The Smurf on Various Subjects

[The Smurf]

Welcome.

Inspired in part by raithwall's topics and in part by my own writing, I have decided to post my take on various subjects. I'll post them one at a time, as I write them. Feel free to read, respond, whatever. This is just a way for me to express some of my feelings, and also an attempt to improve my writing. I'll start with a bit of an introduction.

Introduction

I am a voter registered with the Independent Party. I refuse to be a Democrat or a Republican, because I feel that both parties are seriously flawed. They both have their assets, though few and far between, but they are still full of gaping holes. Therefore, I disregard political parties. I see views and people, not elephants and donkeys. As a result, the politics end here. There will be no political slant at all, since I do not acknowledge conservatism or liberalism. Anything I say is from me, my experiences, and my education, not from politics. If something I say supports a conservative or liberal viewpoint, it does not mean that I am siding with them or am affiliated with them in any way. It is merely a point that I am bringing to the table.

That said, let's keep the conversations positive, open, and fair. This is not a means to bash any political party, any political figure, or anything else whatsoever. From this point on, I will refrain from using words like "conservative" or "liberal," "Republican" or "Democrat." My arguments are not to be taken as the be all and end all. They are simply my views on the subject.

As a side note, not all topics will be related to economics or politics. It just so happens that the first one is.

Happy reading! ;D


-the smurf

[The Smurf]

Article 1: Minimum Wage and Rent Ceilings

We’ve all taken an economics class at some point in our lives, whether in high school or college or somewhere else. We’ve all weathered through the droning professors who go on and on about expansionary fiscal policy and gross private domestic investment. So why do we not apply the concepts we learned in the classroom to real life? As an enthusiastic economics student, I’ve noticed that the world doesn’t seem to use the core principles taught even in the introductory economics classes. What on earth am I talking about? Simple: minimum wage and rent ceilings.

What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of economics? Well, besides the droning professor, anyway. Of course, it’s supply and demand: the comparison of marginal benefit and marginal cost. Basic economics tells us that the point at which the quantity supplied is equivalent to the quantity demanded is the equilibrium point, which determines the market price of the item in question. Efficient market systems utilize this concept to its fullest potential to get the most out of their transactions. But do they?

Let us first look at the idea of minimum wage. What is minimum wage? Minimum wage is a device used to encourage unemployed persons to obtain a job; it is an incentive. The idea is that a high minimum wage will be attractive to the unemployed, persuading them to seek employment. How does minimum wage relate to this idea of supply and demand? What we are looking at is the market for human labor. At low prices, or wages, workers are not very willing to supply their labor, and for good reason. Human labor is valuable. But companies and employers want to hire labor at the lowest price possible. Though people are more willing to work at higher wage rates, employers are less willing to hire them. Therefore, employers and workers reach an agreement at the equilibrium price, a wage rate that workers are willing to accept and employers are willing to pay.

It seems simple enough, doesn’t it? But in our society today we’ve introduced the idea of minimum wage. This provides higher wages for employed workers, and gives unemployed workers the incentive to get a job. Minimum wage, in this sense, is a price floor. Price floor is the economic term for the lowest price that can be legally charged for a particular item, in this case human labor. What happens to the market for human labor when a price floor is introduced? The simple answer is “devastating consequences.”

While the idea of minimum wage sounds like a good one, it seriously hinders productive capacity and it actually causes more unemployment. How? When you actually stop to think about it, it makes sense. Of course minimum wage increases will provide incentive to work. But it does not provide incentive to hire labor. Employers may not be willing to hire workers at a wage rate mandated by the government, and therefore they may not accept new applicants. In addition, at a higher wage rate, employers may not be able to afford their current payroll, and might actually cut employees. Though the initial intention is to increase employment, the concept in action actually works to increase unemployment.

It doesn’t just stop there, either. When there is a surplus of willing workers coupled with employers fearing bankruptcy, a new market is brought into existence: the black market. Some employers, desperate for labor, may hire employees, desperate for work due to the shortage, at a wage rate that is lower than minimum wage. This “under the table” labor is illegal and does not contribute anything to the economy, since it is not officially documented. This hinders the economy’s overall growth.

