Once again this is where we disagree on economic ideology. I beleive that if we cut taxes AND spending, it would great improve the economy. Leave more money in the hands of the people and they will put it back into the economy and make it stronger. Spend more money, create more jobs...etc...etc...
This was Herbert Hoover's economic theory, too. It was a good theory. It just turned out not to work. That happens sometimes with theories, be they liberal or conservative theories.
One of my larger problems with contemporary conservatism is it continues to argue for theories that have been tried and demonstrated not to work. As theories, some of them are hard to argue with; their internal logical is sound and so forth. They just tend to be based on assumptions that have, in practice, turned out not to correspond with reality. Hooverism is one. Another is the trickle-down theory, which sounds good, but failed when it turned out that the wealthy did not behave as the theory predicted; they didn't, as it turned out, use the additional money they had as a result of tax cuts to invest in the American economy in ways that created more jobs at higher wages; they used it to move jobs to cheaper international labor markets, or they invested in higher-order financial instruments that had no trickle-down effect, etc. Another conservative theory that sounds good as theory but didn't work in practice is the Laffer Curve argument that reducing taxes will actually increase gov't revenue. Reagan tried this, and it just led to ballooning deficits.
I wish a lot of this stuff did work. Who wouldn't? I mean, "you can keep more of your income and the gov't will have more money to spend, too" sounds like the best of all possible worlds (unless you're a small-gov't conservative or libertarian, I guess). Unfortunately, it just didn't work. Conservatism would, I think, be better off if it would just let these theories go and move on to something else.
PuroFreak:
Also as I have said before, I do not agree with President Bush's spending and in the case of Reagan, it was essential for us to increase defense spending in order to win the Cold War, and it worked.
Actually, it wasn't necessary. As we now know, to borrow the famous phrase, "the knight was dying in his armor." That is, the Soviet Union was already dying, and would have died even if we hadn't engaged in Reagan's spending, it was just hard to see it behind all that secrecy. Would it have taken longer to die if Reagan hadn't hit the accelerator? Sure, but not much longer, it appears, and we wouldn't have had all that debt to pay off.
Moreover, Reagan was the great champion of supply-side, Laffer Curve economics. Those tax cuts were supposed to result in so much economic growth that the loss in gov't revenue by lowering the tax rates would be more than offset by the gain in gov't revenue because those rates would be getting applied to a much larger GDP. IOW, according to Reagan's conservative economic theory, we were supposed to be able to spend all that money, lower taxes, and not run up big debts. That was the whole point of "Reaganomics." It sounded great. It was worth a try. It didn't work.
However, it is not your right, or the right of anyone else, to tell ME what to do with MY money.
Actually, kuzi, it is. Not mine, exactly, but the government's. After all, money is a government construct (M1, M2, M3, etc.). If a majority of Americans support politicians who favor wealth-spreading policies that take some money from you and give it to others, then that is perfectly within the government's right to do. The right of the majority to impose policies on society is the very definition of democracy.
(We, of course, live in a mixed, constitutional democracy, so there are some things that are beyond even the power of the majority to impose, unless it's large enough to amend the Constitution. However, the right to not be taxed is not one of the things thus protected.)
No Urbi, you are mistaken, I never said I have a problem paying taxes, my complaint was that raising taxes is the wrong thing to do. Never, not ONCE have I said I don't want to pay any taxes. I think that the current tax rate is MORE than enough taken out of my check. Taxes are a neccesarry evil and I do understand that totally. I may be a little slow, but not a total tard! haha
My mistake, then. I got the wrong impression from something(s) you said earlier.
Kuzi might not appreciate you calling him a total 'tard, though.
...Another is the trickle-down theory, which sounds good, but failed when it turned out that the wealthy did not behave as the theory predicted; they didn't, as it turned out, use the additional money they had as a result of tax cuts to invest in the American economy in ways that created more jobs at higher wages; they used it to move jobs to cheaper international labor markets...
one could argue that the reason why it is cheaper to go over seas is because the corporate tax rate here is to high. i mean, we do have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.
urbino:
Another conservative theory that sounds good as theory but didn't work in practice is the Laffer Curve argument that reducing taxes will actually increase gov't revenue. Reagan tried this, and it just led to ballooning deficits.
Bush made very large tax cuts in 2002. since then we have seen record tax revenue.
of course he was very non-conservative by spending it in a very poorly managed war but that isnt the point here.
urbino:
I wish a lot of this stuff did work. Who wouldn't? I mean, "you can keep more of your income and the gov't will have more money to spend, too" sounds like the best of all possible worlds (unless you're a small-gov't conservative or libertarian, I guess). Unfortunately, it just didn't work. Conservatism would, I think, be better off if it would just let these theories go and move on to something else.
but then it wouldnt be conservatism...
PuroFreak:
Also as I have said before, I do not agree with President Bush's spending and in the case of Reagan, it was essential for us to increase defense spending in order to win the Cold War, and it worked.
i can agree with that.
urbino:
Actually, it wasn't necessary. As we now know, to borrow the famous phrase, "the knight was dying in his armor." That is, the Soviet Union was already dying, and would have died even if we hadn't engaged in Reagan's spending, it was just hard to see it behind all that secrecy. Would it have taken longer to die if Reagan hadn't hit the accelerator? Sure, but not much longer, it appears, and we wouldn't have had all that debt to pay off.
i can see that point as well. i am one of those small government libertarians mentioned above... spending sucks.
urbino:
Moreover, Reagan was the great champion of supply-side, Laffer Curve economics. Those tax cuts were supposed to result in so much economic growth that the loss in gov't revenue by lowering the tax rates would be more than offset by the gain in gov't revenue because those rates would be getting applied to a much larger GDP. IOW, according to Reagan's conservative economic theory, we were supposed to be able to spend all that money, lower taxes, and not run up big debts. That was the whole point of "Reaganomics." It sounded great. It was worth a try. It didn't work.
Maybe "Reaganomics" was not a perfect system but it was better than the 70% top tier tax rate that Carter left us with... not to mention double digit inflation, unemployment, and skyrocketing interest rates. Reaganomics want perfect, but it was a step in the right direction.
as for the USSR falling... it was falling in on itself. this is proof that communism does not work. Im not saying we are headed to THAT extreme, but it highlights why we shouldn't.
Once again this is where we disagree on economic ideology. I beleive that if we cut taxes AND spending, it would great improve the economy. Leave more money in the hands of the people and they will put it back into the economy and make it stronger. Spend more money, create more jobs...etc...etc...
This was Herbert Hoover's economic theory, too. It was a good theory. It just turned out not to work. That happens sometimes with theories, be they liberal or conservative theories.
