Your description of how "anyone" can save, achieve and succeed is very encouraging -- however, plain logic tells me that the market would not allow all the strivers to succeed. The stakes would simply get set higher and higher, squeezing out some who'd remain, striving or not, closer to or at the bottom. Profit is like some big pyramid scheme: doesn't it depend on a wide base at the bottom for people paying in so others higher up (who have attained their position through, what, hard work or privilege?) may skim it off?
You are wrong if you include me in "our" country (unless that's just a figure of speech). It was mine (and my forebears for generations) but not any more. I left.
I chose to live in what I consider a more fair system, one that implements socioeconomic policies aimed at ensuring the welfare of all its inhabitants according to some basic human rights. Kibbutz, in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a sort of village-based communism with direct-plus-representative democracy to set policy.
It doesn't work well; in some cases it's collapsed -- primarily because a significant percentage (though not a majority, but they leveraged deals to achieve a takeover) of the wage-earners chose to stop supporting the less-productive needy (including the elderly and children) so they could pocket their earnings (call it tax relief) and enhance their own standard of living which they equate with a better quality of life.
I'm sorry for our failures but they don't negate the values for which the system stood. I hope there will always be places where workers and communities find a way to adjust and implement values for the common good.
First off, my apologies about "our" government. Yes, I meant that "our" as Americans referring mainly to myself, alexpgp, and the author and subject of the story.
"Plain logic" sees profit as a pyramid-scheme only if you accept that there's a fixed-size pie. In fact, increased profits mostly result from increased economic activity which creates a larger pie. Granted, in a healthy economy the gap between those that help increase the economy and those who don't will increase. But 2 > 0 is not inherently more unfair than 1 > 0.
Rant on socialism and capitalism would fill a book. I'll just point out that charitable giving rises in a growing economy, and tends to fall with increased government involvement as people wonder why they should contribute to charities if they are already paying taxes to care for the poor, the sick, the elderly. Also just about every economic system agrees "People are self-interested, greedy if you will" but only capitalism said "Let's make greed work" by pairing it off in free markets. The other systems, such as socialism and communism, said "People are the problem, they must be changed" which is why the 20th century saw so many millions slaughtered by their own totalitarian governments.
I happen to know of other applications of socialism and communism that are not the State, totalitarian varieties. I left the USA to go live in a system like that; it's called a kibbutz and mainly exists in Israel. I don't claim that it's perfect; far from it. But neither is it brutal.
Since my last commments, I've given a lot of thought to this story of the immigrant pursuing the American dream. I can see how this is tremendously appealing to those who believe that this is a superior, even ideal solution for those individuals who choose to devote themselves to it.
The fundamental act requires, of course, that they leave their country of origin. And this is where we part company. The perspective that interests (and concerns) me, is based in consideration of the situation and circumstances of remaining in one's native land.
From that perspective, emigration is mainly a brain- and/or talent drain. My focus is on options for those living outside the USA, particularly in underdeveloped countries. It seems vitally significant and important to me to seek and effect changes by enlisting ways and means to improve the situation personally and on a broader scale (e.g. community, locality).
I think I see the point of your position, and thank you and alexpgp for expressing them here. Having been exposed to them helps me more clearly see that I really have an awful lot to do, and that my place is elsewhere.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Maybe "anyone" can do it, but not "every"one
Date: 2003-02-08 03:56 pm (UTC)You are wrong if you include me in "our" country (unless that's just a figure of speech). It was mine (and my forebears for generations) but not any more. I left.
I chose to live in what I consider a more fair system, one that implements socioeconomic policies aimed at ensuring the welfare of all its inhabitants according to some basic human rights. Kibbutz, in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a sort of village-based communism with direct-plus-representative democracy to set policy.
It doesn't work well; in some cases it's collapsed -- primarily because a significant percentage (though not a majority, but they leveraged deals to achieve a takeover) of the wage-earners chose to stop supporting the less-productive needy (including the elderly and children) so they could pocket their earnings (call it tax relief) and enhance their own standard of living which they equate with a better quality of life.
I'm sorry for our failures but they don't negate the values for which the system stood. I hope there will always be places where workers and communities find a way to adjust and implement values for the common good.
Re: Maybe "anyone" can do it, but not "every"one
Date: 2003-02-08 04:55 pm (UTC)"Plain logic" sees profit as a pyramid-scheme only if you accept that there's a fixed-size pie. In fact, increased profits mostly result from increased economic activity which creates a larger pie. Granted, in a healthy economy the gap between those that help increase the economy and those who don't will increase. But 2 > 0 is not inherently more unfair than 1 > 0.
Rant on socialism and capitalism would fill a book. I'll just point out that charitable giving rises in a growing economy, and tends to fall with increased government involvement as people wonder why they should contribute to charities if they are already paying taxes to care for the poor, the sick, the elderly. Also just about every economic system agrees "People are self-interested, greedy if you will" but only capitalism said "Let's make greed work" by pairing it off in free markets. The other systems, such as socialism and communism, said "People are the problem, they must be changed" which is why the 20th century saw so many millions slaughtered by their own totalitarian governments.
Other solutions for other people
Date: 2003-02-27 11:49 pm (UTC)Since my last commments, I've given a lot of thought to this story of the immigrant pursuing the American dream. I can see how this is tremendously appealing to those who believe that this is a superior, even ideal solution for those individuals who choose to devote themselves to it.
The fundamental act requires, of course, that they leave their country of origin. And this is where we part company. The perspective that interests (and concerns) me, is based in consideration of the situation and circumstances of remaining in one's native land.
From that perspective, emigration is mainly a brain- and/or talent drain. My focus is on options for those living outside the USA, particularly in underdeveloped countries. It seems vitally significant and important to me to seek and effect changes by enlisting ways and means to improve the situation personally and on a broader scale (e.g. community, locality).
I think I see the point of your position, and thank you and