Here’s the real problem. How does the government view the situation? They see that more people are filing for unemployment, and conclude that wage rates must be increased to give more incentive. This ignites the vicious circle that ultimately makes the economy stand still. So how do we fix this problem? The simple answer is to recall your economics class. Didn’t you learn that price floors create deadweight loss that damages the market? Of course. Why don’t we apply that to our economy? Eliminate minimum wage, and watch as the economy fixes itself.

At the equilibrium wage rate, everyone who wants to work at that price will get a job from anyone who wants to offer work at that price. A competitive company will raise its own wage rates to encourage job seekers to apply with it. This company will effectively decrease unemployment and competitively force other companies to raise their own wages. In doing so, more labor resources are effectively and efficiently employed, and with companies willing to hire at the increased wage rate, there will be no need for “under the table” employment. Since the resources are more effective, the output of the company will increase and the economy will grow.

Similar to the idea of a price floor is that of a price ceiling, or the highest legal price that can be charged. Today we have rent ceilings, which are legally mandated rates on housing. Rent ceilings are meant to provide inexpensive housing for those without it but, as I’m sure you can guess, they actually produce the reverse effect. Rent ceilings decrease the amount of housing available and actually increase the number of homeless people.

When landlords are forced to provide housing at a government-determined rate, many decide to remove themselves from the housing market. They move on to a business that is more profitable. The landlords who do stay in business then have to deal with the surge of people who want housing at the new rent rate, since lowering the price effectively increases the quantity of housing demanded. There is a shortage of housing, and since landlords begin to close their businesses, people are put out on the street. This increases homelessness. And it doesn’t stop there.

Just like “under the table” employment, a black market for housing emerges in which desperate tenants are willing to pay higher than the rent rates to assure their own housing. This is also illegal, and this “under the table” money does not go toward the country’s real domestic output. In all, it shrinks the GDP and forces landlords out of business.

The remedy? Eliminate rent ceilings. As with wage rates, competitive landlords will lower the rent rates on their own to increase their business. With the increased income they can expand, create more housing, and pull people off the streets at affordable prices. Other landlords will do the same to keep in the competition. Above all, since all of this is legal, it all goes toward the economy’s GDP and eventually leads to growth.

The market system is designed in such a way that it neither needs nor desires the intervention of the government. When the government gets involved with the market transactions, their policies tend to hinder the efficiency of the market. By allowing the market to work on its own, the same effects can be achieved with more productively efficient results. In an efficient market system, employers who offer too low of a wage rate and landlords who charge too high of a rent will go out of business. Therefore, they will raise their wages and lower their rents, as the government and the economy want, without creating deadweight loss or a black market.

I’m sure you slept through most of your economics classes, but that doesn’t mean the material isn’t important. The balance of supply and demand force the market in the right direction, and intervention merely erects a blockade that prevents the system from functioning at its full capacity. We should be a little more aware of exactly how these concepts we learned in Economics 101 can be efficiently applied to our world. In doing so, we may see an improvement.


-the smurf

[raithwall]

Hello. When you call yourself the Smurf, do you mean brainy smurf? lol sorry, couldn't resist.

In an efficient market system, employers who offer too low of a wage rate and landlords who charge too high of a rent will go out of business.

I think what really happens is people wind up getting 3 jobs, or quit their jobs, get kicked out by landlords, and either go home to their parents, a friend, become homeless, or do something stupid so they can get into a nice cozy prison cell. This is just my impression though.

Being a creative person I fail to see how anyone can tolerate living a life where there is only work and sleep and never any time for yourself. Things are overly technical as to waste our time. What free time a person does get will be spent relaxing. No one has any time to really stop and smell the roses, think about things, contemplate the meaning of life, develop spiritually and consider the afterlife. No theres no time for any of that, intelligence is wasted on worker drones.