One of my larger problems with contemporary conservatism is it continues to argue for theories that have been tried and demonstrated not to work. As theories, some of them are hard to argue with; their internal logical is sound and so forth. They just tend to be based on assumptions that have, in practice, turned out not to correspond with reality. Hooverism is one. Another is the trickle-down theory, which sounds good, but failed when it turned out that the wealthy did not behave as the theory predicted; they didn't, as it turned out, use the additional money they had as a result of tax cuts to invest in the American economy in ways that created more jobs at higher wages; they used it to move jobs to cheaper international labor markets, or they invested in higher-order financial instruments that had no trickle-down effect, etc. Another conservative theory that sounds good as theory but didn't work in practice is the Laffer Curve argument that reducing taxes will actually increase gov't revenue. Reagan tried this, and it just led to ballooning deficits.
I wish a lot of this stuff did work. Who wouldn't? I mean, "you can keep more of your income and the gov't will have more money to spend, too" sounds like the best of all possible worlds (unless you're a small-gov't conservative or libertarian, I guess). Unfortunately, it just didn't work. Conservatism would, I think, be better off if it would just let these theories go and move on to something else.
PuroFreak:
Also as I have said before, I do not agree with President Bush's spending and in the case of Reagan, it was essential for us to increase defense spending in order to win the Cold War, and it worked.
Actually, it wasn't necessary. As we now know, to borrow the famous phrase, "the knight was dying in his armor." That is, the Soviet Union was already dying, and would have died even if we hadn't engaged in Reagan's spending, it was just hard to see it behind all that secrecy. Would it have taken longer to die if Reagan hadn't hit the accelerator? Sure, but not much longer, it appears, and we wouldn't have had all that debt to pay off.
Moreover, Reagan was the great champion of supply-side, Laffer Curve economics. Those tax cuts were supposed to result in so much economic growth that the loss in gov't revenue by lowering the tax rates would be more than offset by the gain in gov't revenue because those rates would be getting applied to a much larger GDP. IOW, according to Reagan's conservative economic theory, we were supposed to be able to spend all that money, lower taxes, and not run up big debts. That was the whole point of "Reaganomics." It sounded great. It was worth a try. It didn't work.
So which economic theories do work? Just the liberal ones, right?
No Urbi, you are mistaken, I never said I have a problem paying taxes, my complaint was that raising taxes is the wrong thing to do. Never, not ONCE have I said I don't want to pay any taxes. I think that the current tax rate is MORE than enough taken out of my check. Taxes are a neccesarry evil and I do understand that totally. I may be a little slow, but not a total tard! haha
My mistake, then. I got the wrong impression from something(s) you said earlier.
Kuzi might not appreciate you calling him a total 'tard, though.
im also not saying that we should have NO taxes. a agree with Puro's statement. I mean, seriously, roads are kinda cool to drive on compared to mud.
Oh. Then I'm confused. If no one has the right to tell you what to do with your money, how can anyone possibly have the right to take your money (via taxation or anything else)?
Oh. Then I'm confused. If no one has the right to tell you what to do with your money, how can anyone possibly have the right to take your money (via taxation or anything else)?
great question!
I have voted for some money to go to taxes. by me agreeing with the above statement that Puro made i was saying that "there is more than enough money being taken from me" there comes a point where enough is enough. im for small government, not anarchy.
Hey, thanks for attributing so unreasonable a view to me, Luko, even though, once again, in my comment that you quoted, I explicitly said the opposite, to wit: "That happens sometimes with theories, be they liberal or conservative theories."
Are we really going to have to get into a link war regarding Reaganomics? What I posted is the view that has the widest consensus of support among economists these days, as far as I can tell. Are there still conservative economists who argue that everything about Reaganomics was peachy? Of course. That was sort of my point.
Oh. Then I'm confused. If no one has the right to tell you what to do with your money, how can anyone possibly have the right to take your money (via taxation or anything else)?
great question!
I have voted for some money to go to taxes. by me agreeing with the above statement that Puro made i was saying that "there is more than enough money being taken from me" there comes a point where enough is enough. im for small government, not anarchy.
Okay. So let just make sure I understand your actual position. Correct me if/where I'm wrong.
You don't, in fact, think no one has the right to tell you what to do with your money, since you agree that the gov't can just flat take that money from you and spend it. You would prefer that it do that only when absolutely necessary, which would be, in your view, a great deal less than it currently does.
You can act as if these campaign "proposals" are policy
I'm pretty sure I didn't do any such thing. I said, as is clear in your quote of my comment, it was the plan he had run on. That's all it is. Iffy as that is, it's a good deal more than what I'm hearing from critics, which are bald assertions that "Obama will raise taxes." The basis for the claim seems to be little more than an a priori political commitment to "Democrats raise taxes" as an immutable law of the universe.
You have at least provided something more than the bald assertion. You've referred to interviews you've seen or heard. I follow politics pretty closely, but I haven't seen/heard the interviews you're talking about. Can you provide links? I'd be interested in reading the transcripts.
Luko:
And it's not really whining per se, as it is a deep, deep, deep dissatisfaction with how my tax dollars are being spent. So yead, I'll complain they are too high when they're being so badly misspent. You may be flush, but some of us - not so much. I think that when a third of my and my wife's income goes to the government, we have a right to expect that it is put to good use. And it's not.
ISTM your complaint, Luko, is quite different from Puro's. Puro objects to the taxes, per se. You don't mind paying taxes at the rate you pay them, per se; you just don't like how the money is used.
Oh. Then I'm confused. If no one has the right to tell you what to do with your money, how can anyone possibly have the right to take your money (via taxation or anything else)?
great question!
I have voted for some money to go to taxes. by me agreeing with the above statement that Puro made i was saying that "there is more than enough money being taken from me" there comes a point where enough is enough. im for small government, not anarchy.
Okay. So let just make sure I understand your actual position. Correct me if/where I'm wrong.
You don't, in fact, think no one has the right to tell you what to do with your money, since you agree that the gov't can just flat take that money from you and spend it. You would prefer that it do that only when absolutely necessary, which would be, in your view, a great deal less than it currently does.
Is that close?
yes...
...and no. again it is a very complex issue. everyone has their cut off point. social systems MUST exist to a degree. however, the larger the system, the more likely it is to fail. the more you force people into them the more likely it is to fail. Social systems only work when EVERYONE WANTS to be a part of them. therefore, the social system we call "roads" works. i am hard pressed to find someone who is against roads.
without roads where would i put my house? how would i get cigars in the mail?
Hey, thanks for attributing so unreasonable a view to me, Luko, even though, once again, in my comment that you quoted, I explicitly said the opposite, to wit: "That happens sometimes with theories, be they liberal or conservative theories."
Are we really going to have to get into a link war regarding Reaganomics? What I posted is the view that has the widest consensus of support among economists these days, as far as I can tell. Are there still conservative economists who argue that everything about Reaganomics was peachy? Of course. That was sort of my point.
Your entire post talks about the fact that conservative theories don't work. You mention trickle-down, Laffer curve, Hooverism, Reaganomics. One sentence mentions liberal theories might not work either. So, maybe unfairly, I infer that really, deep down, in your heart of hearts, you only think liberal theories work.
one could argue that the reason why it is cheaper to go over seas is because the corporate tax rate here is to high. i mean, we do have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.
