them facts, where are these facts that you speak of? The fact is, is that in the US, which is a capitalist nation, there is undoubtedly a lot of money. However this money is not making it's way over 60 percent of the population. Now, it is certainly a fact that the poor in our country are richer than people in other countries. So now with all of these points we need to contruct a reason for this. Just because there is more money doesn't mean it's all well and good if there is this much disparity of it's distribution.

[quote]Don't make the mistake that government policies that restrict the ability to acquire and make use of wealth is a problem of capitolism. The strictures now are the heavy tax burden that people pay are a mis-managed government attempt to re-distribute wealth. It really is a problem of creeping socialism.[/quote]

I don't care if it's a problem of capitalism or a problem of socialism. Their both bad if you ask me.

[quote]Capitalism is the economic version of free will.[/quote]

Yep after all hundreds of thousands of people chose to be laid off so their jobs could go out of country. And yeah of course small businesses are all for the big corporations taking over and buying them out so they can't compete. There is anything but free will going on here.

[quote]Competition is the equalizing operating force in capitalism. Distributism is no solution because it tries to over-regulate competition by government. That is the big WARNING, WILL ROBINSON! Captialism's problems are the age old problems, too much government intervention that creates solutions that are politically motivated, not economically motivated. [/quote]

Explain. I still fail to see how "some" government intervention is a bad thing. Not that much is needed, but it needs to be there. People simply aren't good by nature, something needs to be in place to see that things go as they should. I understand that you aren't Catholic, I don't know what you believe or don't believe, but Scripture tells us that the government is put in place by God and we are to listen to them unless they tell us to do something sinful. No government is anarchy, too much government is slavery. There needs to be a balance.

Now, you bring up some interesting points. However facts would be a nice addition to your argument. Statistics, references from people who mean anything to me, facts from history, something would be nice.



[quote]Bill was not given $500,000 at birth, it was capitalism that allowed his talent to create wealth.[/quote]

By taking advantage of probably thousands of other people.

[quote]It isn't about having your needs met for you, but about having the opportunity to meet your needs.[/quote]

Exactly which is why Capitalism absolutely cannot be in place. Capitalism takes away the opportunity for so many people, and leaves options for only the few who are willing to step on others to get it.

Distributism is not for no capitalists. It is for MORE capitalists. Capitalism fails because their are not enough of them. Distributism gives the "opportunity to meet your needs" as you say, to more people than Capitalism.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078099' date='Sep 28 2006, 01:34 PM']
Maybe you could do your own research... So far I'm the only one in this discussion that has provided any support whatsoever. You just expect me to take you at your word and, frankly, that's not going to happen. Yes, the U.S. is better than most other countries. However this doesn't make any comparison because capitalism and socialism are pretty much all that exists. So it means nothing at this point. Again, even if it did work, that doesn't make it right.
Well that's a big part of it for me. So unless you want to start providing at least some sort of data, which up to now you haven't, then I'll take their word over yours any day.
Again, all words no data. Back it up with something please. You call them facts, where are these facts that you speak of? The fact is, is that in the US, which is a capitalist nation, there is undoubtedly a lot of money. However this money is not making it's way over 60 percent of the population. Now, it is certainly a fact that the poor in our country are richer than people in other countries. So now with all of these points we need to contruct a reason for this. Just because there is more money doesn't mean it's all well and good if there is this much disparity of it's distribution.
I don't care if it's a problem of capitalism or a problem of socialism. Their both bad if you ask me.



Yep after all hundreds of thousands of people chose to be laid off so their jobs could go out of country. And yeah of course small businesses are all for the big corporations taking over and buying them out so they can't compete. There is anything but free will going on here.
Explain. I still fail to see how "some" government intervention is a bad thing. Not that much is needed, but it needs to be there. People simply aren't good by nature, something needs to be in place to see that things go as they should. I understand that you aren't Catholic, I don't know what you believe or don't believe, but Scripture tells us that the government is put in place by God and we are to listen to them unless they tell us to do something sinful. No government is anarchy, too much government is slavery. There needs to be a balance.

