Class Warfare

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You all know, I’m sick of the shit. “Class” membership is not fixed. Virtually nobody is in the same class at the 10 year mark and as soon as people start talking to me about “classes” they have tipped their hand that they, in fact, have no understanding of economics.

So here is a story that starts with the Great Depression… of 1890. My family was a bunch of farmers that damn near lost everything (look it up, it was far worse than the one in 1929). They decided to never again be beholden to others for capital. They banded together to make what is, in effect their own private bank. In each generation, one person (not me now, btw) inherits all the money and uses it for loans, educational grants and such for members of the family. This gives us a generally higher standard of living. Their descendants and there are a lot of them, are now all prosperous professionals, like doctors, engineers and such. Not wealthy, but comfortable, well educated and much better off than being dirt poor farmers in the rural South.

Question #1 for you all: is this good or bad? Should poverty programs do this?

Money is property and managing it requires maintenance no different from keeping your car running. Most people I talk to who are poor either have no earning potential or are arguably stupid about what money is (hint, it ain’t evil and any economist would refer to it as information for allocation of resources). When do-gooders talk about “spreading the wealth” what we hear is taking a very well run private institution that has lifted more people out of poverty (large family) than any program (on a cost-per-person basis) in the history of the US, and giving the assets mostly to a bureaucracy to administer what’s left (as in most goes to admin costs, not the poor). You wonder why I get hostile at threads like this?

The War on Poverty has been the singularly least effective government program. This is because it accepts the Marxist line that wealth is finite and needs to be redistributed for “equality”. Far from this is the idea that wealth is created by the industry of people. That last statement is the crux of the matter.

Question #2: “Where does wealth come from?”

Answer this before you talk about anything else. If you say “the rich” this begs the question – where did they get it? If you think “the government” then they should just print more of it and quit taxing us completely. If you think all is oppression and the poor were robbed, then are you pointing a finger at yourself? The Marxist line is that the poor in Africa were brutally exploited by First Worlders, so that you have a standard of living higher than sub-Saharan Africa means you have to explain who you robbed an how to get so rich. Even our poorest in the US are vastly wealthy compared to many. On an international scale, we’re all guilty if you accept this reasoning.

Question #3: How does your theory about where it comes from apply to you?

Well number two is easy to answer from a liberal viewpoint. “Wealth comes from the government.” [/quote]

You call me a liberal, yet I don’t believe that wealth comes from the government.

So, as of now, according to you, the way you distinguish a “liberal” (which you still haven’t defined) is:

  1. Is against Bush
  2. Believes wealth comes from the government

So by your own logic I’m not a liberal, yet you keep calling me that?

82

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

You call me a liberal,… [/quote]

(not just picking on you Explosiv, just the most recent one to post like this.)

sigh why even try to have a grown up discussion. One last time. We’re on T-Nation right? So act like guys… the ones the wrote the Constitution, invented Physics, modern Medicine and most Art. And we like to pick up heavy shit off the floor for fun.

'k?

– jj

83

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

Hard work doesn’t make the wealth gap exponentially bigger.

That is the result of economic policies. [/quote]

That is factually incorrect…like most of your “liberal logic.”

[/quote]

So, by your logic, after Reagan’s term in office with his famous “supply side economics” the wealth gap didn’t become much bigger.

But, the statistical analysis of economic benchmarks shows otherwise.

So, it is in fact factually correct. Unless under Reagan a few people who were already rich all of a sudden started working so hard that the wealth gap increased dramatically.[/quote]

Yeah well, if you open the flood gates on the money supply like Volcker did under Reagan, yes, those who get the money first will benefit at the expense of pretty much everyone else.

End the Fed.

84

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

You call me a liberal,… [/quote]

(not just picking on you Explosiv, just the most recent one to post like this.)

sigh why even try to have a grown up discussion. One last time. We’re on T-Nation right? So act like guys… the ones the wrote the Constitution, invented Physics, modern Medicine and most Art. And we like to pick up heavy shit off the floor for fun.

'k?

– jj[/quote]

Could you not have found a nicer way to say this?

Must you trample on this young mans feelings?

85

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

Hard work doesn’t make the wealth gap exponentially bigger.

That is the result of economic policies. [/quote]

That is factually incorrect…like most of your “liberal logic.”

[/quote]

So, by your logic, after Reagan’s term in office with his famous “supply side economics” the wealth gap didn’t become much bigger.

But, the statistical analysis of economic benchmarks shows otherwise.

So, it is in fact factually correct. Unless under Reagan a few people who were already rich all of a sudden started working so hard that the wealth gap increased dramatically.[/quote]

And you continue to completely ignore my point.

I say, you ignore hugely important things and focus only on government policy and you have yet to prove is sole or even an important cause. As a response, you try to further correlate government policy with economic result to disprove a strawman idea about my policy beliefs. You do understand that you just completely validated my point, right? You are completely blinded and willfully ignorant of the most important variables to personal success. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can help you, ironically, the only help possible is yourself.

86

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

Hard work doesn’t make the wealth gap exponentially bigger.

That is the result of economic policies. [/quote]

That is factually incorrect…like most of your “liberal logic.”

[/quote]

So, by your logic, after Reagan’s term in office with his famous “supply side economics” the wealth gap didn’t become much bigger.

But, the statistical analysis of economic benchmarks shows otherwise.

So, it is in fact factually correct. Unless under Reagan a few people who were already rich all of a sudden started working so hard that the wealth gap increased dramatically.[/quote]

And you continue to completely ignore my point.