One could argue that, but one would be mistaken. It turns out that, via loopholes, creative accounting, and offshoring, corporations end up paying only a small fraction of that corporate rate. I can find the numbers and provide links, if you'd like to see them.
kuzi:
Bush made very large tax cuts in 2002. since then we have seen record tax revenue.
In inflation-adjusted dollars? I'd like to see the numbers on that. Also, again, note the resulting debt.
kuzi:
but then it wouldnt be conservatism...
Why not? Is conservatism really composed of a small handful of economic theories? Surely not. I mean, conservatism was around for hundreds of years before Arthur Laffer was even born, or anybody had ever thought of supply-side or trickle-down economics. Can't the overarching principles of conservatism adapt to incoming data and produce new conservative theories of how to go forward from there? We're in big trouble if it can't.
kuzi:
Maybe "Reaganomics" was not a perfect system but it was better than the 70% top tier tax rate that Carter left us with... not to mention double digit inflation, unemployment, and skyrocketing interest rates. Reaganomics want perfect, but it was a step in the right direction.
I don't think that can be said of Reaganomics as a whole, since Reaganomics as a whole didn't do what it said it would do, and resulted in a huge national debt.
Now, there were parts of it (IIRC, it's generally held to have consisted of 4 main principles) that clearly had the right idea. The monetarism it picked up from Milton Friedman clearly had some things right; monetary policy really is a useful tool for managing an economy. (I would note, btw, that while conservatives generally LOVE Friedman and monetarism, it's still a huge gov't intervention in the "free" market, so I'm not sure why.) However, as a matter of history, the Fed was already moving in that direction before Reagan took office, under the leadership of Paul Volcker. It's hard to credit that to Reagan.
kuzi:
as for the USSR falling... it was falling in on itself.
My point, precisely.
kuzi:
this is proof that communism does not work. Im not saying we are headed to THAT extreme, but it highlights why we shouldn't.
Agreed, obviously. I know there's a lot of speculation and whatnot out there, but, honestly, I don't think anybody in either of the major parties thinks anything different from that. Are there fringers who disagree? Sure. Just like there are fringers who disagree that Nazism got anything wrong.
Your entire post talks about the fact that conservative theories don't work. You mention trickle-down, Laffer curve, Hooverism, Reaganomics. One sentence mentions liberal theories might not work either. So, maybe unfairly, I infer that really, deep down, in your heart of hearts, you only think liberal theories work.
Actually, only part of my comment talks about conservative theories that didn't work. I do think all those theories, good as they sounded as theories, just didn't work in practice. Hopefully, my discussion of Friedman and monetarism in response to kuzi will relieve you of the notion that I think only liberal theories work.
...and no. again it is a very complex issue. everyone has their cut off point. social systems MUST exist to a degree. however, the larger the system, the more likely it is to fail. the more you force people into them the more likely it is to fail. Social systems only work when EVERYONE WANTS to be a part of them. therefore, the social system we call "roads" works. i am hard pressed to find someone who is against roads.
But, of course, there's never been a social system that EVERYONE agrees with or wants to be part of. That's why our gov't functions on a majoritarian basis, not a unanimous one. I'm pretty sure that, without much trouble, I could find some folks arguing that the building of roads should be left to the free market. (If there's sufficient demand for a road somewhere, someone will come along and supply one, etc.)
kuzi:
without roads . . . how would i get cigars in the mail?
But, of course, there's never been a social system that EVERYONE agrees with or wants to be part of. That's why our gov't functions on a majoritarian basis, not a unanimous one. I'm pretty sure that, without much trouble, I could find some folks arguing that the building of roads should be left to the free market. (If there's sufficient demand for a road somewhere, someone will come along and supply one, etc.)
i see that argument. the thing is with so many people demanding that road system(almost everyone) everyone will buy into it one way or another: donations, tolls, taxes...
the social system will work because ALMOST nobody will not want it.
kuzi:
without roads . . . how would i get cigars in the mail?
THIS JUST IN BREAKING NEWS:
Due to an expected record breaking turn out for voting this election year and long lines at the polling stations, all Obama supporters are asked to wait until Wednesday to vote.
Thank you for you cooperation.
I was explaining to my team last week that we all need to be prepared for smaller (or no) bonuses this year, given the current economic climate. Yesterday, one of my analysts sent me this article.
So, basically, the theory was that we would put money back into the pockets of the lenders, and they would use that to stimulate the economy. Except it's not working out that way. We give the money to the lenders and they keep it for themselves.
That feels a lot like trickle-down economics. Which is why trickle-down economics doesn't work. You see, once somebody has income that exceeds his needs for day-to-day living, a certain percentage of that income gets put away, essentially withdrawn from the economy.
I have seen the argument on here many times that cutting taxes on the lower and middle classes does nothing to help the economy. The example that is frequently used is that if you give some poor guy twenty bucks, that money just disappears. He just wastes it on liquor or cigarettes or something. But that's exactly it. That money gets circulated back through the economy with lightning speed.
Some time ago, I sarcastically mentioned that I was a firm believer in "trickle-up" economics instead of "trickle-down" economics. I said that to be funny, and I don't think anybody got the joke. But if you want our economy to move at warp speed, put money in the hands of the people who have demonstrated time and again that they are unwilling to save. Or put it in the hands of people whose basic needs aren't being met, and watch how fast it moves.
That's the problem with trickle-down economics. A certain percentage of stimulus is used for wealth-building rather than being directly injected into the economy. Anyway, I just wanted to pop in here real quick and thank everybody for my February bonus, which will be coming out of all your tax dollars. As we do every year, I plan to stick that money into our retirement savings.
if you tax the middle class more then you will slow the economy even more.
on a side note ... you dont need that bonus. redistribute it again to me.
here is a thought...
those banks arent spending the money as the government thought they would (again showing that you cant regulate or tax/spend your way out of a recession) but could that money that they are holding on to be what is keeping them in business? could an argument be made that this is a good thing? Im still against the bailout plan, but since its here cant we look for a silver lining?
as far as putting money into the hands of those who are "unwilling to save" or "whose basic needs aren't being met"... arent we already doing that with the welfare system?
im sure that there are at least a few people out there that say this is a reward for being jobless.
As for the comment that everyone can succeed... well that sure does SOUND good doesn't it? Reality? NOT
how is that not true? what is stopping people from success? ill tell you who: themselves.
and if you try and say "what about the mentally and physically ill?" ill just have to laugh because that is not who i am talking about. that is a very different kettle of fish.
I gotta disagree with you on that one Kuzi... I'm not one of america's wealthy by any means, but I do okay for myself (I provide a home for my family, a car in the driveway, a plate on the table every night for the family, and a humi of cigars... and have owned a couple of businesses in the past... Business which when it was all said and done basically left me with more debt than when I started...
Yes, you're right, there ARE a FEW opportunities out there where someone with nothing can make their way in an emerging area and happen to strike it rich... Those chances are VERY SLIM however...
