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.
That is true, if you to consider other forms of life as members of your "society". By putting 1 acre of land under plow one kills off/starve off (almost) everything non human that lived off that acre.
But, doesn't ignorance cause that? There have been many civilizations that existed on small pieces of land and they thrived quite well without destroying anything.
People are amoungst the dumbest creatures on the planet so we destroy most everything we touch. But, the planet is very good at "supporting" life even with our dumbasses mucking it up.
Take a look at dogs. If you have ever had one you know how intuitive they are. Sometimes they can tell by your tone of voice exactly what you mean.
But, I can talk with a human for 20 minutes about some simple point and they can't understand.
"How many destitute, working, middle class folks & government repression does it take to maintain luxurious lifestyle of a generic 100k "true" middle class type"?
After all, in hierarchical social/wealth pyramid it's not just about your education & hard work, education & hard work are thoroughly pointless if there are no people working less than desirable jobs for less, much less.
It's a serious practical question, not a flame. What is "sustainable" ratio underclass:working:low middle: middle: upper middle:super rich in a laissez-faire economy? Could it be that post New Deal & post WWII America got soft on free market fundamentalism and lamented "shrinking of middle class" is nothing more than "going back to normal"?
My guess is we will ultimately get something like this:
I mean if most of our industries are service related and there isn't that much manufacturing or labor left to speak of, it already screws up the pyramid. I'm not sure what would be healthy. The economy is now global so in essence we are also oppressing much of the 3rd world factory populations in order to complete our pyramid of mostly white collar jobs -- those 3rd world people are the true laboring, poor exploited class and there is not much of a true "lower class" to speak of here. Just people on welfare, hah.
If I were to take a guess, I would say in a healthy society:
That is a fair statement of the mis-education taught into the culture. Even paid for to be chanted to the masses by paid spokesfolks like Rush Limbaugh. But is it true?
Even if we were to totally ignore the bottom part that the middle "cannot see" being exploited and asset stripped (we can get back to that later), a static analysis should show you this myth is not true.
Let's start with 100%. All is all there ever is. Sort of a tautology, but there is no "football" math -- e.g. We will give a 110%, Coach! -- There is no 110%. At any given time, there is only all there is -- 100%.
Is that basic definition of 100% fair enough?
And maybe think of that 100% as a big pizza buffet. Everyone can get all they can eat is the presentation, right?
h o w e v e r . . . . in practice, if we sit back and watch the Great American Pizza Pie Buffet, what we see are some chronic gluttons who shove their way to front and gobble up most of the pizza, yelling "Mine, Mine, Mine" -- like the seagulls in Searching for Nemo. The claim is that if they can take it, because it is All You Can Eat, what they take is theirs, and why share?
[That is static, or one year held-in-time analysis, now let's get dynamic and start moving through time]
But you say, wait a minute, or just wait-a-pizza-refresh/reload cycle. There is always the next fill-up on the buffet. Or as Annie sang -- Tomorrow, tomorrow, there always tomorrow. And there will be more pizza. And if it is a cycle (or year, as we tend to measure these things) of "growth" whether real or make-believe, there will be more pizza on the buffet than there was today! Of course as you observed, in a year of no real growth there will not likely be even be as much pizza as today.
But let's say we have that growth, tomorrow, or the next cycle, or next year. Now there should be yet MORE Pizza on the Great American All Can You Eat Pizza Buffet, right? And thus validation of your claim of new wealth or more new pizza from "innovations and new technologies." Is that a fair example of what you are saying?
And so, if we sit back as observers, now the next day, after having added growth to the Great American Pizza Buffet, what do we see? The same gluttons shoving their way to the front. Perhaps today aided by accountants to track their pizza accumulation and fund-managers to help them acquire even more pizza than they could have carried off on their own.
Even with growth in the model, the value system of the top end glutton is that if "growth" has been 3% (or whatever) they each personally must experience 10% growth, just to stay above average. The gluttons are why no matter how much more pizza or growth is brought out, the middle must stay suppressed and the bottom starves.
On the mythic Great America Pizza Buffet it goes on like this day after day, cycle after cycle, and year after year.
Lather, rinse, repeat . . . until the bottle is empty
It has went on like this since the rise of "Reagonomics." The ethos became "Greed is Good," and such behavior became tolerated.
At this point most assets have been replaced by debt, but middle and (some) bottom folks still mindlessly chant "tomorrow, tomorrow, there is always tomorrow," thinking that they may be reborn as glutton-predators to shove their way to the front of the buffet.
The mass accumulation of wealth -- even as an infinite growth model (whole other false subject) is the ethos of obesity at best and more like the growth of cancer, in full practice. As the cancer accumulates and asset strips the rest of the body, death follows.
Once the objections pass to this Alarm Clock to the American Dream, we can get into the why millions of real people must be crushed into poverty and death to support the rise of just one billionaire.
It's a serious practical question, not a flame. What is "sustainable" ratio underclass:working:low middle: middle: upper middle:super rich in a laissez-faire economy?
You have the wrong class structure.
The correct question is what is sustainable ratio of Stupid Class to Intelligent Class.
The Intelligent Class is intelligent, self-disciplined, goal-oriented, and willing to make a short-term sacrifice for a long-term gain or benefit.
The Stupid Class is, well, stupid, lacks any self-discipline, is oriented to instant self-gratification on a whim, and will sacrifice every thing in the long-term in order to have a brief short-term pleasure.