I say, you ignore hugely important things and focus only on government policy and you have yet to prove is sole or even an important cause. As a response, you try to further correlate government policy with economic result to disprove a strawman idea about my policy beliefs. You do understand that you just completely validated my point, right? You are completely blinded and willfully ignorant of the most important variables to personal success. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can help you, ironically, the only help possible is yourself.[/quote]

Your assertion is that the wealth gap has increased dramatically starting at the Reagan administration because of “hard work” by those at the “top” is false.

People don’t just start working harder all of a sudden. Wealth gaps happen for a reason. Look at the countries with the lowest standard of living, and the wealth gap.

A wealth gap naturally exists. However, a widening gap is the mark of poor policy.

87

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Explosiv wrote:

Hard work doesn’t make the wealth gap exponentially bigger.

That is the result of economic policies. [/quote]

That is factually incorrect…like most of your “liberal logic.”

[/quote]

So, by your logic, after Reagan’s term in office with his famous “supply side economics” the wealth gap didn’t become much bigger.

But, the statistical analysis of economic benchmarks shows otherwise.

So, it is in fact factually correct. Unless under Reagan a few people who were already rich all of a sudden started working so hard that the wealth gap increased dramatically.[/quote]

And you continue to completely ignore my point.

I say, you ignore hugely important things and focus only on government policy and you have yet to prove is sole or even an important cause. As a response, you try to further correlate government policy with economic result to disprove a strawman idea about my policy beliefs. You do understand that you just completely validated my point, right? You are completely blinded and willfully ignorant of the most important variables to personal success. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can help you, ironically, the only help possible is yourself.[/quote]

Your assertion is that the wealth gap has increased dramatically starting at the Reagan administration because of “hard work” by those at the “top” is false.

People don’t just start working harder all of a sudden. Wealth gaps happen for a reason. Look at the countries with the lowest standard of living, and the wealth gap.

A wealth gap naturally exists. However, a widening gap is the mark of poor policy.[/quote]

No, I never asserted any such thing. I sad you ignored the possibility. Like again here where you ignore the possibility of the poor getting lazier.

In my opinion relative wealth (which is what libs are always talking about) is total and complete drivel. Poor people have x-boxes and cars today and are in fact, in terms of both the world and time, increadably wealthy. The relative argument is only introduced for resentment and political purposes. If I make 10$ worth of wealth and give you 2$, I just made your life better and more wealthy, even though the relative gap increased. If all the poor people had Ferraris, but the “rich” had space ships, you’d still be bitching about the unfairness of Ferraris for the poor.

88

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

Question #1 for you all: is this good or bad? Should poverty programs do this?[/quote]

Good. Your family came together as individuals and built something worth while that has created wealth for future generations. Not only has it given you the wealth of more opportunity, but the wealth of pride in the generations before you are smart and frugal individuals that wanted to see you succeed.

If by poverty programs you mean the government, no. They should do no such thing. They could print up an instruction booklet and give that out though.

People need pride and appreciation in order to maintain something like that beyond the first generation. You have neither when it is handed to you.

[quote]

Question #2: “Where does wealth come from?” [/quote]

I consider wealth so much more than how much money I have.

Are we talking about “wealth” or financial wealth only?

If wealth: It comes from the individual. It comes from what gives them joy, and makes them feel whole. It comes from pride, self sufficiency, being lovable, responsibility and innovation. Wealth is born of accepting our actions and deeds, and still being able to look our selves in the eye.

Financial only is very similar, except there is more emphasis on innovation, consistency and flexibility.

Either way, it all starts with the individual. Then it becomes how they interact with the environment over time.

[quote]
Question #3: How does your theory about where it comes from apply to you?

– jj[/quote]

It shapes what choices I make, and what I try and teach my kids. I slipped past every statistic and got out of the shithole I was born in, added value to myself, and now people pay me well to do what I enjoy doing.

I will be able to give my kids more opportunity than I had, better schools, cooler cloths, more educated parents, a better example, etc. I just hope I can teach them so they can do the same.

Good post btw man.

89

agreed,

Good posts JJ, especially on the lamentable university system. I will say for me, business school is a lot different in that respect than undergrad. B-schools are valued based on the type of jobs their grads get. Certainly we can chalk a lot of this up to networking and nepotism, where the education may be similar at a less prestigious school, but I believe that is mitigated by rigorous entrance criteria.

With regards to the family “bank” per se, that is what a lot of immigrant (particularly Jewish, Asian, Indian) families do. They have large extended families and pool their resources for schooling, business ventures…etc. Hell, that’s what most families USED to do. Saving for a rainy day used to be commonplace, and was the primary mode of generational class mobility.

The current policies of the US government, are a disincentive to save. This doesn’t mean there are not methods available to preserve and increase capital, but inflationary policies and consumption oriented economics make this more difficult. Combine that with social trends of decreased family size, divorces, increased distance from family members, etc, and you have less prevalence of that sort of funding.

In many developing countries, this model is used in micro finance, which replaces the family part of the equation with a community. This crowd sourcing of capital is governed by those that contribute to it and the close knit community is the glue.

This model is starting to appear in the US, and would particularly benefit lower income generational poverty stricken communities. In my opinion, this would ideally replace the need for handouts, which encourage generational poverty.

Personal finance and responsibility doesn’t exist in public school or most university curriculum. Thus, excessive largesse, and lack of ever calculating a ROI on decisions made are not just common to the lower class, but to many supposed middle class people as well.

Thankfully, my own interest in economics and my extremely frugal and education conscious parents helped me learn these things for myself.

My kids will have to start a business (even if it is “selling” chores to me), open a savings account, and learn some basic budgeting, stocks and bonds because I know they will never get taught this in school. That is a gift worth giving.

I personally think programs like this: http://buildinboston.org/

are what need to become more prevalent in our society.