In today's day and age the fact is it really DOES take money to make money in most cases... Let me give you an example...
If I have a few hundred million to toss around and I decide I want to start a new business... Let's say sporting goods store... We'll call it ... "Sporters Paradise"...
I open up a couple of stores in a few key towns... I open a huge warehouse where I can store all the goods and distribute them effectively... I call up key manufacturers and work deals with them directly to purchases palletes of their goods to sell in my stores... I purchase lots of tv advertising in those towns where I open my stores...
Chances are, if I played my cards right, and those areas did need a good sporting goods store, I'm going to make money... probably lots of it...
Now let's flip that around to the guy with no money... I open up "Sporters Garage"... Funny name since it's actually based out of my garage... For a minimum investment (all I can afford) I purchase some shelving and a cash register... Get the place fixed up, a little signage for out front and viola, I'm in business...
The first problem I face is that *** who opened Sporters Paradise last year has struck deals with the manufacturers because of the volume of purchasing he was able to buy goods and sell them FAR below what I can purchase them from wholesalers for... Which means my BEST option is to buy from Sporters Paradise, mark it up and then sell it at Sporters Garage...
How many people can pull that off? Okay, but I've got a great idea... I'm going to add value to my products... I might not be the "cheapest" guy on the block, but my knowledge far exceeds those teenage kids that work at Sporters Paradise that have never been outdoors in their life...
How many people care? Sure there are a few people that go to honest to goodness mom and pop lumber yards because they like the knowledge, but for every one of those how many hundreds skip the mom and pop and head to Lowe's or Home Depot instead???
Anyway... Now I've got other problems to face anyway... The only person that knows about Sporters Garage is my next door neighbors... I've ran a couple ads in the classifieds of the local paper, but I can't afford some huge advertising campaign... Even of those that DO see one of my fliers, how many wouldn't rather go to the great big Sporters Paradise where they can pick up everything they need for their next outting PLUS the groceries rather than coming to my small garage where stock is limited???
But according to you Kuzi, none of that matters... Simply because I'm determined to make it the people will come... I'll be making millions in no time...
????
As was stated before, things are very different today than they were 70, 50, or even 20 or 30 years ago...
I had a computer store once... It did okay for a little while... Paid the rent anyway... Despite no advertising budget, business was pretty good... At that time the internet was just starting to become popular... When someone wanted a computer they either ordered it out of Computer Shopper catalog or went to a local store... MOST went to a local store...
Then the shift happened... The internet because much more popular... Everybody and their mother could get on... Soon you had huge distributers like CDW selling computers and parts...
Towards the end I was forced to do exactly that... Purchase from CDW and resale at a markup... Why? Because the BIG distributors TechData and Ingram-Micro with the volume of my orders wouldn't even match prices I could get straight from CDW...
Funny that... You see, CDW bought most of their stuff from TechData and Ingram-Micro as well... But since they bought millions of a single item versus me buying 10, they got the bigger price break...
It was REALLY bad... My WHOLESALE price from TechData for an item might be $239.88 BEFORE shipping... Buying it from CDW my price might be $219 WITH shipping...
And the real gut wrencher? Anybody and their mother could go and order it from CDW for $219... Why would they buy it from me for $250???
So Kuzi... I'm glad you were able to start with nothing and make the american dream work for you. When things are going right it's a high like no other... But don't think for a minute you weren't one of the lucky ones...
And frankly, don't cheapen the efforts of others who struggled and strived to acheive it for themselves and failed by stating it was their own fault or lack of determination...
I've started and owned my own business twice... Both times I was run out of business because someone else had a much larger pocketbook than I did...
Had I been born in the 50's things would have been different...
Had I been born to parents who could afford more than the clothes on their back things would have been different...
Nowadays I sit in my office living pretty much paycheck to paycheck working for someone else who has a big pocketbook...
those banks arent spending the money as the government thought they would (again showing that you cant regulate or tax/spend your way out of a recession)
The problem is that there was very little regulation/stipulation to how the money could be used. I think this demonstrates that giving somebody money, and predicting how it will be used, is a really hard thing to do (which is just like the failure of trickle-down economics).
kuzi16:
but could that money that they are holding on to be what is keeping them in business?
Yes
kuzi16:
could an argument be made that this is a good thing?
For me? Yes. For the global economy in the long term? No.
kuzi16:
Im still against the bailout plan, but since its here cant we look for a silver lining?
What are you an Optimist? Anyway, I just did.. Merry Christmas to me ...
kuzi16:
as far as putting money into the hands of those who are "unwilling to save" or "whose basic needs aren't being met"... arent we already doing that with the welfare system?
And look at how fast that money gets back into the economy! Seriously, though, the system needs to be adjusted. I believe it has been mentioned on here that there are plenty of jobs around which would be helpful to society, and which could be required of someone in order to be eligible for their welfare check. I'd like to see that addressed.
you are talking about opening a business of your own. I dont work for myself. i am STILL living the American dream.
i am not lucky at all. Luck didn't have a damn thing to do with it. A lot of hard work and a lot of Blood and sweat got me where i am. There is nothing different between me and people in my industry below me. I just work harder/smarter. there are few things in life that get me agitated more than when someone calls me "lucky" for what i have. I wasn't handed anything. I don't have a degree. my parents never paid for anything more than food and clothing. I made my "luck" through hard work and a constant willingness to learn, adapt, and in general do whatever it takes to make it. I learned the system that is in place and worked within it. It may look easy now but getting to where I am in life was a difficult task with a ton of BS, a ton of work, and a ton of failure involved.
. IT isnt easy. it isnt fun. Its life. NOTHING is handed to you, nor should it be. If you rely on others to get you what you need in life you will never move up.
it sucks that your business didnt do well. and in a way you are right that money can create money. but owning your own business is not the only way to live "the American dream." Every day i get up and go to work and i am thankful that I am part of a corporation that has deep pockets. they enable me to make money. Eventually i hope to strike out on my own because i will have saved enough to do so. where did i get the money? big business. big evil business is giving me the opportunity to make money, and get a raise/promotion even in this economy because of its pockets. it benefits me to work there. but again, im not entry level. I had to start as a dishwasher.It took time to get into management.
as far as putting money into the hands of those who are "unwilling to save" or "whose basic needs aren't being met"... arent we already doing that with the welfare system?
And look at how fast that money gets back into the economy! Seriously, though, the system needs to be adjusted. I believe it has been mentioned on here that there are plenty of jobs around which would be helpful to society, and which could be required of someone in order to be eligible for their welfare check. I'd like to see that addressed.
As for the comment that everyone can succeed... well that sure does SOUND good doesn't it? Reality? NOT
how is that not true? what is stopping people from success? ill tell you who: themselves.
and if you try and say "what about the mentally and physically ill?" ill just have to laugh because that is not who i am talking about. that is a very different kettle of fish.
