Record High Gas Prices?

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by cleanspeed1

Many folks were disappeared during the incubation process of implementing Uncle Milty's principles, and the rich got richer while the poor got poorer.

The rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer is in the nature of capitalism. "Equality of result" is unattainable, no matter how extensive and intrusive any socialist redistribution scheme my be. In itself, the disparity between "rich" and "poor" is not an inherent problem or even a cause for social unrest, as most capitalist countries have not succumbed to violence or bloody revolution. It's only a problem when the middle class is scant or non-existent.

However, capitalism is not always instilled at the point of a gun; your example notwithstanding, it rarely is. Nor can "Uncle Milty's principles" be blamed for the actions chosen by a tinhorn dictator. An authoritarian dictator will aspire to, and become a dictator, no matter what his preferred economic ideology is. (BTW, your Leftist leanings are showing.)

"Rich" and "poor" are relative concepts.

"The poor will always be with us."

[cleanspeed1]

You're funny TC, I like you already!

Anyway, good stuff on the link.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by cleanspeed1

You're funny TC, I like you already!

Anyway, good stuff on the link.

I amended my earlier post with this link.

The original concept of Fascism would also be known today as "State Capitalism".

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

The distinction is one of the state directly running the means of production (as in Soviet style communism) as opposed to doing it through privately controlled organizations (corporations) as in Fascist Italy. Granted, when coupled to a totalitarian regime it has the same effect in the end, except that technically it retains a capitalist format. NAZI Germany similarly allowed private property, but it was under direct domination by the state. However, The Third Reich was overtly socialist in its stated ideology. (The schizophrenic nature of it was typical of the NAZI mentality.)

Nazi Germany's approach was kind of strange anyway - partly because they had little or no foreign exchange (and therefore restricted money going outside the state) but provided private business with loads of government money to stimulate the economy. A lot of the Nazi's early supporters were rich industrialists who wanted an effective opposition to the communists - for a long time post WW1 Germany was 50:50 Communist vs not - and this was in some way a kind of payback. The state was 'nationalised' but large private 'german' monopolies were funded to provide the stuff required.

Some foreign companies (a classic example is IBM, but there were loads of others from all over the world) were happy to invest in German owned subsidiaries in return for lucrative government contracts.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

.... In itself, the disparity between "rich" and "poor" is not an inherent problem or even a cause for social unrest, as most capitalist countries have not succumbed to violence or bloody revolution. It's only a problem when the middle class is scant or non-existent.

The imbalance between rich and poor becomes a problem when there is no social mobility, those at the bottom see nothing to lose in upsetting the system and wanting an alternative - communism or some other state "distribution of wealth" scheme. And they will use violence as a path to this kind of change if the situation becomes too entrenched.

The problem is that in any society those at the top want to see their position remain and so protect it in some way. And if this is allowed to dominate (e.g. pre-civil war Spain) then it can become top-heavy and unstable. In the future the US may face this problem as the majority of it's population becomes Hispanic, here in the UK the majority of the population will become muslim by 2100.

The middle-east 'freedom' movement is directly related to this - a minority elite profiting from private enterprise whilst a majority underclass has no opportunity to better themselves.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

The rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer is in the nature of capitalism.

That hardly squares with the facts. Take a look at the list of richest people in the US here: The Richest People in America - Forbes.com Most of those people didn't start from wealth (especially if you exclude the heirs of Sam Walton, who didn't start rich), and you can find plenty of similar stories all the way down the economic ladder.

If people live below their income, save, and invest with a modicum of sense, they are very likely to become richer. If they choose to live above their income, and finance their consumerist lifestyles with money borrowed at credit-card interest rates, they are likely to become poor.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

That hardly squares with the facts. Take a look at the list of richest people in the US here: The Richest People in America - Forbes.com Most of those people didn't start from wealth (especially if you exclude the heirs of Sam Walton, who didn't start rich), and you can find plenty of similar stories all the way down the economic ladder.

Once again, in your response you address an entirely different point than the one being made. No one said that opportunity was lacking in America or that no one but the rich could become rich.

BTW, since you disagree, consider that there is no way the rich will become richer in a non-capitalist economy.

If people live below their income, save, and invest with a modicum of sense, they are very likely to become richer. If they choose to live above their income, and finance their consumerist lifestyles with money borrowed at credit-card interest rates, they are likely to become poor.

All true, but not the point of the statement, at all. The point is that it is easier for someone who is already rich to become richer with less effort than for someone who is starting out with few(er) assets. Also, regarding the poor, they will become poorer if they have no assets to invest, as price inflation is constant over time (and even rampant sometimes, as with necessities such as food and fuel). Inflation makes everyone poorer, as whatever profits (gains) generated from inflated markets is taxable as income.

(P.S. The original statement wasn't even mine. I just agreed that it is basically true.)

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Once again, in your response you address an entirely different point than the one being made.

Baloney! You must keep your (for want of a better word) mind on the other side of the looking glass, where words mean just what you want them to.

No one said that opportunity was lacking in America or that no one but the rich could become rich.