Meanwhile neither employers nor landlords go out of business because households with 20 Mexicans living there will work for cheap and make it work. That is by no means an insult to Mexicans, its more of a statement of envy because you know it would never work for the rest of us.

Driving around town I see that help wanted signs are never taken down, and theres almost always a job opening in retail. Whatever happens because don't stay there long, which benefits the employer as they don't have to pay overtime or issue a raise. Not to mention constantly changing your hours without notice and messing up your biological schedule.

It seems to me that Obama is just an icon to appeal to the idea of change. His plans lack even a basic understanding of economics. Won't raising minimum wage just cause more inflation?

Lets face it, we aren't going to see any true Robin Hoods anytime soon, if ever. The rich have so much money they can put it all in a bank and live off the interest alone. Meanwhile the poor are trapped by money lenders and ridiculous interest rates.

How is that fair? Let me run this by your again: The rich do not even have to use any of their money to survive if they don't want to. Meanwhile the poor need to pay double the price the rest of us do. How can any sane person possibly condone this?

When most people think about rich and poor they see a static result. They assume both have to pay the same price, one just has more then the other. Though they know about interest, they don't put 2 and 2 together, it doesn't hit them. They don't see the true futility of it all.

And then the rich, who get all their money for free, or invest it in the stock market, real estate, whatever, complain if even a little is taken by the government and given to the poor. None of that even has to happen, what needs to happen is to do away with interest.

Like I said in the simple truth: Our country keeps making more money and going into dept to require more money. It goes on and on until someday it will finally crash, but not before the kingpins bail out.

And those who have a decent living with decent money who are obsessed with making money simply for the sake of making it as an end in and of itself are useless tools who ought to be kicked out of society.

This world seriously needs some planetary disaster like planet x to come along and break down the barriers between people, bring out the best in us. We won't really have a star trek society until ours is no longer driven by the aquisition of wealth.

Such an idea is not realistic though. Jesus had said "the poor shall always be among you." So I've no reason to think it could ever be otherwise.

[dailycolbert]

All I know about inflation is that it's primarily caused by printing money. Simply put: the value of the U.S. dollar depends on how Americans and the rest of the world view the U.S.'s economy. If the economy is failing for whatever reason, inflation occurs. More so, if the U.S. keeps printing more and more money, because there are more dollars to go around, the value of the dollar drops and inflation occurs.

And, having lived in California a little, I've seen exactly what you talked about, The Spirit of Radio, thanks to both illegal immigration and a high state minimum wage.

As for Obama v. McCain:

Obama will crack down on companies that higher illegal immigrants and outsource jobs while in the ways he's outlined, but on the other hand, he'll increase the minimum wage.

McCain will not crack down on companies that higher illegal immigrants and outsource jobs while, on the other hand, he'll not increase the minimum wage.

I see both as a mixed bag. I don't think either has a good understanding of economics.

McCain has though, in this election, shown that he's incapable of surrounding himself with smart people.

[The Smurf]

Article 2: Love, Marriage, and Adultery

Love and its appendages are vastly complicated subjects. Nobody knows exactly how anybody else feels, despite potentially obvious signs. But that’s not what this is about. Love has its own general set of rules by which people should play. A common cliché is that all is fair in love, but to what extent should that hackneyed phrase be taken? Should there be no bounds to the tactics that are used? Should anybody be allowed to do anything in the name of love? What does the word “love” even encompass? These questions are too broad and too ambiguous to be answered, but they can be touched upon and explored.

We’ve all had little moments in our lives when we talk to or see somebody we like and our hearts skip a beat. We can be attracted to a person for many reasons, even reasons we do not understand ourselves. But what should we be attracted to? We’ve been told not to judge by looks. We’ve seen movies like Shallow Hal where we’re told to forget appearances completely and focus on what’s inside. The real question is: to what extent?

Despite the lessons we are taught, we still look for physical attractiveness when seeking a mate. The key is that different people find different people attractive physically. And there’s nothing wrong with liking somebody because he or she looks nice. If the parties in a couple are not attracted to one another, then the relationship could easily become trite and uninspired. But the important point is that once two parties coalesce, the exchange of words and interaction between them allows for deeper attractions to develop.