I gotta disagree with you on that one Kuzi... I'm not one of america's wealthy by any means, but I do okay for myself (I provide a home for my family, a car in the driveway, a plate on the table every night for the family, and a humi of cigars... and have owned a couple of businesses in the past... Business which when it was all said and done basically left me with more debt than when I started...
Yes, you're right, there ARE a FEW opportunities out there where someone with nothing can make their way in an emerging area and happen to strike it rich... Those chances are VERY SLIM however...
In today's day and age the fact is it really DOES take money to make money in most cases... Let me give you an example...
If I have a few hundred million to toss around and I decide I want to start a new business... Let's say sporting goods store... We'll call it ... "Sporters Paradise"...
I open up a couple of stores in a few key towns... I open a huge warehouse where I can store all the goods and distribute them effectively... I call up key manufacturers and work deals with them directly to purchases palletes of their goods to sell in my stores... I purchase lots of tv advertising in those towns where I open my stores...
Chances are, if I played my cards right, and those areas did need a good sporting goods store, I'm going to make money... probably lots of it...
Now let's flip that around to the guy with no money... I open up "Sporters Garage"... Funny name since it's actually based out of my garage... For a minimum investment (all I can afford) I purchase some shelving and a cash register... Get the place fixed up, a little signage for out front and viola, I'm in business...
The first problem I face is that *** who opened Sporters Paradise last year has struck deals with the manufacturers because of the volume of purchasing he was able to buy goods and sell them FAR below what I can purchase them from wholesalers for... Which means my BEST option is to buy from Sporters Paradise, mark it up and then sell it at Sporters Garage...
How many people can pull that off? Okay, but I've got a great idea... I'm going to add value to my products... I might not be the "cheapest" guy on the block, but my knowledge far exceeds those teenage kids that work at Sporters Paradise that have never been outdoors in their life...
How many people care? Sure there are a few people that go to honest to goodness mom and pop lumber yards because they like the knowledge, but for every one of those how many hundreds skip the mom and pop and head to Lowe's or Home Depot instead???
Anyway... Now I've got other problems to face anyway... The only person that knows about Sporters Garage is my next door neighbors... I've ran a couple ads in the classifieds of the local paper, but I can't afford some huge advertising campaign... Even of those that DO see one of my fliers, how many wouldn't rather go to the great big Sporters Paradise where they can pick up everything they need for their next outting PLUS the groceries rather than coming to my small garage where stock is limited???
But according to you Kuzi, none of that matters... Simply because I'm determined to make it the people will come... I'll be making millions in no time...
????
As was stated before, things are very different today than they were 70, 50, or even 20 or 30 years ago...
I had a computer store once... It did okay for a little while... Paid the rent anyway... Despite no advertising budget, business was pretty good... At that time the internet was just starting to become popular... When someone wanted a computer they either ordered it out of Computer Shopper catalog or went to a local store... MOST went to a local store...
Then the shift happened... The internet because much more popular... Everybody and their mother could get on... Soon you had huge distributers like CDW selling computers and parts...
Towards the end I was forced to do exactly that... Purchase from CDW and resale at a markup... Why? Because the BIG distributors TechData and Ingram-Micro with the volume of my orders wouldn't even match prices I could get straight from CDW...
Funny that... You see, CDW bought most of their stuff from TechData and Ingram-Micro as well... But since they bought millions of a single item versus me buying 10, they got the bigger price break...
It was REALLY bad... My WHOLESALE price from TechData for an item might be $239.88 BEFORE shipping... Buying it from CDW my price might be $219 WITH shipping...
And the real gut wrencher? Anybody and their mother could go and order it from CDW for $219... Why would they buy it from me for $250???
So Kuzi... I'm glad you were able to start with nothing and make the american dream work for you. When things are going right it's a high like no other... But don't think for a minute you weren't one of the lucky ones...
And frankly, don't cheapen the efforts of others who struggled and strived to acheive it for themselves and failed by stating it was their own fault or lack of determination...
I've started and owned my own business twice... Both times I was run out of business because someone else had a much larger pocketbook than I did...
Had I been born in the 50's things would have been different...
Had I been born to parents who could afford more than the clothes on their back things would have been different...
Nowadays I sit in my office living pretty much paycheck to paycheck working for someone else who has a big pocketbook...
As for the comment that everyone can succeed... well that sure does SOUND good doesn't it? Reality? NOT
how is that not true? what is stopping people from success? ill tell you who: themselves.
and if you try and say "what about the mentally and physically ill?" ill just have to laugh because that is not who i am talking about. that is a very different kettle of fish.
I gotta disagree with you on that one Kuzi... I'm not one of america's wealthy by any means, but I do okay for myself (I provide a home for my family, a car in the driveway, a plate on the table every night for the family, and a humi of cigars... and have owned a couple of businesses in the past... Business which when it was all said and done basically left me with more debt than when I started...
Yes, you're right, there ARE a FEW opportunities out there where someone with nothing can make their way in an emerging area and happen to strike it rich... Those chances are VERY SLIM however...
In today's day and age the fact is it really DOES take money to make money in most cases... Let me give you an example...
If I have a few hundred million to toss around and I decide I want to start a new business... Let's say sporting goods store... We'll call it ... "Sporters Paradise"...
I open up a couple of stores in a few key towns... I open a huge warehouse where I can store all the goods and distribute them effectively... I call up key manufacturers and work deals with them directly to purchases palletes of their goods to sell in my stores... I purchase lots of tv advertising in those towns where I open my stores...
Chances are, if I played my cards right, and those areas did need a good sporting goods store, I'm going to make money... probably lots of it...
Now let's flip that around to the guy with no money... I open up "Sporters Garage"... Funny name since it's actually based out of my garage... For a minimum investment (all I can afford) I purchase some shelving and a cash register... Get the place fixed up, a little signage for out front and viola, I'm in business...
The first problem I face is that *** who opened Sporters Paradise last year has struck deals with the manufacturers because of the volume of purchasing he was able to buy goods and sell them FAR below what I can purchase them from wholesalers for... Which means my BEST option is to buy from Sporters Paradise, mark it up and then sell it at Sporters Garage...
How many people can pull that off? Okay, but I've got a great idea... I'm going to add value to my products... I might not be the "cheapest" guy on the block, but my knowledge far exceeds those teenage kids that work at Sporters Paradise that have never been outdoors in their life...
How many people care? Sure there are a few people that go to honest to goodness mom and pop lumber yards because they like the knowledge, but for every one of those how many hundreds skip the mom and pop and head to Lowe's or Home Depot instead???
Anyway... Now I've got other problems to face anyway... The only person that knows about Sporters Garage is my next door neighbors... I've ran a couple ads in the classifieds of the local paper, but I can't afford some huge advertising campaign... Even of those that DO see one of my fliers, how many wouldn't rather go to the great big Sporters Paradise where they can pick up everything they need for their next outting PLUS the groceries rather than coming to my small garage where stock is limited???