Now, you bring up some interesting points. However facts would be a nice addition to your argument. Statistics, references from people who mean anything to me, facts from history, something would be nice.
By taking advantage of probably thousands of other people.
Exactly which is why Capitalism absolutely cannot be in place. Capitalism takes away the opportunity for so many people, and leaves options for only the few who are willing to step on others to get it.

Distributism is not for no capitalists. It is for MORE capitalists. Capitalism fails because their are not enough of them. Distributism gives the "opportunity to meet your needs" as you say, to more people than Capitalism.
[/quote]
You don't supply any facts, just conjecture while living with the benefits of a great economy. You just look at superficials with no depth. 40% of the wealth going to 5% is meaningless without context. 60% of the wealth is still being distributed to others. Are others in the US generally below subsistience earning? The jobs going overseas are not jobs that the US desperately needs because we have extremeley low employemnt which means our economy grew and created other jobs. Economies are dynamic, not static.

You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING that shows capitalism takes away opportunity. Distribution of 40% of the wealth does not show that. You're an 'honors student', you can think critically. You make claims that aren't reasonable. If you could show that the percentage of population that earn less than subsistience income in capitalist economies increase, you'd have a starting point. If you could then identify (with reasons) what aspects of capitalism cause that, you'd make your point and I'd be wrong. As it is, you point to smoke and say 'see, the forest is burning'. You over reach the cause of an observation.

You made the assertations that capitalism holds people down, removes opportunity, makes people poorer, makes products shoddier, and cannot support it with reason or data. Yet I've got to prove the smoke you see isn't a forest fire when reason and logic already don't support your conclusion.

Let's talk about the distribution of wealth. Increasing one's wealth is having surplus beyond what you need to survive. Before condeming an economic system, you have to look at things with logic.
-How much income does the person get?
-How much expense does the person have?
-How much of that expense is for NEED (not luxuries)?
-Historically, how has income & need expense increased as adjusted for inflation?
-What is the net gain or loss of excess income?
-If there is excess income, what is done with it? Is it invested in a home, a business, education, or in consumer goods and services?

If the extra $$ is just spent on consumer goods, is the problem an economic problem of capitalism, or is it a moral problem with people being materialistic?

Let's leave appropriate government intervention on the shelf for now. That's another factor we can leave for later while we explore the above with some reason and logic.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]You don't supply any facts, just conjecture while living with the benefits of a great economy. You just look at superficials with no depth. 40% of the wealth going to 5% is meaningless without context. [/quote]

No no. .2% of the wealth going to 40% of the population. Far different from what you're saying.


[quote] 60% of the wealth is still being distributed to others.[/quote]

Again you're reading the numbers wrong. 98.8% of the wealth, going to 60% of the people.

That's like, out of a dollar, almost 99 cents going to 60%, while less than a cent goes to 40%. Not only that but breaking it down further we see that the top 4% of Americans recieve half of all cashflow. In a perfectly distributed country (which I would not advocate at all as it is also unfair - socialism) out of a dollar, each percent of people would recieve one cent. Instead, 4% of people, instead of recieving 4 cents, or even 6 or 7 or 8, actually get 50 cents of that dollar. And one percent of these people take 38% of that.

So no. 60% of the wealth is NOT being distributed to others. 60% of the PEOPLE get .2% of the money.

[quote]Are others in the US generally below subsistience earning? The jobs going overseas are not jobs that the US desperately needs because we have extremeley low employemnt which means our economy grew and created other jobs. Economies are dynamic, not static.[/quote]

It seems that there are a few more jobs being created. Where they are at I'm not sure though. But I will posit a guess, these jobs that you speak of are in the lower echelons of the workforce.

Take these stats and compare:

All data taken from 2000-2005:

1,678 jobs have been added for an increase of 1.3% increase in job totals. This is all well and good. But what does this translate into?

