http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000056.html
...Now I told you this one would be tough, but we�re almost done with it. In order to show how Capitalism helps the rich, the poor, and the middle, we have to look at income. Unfortunately for the grey-ponytail crowd, this will require just a smidgeon of math and a little tiny bit of other stuff they didn�t study for when they were out getting high behind the dumpsters. It involves a graph. If you are one of those people who are now reaching for a pencil and paper, then you already pass and spend the rest of study period at the library. The rest of you pay attention, especially you kids way in the back whose every other word is Nazi! The rest of us are getting a little tired of having to keep explaining this to you. So pay attention! In your mind, draw a vertical line down the left side of a piece of paper, and a horizontal one across the bottom. Yes, it makes an �L� Moonflower� The left-hand, vertical line represents the number of people. The higher we go, the more people there are. The horizontal line is income: the further to the right, the more silk you get to wear. Now place a bell-curve along the bottom line. Okay? A Bell Curve. Simple. Now, down on the bottom left are the poorest Americans. There are relatively few really desperately poor people. As we move to the right, into higher incomes, we see more and more people -� the line goes higher. We�re still on the left side of the curve -� the cheap seats. Most of the people -� the bulge in the bell -- make an average salary: that�s why we call it �average� (You statisticians leave means and medians and that stuff out of it. Just play along.) Okay, now as we move to ever higher incomes, we see fewer and fewer people making the big bucks. Numbers go down. And then all the way at the end sit Bill Gates and Sam Walton all by their stinking rich selves. Okay? Let�s call that a snapshot of America today. Now, if we rob from the rich, and give to the poor, then what happens? The rich people get poorer, the poor people get richer�the ends contract�the bell curve gets narrower. The right side, the rich side, moves left � poorer. The left side, the poor half of the curve, moves right � richer. In a socialist utopia, there is no curve; there�s just a single vertical line in the middle called The Salary. Collect all the revenues, add �em up, divide by the total number of people, and pay them all the same exact amount. Everybody makes the same: the Salary. Let�s say it�s fifty grand a year. Brain surgeons, the guy who cleans the toilet at the 7-11 �- everyone makes fifty grand. Fifty grand! Woo-hoo! Now let�s set aside for a moment the non-trivial issue of whether or not such a society -- which rewards 12 years of intense medical study and endless hours doing breathtakingly difficult and essential work exactly the same as the guy who spent his teen years stealing stereos, getting high and listening to White Snake -- is more �just� and �compassionate.� Look at the bell curve -- or what�s left of it. There it sits. It will start to slide left as motivation and industry and ambition and just plain dreaming of a better life goes out the window. What�s the point? Fall asleep behind the glass at a service station, you make The Salary. Put in overtime, start a business, get an extra degree, invent the telephone �- you get The Salary. Only we�re not producing as much. The Brain Surgeon decides it pays just as well to take tickets at the movieplex, and he�s got a lot more free time, plus the movie. Productivity goes down. We produce less, so now the average of what we make goes from fifty grand to forty-three nine. Then thirty-six grand. Then Twenty-One. Then eleven. But everybody�s equal! Equally destitute and equally hopeless. But I�ll even throw this essential argument away for a minute. Let�s just agree that everybody makes fifty grand. Forever. If we went perfectly communist a hundred years ago, when the Big Idea started, that �average salary� would have been closer to five grand a year. Doh! What the hell can you buy today with five grand? Well, quite a lot of hay, some dry goods, perhaps a corset for the missus. But it doesn�t buy anything of value today. What will fifty grand buy in a century? Some crappy new Volvo, perhaps a PlayStation? What about a personal transporter, or a NeuralBoy? You�ll need to make 500 grand to afford those puppies. Now if you�d just been smart and listened to Adam Smith, he�d tell you: you don�t improve people's lives by narrowing the bell curve. You improve people�s lives by moving it to the right. Is this so hard to figure out? I guess so. For some people this is like learning calculus �- in Greek. On Sep 18, 5:32 am, PoliticalAmazon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Before we even look at the "evidence" posted, you'll have to establish > that the opening premise, that "some" have declared we are at the end > of capitalism, is valid. The "evidence" (the article posted) isn't > evidence: it's discussion of a fact or truth that has not yet been > established. > > I'd like to know who the "some" are who have declared we are at the > end of capitalism? > > Some of us have actually taken economy classes. You can tell who we > are because we don't throw meaningless jingoistic words around, > claiming another poster is a "socialist" based on no information > whatsover. > > "Socialism" and "capitalism," as well as other forms of government/ > economy, are pure theories that no person, government or economy can > ever reach. An economy or government can be based on "socialism," for > instance, but the burden and complexities of administering a > government would negate the possibility of it every really matching > the "socialism" theory. > > In reality, most governments and economies are a combination of > theories. > > "Capitalism" (like other forms of government/economy) can never be > "ended." It is a theory describing an economy or government, it is > not the economy or government itself. > > With America's long history of a government and economy based in > capitalism (but it is not pure capitalism), it would take a coup with > a completely different ruling class installed, and the new regime > brutally administered, to "end" capitalism in America. Even then, > capitalism would still beat strongly, if silently, in the hearts of > the American people. So the theory of capitalism would still be alive, > but dormant waiting for a chance to reassert itself. > > So prove your premise is valid first, then we can tear apart this piss- > poor article you posted. > > -------------- > > On Sep 17, 8:08 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000056.html > > > That capitalism generates wealth is beyond debate. This capitalist > > reactor of ours easily invents more, learns more, and produces more > > benefits in a year than mankind did under a millennia of rule by Kings > > and Barons and Caliphs and Emperors. It s just amazing what people can > > do when you just get the hell out of their way. > > > As an economic system for increasing prosperity, you just can t beat > > it. And those who despise capitalism can t argue with this they just > > can t. What they can do, perpetually and loudly, is talk about how > > unfair Capitalism is. Because it allows the hard-working and ambitious > > to keep the rewards of their hard work and ambition, Capitalism does > > indeed produce some pretty uneven results. > > > But does uneven mean unfair? Depends on how you measure fair. > > > Now far be it for me to split linguistic hairs and argue over what the > > definition of is is. But if we re going to get to the heart of this > > unfair business, we have to ask ourselves, unfair to whom? Because if > > we are to talk intelligently about this, we re going to have to > > understand something right out of the gate: life is unfair. If life > > were fair, we d all be the same same intelligence, same drive, same > > capabilities. But we re not. It is a hallmark of our species that we > > vary wildly in these and many other categories. That s what makes us > > so diverse, and we sure want to celebrate that, don t we? > > > So, when we talk about making things fair, making them equal, we find > > ourselves in the same impossible conundrum as we do when we discuss > > The Irresistible Force meeting The Immovable Object. > > > Cool! Which would win? > > > Neither. It s an oxymoron. The definition of Irresistible Force means > > that there cannot be an Immovable Object, and vice versa. You have to > > pick one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. > > > Likewise, when we try to measure fair and equal, we have to face the > > hard reality that people are different. So, do we want to measure an > > equal front end: equality of opportunity or an equal back end: > > equality of results? Can t have both. > > > Here s why: > > > When the Declaration of Independence thundered that All Men are > > Created Equal, it meant equal in those essential elements: equal under > > the law. Equal in terms of basic human rights. Equal in dignity. Equal > > in the sense that if someone with a lot of money thinks they can cut > > in front of me at an ATM line just because they re rich, then they can > > just kiss my Royal Irish Ass! that kind of equal. > > > But to believe that all people are equally capable is to well not be > > paying attention, as a quick game of one-on-one half-court between > > Michael Jordan and Michael Moore will quickly reveal. (note to Don > > King: There are millions, and I mean millions to be made off this > > idea. Call me.) > > > There will always be people smarter than you, and people more stupid; > > people more and less motivated, ruthless, connected, ambitious, > > frugal, hardworking than you are. Nothing can change that. Nothing > > should change that because there lies the Gulag. People are > > different. Leave them alone. Encourage the