But according to you Kuzi, none of that matters... Simply because I'm determined to make it the people will come... I'll be making millions in no time...
????
As was stated before, things are very different today than they were 70, 50, or even 20 or 30 years ago...
I had a computer store once... It did okay for a little while... Paid the rent anyway... Despite no advertising budget, business was pretty good... At that time the internet was just starting to become popular... When someone wanted a computer they either ordered it out of Computer Shopper catalog or went to a local store... MOST went to a local store...
Then the shift happened... The internet because much more popular... Everybody and their mother could get on... Soon you had huge distributers like CDW selling computers and parts...
Towards the end I was forced to do exactly that... Purchase from CDW and resale at a markup... Why? Because the BIG distributors TechData and Ingram-Micro with the volume of my orders wouldn't even match prices I could get straight from CDW...
Funny that... You see, CDW bought most of their stuff from TechData and Ingram-Micro as well... But since they bought millions of a single item versus me buying 10, they got the bigger price break...
It was REALLY bad... My WHOLESALE price from TechData for an item might be $239.88 BEFORE shipping... Buying it from CDW my price might be $219 WITH shipping...
And the real gut wrencher? Anybody and their mother could go and order it from CDW for $219... Why would they buy it from me for $250???
So Kuzi... I'm glad you were able to start with nothing and make the american dream work for you. When things are going right it's a high like no other... But don't think for a minute you weren't one of the lucky ones...
And frankly, don't cheapen the efforts of others who struggled and strived to acheive it for themselves and failed by stating it was their own fault or lack of determination...
I've started and owned my own business twice... Both times I was run out of business because someone else had a much larger pocketbook than I did...
Had I been born in the 50's things would have been different...
Had I been born to parents who could afford more than the clothes on their back things would have been different...
Nowadays I sit in my office living pretty much paycheck to paycheck working for someone else who has a big pocketbook...
Very well stated Sirius.
I still don't think just because a business failed that the government should give them a hand out or punish the other company just to keep the smaller one in business. I don't and have never worked for myself, neither has my father. He did very well for us growing up, not rich by any means, but we were comfortable, and I like to think I am and hope to continue to do well for my family. If you are living paycheck to paycheck then look elsewhere or look into getting some grants to go to school and get better training for a better job. It's not impossible...
you are talking about opening a business of your own. I dont work for myself. i am STILL living the American dream.
i am not lucky at all. Luck didn't have a damn thing to do with it. A lot of hard work and a lot of Blood and sweat got me where i am. There is nothing different between me and people in my industry below me. I just work harder/smarter. there are few things in life that get me agitated more than when someone calls me "lucky" for what i have. I wasn't handed anything. I don't have a degree. my parents never paid for anything more than food and clothing. I made my "luck" through hard work and a constant willingness to learn, adapt, and in general do whatever it takes to make it. I learned the system that is in place and worked within it. It may look easy now but getting to where I am in life was a difficult task with a ton of BS, a ton of work, and a ton of failure involved.
. IT isnt easy. it isnt fun. Its life. NOTHING is handed to you, nor should it be. If you rely on others to get you what you need in life you will never move up.
it sucks that your business didnt do well. and in a way you are right that money can create money. but owning your own business is not the only way to live "the American dream." Every day i get up and go to work and i am thankful that I am part of a corporation that has deep pockets. they enable me to make money. Eventually i hope to strike out on my own because i will have saved enough to do so. where did i get the money? big business. big evil business is giving me the opportunity to make money, and get a raise/promotion even in this economy because of its pockets. it benefits me to work there. but again, im not entry level. I had to start as a dishwasher.It took time to get into management.
Kuzi, I have no issues with what you state here except for one thing. This is something which a lot of people "Believe" about the situation they find themselves in, in regard to their working live's. Kuzi you said...
it sucks that your business didnt do well. and in a way you are right that money can create money. but owning your own business is not the only way to live "the American dream." Every day i get up and go to work and i am thankful that I am part of a corporation that has deep pockets. they enable me to make money. Eventually i hope to strike out on my own because i will have saved enough to do so. where did i get the money? big business. big evil business is giving me the opportunity to make money, and get a raise/promotion even in this economy because of its pockets. it benefits me to work there. but again, im not entry level. I had to start as a dishwasher.It took time to get into management.
A long time ago I realized something about myself. I will state here first that I am not the sort of person to blow their own horn, what I realized was this...
I am a good employee (or was I am now self employed) and I do a good job for my bosses. I show up to work , on time, ready to work, and quite often found ways to make my job easier, safer, more productive, and I trained many people over the years to do that same job(s). My issue with what you stated above Kuzi is that you belittle yourself. You have reached whatever level of success you have by being a good employee and most likely doing many of the same type of things that I mentioned. The reason you make money from your employer is that you make money for your employer. Your employers does not give you money because he is a nice person. Or because he is worried about your family at home or whether your kids have shoes, food, or clothing. NOPE, he pays you because of what you bring to him by way of your skills set. If you are a lousy employee, with a drinking problem, late for work, non productive, bad attitude, low or no concern for the success of the company then YOU are either very lucky that you have a job or you ARE in a position to consider the big company as your "saviour" because you should not be working.
People need to take pride in their skills and how those skills allow their employers to run a successful company. Take pride and know that you are in a REAL contract with your employer. You give him a good skill set which he uses to make money for his family. In return for your efforts he acknowledges a job well done (hopefully) and pays you what he owes you as his part of the contract. You are not fortunate that your company has deep pockets... they are fortunate that YOU are a good employee that is making them money. It's a contract, as long as both parties are happy with the outcome then it is a successful contract at that. I hate it when people put themselves down in such a way. These situations are always a two way proposition.
Comments
One of my larger problems with contemporary conservatism is it continues to argue for theories that have been tried and demonstrated not to work. As theories, some of them are hard to argue with; their internal logical is sound and so forth. They just tend to be based on assumptions that have, in practice, turned out not to correspond with reality. Hooverism is one. Another is the trickle-down theory, which sounds good, but failed when it turned out that the wealthy did not behave as the theory predicted; they didn't, as it turned out, use the additional money they had as a result of tax cuts to invest in the American economy in ways that created more jobs at higher wages; they used it to move jobs to cheaper international labor markets, or they invested in higher-order financial instruments that had no trickle-down effect, etc. Another conservative theory that sounds good as theory but didn't work in practice is the Laffer Curve argument that reducing taxes will actually increase gov't revenue. Reagan tried this, and it just led to ballooning deficits.
I wish a lot of this stuff did work. Who wouldn't? I mean, "you can keep more of your income and the gov't will have more money to spend, too" sounds like the best of all possible worlds (unless you're a small-gov't conservative or libertarian, I guess). Unfortunately, it just didn't work. Conservatism would, I think, be better off if it would just let these theories go and move on to something else. Actually, it wasn't necessary. As we now know, to borrow the famous phrase, "the knight was dying in his armor." That is, the Soviet Union was already dying, and would have died even if we hadn't engaged in Reagan's spending, it was just hard to see it behind all that secrecy. Would it have taken longer to die if Reagan hadn't hit the accelerator? Sure, but not much longer, it appears, and we wouldn't have had all that debt to pay off.