The median household income has dropped: -1,273 or -2.7%.

So while there are more jobs. There is less money, meaning people are making less. Contrary to what you have been saying.

And this is an interesting number:

The number of people going into poverty in this country has jumped 5,369 people, a staggering 17%.

How about bankruptcy?

822,967 increase - 68.4% increase in personal bankruptcy filings.

So yes, while it seems more jobs are being "created" to fill the numbers, it clearly has not translated into better economic stability for the country as a whole.

[quote]You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING that shows capitalism takes away opportunity.[/quote]

Creating jobs doesn't really help if it's not bringing more wealth to the American person. As the statistics show above, there are more jobs. But clearly they are not bringing in more wealth. Whenever you lay somebody off for no reason except to better your own self needlessly you are taking away their opportunity.


[quote]Distribution of 40% of the wealth does not show that. You're an 'honors student', you can think critically. You make claims that aren't reasonable. If you could show that the percentage of population that earn less than subsistience income in capitalist economies increase, you'd have a starting point.[/quote]

Start with the statistic I gave above: The number of people going into poverty in this country has jumped 5,369 people, a staggering 17%

In America, poverty is normally equated with the subsistience level.


[quote]If you could then identify (with reasons) what aspects of capitalism cause that, you'd make your point and I'd be wrong. As it is, you point to smoke and say 'see, the forest is burning'. You over reach the cause of an observation.[/quote]

Things must always be taken in steps. Let's identify if there is a problem before trying to find out the cause of the problem. I'm saying there is a problem because just in the last 5 years (I haven't looked much to see what it is further back than that) the poverty level has increased 17 percent. That's a problem.

[quote]You made the assertations that capitalism holds people down, removes opportunity, makes people poorer, makes products shoddier, and cannot support it with reason or data. Yet I've got to prove the smoke you see isn't a forest fire when reason and logic already don't support your conclusion.[/quote]

Umm I'm not sure what you consider data. I've been providing numbers this whole time. I'd like to see numbers to the contrary if you have them.

[quote]Let's talk about the distribution of wealth. Increasing one's wealth is having surplus beyond what you need to survive. Before condeming an economic system, you have to look at things with logic.
-How much income does the person get?
-How much expense does the person have?
-How much of that expense is for NEED (not luxuries)?
-Historically, how has income & need expense increased as adjusted for inflation?
-What is the net gain or loss of excess income?
-If there is excess income, what is done with it? Is it invested in a home, a business, education, or in consumer goods and services?

If the extra $$ is just spent on consumer goods, is the problem an economic problem of capitalism, or is it a moral problem with people being materialistic?

Let's leave appropriate government intervention on the shelf for now. That's another factor we can leave for later while we explore the above with some reason and logic.[/quote]

Good questions. Let's go over the data above and see how it fits first. Yes I know it won't answer all of your questions just yet.

Edited September 28, 2006 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

Not to mention that the cost of 4-year public colleges has risen

$3,166 - 38.3%

This makes it kind of hard for people with less money to start out to get a fair shot at an education that would give them a chance to compete. So then it becomes a circular series of events.

[Anomaly]

I had come up with statistics and tried to post them with an edit it wouldn't take. They fly in the face of what you have.
Per the US Census Bureau, poverty rate has gone down and is around 11% currently. In 1950 (when these statistics started to be tracked yearly instead of 10 years) the rate was 30%. There were blips in the late 80's and 90's due to market forces. The 17% you have is bogus.

Go back and clean up your statistics in your post. I believe you have some typos regarding the % of income being distributed. But again, I challenge you with statistics that show an increase of poverty rate. Being able to keep or grow wealth is also dependent upon taxation, intrest rates, and government policies, not just the economic system. Hong Kong is a prime example of this fact.

