Re: Master list of "issues" exist anywhere?

Kevin Scholl wrote:


Strange, because my experience has been marginally the opposite. Of
course, the fact that neither party has held power for more than 8
years at a time for decades (excepting Reagan-Reagan-Bush41), and has
been largely checked by Congress, balances things out somewhat, too.

So, Republicans may be tagged "capitalists" and Democratics
"socialists" but it all boils down to the fact that Republicans support
the monied in an elitest fashion and Democrats at least give a passing
thought or 2 to us peons. If you work for a living, you must be crazy
(and I daresay stupid) to vote Republican.

I don't think any adminstration of either major party has been so
blatantly clear in its direction as this one appears to be heading
(both Executive branch and Legislative branch), so I don't think your
classifications hold much water historically. Time will tell if your
observations are accurate, because we are certainly moving toward a
socialistic society. I HOPE you're right, for all our sakes, but I
SUSPECT you're going to be unpleasantly surprised.

Basically we have a "modified" capitalist system, which means government intervention, both good and bad. Just like there has never been a "pure" socialist system. The result is a sort of ying and yang political economical system. Conservatives (theoretically) promote the creation of wealth (When companies prospers they create new jobs, the resulting employment creates new markets.) (ying). Capitalism is not zero sum, wealth is created, not redistributed. The common misconception of "trickle down economics" is the result of the fact that those who coined the phrase are opposed to the principle behind it. Liberals believe in zero sum (wealth is not created, it is redistributed, by business in one direction, and by government in the other.) so they strive to take from the "monied" and give to the "peons" (yang). Fortunately the "redistribute cycle" usually wanes before the demise of the host. I hope this happens before too much of what creates wealth is damaged beyond recovery.

This may be anecdotal, but thought I have worked for some "bad" companies, I have never worked for an unemployed person. Usually "bad" companies are weeded out by economic Darwinism (when people take their business elsewhere, when good employees leave, and when reputable companies stop doing business with them). That is not to say the unemployed don't deserve our support (charity for lack of a better word) but vilifying the successful will eventually produce some very unpleasant unintended consequences.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Hillary finished
    ... system that favored business and it has stayed that way ever since. ... of economics. ... where wealth was increasingly aggrandized ... third world countries aren't third world countries because everybody is ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Maximum Profit v. Minimum Wage
    ... Distributions of Wealth and People's Economy ... represents an inefficient production, distribution and marketing system ... people's economy that is the real welfare economics. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Maximum Profit v. Minimum Wage
    ... Distributions of Wealth and People's Economy ... represents an inefficient production, distribution and marketing system ... people's economy that is the real welfare economics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Making less than dad did
    ... jobs, and lucrative jobs at that, as "useless". ... If the wealth is distributed, ... Most business owners started on their own. ... If the employee accepts, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: [OT] Worker Income
    ... > But let's play your "The Economics Of Ten Minutes Ago" game. ... > people money). ... > eyes closed reeeeeal tight, and wish wealth, prosperty, and success into ... > though government can interfere more- or less in its creation. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)