The Stupid Class will purchase a $250,000 McMansion with 0% down at 6.5 % for 30 years and as a consequence of their stupidity, desire for instant self-gratification, and refusal to make a short-term sacrifice for a long term gain, and they will pay $318,000 in interest.
Then in their ignorance, they will whine and cry like small children claiming they were "oppressed" because they voluntarily of their own free will gave $318,000 to the Intelligent Class.
Then later they will try to sell the McMansion for $650,000 because they have to get at least $568,000 in order to make any semblance of a profit, and when the McMansion is only valued at $450,000 and they're poised to take a huge loss, they will blame everyone but themselves for their ignorance, short-sightedness, lack of intelligence and lack of self-discipline.
Is any of this ringing a bell?
The Intelligent Class would put 25% to 35% down on their $250,000 McMansion and pay only $79,956 in interest. The Intelligent Class can then sell the home later for $450,000 which is the same price the Stupid Class idiot has his McMansion for sale, and still make a profit of...
....$120,044, while the Stupid Class idiot takes a loss of $118,000.
More than that, the Intelligent Class has then taken the $238,905 in savings in interest from their home purchase and parlay that into $762,505 through investments, and $762,505 is what you would get by just putting the money into a very simple uncomplicated investment vehicle like a pass-book savings account.
So the Intelligent Class ends up with $120,044 plus $762,505 or $882,549 in profits while the Stupid Class slob has take a loss of $356,905.
And where does the evil globalist capitalist come into play here? He doesn't. He's on the sidelines watching the stupidity.
The Intelligent Class is smart about their money, the Stupid Class is not, which is why the Stupid Class doesn't have any money.
Then the Intelligent Class will retire at 65, use the $120,044 to pay cash out-right for a small cottage or a condo, and then live off of their savings of $762,505 which will give them $38,000 per year for 20 years, plus their Social Security, plus their pension, plus their 401k, plus any other investments they had.
The Stupid Class is so stupid and has so little self-discipline that they will buy a $1,700 Plasma TV and then pay $1,973 in interest because they're stupid.
The Intelligent Class will set a goal of saving $290/month for 6 months and then pay cash for the Plasma TV, which will probably be on sale then for $1,500 so the Intelligent Class will save $2,173 which for them will be a Cruise in the South Atlantic, or holiday at Niagara Falls for a 2nd honeymoon.
The Stupid Class spends their 2nd honeymoon staring at a Plasma TV.
The Stupid Class goes to Kohl's and buys clothes at 15% off then puts it on a credit card and pays interest of 19.8% which not only totally negates the 15% off they would have saved if they had the discipline to pay cash, but they take a net loss of 4.8% and then have the unmitigated gall to claim they are being "repressed" by evil globalists laissez-faire capitalists.
So as you can plainly see, it's not some kind of conspiracy. It's just stupid people doing what they do best,which is being very stupid.
The Stupid Class has plenty of money and every opportunity to build wealth, they just refuse to do so. That's their fault, and no one else's.
im sooo tired of all the rediculious poor vs rich arguments as everything gets twisted and bent so those who have less can attack those that have more and hold them accountable for some gibberish that they dug up on some blog. .
but you hit the nail on the head. its not about rich or poor its about stupid and smart. there are stupid rich people and stupid poor people.
problem is you can get breast implants, tummy tucks and face lifts but you cant fix stupid!.....
Then I suppose you really Do Not Want to Hear why millions of Native Americans had to be exterminated before Henry Ford moblies could come about, how entire forests had to be exterminated for Woody Side stationwagons, how River Rouge was turned to toxic sludge, and how now millions of darkie Africans and Ay-rabs have been exterminated in keeping Oil Flowing to keep the Great American Dream a rolling.
Because the mythic land of American Capitalism is Wunderful Rainbow Stew, there is only good for everyone, and nobody is ever harmed in the making of this or that Billionaire.
Then I suppose you really Do Not Want to Hear why millions of Native Americans had to be exterminated before Henry Ford moblies could come about, how entire forests had to be exterminated for Woody Side stationwagons, how River Rouge was turned to toxic sludge, and how now millions of darkie Africans and Ay-rabs have been exterminated in keeping Oil Flowing to keep the Great American Dream a rolling.
Because the mythic land of American Capitalism is Wunderful Rainbow Stew, there is only good for everyone, and nobody is ever harmed in the making of this or that Billionaire.
So back to sleep in the American Dreamland. Morning will be here, soon enough.
[what was I thinking?]
If you were as skilled at formulating logical argument as you are at sneering at people, which you have elevated to an art form, then you would be a world-class debater.
I think th ideal for a healthy society would be 10% lower class, 80% middle class, and 10% upper class.
This doesn't mean communism though, that would mean 100% equality.
The people that boggle my mind are ones that want this:
1% upper class, 1% middle class (people who serve the other 1%), and 98% desitute (I'm talking poverty like Bangladesh here too).
Your healthy society is more just and desireable, but 98% poverty is more sustainable in populations experiencing exponential growth. The more wealthy a society is across the board, the more they use and the faster we get a "winterkill die-off" scenario.
Nature of course doesn't give a flying @&$K about fairness, equality, morality or the kind of things a middl-class society encourages.
Very few elites over a huge underclass has a 6000 year track record of "success". The dominant middle class has about 100 years and is already breaking down.
Just saying...
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.
[what was I thinking?]