The numbers that show the decrease in the poverty rate shows that people are not being held down by capitalism. The fact that those who have more gain more is not the complete question. The extreme rich have more money to invest while the middle class is not investing their excess money, but spends it. The choice to spend it is not captialism, but a choice of society. We are free to use our wealth in any manner we please. Keep a car for a few years after it's paid for, or buy a new one because you can afford it. Is that captialism's fault. Free markets would react to people keeping their cars longer and invest the money elsewhere where it could grow. Is the fact that Ford is closing many plants an laying off 75,000 workers a problem caused by capitalism, or are other factors, such as the cost of oil from OPEC, lack of oil refining capacity, and wars in the Middle East causing gas prices to rise a bigger factor?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078190' date='Sep 28 2006, 03:48 PM']
Not to mention that the cost of 4-year public colleges has risen

$3,166 - 38.3%

This makes it kind of hard for people with less money to start out to get a fair shot at an education that would give them a chance to compete. So then it becomes a circular series of events.
[/quote]Why has it risen? Could it be a factor that a larger % of the population attend college now and there is a market for more expensive schools, facilities, etc? Is the cost of lodging included in that? Is it because people have more money and are willing to invest more in college? $8,000 for a year of college is a ton of money. My daughter's tuition and a large state university with excellent science, education, and medical colleges, is less than $4,000 per year. Where's the disconnect? Would it be nice if she could go away and live on campus? Sure. Is it necessary? No. Spending the extra money was a choice we decided to not do. She could have gone to other schools, gotten the same education, and paid lot's more money but it was a choice we made not to do.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]I had come up with statistics and tried to post them with an edit it wouldn't take. They fly in the face of what you have. Per the US Census Bureau, poverty rate has gone down and is around 11% currently. In 1950 (when these statistics started to be tracked yearly instead of 10 years) the rate was 30%. There were blips in the late 80's and 90's due to market forces. The 17% you have is bogus.[/quote]

Source:

U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, "Table 21. Number of Poor and Poverty Rate, by State: 1980 to 2004." U.S. data: U.S. Census Bureau, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, Table B-1. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2004"

U.S. Census Bureau, "POV46: Poverty Status by State: 2005, Below 100% and 125% of Poverty -- All Ages."

Those are my sources. I don't make stuff up because I feel like it.

[quote]Go back and clean up your statistics in your post. I believe you have some typos regarding the % of income being distributed.[/quote]
Provide another source then. This is mine:

U.S. Census Bureau, "Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2005."

Those are the numbers it shows. But I understand if numbers don't sound right, after all it would totally not work with your hypothesis. So the numbers must be wrong... See, now that's the exact opposite approach to take. In my astronomy class we are forced to apply the scientific method to all of our research. We have to take the data and construct a theory from that. Not take our theory and try to make data fit it in some way.

[quote]But again, I challenge you with statistics that show an increase of poverty rate.[/quote]

I already have. It's up to you to show these stats incorrect. I'm not going to lay down and simply agree with you. You need to show how my data is wrong. Simply saying it's wrong and leaving it at that is just not good enough.

[quote]Being able to keep or grow wealth is also dependent upon taxation, intrest rates, and government policies, not just the economic system. Hong Kong is a prime example of this fact.[/quote]

Yes. But this is in the explanation phase. We need to agree on the numbers before we can explore why these numbers are the way they are. Apparently you dispute my stats. So we can't go into why these stats are the way they are until we resolve which stats are actually correct. But yes, we must get to this if we are to understand the problem.


[quote]The numbers that show the decrease in the poverty rate shows that people are not being held down by capitalism.[/quote]

What numbers? Mine show an increase of 17% in just the last 5 years, not a decrease at all. I'm not taking your word for it. Show me how my data is wrong.