Nobody is telling anybody to “settle” for someone with whom he or she is unhappy, just because that someone may have a charming personality. People have varied tastes. The idea behind many of these lessons is to not let physical appearance rule the game. A person with a ty attitude will not be an enjoyable person to be around, regardless of appearance. The lessons do not, however, encourage that one must sacrifice one’s own desires and tastes to avoid being “shallow.”

This brings up an important point. Why do we love somebody? Or, rather, for what do we love him or her? Though it may seem irrelevant, think for a moment back to the first few lessons of your calculus class. Surely you learned, in some form or another, that differentiability implies continuity, but continuity does not imply differentiability, right? That same structure can be used to compare love and admiration. Though admiration does not always imply love, love always implies admiration. If it doesn’t, there is a problem with that “love.”

Love implies that the two parties involved admire each other for each others’ virtues. Physical appearance is not a virtue, and therefore one cannot be “loved” for his or her appearance. A virtue is a good or admirable quality or property. It doesn’t make sense to admire a flaw, and so loving a person for his or her flaws is also impossible. Aside from being impossible, it is also immoral. If one is to be loved for his or her flaws, it would follow that more flaws is equivalent to more love. If this was true, then there would be no incentive to be a good person, for you will be loved more if you are not. That is the reason that love and admiration must go hand-in-hand. Otherwise, the relationship will crumble. Love without admiration of virtue is not love at all.

When I speak of “marriage,” what exactly do I mean? My interpretation of marriage is simply a committed relationship. Legally (or spiritually) or not, I consider a couple in which both parties are exclusive to anyone else and are in a committed relationship “married.” Perhaps “married” isn’t the best word to describe it, but it gets the point across and works for the argument. Marriage is a dedication of devotion from one deserving party to the other, and vice-versa. It is a vow that they will love each other for their virtues, because they deserve to be loved as such. They commit solely to each other on the grounds that they each possess the highest virtues of anybody.

Does this mean that I think all couples must get legally married? That question is really irrelevant. Legal marriage is unimportant. Whether a couple decides to get legally married or not, that is a decision to be made by the individual parties themselves. Couples that are exclusive are already married. Marriage is trust. When a couple is married, in my meaning of the word, the parties trust each other completely. They are devoted only to each other, and trust each other in that respect. Each accepts no other being as an equal to the other party.

Love accepts no equals. To spread one’s love to more than one individual is adultery. (For clarification, I am not speaking of familial love, nor am I speaking of friendship; I am speaking of the love one feels for a lover: romantic love). The idea that all should be loved equally is a vague one. In terms of friendship, it is true that everyone should be given a chance by everyone else. However, when speaking of romantic love, this idea is blatantly wrong. By engaging in marriage, each party is essentially declaring that no other being deserves his or her love. Romantic love, and the admiration that accompanies it, can be given only to one person as it rightfully should. Remember, this does not restrict admiration, as admiration can exist without love.

Therefore, adultery is the vilest act of treason ever known to mankind. Adultery occurs when one party brings an outsider up to the level of the other party, or brings the other party down to the level of an outsider. This creates equality between the other party and the outsider, which violates the terms of marriage and love. Adultery means betrayal of virtue. In a marriage, trust is earned and maintained. But adultery destroys this established trust. In the act of marriage, each party agrees to give all of his or her love to the other. When adultery breaks this trust and this agreement, the marriage is broken; when a third party is introduced as an equal, the marriage is broken.

Adultery should not be condoned (rape being an obvious exception, though that isn’t actually adultery). Once the trust is broken it cannot be pieced back together. There are no equals in love, and the act of adultery violates this rule. Admiration for the adulterer is eliminated and, since love cannot exist without admiration, the love is destroyed.

Love is a very powerful and confusing emotion. It is ultimately up to each individual to decide how that love is to be channeled, and to whom it is to be channeled. But the important point is that love must be restricted, by default, to a single person in the act of marriage. When that golden rule is broken, love itself becomes a vanishing act.


