Ronald Reagan

[randolph]

Well, you guys (Tracy and Enoch) both have some good points. However
I had a secure University job for many years, raised a family and put them through college. I took early retirement and went into business producing an agricultural product. I quickly learned how difficult it is to run a small business and there is no job security. Finding workers willing to work nine hours a day six days a week is extremely difficult. I tried to hire local guys but they were worthless and not willing to work long hours. The best workers were from Guatemala. They grew up on farms and were used to real work for long hours. Without those hard working guys we would not have survived. I put in more hours than they did, by the way. It was a constant struggle to pay the wages, the endless bills, the taxes and complying with regulations.
Running a small business is not easy!
It is very hard for me to see these assholes on Wallstreet making tons of money while sitting at a computer all day.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Then you should probably correct wikipedia on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries

China: Life expectancy … …of the population over age 15 are literate.

Cuba: Health … Life expectancy in Cuba is 78 years. Literacy rate is 97%.

Laos: …

Vietnam: …

In comparison, US life expectancy is 78 years, and the literacy rate is 99%. Your assertion that these countries I'm assuming are socialist are healthier and better educated is false. I didn't find a happiness scale, but I think we can assume that health and education plays into that.

There are socialist countries, Tracy named the current ones.
But the quote

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And look at the results!: they are healthier, better educated than Americans, and happier!

is taken out of context. Subsequent, the response is not applicable. Also Tracy compares countries with big differences on the human developing index and different preconditions, which makes it a bit unfair to compare these on long lasting facts like life expectancy and literacy rate.

Enoch Root wrote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There is not a single socialist country in the world. The ones you are likely speaking of are social democracies where the government, at the encouragement of the people, is made to face up to the inequalities inherent in capitalism (where a small group of people own all the land and have all the money and power, just like the empires of old, for what is capitalism but the newest version of empire?) and try to provide services for the people. And contrary to the garbage people like you tend to sling, they the citizens of this or that social democracy do not do this because they are weak, because they want a "nanny state," but because capitalism concentrates all the money and power in a small group of new age lords and kings. And look at the results!: they are healthier, better educated than Americans, and happier! …

I assume Enoch Root refers, among others, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and west European countries, who mostly have better stats in those areas.

I found a Happy Planet Index. I can not speak for all countries but I have a few doubts about the ranking. I.e. some of the North African or Middle East ones didn’t seem/seemed that happy these days. It could be a clue that plays into happiness. See point 3. Views in the Link.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If no one were poor, how does capitalism suffer? It doesn't. It goes along just fine. That's more people who can buy goods and services. More opportunities to sell your products. And instead of illegals doing grunt work you'd have American teens and lower 20s working again.

I think capitalism doesn’t work without the poor. There are even big ones that need illegal immigrants. A lot of industries are based on cheap workers. If you pay them enough to not be poor, everything would cost more so most people buy less goods and services.

[randolph]

I think capitalism doesn?t work without the poor. There are even big ones that need illegal immigrants. A lot of industries are based on cheap workers. If you pay them enough to not be poor, everything would cost more so most people buy less goods and services.

Henry Ford changed that paradigm. Before the model T, cars could only be afforded by the rich. Ford realized if he paid his workers enough (five dollars a day) they could afford to buy his cars. This set the stage for the development of the American middle class that prospered for many years. We built all the things we wanted, cars, radios, tv sets, whatever. Workers were reasonably well paid. We could buy modest houses and a car to get to work.
Everything started to change when we began to import major items like tv sets and cars. This put increasing pressure on the blue collar part of the middle class. Various types of welfare was established (ie food stamps, etc), government expanded dramatically. National debt exploded. Everything is imported. In the final years of our country, everyone is poor because the rich have moved away with all the money.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by randolph

Henry Ford changed that paradigm. Before the model T, cars could only be afforded by the rich. Ford realized if he paid his workers enough (five dollars a day) they could afford to buy his cars. This set the stage for the development of the American middle class that prospered for many years. We built all the things we wanted, cars, radios, tv sets, whatever. Workers were reasonably well paid. We could buy modest houses and a car to get to work.

Back then the raw material costs were the biggest price factor, if paid your workers generous, the final price didn?t change much. But now the workers are the biggest factor, if you pay them less the final price changes significant. And cheapest workers are not in our countries, or not legal.
What I have no clue about in the newer time are the Stock Exchanges. Without changes in offer and demand or any services the price seems to rise magically.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Tread

Back then the raw material costs were the biggest price factor, if paid your workers generous, the final price didn?t change much. But now the workers are the biggest factor, if you pay them less the final price changes significant. And cheapest workers are not in our countries, or not legal.
What I have no clue about in the newer time are the Stock Exchanges. Without changes in offer and demand or any services the price seems to rise magically.

Have you heard about Quantitative Easing?
Check it out on Youtube.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by randolph

Have you heard about Quantitative Easing?
Check it out on Youtube.

I?ve heard about the principle. But here it is a bit more complicated with the single country, Europe, European Union, Eurozone, European Central Bank and non European influences.
I can?t say much about it, and I can?t say how it would be without Quantitative Easing. It is very unclear to me when it is or was used and it wasn?t mentioned or in which recession degree it is useful. It didn?t seem that bad for i.e. the Germans but for many others like Japan or the US.
If it is used only over a short time period and the economy is not weekend too much it could possible be useful, but over a long time it seems to do more harm.

[Enoch Root]

Tracy

I am not obsessed with money. It would be no more reasonable to suppose that those who campaign against rape are the sexual deviants. It is clear from everything I write (even the quote you pulled where I state that the ruling class takes all the money, takes everything including our freedom from us. No man is truly master of his destiny so long as there is a ruling class. You do a terrible job of turning my quote against me, mostly because you're incapable of it) that I am not obsessed. Your posts lack any substance so instead you divert attention away from yourself and unto me. I want to empower people. Is it not the case that a small group of people have all the power and all the money and that necessarily that means they have taken it from the people?