[quote]The fact that those who have more gain more is not the complete question. The extreme rich have more money to invest while the middle class is not investing their excess money, but spends it. The choice to spend it is not captialism, but a choice of society. We are free to use our wealth in any manner we please. Keep a car for a few years after it's paid for, or buy a new one because you can afford it. Is that captialism's fault. Free markets would react to people keeping their cars longer and invest the money elsewhere where it could grow. Is the fact that Ford is closing many plants an laying off 75,000 workers a problem caused by capitalism, or are other factors, such as the cost of oil from OPEC, lack of oil refining capacity, and wars in the Middle East causing gas prices to rise a bigger factor?[/quote]


All of these are things to consider. But again you are in the explanation phase. We are not there yet because we don't agree on the numbers. I say poverty has increased, median wealth has decreased, bankruptcies have increased, cost of college tuition has increased. You disagree it seems, so we need to work through that first.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1078204' date='Sep 28 2006, 05:07 PM']
Why has it risen? Could it be a factor that a larger % of the population attend college now and there is a market for more expensive schools, facilities, etc? Is the cost of lodging included in that? Is it because people have more money and are willing to invest more in college? $8,000 for a year of college is a ton of money. My daughter's tuition and a large state university with excellent science, education, and medical colleges, is less than $4,000 per year. Where's the disconnect? Would it be nice if she could go away and live on campus? Sure. Is it necessary? No. Spending the extra money was a choice we decided to not do. She could have gone to other schools, gotten the same education, and paid lot's more money but it was a choice we made not to do.
[/quote]


Total 4 year college costs: $3,166 38.3%



Source:
1. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),"Fall Enrollment" and "Institutional Characteristics" surveys, Table 317.--Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room and board rates paid by full-time-equivalent students in degree-granting institutions, by control of institution and by state: 1999-2000 and 2000-01.

2. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Table 314. Average undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution and state or jurisdiction: 2002-03 and 2003-04.

3. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 and 2004-05 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2003, Fall 2004, and Spring 2004, Table 313. Average undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution and state or jurisdiction: 2003-04 and 2004-05.

4. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Table 313. Average undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution and state or jurisdiction: 2003-04 and 2004-05. 2004-05 data are preliminary.

_______________________________________________________

4 year tuition costs:

$1,689 50.4%

Also from US dept of education.




At this point we aren't figuring out WHY, we just need to come to an agreement on what the numbers are.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1077902' date='Sep 28 2006, 09:45 AM']
What does that have to do with the reality of today? Is it a policy of capitalism or was it a cultural/socio phenomenon. The US isn't taking countries away from people now, are they?
You equate captialism as a commandment to be rich. That's a falsehood. Captialism can thrive quite well with christian principles, they aren't at odds. God blesses people with material wealth too, money isn't a crime.

Following the line of your argument, murder has been committed in the name of Christianity. Is that a symptom of christianity or a cultural/socio phenom?

Hmmm.
[/quote]

Do I need to remind you that you are the one who brought up the issue of imperalism and territorial expansion? I just pointed out the simple fact that the US had enough land and resources on its hands without colonizing Africa or Latin America.

There is no need to turn a blind eye to history since history tells us almost everything we need to know about where we came from (and chances are where we are now and might be likely to go).

Also, I am not equating capitalism with the commandment to be rich -- that is just what history and its players have done.

And just because we have exported and out-sourced the ugly side of capitalism to another part of the world doesn't make it right.

[quote]The US isn't taking countries away from people now, are they?[/quote]

That would imply that they gave the countries back! Well I guess that is the case if you believe in Indian reservations.

Again, I am not saying capitalism is inherently evil or couldn't be in line with Christian ethics. I am just saying from a historical perspective this hasn't really been the case and presently I am suspicious as well.

[Anomaly]

g-child,
Go with the poverty rate. To be fair, let's go with families. Disintergration of the family is a sociological, not economical phenom. Two parent families are more financially stable than single parents. The divorce rate and morality causes more singel parent families which decrease their wealth and financial stability. Still, with this link [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html"]http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html[/url] to the US Census Bureau, the poverty rate for families went from over 18% in 1959 to 12.5 in 2004. I consider the Census Bureau as non-partisan.

