The journey from there to here

NOTE: This is a sort of sequel to my article on Christmas materialism. I'm hoping  to slowly help you, the reader, to understand the thought processes that were behind my transformation from hardcore socialist to Libertarian.

This is the time of the year when a lot of dicsussion centers on how to help the poor and needy in our community. The holiday season increases our awareness of their presence, and most of us, at the core, want to see the poor among us have a reasonable standard of living.

The best way to help the poor is to buy goods. It's as simple as that. You see, retailer X has a labor cost built into the budget. The more goods he sells, the more he has to spend on salary. He can either provide more jobs or provide better wages for the workers already in his employ. It's as simple as that.

Even big ticket items such as automobiles and SUV's help the poorest wage earners, even though the commissioned sales force that sells them could usually not be described as impoverished. You see, when Joe CEO buys a hummer, the salesman that sold it gets a commission. He takes that commission home, and spends it. The box store workers have jobs because of the money Joe CEO spends. It's the basic pronciple of trickle down economics, which DOES work, despite certain protestations to the contrary.

Consumerism is the fuel that drives the capitalist economy. It's why businesses put out bigger and better products, it's why "New! and Improved!" is a catchphrase that we hear on a seemingly basis. Although we take it for granted, consumerism has made our lives infinitely better.

Probably the best example I can give is the one you're sitting in front of at this moment. I personally have worked around computers for over 20 years now, ever since my dad got his (gack!) TRS-80...cassette loaded back in the early 80's. I have seen computers advance from the point where we were mesmerized by simple loop programs that put pixel "stars" up on the screen, all the way to what you see before you now...and more. My children have never lived in a time where there wasn't a computer in the household, albeit not always online. And those advances have been driven by the simple fact that there were people ready and willing to BUY the better product once it was released.

How you DON'T help the  poor is through handouts. Trust me on this. I've had to beg exactly ONCE in my life and I hope to never, EVER do it again. I would much rather have the opportunity to work to earn a living for my family. But I can't work unless there are jobs to be had, and there aren't jobs to be had unless there's money to be made, and there isn't money to be made unless those who HAVE the money, SPEND that money. That's the life cycle of a dollar in a rather small nutshell.

So, the next time someone argues that we can only help the poor through welfare programs, don't buy it. Trust someone who's been there that a FAR better way to help the poor is to help provide jobs through your spending. And enjoy that big screen TV knowing that in watching it, you are creating jobs.

 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 31, 2005
The vast majority of the research I'm aware of suggests that, in the West (the undisputed bastion of rampant consumerism), the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.


I have to dispute the research, furry. I've lived poor in America, I've seen others live poor in America, and I will tell you that most poor families I know (and yes, I mean POOR have television sets, indoor plumbing, electrical power, phones, and a fair number of them even have internet equipped computers. I make less than HALF the median household income and am raising five children and I have all but the internet access out of my house...although I DO have a good computer. I find it hard to believe that a country whose poor average $500 per YEAR could be said to enjoy a higher standard of living than us.

You argued about my position that the left are sheep, yet here you are pulling statistics out of your ass without a shred of hard support...reaffirming my position nicely.
on Dec 31, 2005
'It is self-interest that benefits all! It is using the inherant nature of man for the benefit of mankind! No one is denying that, nor can you prove otherwise.'
At least you agree with me that the essence of Capitalism is self-interest, and not benevolence. But it's not up to me to 'prove otherwise', Dr. Guy. It's up to Gideon - as the author of this thread - and you - as a supporter of this position - to back up your assertion by means other than mere anecdote or statement of belief. I am not 'denying' your position, but I am DISPUTING it.

'I will tell you that most poor families I know ... have television sets, indoor plumbing, electrical power, phones ...'
Not relevant, Gideon. My point was about the GAP between rich and poor.

