Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What we have here ladies and gentlemen is called "don't believe your lying eyes ... believe the statistics that tell you how much better off you are today ... instead."
Bunk. Your whole post is bunk.
I lived in the 50's and can assure you that the average person is way better off in a material way today than in the 50's.
People have bigger houses, more cars, more electronics, more clothes, more food, eat out more, play more golf, take more trips than the 1950s. By any material measure, people are much better off today.
You twist the stats so bad I won't even respond, and you selectively quote (or mis quote) these stats.
I lived in the 50's and can assure you that the average person is way better off in a material way today than in the 50's.
People have bigger houses, more cars, more electronics, more clothes, more food, eat out more, play more golf, take more trips than the 1950s. By any material measure, people are much better off today.
You twist the stats so bad I won't even respond, and you selectively quote (or mis quote) these stats.
Not to stray too far from the topic at hand, this reminds me of helping a young friend of mine go house hunting. We went to view a 1950's era house as the neighborhood is still immaculate and bordered the old "mansion mile". Her first response when walking into the house was, "Holy cow, look how tiny these rooms are and it only has one bathroom". Basically a 3/1 with detached garage at roughly just over 1000 sq ft. The former owner was a local plant engineer who built his "dream house".
Things were indeed very different, but I suspect President Eisenhower was a commie is the reason.
Thank you .. I was beginning to wonder if I was fighting this festival of ignorance alone. Collectivism ... common good .... the dollar a safe haven ... where do these people come up with this stuff?
This has been the mantra of every communist/fascist dictator in history ... the common good ... we must all set aside our own interests for the collective ... sieg heil!
Of course, the kicker here is that what is generally defined to be in the best interests of the common good is usually decided by a very small minority for everyone else. And that minority always excludes themselves of any sacrifice.
I see a couple of really big problems with your posts.
First of all I really don't think you have a grasp or an understanding of what money actually is. All it is is a medium of exchange and it really doesn't matter if it's paper bills or wampum or whatever. It just represents some value in the medium of exchange.
Secondly I really don't think that you know your history very well at all. You make so many statements that are just plain wrong from a factual basis. Here in Canada we live better than we have ever lived and there is no question of that. In the area of downtown Toronto that I was raised in everyone worked. There was very little unemployment. I did not have one friend whos dad was without a job. about 50% of my pals had no family car at all and meat with dinner was a special treat. Families had 1 TV one radio and a funny observation that I have made is our houses had almost no closets. It wasn't a problem though because people had nothing to put in them. Kids had like 3 shirts 1 pair, of shoes, one coat, 3 pair of pants and so on. We didn't think we were poor , we had everything we needed. That sure isn't the average case today I'll tell you.
Well the hockey game is started and like any good Canadian I must go now and watch it but I'll be back to refute more of your falsehoods.
I don't give a damn who said what, if a person is required by the state to provide for the common and collective good of that state then you are engaging in a socialist act.
Sorry, but you're a socialist.
Is the Interstate Highway system for the common good? How about the FAA or the Center of Disease Control, if you get a weather report NOAA provides the radar data the fact is the government provides many services that are for the collective good and nobody complains until you get around to social spending.
GuyNTexas I beg to differ but you are full of hot air. People have more stuff than ever in history and it costs a heck of a lot less than it ever did. People are better off than they ever were too. Sure their are a lot of unemployed and that is not surprising since America has decided to buy the majority of what it consumes from other countries. What is the statistic? If I remember correctly it was around 15% domestic purchases. In Germany IT'S 90% of what Germans buy is made in Germany.
You are totally barking up the wrong tree and what ails the USA more than anything else is the entire unsustainable consummerism that will drive the country into the ground. That and a government that is almost totally disfunctional when it comes to making some hard choices.
You need to make up your mind ... you describe our wonderful condition as proved by how much "stuff" we have today, only to turn around and claim consumerism to be our downfall ... only to claim that the massive amount of cash supplied by the central banks is the savior to civilization as we know it.
You sound like a crack head overdosing on LSD in a room of mirrors with strobe lights for crying out loud .. And I'm full of hot air?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
As I said before it's only the central bankers that have prevented the USA from collapsing or having it's standard of living greatly reduced long ago. You seem to forget that before the central bank was formed economic chaos reigned in the country and putting your money in a bank was like buying a lotto ticket they were so shakey. It's only the creation of a standard currency and control of that, that has enabled the amazing developments post WW2. Now, today we have an example of a rapid economic growth like never seen in the world before. I'm talking about China of course. Do you think the Chinese would like to get rid of central banks? Never in a million years because it's only through that mechanism that the Capital for their rapid development is available. The Chinese are even worse than the Fed in their manipulation of the value of their currency. They keep it low, real low. And why do you suppose they do that? You must think it's because they want their country to fail but of course that's crap. They do it so that they will eventually become the number one economy in the world and if the USA doesn't smarten up they will.
You also said how this economic stuff has your head spinning and that no one understands it ... only to then turn right around and attempt to explain it to me
Listen up ... I gave you some resources to explore, so that you can better educate yourself, and cease sounding foolish with statements like the dollar being a safe haven, and how we owe our very existence to the gangsters at the Federal Reserve .... if you had even a TINY CLUE ... you'd recognize how childish you sound saying such things ... you don't, so you don't.
Here is a link to the audio presentation of the Creature From Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin ... explaining how the Federal Reserve was created .. and who makes up it's core .. how they operate .. and what their policies have actually done to America.