Moreover, Reagan was the great champion of supply-side, Laffer Curve economics. Those tax cuts were supposed to result in so much economic growth that the loss in gov't revenue by lowering the tax rates would be more than offset by the gain in gov't revenue because those rates would be getting applied to a much larger GDP. IOW, according to Reagan's conservative economic theory, we were supposed to be able to spend all that money, lower taxes, and not run up big debts. That was the whole point of "Reaganomics." It sounded great. It was worth a try. It didn't work.
(We, of course, live in a mixed, constitutional democracy, so there are some things that are beyond even the power of the majority to impose, unless it's large enough to amend the Constitution. However, the right to not be taxed is not one of the things thus protected.)
Kuzi might not appreciate you calling him a total 'tard, though.
of course he was very non-conservative by spending it in a very poorly managed war but that isnt the point here. but then it wouldnt be conservatism... i can agree with that. i can see that point as well. i am one of those small government libertarians mentioned above... spending sucks. Maybe "Reaganomics" was not a perfect system but it was better than the 70% top tier tax rate that Carter left us with... not to mention double digit inflation, unemployment, and skyrocketing interest rates. Reaganomics want perfect, but it was a step in the right direction.
as for the USSR falling... it was falling in on itself. this is proof that communism does not work. Im not saying we are headed to THAT extreme, but it highlights why we shouldn't.
So which economic theories do work? Just the liberal ones, right?
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/viksning/papers/Reaganomics.html
unless you have a jeep...
I have voted for some money to go to taxes. by me agreeing with the above statement that Puro made i was saying that "there is more than enough money being taken from me"
there comes a point where enough is enough. im for small government, not anarchy.
Are we really going to have to get into a link war regarding Reaganomics? What I posted is the view that has the widest consensus of support among economists these days, as far as I can tell. Are there still conservative economists who argue that everything about Reaganomics was peachy? Of course. That was sort of my point.
You don't, in fact, think no one has the right to tell you what to do with your money, since you agree that the gov't can just flat take that money from you and spend it. You would prefer that it do that only when absolutely necessary, which would be, in your view, a great deal less than it currently does.
Is that close?
i do that.
Luko, I scanned about half of that link. interesting thoughts. Ill go back and read it later when i am a bit less tired.
First example...it was a debate...
...and no. again it is a very complex issue. everyone has their cut off point. social systems MUST exist to a degree. however, the larger the system, the more likely it is to fail. the more you force people into them the more likely it is to fail. Social systems only work when EVERYONE WANTS to be a part of them. therefore, the social system we call "roads" works. i am hard pressed to find someone who is against roads.
without roads where would i put my house? how would i get cigars in the mail?
Your entire post talks about the fact that conservative theories don't work. You mention trickle-down, Laffer curve, Hooverism, Reaganomics. One sentence mentions liberal theories might not work either. So, maybe unfairly, I infer that really, deep down, in your heart of hearts, you only think liberal theories work.
Now, there were parts of it (IIRC, it's generally held to have consisted of 4 main principles) that clearly had the right idea. The monetarism it picked up from Milton Friedman clearly had some things right; monetary policy really is a useful tool for managing an economy. (I would note, btw, that while conservatives generally LOVE Friedman and monetarism, it's still a huge gov't intervention in the "free" market, so I'm not sure why.) However, as a matter of history, the Fed was already moving in that direction before Reagan took office, under the leadership of Paul Volcker. It's hard to credit that to Reagan. My point, precisely. Agreed, obviously. I know there's a lot of speculation and whatnot out there, but, honestly, I don't think anybody in either of the major parties thinks anything different from that. Are there fringers who disagree? Sure. Just like there are fringers who disagree that Nazism got anything wrong.
-NOOOOOOO! NEVER!
the social system will work because ALMOST nobody will not want it. I know. I was there.
HA!
Due to an expected record breaking turn out for voting this election year and long lines at the polling stations, all Obama supporters are asked to wait until Wednesday to vote.
Thank you for you cooperation.
haha Hey, it was worth a shot! ;-)
So, basically, the theory was that we would put money back into the pockets of the lenders, and they would use that to stimulate the economy. Except it's not working out that way. We give the money to the lenders and they keep it for themselves.
That feels a lot like trickle-down economics. Which is why trickle-down economics doesn't work. You see, once somebody has income that exceeds his needs for day-to-day living, a certain percentage of that income gets put away, essentially withdrawn from the economy.
I have seen the argument on here many times that cutting taxes on the lower and middle classes does nothing to help the economy. The example that is frequently used is that if you give some poor guy twenty bucks, that money just disappears. He just wastes it on liquor or cigarettes or something. But that's exactly it. That money gets circulated back through the economy with lightning speed.
Some time ago, I sarcastically mentioned that I was a firm believer in "trickle-up" economics instead of "trickle-down" economics. I said that to be funny, and I don't think anybody got the joke. But if you want our economy to move at warp speed, put money in the hands of the people who have demonstrated time and again that they are unwilling to save. Or put it in the hands of people whose basic needs aren't being met, and watch how fast it moves.
That's the problem with trickle-down economics. A certain percentage of stimulus is used for wealth-building rather than being directly injected into the economy. Anyway, I just wanted to pop in here real quick and thank everybody for my February bonus, which will be coming out of all your tax dollars. As we do every year, I plan to stick that money into our retirement savings.
if you tax the middle class more then you will slow the economy even more.
on a side note ... you dont need that bonus. redistribute it again to me.
here is a thought...
those banks arent spending the money as the government thought they would (again showing that you cant regulate or tax/spend your way out of a recession) but could that money that they are holding on to be what is keeping them in business? could an argument be made that this is a good thing? Im still against the bailout plan, but since its here cant we look for a silver lining?
as far as putting money into the hands of those who are "unwilling to save" or "whose basic needs aren't being met"...
arent we already doing that with the welfare system?
im sure that there are at least a few people out there that say this is a reward for being jobless.
Yes, you're right, there ARE a FEW opportunities out there where someone with nothing can make their way in an emerging area and happen to strike it rich... Those chances are VERY SLIM however...
In today's day and age the fact is it really DOES take money to make money in most cases... Let me give you an example...
If I have a few hundred million to toss around and I decide I want to start a new business... Let's say sporting goods store... We'll call it ... "Sporters Paradise"...
I open up a couple of stores in a few key towns... I open a huge warehouse where I can store all the goods and distribute them effectively... I call up key manufacturers and work deals with them directly to purchases palletes of their goods to sell in my stores... I purchase lots of tv advertising in those towns where I open my stores...
Chances are, if I played my cards right, and those areas did need a good sporting goods store, I'm going to make money... probably lots of it...