I thought another link from the Us Census Bureau [url="http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p60-203.pdf"]http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p60-203.pdf[/url] would be helpful. This is a report analyzing 50 years of income data. Please note the poverty section (around page 45) that shows that poverty levels for all races and ages have decreased EXCEPT for children and single parent households. That's a telling statistic. It's not capitalism, but divorce lawyers and unwed mothers and irresponsible fathers that are increasing poverty.

Median incomes have steadily risen, though, with governemnt intervention, the rate of increase has slowed.



Justified,
Get a grip. You brought it up, not me, by calling Americans 'expansionists' and characterizing them as saying taking resources from the indians was their 'obedience to the commandment to be rich'. Discuss this with us without hysterical stereotyping.

Another thing I'd like to point out. (reference g-child's post of today, 1:34pm) Most people are good and have a decent nature. Sometimes they take the easy way out, but that's not the fault of the system. If people are naturally 'not good' then who are you to think you are better than them?

Edited September 29, 2006 by Anomaly

[goldenchild17]

[quote]Go with the poverty rate. To be fair, let's go with families. Disintergration of the family is a sociological, not economical phenom. Two parent families are more financially stable than single parents. The divorce rate and morality causes more singel parent families which decrease their wealth and financial stability.[/quote]

What you say is true. However to be fair we have to consider all those in poverty. To take only families leaves out a significant portion. I consider things such as divorce rate and morality as totally irrelevant to the discussion to be honest, because these things are going to exist regardless of either distributism or capitalism. So it cancels it out. This being the case poverty rates in both a capitalist system and a distributism will both go down equally. Things that are part of the equation that you have mentioned otherwise should be the focus.

[quote]Still, with this link [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html"]http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html[/url] to the US Census Bureau, the poverty rate for families went from over 18% in 1959 to 12.5 in 2004. I consider the Census Bureau as non-partisan.[/quote]
Well it's good that we both consider the Census Bureau a good source. Which is why that is where I got my stats as well. How can both be right?


[quote]I thought another link from the Us Census Bureau [url="http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p60-203.pdf"]http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p60-203.pdf[/url] would be helpful. This is a report analyzing 50 years of income data. Please note the poverty section (around page 45) that shows that poverty levels for all races and ages have decreased EXCEPT for children and single parent households. That's a telling statistic. It's not capitalism, but divorce lawyers and unwed mothers and irresponsible fathers that are increasing poverty. [/quote]

I'll get back to you on this when my computer stops being stupid, I can't open the page . If this is the case then that is good. Wait I think I found another version of the page (my cpu doesn't like pdf). Is this it? [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html"]http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html[/url]
It does seem that it has lowered a little bit, although it seems to fluctuate having risen the last couple years.

[quote]Median incomes have steadily risen, though, with governemnt intervention, the rate of increase has slowed.[/quote]

Over the last 50 years it does seem that way. But again, how does it work that the cashflow is still this unevenly spread? I guess what I'm saying is that you are okay with this disparity because there is more money, so the .2% that is going to the 40% of the pop. is a good thing? This may be the case, but it just doesn't sit well with me.


But let's move away from the actual cash numbers for a bit. Distributism holds that true wealth is in ownership. Ownership of your work/business, ownership of land, ownership of how you take care of yourself and your families. Do you disagree that currency is not necessarily the best way to measure wealth? How many times in the course of civilization have currencies changed and/or become obsolete. Even in America's histories we have had many different forms of money, worth different amounts. It is rumored that it is happening again. I'm sure it's no secret that the dollar, and pretty much all coins are becoming worthless. Nobody wants them anymore. Who says we're not in for an overhaul of our currency?

Instead one thing that has always been valued, always been treasured, is land. Everybody wants it, few people get it. And I'm not talking about going into major debt to get it either, because technically how is it really yours?