Until you take an hour to listen to this ... my only comment to you will continue to be the grass is not chartreuse, and the sky is not tooty fruity. The grass is green and the sky is blue, and it's high time you learned this obvious truth.
Please cite a few of these psychological studies, I'm most interested in reading them.
Considering that human beings are social animals and have collected into groups since they were walking upright, and have done so because being a part of a collective group was safer than living alone. Why are so many human beings today living in cities? Why did early man congregate into small collectives even when they were just moving from hunter gatherers to fixed agrarian societies?
If human beings were so opposed to "collectivism" then why is it that solitary confinement is considered cruel and harsh treatment by so many today? Even in a far lighter sense, I've had some of my more conservative minded friends come to visit out here in the very rural styx and their reaction is OMG how in the heck do you live in such solitude, don't you miss people? No I don't.
Read the book "Predictably Irrational". The book is full of such studies and is very entertaining.
It shows the irrationality of "collectivism" with discrete studies of human nature. Such sentiments have been around for the history of mankind. Go the city center of Oslo, Norway, and look at the sculpture of the Greek figures holding up the model of the globe to understand why this is true.
Is the Interstate Highway system for the common good? How about the FAA or the Center of Disease Control, if you get a weather report NOAA provides the radar data the fact is the government provides many services that are for the collective good and nobody complains until you get around to social spending.
I'm not complaining one bit, as I understand that there is a balance between the collective good and the needs of the individual. I believe that right now is a good time for smaller government, not because I simply advocate that smaller government is best, but because it is what I feel is best now. Tomorrow, government may need to be bigger, but the point is there is a balance to be struck, if not at least discussed.
I also realize the connection between the Latin root of the word society and social, socialism, and that human beings are social animals. Even a family unit is a social group and my point earlier was my being bummed out that a great philosophical opportunity to discuss the needs of the individual and that of the collective need of a social group was being overlooked by all but a few. I suppose I just got to keep reminding myself that this isn't Kansas, or even my porch.
Without the idea of "The common good" why would we even have governments or laws at all? Without that concept we are just cavemen looking out for ourselves and no one else. Even something as simple as making stealing against the law is for the common good. If you have something I want and I'm bigger and stronger than you well I'll just take what's yours and that will be good for me but not so good for you but what the heck people here seem to think that the common good is just nonsense. The idea of the common good is what gives us not only our freedom but all of our security as well. You can be free in Somalia but a lot of good that does you without a concept of the common good. Anyone can just come along at any time and blow you away.
It's a balancing act for our governments to be able to balance the common good against the freedom of the individual and that is where the problem lies. I think the western democracies have done a pretty good job of it, sometimes too much one way like in France or too much the other way like in the USA. And then of course you have Canada where the balance is just right.LOL I'm just kidding of course. We do it differently here. It's more of a regional thing with each province mostly in charge of it's own affairs in the social realm. The fed mandate a minimum and fund that but anything above it is the responsibility of each political division.
Without the idea of "The common good" why would we even have governments or laws at all? Without that concept we are just cavemen looking out for ourselves and no one else. Even something as simple as making stealing against the law is for the common good. If you have something I want and I'm bigger and stronger than you well I'll just take what's yours and that will be good for me but not so good for you but what the heck people here seem to think that the common good is just nonsense. The idea of the common good is what gives us not only our freedom but all of our security as well. You can be free in Somalia but a lot of good that does you without a concept of the common good. Anyone can just come along at any time and blow you away. It's a balancing act for our governments to be able to balance the common good against the freedom of the individual and that is where the problem lies. I think the western democracies have done a pretty good job of it, sometimes too much one way like in France or too much the other way like in the USA. And then of course you have Canada where the balance is just right.LOL I'm just kidding of course. We do it differently here. It's more of a regional thing with each province mostly in charge of it's own affairs in the social realm. The fed mandate a minimum and fund that but anything above it is the responsibility of each political division.
Having read through some thoughtful postings here, I kind of took a broader view of this along the same context as your post, which I reckon is just habit for me on these subjects.
The bolded portion reminded me of a bit I read not long ago, so I dug it up. Not only is there a struggle to find balance between the individual and the common good in government, but also within men.
Vices Are Not Crimes | LysanderSpooner.org
while this content isn't specifically related to the topic, there are portions which I feel relate to the greater debate concerning individualism and the collective society, especially on moral issues.
Quote:
VIII.
In the midst of this endless variety of opinion, what man, or what body of men, has the right to say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, "We have tried this experiment, and determined every question involved in it? We have determined it, not only for ourselves, but for all others? And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience to our conclusion? We will suffer no further experiment or inquiry by any one, and, consequently, no further acquisition of knowledge by anybody?"
Nothing flippant about the remark, just a plain statement ... unless of course you think Benjamin friggin Franklin was being flippant when he said it?
You may disagree with the premise ... or you may be SILENT.
It was a flippant remark, it doesn't matter if you lifted a quote or not. If I said "All's the world a stage..." in response to Hilltopper's comment, it would have been flippant, because rather than attempt a thoughtful response to his comment, rather than actually have a discourse about individualism versus the common good, my comment, like yours, wouldn't have been intended to add to the discourse, but to shut it down.
You switch between very lengthy replies and more pithy responses, but generally speaking, your intent is not to have a conversation, it's to put an end to conversation. I'm glad that you place a value on intelligence, and that you have healthy self-esteem, but I don't think you value conversation or the exchange of ideas. As is clearly demonstrated by your last sentence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I'm full of hot air?