'here you are pulling statistics out of your ass without a shred of hard support...'
Very nice, Gideon - if in doubt resort to insult. I would point out that I didn't quote a single statistic. As for finding 'hard support', I'm sure it's not beyond you to use a search engine, but here are a few examples just to give you the general idea ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4564458.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-15-high-gas-prices-edit_x.htm?csp=N009
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/28/1067233171873.html?from=storyrhs
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm

'You argued about my position that the left are sheep'
Did I buggery! I asked you why you made general statements about both 'the left' and 'the right' immediately after having posted a thread in which you argued that these were inappropriate labels that should be droppped from use. Still, don't let a little thing like the facts get in your way.

In conclusion, it appears to me that both the left AND the right agree that the gap between rich and poor is widening; they just disagree on whether or not this is a good thing.
on Jan 01, 2006

At least you agree with me that the essence of Capitalism is self-interest, and not benevolence. But it's not up to me to 'prove otherwise', Dr. Guy.

No, it is not up to anyone, for the proof is in the data.  It is said that in an ideal world, Capitalism is the worst form of government.  However, since Man is not perfect, in an imperfect one, it is the best.

My challenge was for you to prove that capitalism does not work.  You cannot, so it was just rhetorical.

on Jan 01, 2006
'No, it is not up to anyone, for the proof is in the data ... My challenge was for you to prove that capitalism does not work. You cannot, so it was just rhetorical.'

You didn't 'challenge' me to prove it, Dr. Guy - you told me I couldn't. And I'm not particularly interested in disputing your claim, for many reasons - e.g. how do you define 'work'? - but primarily because that was never the point I was making.

Go back to the thread, Dr. Guy. Gideon claims that runaway spending benefits the poor. I maintain that he has not demonstrated a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof is upon him. That was, and remains, my point.
on Jan 01, 2006

Go back to the thread, Dr. Guy. Gideon claims that runaway spending benefits the poor. I maintain that he has not demonstrated a causal connection between the two.

Oh, but he has.  He but has to cite history and facts.  The burden is then on you to disprove it.

on Jan 01, 2006
'He but has to cite history and facts.'
Fair enough, but he hasn't done so. Instead, Gideon has offered personal anecdote and opinion. There is a big difference. I don't disagree with you that 'the proof is in the data', but Gideon has not supplied any.
on Jan 03, 2006
First, let me apologize for getting a bit off topic and personal. That being said, let's steer the conversation back, shall we?

It’s the way you tell ‘em, Gideon! The essence of capitalism is self-interest, not benevolence. Any suggestion to the contrary is merely a device to enable those who subscribe to and benefit from its creed to sleep a little easier at night.


Now here, furry, you are 100% correct. Joe millionaire does not spend thinking of how his dollar is helping joe working class. But the fact that he doesn't think of how it impacts those people doesn't change the fact that it DOES, in fact, impact those people in a VERY positive manner.

Go back to the thread, Dr. Guy. Gideon claims that runaway spending benefits the poor. I maintain that he has not demonstrated a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof is upon him. That was, and remains, my point.


OK, focus here, furry. Job creation benefits the poor, right? You can create jobs in two ways: either through government forfeiture of private monies (taxes) to fund jobs at government subsidy, which removes all incentives for personal achievement and thus reduces our gross domestic product from the resulting inefficiency as was demonstrably proven by the failed USSR; or you can put monies earned into the economy and allow it to benefit those in service industries.

While you may be content with the idea of receiving a government check for doing nothing or next to nothing, furry, I am not. Nor should any responsible individual be. A lifetime at the public trough is probably the most desperate, pitiful life I could imagine, because it is a life without fruit, where nothing but a grave marker will commemorate your presence on this earth.

Dr. Guy was right in that capitalism is not perfect. But it is FAR better than the alternatives.

As for the gap between the rich and poor, I find it hard to believe that we have a wider gap than countries such as Haiti, where dictators live in mansions while parents deliberately cripple their children so that they can make more money in begging. And all the stats in the world won't convince me that we ARE that much worse off.

If I'm not mistaken, furry, you don't live in America, do you? If you don't, may I ask if you've ever BEEN to America, if you've ever seen our conditions for yourself? If not, I invite you to come. You could learn an awful lot.