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1077614' date='Sep 28 2006, 12:11 AM']
In comparison America certainly is much better off than most other places, for sure. But then, is there just that much more money being circulated? Because to say that there is that much more money among the poor, doesn't quite square with the statistics that 40% of people have to share .2 percent of all the money. And if there is more money being circulated. Then what does this mean. Does it mean things have been grossly inflated, and money is become worth less and less? We know that is a fact at least in the case of the penny, and some other currency, such as the dollar. So, if the money is worth less and less, eventually it'll come back to bite us when everything is realigned again.[/quote]
While I'd agree that inflation is a problem, that really has nothing to do with what I posted, nor with "capitalism" per se.

In my previous post, I said that the standard of living went up for most people under a "capitalist" economy after the industrial revolution. I was talking about actual wealth and standards of living; such things as having homes, clothes, cars, running water, t.v sets, etc. Capitalist countries have the highest standards of living. The fact that the vast majority of people in America do not have to worry about starving to death has nothing to do with inflation.

And further, excessive inflation and the devaluation of the dollar is not the natural result of "capitalism" and a free market economy. It is caused by the dollar no longer being backed by anything solid (such as gold) as it was in the past. It is a result, not of a capitalism, but of government control over the economy, printing out paper money that is not backed up by actual wealth, but based on what the federal reserve sees fit to print. (It only began doing this in the 20th century - I'd have to look up the exact date.) Some of the harshest critics of this practice that I have read are strong advocates of the free market economy. The truth is that abandoning a free market economy would do nothing to solve the problem of inflation, but only make it worse.

[quote]Well the poor will always exist. There's no denying that. But I still don't see how this statement can be true, unless there is just that much more paper money available. In which case the money itself isn't going to be worth as much, which to me seems to be the trend anyways.[/quote]
How what statement ccan be true? I'm not following you here at all. What paper money and inflation has to do with my statements that people's standards of living has rose under a "capitalist" economy is beyond me.

[quote]Not necessarily. I'm playing the politics of equality of opportunity. I don't stand for people taking advantage of other people in order to get rich, whether it works or not.
And I would say it should be practiced on an immediate local level, ie. companies work and serve only those in their vicinity.
But are they creating labor for ppl in this country? Or just shipping it overseas? That is the question. Jobs certainly aren't disappearing. I never said that. But they have to be somewhere. They are. In India, and China, and Mexico etc.[/quote]
Again, there is a case for restrictions on outsourcing and international trade, in order to protect the national interest (Americans vs foreigners).

However, I would not make restrictions on trade below the national level.
How would "the local level" and "their vicinity" be defined?
Would you restrict companies or individuals from doing business beyond their home town, or immediate local area?
How would this be acomplished? Seems it would in practice require heavy government restriction of all commerce.

[quote]err... no I've said many times I am also against a socialist form of economy. Egalitarianism is just as bad as capitalism, in taking the other extreme. Capitalism is bad in that it takes away the jobs of Americans, and shuts down small businesses, thus benefiting from others. Socialism goes in the opposite direction and would give money freely to those who do nothing to deserve it. I would stay away from both extremes. [/quote]
However, in practice, this restricting of business to the "local level" would require massive government micro-managing of the economy, as we shall see.

[quote]I don't think businesses should be able to expand beyond the local landscape. Serve those in their area to the best of their ability. But don't go into another business' domain. Provide a good that others in the area are not producing yet something that the people need and would buy. I think some form of government intervention is needed if companies overstep their boundaries and affect another man's ability to thrive. Governments are given the right to enforce the law. I think protecting a man's freedom to excel in what he does should be a law. Otherwise how is a country providing for the well-being of it's people? Something that is more theoretical would be maximum prices allowed. Because the one downfall I see in the system (mind you the only one I can see) is that in this system people would jack up their prices way high and yet would still get the traffic because people are in need of their services. That would be taking advantage of the system. So I do see some governmental moderation necessary. Neither should they allow free reign for businesses, nor take part in physical distribution of wealth among the populace. But they do serve a purpose.[/quote]
Again, how do we define the "local landscape," and how would businesses be restricted to their "local landscapes"? Would they all do this willingly of their own accord, or would intrusive government regulation be reguired?