Now let's flip that around to the guy with no money... I open up "Sporters Garage"... Funny name since it's actually based out of my garage... For a minimum investment (all I can afford) I purchase some shelving and a cash register... Get the place fixed up, a little signage for out front and viola, I'm in business...
The first problem I face is that *** who opened Sporters Paradise last year has struck deals with the manufacturers because of the volume of purchasing he was able to buy goods and sell them FAR below what I can purchase them from wholesalers for... Which means my BEST option is to buy from Sporters Paradise, mark it up and then sell it at Sporters Garage...
How many people can pull that off? Okay, but I've got a great idea... I'm going to add value to my products... I might not be the "cheapest" guy on the block, but my knowledge far exceeds those teenage kids that work at Sporters Paradise that have never been outdoors in their life...
How many people care? Sure there are a few people that go to honest to goodness mom and pop lumber yards because they like the knowledge, but for every one of those how many hundreds skip the mom and pop and head to Lowe's or Home Depot instead???
Anyway... Now I've got other problems to face anyway... The only person that knows about Sporters Garage is my next door neighbors... I've ran a couple ads in the classifieds of the local paper, but I can't afford some huge advertising campaign... Even of those that DO see one of my fliers, how many wouldn't rather go to the great big Sporters Paradise where they can pick up everything they need for their next outting PLUS the groceries rather than coming to my small garage where stock is limited???
But according to you Kuzi, none of that matters... Simply because I'm determined to make it the people will come... I'll be making millions in no time...
????
As was stated before, things are very different today than they were 70, 50, or even 20 or 30 years ago...
I had a computer store once... It did okay for a little while... Paid the rent anyway... Despite no advertising budget, business was pretty good... At that time the internet was just starting to become popular... When someone wanted a computer they either ordered it out of Computer Shopper catalog or went to a local store... MOST went to a local store...
Then the shift happened... The internet because much more popular... Everybody and their mother could get on... Soon you had huge distributers like CDW selling computers and parts...
Towards the end I was forced to do exactly that... Purchase from CDW and resale at a markup... Why? Because the BIG distributors TechData and Ingram-Micro with the volume of my orders wouldn't even match prices I could get straight from CDW...
Funny that... You see, CDW bought most of their stuff from TechData and Ingram-Micro as well... But since they bought millions of a single item versus me buying 10, they got the bigger price break...
It was REALLY bad... My WHOLESALE price from TechData for an item might be $239.88 BEFORE shipping... Buying it from CDW my price might be $219 WITH shipping...
And the real gut wrencher? Anybody and their mother could go and order it from CDW for $219... Why would they buy it from me for $250???
So Kuzi... I'm glad you were able to start with nothing and make the american dream work for you. When things are going right it's a high like no other... But don't think for a minute you weren't one of the lucky ones...
And frankly, don't cheapen the efforts of others who struggled and strived to acheive it for themselves and failed by stating it was their own fault or lack of determination...
I've started and owned my own business twice... Both times I was run out of business because someone else had a much larger pocketbook than I did...
Had I been born in the 50's things would have been different...
Had I been born to parents who could afford more than the clothes on their back things would have been different...
Nowadays I sit in my office living pretty much paycheck to paycheck working for someone else who has a big pocketbook...
Yes
For me? Yes. For the global economy in the long term? No.
What are you an Optimist? Anyway, I just did.. Merry Christmas to me
And look at how fast that money gets back into the economy! Seriously, though, the system needs to be adjusted. I believe it has been mentioned on here that there are plenty of jobs around which would be helpful to society, and which could be required of someone in order to be eligible for their welfare check. I'd like to see that addressed.
i am not lucky at all. Luck didn't have a damn thing to do with it. A lot of hard work and a lot of Blood and sweat got me where i am. There is nothing different between me and people in my industry below me. I just work harder/smarter. there are few things in life that get me agitated more than when someone calls me "lucky" for what i have. I wasn't handed anything. I don't have a degree. my parents never paid for anything more than food and clothing. I made my "luck" through hard work and a constant willingness to learn, adapt, and in general do whatever it takes to make it. I learned the system that is in place and worked within it. It may look easy now but getting to where I am in life was a difficult task with a ton of BS, a ton of work, and a ton of failure involved.
. IT isnt easy. it isnt fun. Its life. NOTHING is handed to you, nor should it be. If you rely on others to get you what you need in life you will never move up.
it sucks that your business didnt do well. and in a way you are right that money can create money. but owning your own business is not the only way to live "the American dream." Every day i get up and go to work and i am thankful that I am part of a corporation that has deep pockets. they enable me to make money. Eventually i hope to strike out on my own because i will have saved enough to do so. where did i get the money? big business. big evil business is giving me the opportunity to make money, and get a raise/promotion even in this economy because of its pockets. it benefits me to work there. but again, im not entry level. I had to start as a dishwasher.It took time to get into management.
i AM an optimist. I wouldnt survive if i wasnt.
Very well stated Sirius.
Kuzi, I have no issues with what you state here except for one thing. This is something which a lot of people "Believe" about the situation they find themselves in, in regard to their working live's. Kuzi you said...
it sucks that your business didnt do well. and in a way you are right that money can create money. but owning your own business is not the only way to live "the American dream." Every day i get up and go to work and i am thankful that I am part of a corporation that has deep pockets. they enable me to make money. Eventually i hope to strike out on my own because i will have saved enough to do so. where did i get the money? big business. big evil business is giving me the opportunity to make money, and get a raise/promotion even in this economy because of its pockets. it benefits me to work there. but again, im not entry level. I had to start as a dishwasher.It took time to get into management.
A long time ago I realized something about myself. I will state here first that I am not the sort of person to blow their own horn, what I realized was this...
I am a good employee (or was I am now self employed) and I do a good job for my bosses. I show up to work , on time, ready to work, and quite often found ways to make my job easier, safer, more productive, and I trained many people over the years to do that same job(s).
My issue with what you stated above Kuzi is that you belittle yourself. You have reached whatever level of success you have by being a good employee and most likely doing many of the same type of things that I mentioned.
The reason you make money from your employer is that you make money for your employer. Your employers does not give you money because he is a nice person. Or because he is worried about your family at home or whether your kids have shoes, food, or clothing. NOPE, he pays you because of what you bring to him by way of your skills set. If you are a lousy employee, with a drinking problem, late for work, non productive, bad attitude, low or no concern for the success of the company then YOU are either very lucky that you have a job or you ARE in a position to consider the big company as your "saviour" because you should not be working.
People need to take pride in their skills and how those skills allow their employers to run a successful company. Take pride and know that you are in a REAL contract with your employer. You give him a good skill set which he uses to make money for his family. In return for your efforts he acknowledges a job well done (hopefully) and pays you what he owes you as his part of the contract. You are not fortunate that your company has deep pockets... they are fortunate that YOU are a good employee that is making them money. It's a contract, as long as both parties are happy with the outcome then it is a successful contract at that.
I hate it when people put themselves down in such a way. These situations are always a two way proposition.