The poorest among Americans are STILL among the richest 5% of persons on this earth. To use the fact that the gap between them and the top 5% of their own countrymen is wider than in many other countries is specious, at best. The fact that we hold such lofty status is perhaps the strongest proof that capitalism DOES work and the strongest argument for its continued existence.
on Jan 04, 2006
'If I'm not mistaken, furry, you don't live in America, do you? If you don't, may I ask if you've ever BEEN to America, if you've ever seen our conditions for yourself? If not, I invite you to come. You could learn an awful lot.'
Well, no I don't, and no I haven't. Mea f***ing culpa. There is nothing in any of my posts specific to the USA, but obviously one is not entitled to an opinion about poverty unless one is directly acquainted with the American 'model'. Thank you very much Gideon for your overwhelming condescension.
on Jan 04, 2006
A lifetime at the public trough is probably the most desperate, pitiful life I could imagine, because it is a life without fruit, where nothing but a grave marker will commemorate your presence on this earth.


The only exception of course would be the government grants that keep modern art alive. Actually now I come to think of it...

Speaking from my own experience I think that spending money is probably the only way the system can continue to work. Sure, trickle down isn't very efficient, but the other models we've tried are either unstable (anarchism), unpopular (the welfare state) or just plain bad (communism and dictatorship spring to mind). When I was in Indonesia, despite the fact I was living on an Australian student's government funding, I spent like nothing else. Why? cos everything was cheap. And by not saving any money I didn't merely ensure that now I'm home I can afford to eat nothing better than packet soup, but it also meant that the old woman who cleaned my house, the kids who cooked my food, the thousand and one people who performed trifling tasks for trifling pay got enough to live for another day.

It's not a lot, sure. But it's better than what they would have gotten were I not there with cash in hand.

The tendency of the system to iceberg every few decades (ie the increasingly welfare to increasingly liberal to increasingly welfare seesaw that is economics) means inequality doesn't tend to last too long before redistribution.
on Jan 04, 2006
The December sales data was released for Wal-Mart. It shows the weakness in the economy. The people who shop Wal-Mart are the low and middle income families. These families have not scene take home wage growth over the past five years and they have driven up their credit card balances to $8,600 per family from $3,300 in the 1990's. Add the higher interest rates and you have consumers with no added take home pay and people that are reaching a limit to their credit card debt. When these families can not afford the higher minimum credit card payments and are faced with the winter home heating bills, the fallacy of the "Great Economy" will become evident. Then the spending will drop off unless the wealthy use all that added net worth to begin shopping at Wal-Mart.
on Jan 08, 2006
So, the next time someone argues that we can only help the poor through welfare programs I wouldn't make that argument, but rather through workfare--but then I go back to the days of substantial public works when business lacked initiative. You're argument on the whole is well taken; I've postured the same with regard to social security checks--without them where would Fla and AZ be?
on Jan 08, 2006
t is self-interest that benefits all!
No, pessimism here; however, self-interest is a tortuous path to spreading the wealth around because it is the burden of the lower classes to comsume even more than they can afford, whereas the affluent pockets most of what they earn and continue to grow in wealth by hyped-up consumption of average people. How very true capitalism is not benevolent and just happens to minimally benefit all.
on Jan 08, 2006
Thank you very much Gideon for your overwhelming condescension.


Furry,

OH, I get it...in Aussie English condescension means "disagreement". Mea culpa. Here in America it means you're talking down to someone.
on Jan 08, 2006
These families have not scene take home wage growth over the past five years and they have driven up their credit card balances to $8,600 per family from $3,300 in the 1990's. Add the higher interest rates and you have consumers with no added take home pay and people that are reaching a limit to their credit card debt.


COL,

These families are spending money they don't have...when the economic realities of those actions hit them, it will be a fair consequence for their own fiscal malfeasance. If they had practiced delayed gratification (contrary to popular belief, you CAN survive without cable TV and DVD players until you can afford to buy them with CASH), they wouldn't be up to their eyeballs in debt. This is a lesson we learned firsthand, and the main reason I am now a cheapskate.
on Jan 09, 2006
'You could learn an awful lot.'
Condescension. Plain and simple.
3 Pages1 2 3