And whose job would it be to determine when a business "affects another man's ability to thrive"? Seems that this charge could be brought up by whomever does not like the owner of a particular business.

Would businesses be punished for doing business or providing for customers outside their "local landscape" (however that would be defined)?
What about customers? Would they be forced by law to only shop locally?
Would they be punished for shopping or ordering services from outside their own local area? Would businesses be punished for providing for customers or clients outside their local area?

And what about rival businesses within a local area?

We'll use a simple example.
Let's say a town has a local pizzeria, Tony's Pizza. It is the established Pizzeria in the distributist community. But let's say Tony's pizza smells of elderberries. Paolo starts a pizza place where the pizza is much better and is sold at a lower price. Paolo's threatens to put Tony's out of business. Would the government be required to stop or hinder Paolo's business because it threaten's Tony's livelihood?
And let's say in a neighboring town, Benito has a place which sells even better pizza for evn cheaper. The people of the first town begin making the trip to Benito's, and Benito starts a delivery service to the first town. This begins after time to seriously hurt the business of both Tony and Paolo.
Is it then the job of the distributist government to step in and protect the interest of Tony's livelihood, by restricting or punishing Benito's or Paolo's business, or by restricting pizza customer's choices by force of law?

Picture this sort of thing on a much larger scale, and you'll get a picture of the problems inherent in this kind of "distributist" system.
In practice it requires much intrusive and restrictive government, which would ultimately hurt businesses and customers alike.

And the price gouging issue you bring up is a very real problem. In a free economy, prices are a bargain between the buyer and the seller. Competition between sellers for customers keeps prices affordable.
And setting consumer prices by the government does not work. It has been tried in many Communist and socialist countries, and has resulted in economic disaster.
(Again, not room to explain all the why's of this, but I'd suggest reading [url="http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Studies-Economics/dp/0739110365/sr=8-1/qid=1159501401/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5666631-3271942?ie=UTF8&s=books"][i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Studies in Ethics and Economics)[/i] by Thomas E. Woods Jr. [/url].)

[quote]I'm not sure if you understand the concept of distributism yet. It is FAR from advocating equal distribution of wealth. Instead it's for the equal distribution of OPPORTUNITY for this wealth. Whether people choose to take it or not is their own business. But the option needs to be available.
I have never advocated equal distribution. Maybe you haven't read my posts carefully enough. But I've pointed out well enough clearly in my posts that I was clearly against both capitalism and socialism. I am totally against distribution of wealth. It's unfair and it simply doesn't work. Same I say for capitalism.
[/quote]
But as I've shown, that is what your brand of "distributism" would entail in actual practice.

[quote]haha interesting song.
In closing a couple points that obviously haven't been made clear enough. I am NOT for the socialistic notion of distribution of wealth because gives a free ride to people who have not earned it. I am against capitalism because it takes away an ability for those to succeed who would like to. Both I think are bad policies and both I think are even sinful. Instead a fair chance at the OPPORTUNITY (notice I didn't say everybody should actually get an equal amount of wealth) to succeed should be everyone's for the taking. This can be done if businesses were kept local and specialized in one or few product(s). This way each business can thrive and the people can also recieve high quality products (because businesses will not be trying to use cheaper and cheaper materials) and it can all be affordable if companies are not allowed to post ridiculous prices.[/quote]
As I said before, setting prices by the government does not work. Selling price is an agreement between the buyer and seller. In a free, competitive economy, prices will be fair, because if they are set too high, consumers will refuse to buy from that seller, and buy from someone cheaper. However, they will stay high enough that the seller is able to profit from the deal (or else he goes out of business). Businesses which provide the highest quality goods at the lowest prices are those that thrive in a free market economy.

Price setting by the government invariably harms the economy. The government micro-managing of the economy you advocate would be an economic disaster and a bureaucratic nightmare, which would in fact end up hurting all in the name of equality and economic justice.

" . . . And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw."

Socialism by any other name . . .

Edited September 29, 2006 by Socrates