Yes, you did. Quoting, of course, but in such a way as to make the reader suppose that you agreed with the idea quoted.

BTW, since you disagree, consider that there is no way the rich will become richer in a non-capitalist economy.

Certainly there is. Give financial support to those in power, and be rewarded for it.

All true, but not the point of the statement, at all. The point is that it is easier for someone who is already rich to become richer with less effort than for someone who is starting out with few(er) assets.

Then why do we not see Rockefellers, Fords, and other scions of the 19th to early 20th century "robber barons" heading the list of the currently wealthy? (The first Rockefeller or similar name on that list is down around #150, below such children of inherited wealth as Oprah Winfrey & Steven Spielberg.) Because those who inherit wealth generally invest it conservatively (or have it invested for them by their trust funds), and so make relatively modest gains, which tend to be spent or divided among children & grandchildren.

Also, regarding the poor, they will become poorer if they have no assets to invest...

So they need to acquire assets, by getting an education, saving, etc. They will become richer if their expenditures are less than income, adjusted for inflation. Plenty of poor people eventually become prosperous, even modestly wealthy. And on the flip side, it's not entirely unknown for some of the wealthy to become poor through carelessness. See for instance quite a few Madoff investors.

So the original statement is basically a socio-politically motivated crock.

[Frank Lee]

Just saw a story recently on sports figures who pissed away millions and now have nothing.

ANYway, gas prices... haven't budged a bit here for several weeks now...

[Thymeclock]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
Once again, in your response you address an entirely different point than the one being made.

Baloney! You must keep your (for want of a better word) mind on the other side of the looking glass, where words mean just what you want them to.

Boom! Once again James thinks he can provoke and win an argument by an aggressive response, never quoting anyone or responding to the point made, only spinning his wheels angrily and furiously.

For you to have any credibility, James, you must quote me verbatim and address the point made, not change the point or merely shoot back at me with your spun version of what was said.

Quote:
No one said that opportunity was lacking in America or that no one but the rich could become rich.

Yes, you did. Quoting, of course, but in such a way as to make the reader suppose that you agreed with the idea quoted.

For you to have any credibility, James, you must quote me verbatim and address the point made, not change the point or merely shoot back at me with your spun version of what was said.

Quote:
BTW, since you disagree, consider that there is no way the rich will become richer in a non-capitalist economy.

Certainly there is. Give financial support to those in power, and be rewarded for it.

It's obvious to anyone who is reading this thread carefully that you are essentially taking my position (about power vs. wealth) and pretending it is now yours. As I said before, power and wealth may coincide, or the exercise of power may bring wealth, or political influence may be bought, but wielding power and merely being rich are not the same thing.

For you to have any credibility, James, you must quote me verbatim and address the point made, not change the point or merely shoot back at me with your spun version of what was said.


Quote:
All true, but not the point of the statement, at all. The point is that it is easier for someone who is already rich to become richer with less effort than for someone who is starting out with few(er) assets.

Then why do we not see Rockefellers, Fords, and other scions of the 19th to early 20th century "robber barons" heading the list of the currently wealthy?

(The first Rockefeller or similar name on that list is down around #150, below such children of inherited wealth as Oprah Winfrey & Steven Spielberg.) Because those who inherit wealth generally invest it conservatively (or have it invested for them by their trust funds), and so make relatively modest gains, which tend to be spent or divided among children & grandchildren.

Yep. And they aren't getting any poorer, are they? Would you want them to be getting poorer? For all your bluster you have no purpose in this thread other than drawing attention to yourself and demonstrating how distracting and contentious you can be.

Apparently you have been watching too much of David Letterman's "top 10 list." I'm sure there are no Rockefellers in the poorhouse. They might be #150 on the list of the most wealthy, but YOU are nowhere on that list, nor will you ever be with your exceedingly contentious, hostile attitude.

Quote:
Also, regarding the poor, they will become poorer if they have no assets to invest...

So they need to acquire assets, by getting an education, saving, etc. They will become richer if their expenditures are less than income, adjusted for inflation. Plenty of poor people eventually become prosperous, even modestly wealthy. And on the flip side, it's not entirely unknown for some of the wealthy to become poor through carelessness. See for instance quite a few Madoff investors.

So once again, you'll try to drag "the kitchen sink" into this discussion in an attempt to hijack the discussion, eh? It won't fly James. All you know is how to try to change the subject constantly or misrepresent what was said, and interject hostility.

So the original statement is basically a socio-politically motivated crock.

So that's your personal opinion, with nothing else to give it credibility other than your disapproval.

But just what is YOUR motivation, James?

IT IS: denial, contentiousness, and hostility in discussion, exhibited unceasingly, with no other redeeming purpose. And when all else fails you resort to pure insults.

For you to have any credibility, James, you must quote me verbatim and address the point made, not change the point or merely shoot back at me with your spun version of what was said.

[Odin]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee;2351ng.02

ANYway, gas prices... haven't budged a bit here for several weeks now...

went up from 3.72 yesterday to 4.19 for 87 and up to 4.45 for diesel