downhearted, by all means. > > Help those in need when they ask for help. But otherwise mind your own > > business, bub. > > > Society is as fair as it can get when all people have equal > > opportunity to make what they will of themselves. We are not there > > yet. We are close. We are much, much closer than many would have us > > believe. > > > But people are different. They will always be different. They will > > succeed and fail differently. There s no two ways around it. > > > Like so many flawed ideas beloved by the far left, equality seems like > > a noble enough goal. Until you think about it. People have different > > capabilities. So do you want equality of opportunity as I do where > > people can make of themselves what they will? Or do you want equality > > of results, where society steps in to make sure that everyone comes > > out the same? > > > If society had a magical way of raising the bottom up, of speeding up, > > buffing up, and tidying up Michael Moore, thereby giving him the means > > to beat Michael Jordan in our (sadly) mythical game of half-court, > > well we d all be the winners and life would be just dandy. But, alas, > > this wonderful, brilliant idea is marred only by the annoying fact > > that it is demonstrably impossible. Michael Moore can never play as > > well as Michael Jordan. Never. If you want that game to come out a tie > > equal! then you are going to have to hobble Michael Jordon. > > > You re going to have to remove a foot or two from his femurs, stitch > > him into a clumsy, bulky, ugly suit adding a few hundred pounds, > > heavily sedate him to slow down his mental powers, fill him full of > > cheap booze to degrade his aim and coordination oh, and really mess > > up his face surgically. No fair if people are rooting for him > > disproportionately! That might hurt Michael Moore s self-esteem and > > limit his ability to compete. > > > Do all these things, and more, and you will have two equal players. > > You will have a really stupid, incompetent, pointless game. You will > > have removed all the grace, power, style, finesse and genius from a > > gifted and noble man, and added nothing whatsoever to his opponent. > > You just made Michael Moore equal to Michael Jordan. Now is that fair > > to Michael Jordan? > > > And after you ve done all these things, Michael Jordan will still hand > > Michael Moore his ass because he thinks and acts like a winner and not > > a victim. > > > Equality under the law: good. Essential. > > > Forcing people of differing skills, motivation and capability to be > > equal: ruinous. Suicidal. And deeply, deeply unfair. But, for the > > Berkeley crowd, there s no reason why a fatally flawed, disgusting, > > historically-demolished idea can t be retried and retried and > > retried So long as it will fit on a 2x4 foot piece of cardboard that > > you can hold on the end of a stick while dancing in a public fountain > > wearing a star-spangled diaper. > > > Does Capitalism, and its equality of opportunity, produce cruel > > results? It does. Does Socialism, and it s equality of outcome, > > produce a fair and happy society? Ask the Russian farmers under > > Stalin. Ask the Chinese under Mao during the Cultural Revolution. Ask > > the Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge. > > > Oh, wait you can t. They ve all been murdered. > > > On Sep 17, 9:06 pm, VT Sean Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > This is seductive self justification for greed. > > > > I hear this from 'christians' who say God wants them to be Rich, > > > yet these same chritians live in gated communities and > > > send their kids to private schools and want all foreigners > > > to be rounded up. > > > > Greed, hate, and zenophobia all rolled up in self deception. > > > This is just another version of the same old same old. > > > > On Sep 17, 11:53 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I think it important to remember just what it means, to some... > > > > >http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000056.html > > > > > ...I believe that there are three elements just three that we mix > > > > in just the right ratio to perform our national alchemy. Look around > > > > you at the rest of the world. Those who use none of these ingredients > > > > are disasters, basket cases, failed states where misery and poverty > > > > crush the life out of what is almost an indomitable human drive to > > > > create, to nurture, and to prosper. > > > > > Almost indomitable. There are governments, theories, and people that > > > > have managed it after many years of hard and dedicated work. > > > > > We together have wasted enough time talking about these failed ideas, > > > > these various and sundry kleptocracies, these stinking, wretched > > > > failures. We know what they are and we know what they look like. Today > > > > we are hunting success. > > > > > One of the three, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