-the smurf

[raithwall]

My Atheist side says: Sex is merely pleasure and cheating is merely breaking an agreement. There is nothing inherently evil about it.

My Christian side says: Sex is meant for one person, and for creation. Those who fall in love will see perversion for what it really is.

Scenario: You marry a woman who has children already. Whenever you see them you are reminded that she did it with another guy. But you like her children so you wind up thinking what she did was a wonderful and beautiful thing. All of us have such affairs in our bloodlines, so if we can't condone it we don't have any right to exist. To me there is only 0, 1, and many. Once you get to many theres no point in turning back...


Love: To me love is very chivalrous. If I fall in love with someone I will be happy to serve them, make them happy, and rejoice when I am useful to them, but many have told me this is actually the feminine version of love.

Is Chivalry dead? Women these days are filling the roll of men, but that doesn't mean men can fill the role of women:

A woman crying is public is comforted by both man and woman.
A man crying is public is scorned by both and laughed at.

Rescuing a male damsel in distress is beneath a female knight.

Women are the desirable ones and therefore control the relationships, but are unwilling to fill dominant roles.

In the old days, when only men had the power, our kindness, chivalry and submission were appreciated. I honestly feel this is the way it was meant to be: Us having the power, BUT giving it to them.

But the old days weren't really all that chilvarous to begin with, and evil has corrupted everything in both times.


btw brainey, you have even more of a problem with keeping it short then I do. lol. Seriously though, what do calculus and math have to do with love?

[The Smurf]

Sept 7, 2008 7:01:55 GMT -5 raithwall said:

Scenario: You marry a woman who has children already. Whenever you see them you are reminded that she did it with another guy. But you like her children so you wind up thinking what she did was a wonderful and beautiful thing. All of us have such affairs in our bloodlines, so if we can't condone it we don't have any right to exist.

But this isn't adultery. If the mother is single and not in a committed relationship with the father (or anyone else), then there is nothing wrong.

Sept 7, 2008 7:01:55 GMT -5 raithwall said:

Love: To me love is very chivalrous. If I fall in love with someone I will be happy to serve them, make them happy, and rejoice when I am useful to them, but many have told me this is actually the feminine version of love.

Is Chivalry dead? Women these days are filling the roll of men, but that doesn't mean men can fill the role of women:

A woman crying is public is comforted by both man and woman.
A man crying is public is scorned by both and laughed at.

Well, I agree with your view of chivalry. However, in today's society, there is a fine line between being a good guy and treating a woman as if she needs to be "saved." Many women enjoy a sense of independence, and do not feel that they need a man to "take care" of them or "rescue" them. But it is still important to treat them well and do things for them. Just make sure that she still maintains her independence.

"Feminine version of love"? Sounds more like homophobia to me.

Sept 7, 2008 7:01:55 GMT -5 raithwall said:

btw brainey, you have even more of a problem with keeping it short then I do. lol. Seriously though, what do calculus and math have to do with love?

Calculus and love have nothing to do with each other. I was merely using it as an example for the sentence structure: A can exist without B, but B cannot exist without A. It was the first example that I thought of, so I went with it.



-the smurf

[Doan the Nado]

I'm not sure where I stand on the minimum wage issue. On the one hand, I agree a lot with Smurf's points, and in an ideal free market, I think they work nicely. On the other hand, for geographic, governmental, and incomplete information reasons, we do not have an ideal free market. I think increased technology can only improve the free market, so I think we should be moving towards a less-controlled market (which is unfortunately the opposite of what we're doing), but I do acknowledge that government intervention at least was necessary, and still may be to some extent.

Sept 4, 2008 19:39:23 GMT -5 raithwall said:

And then the rich, who get all their money for free, or invest it in the stock market, real estate, whatever, complain if even a little is taken by the government and given to the poor. None of that even has to happen, what needs to happen is to do away with interest.

I really have to address this, though. When "the rich" invest their money, they are not just putting it away and keeping it from others. Economics is not a zero-sum game. When the rich invest their money, they are giving it to businesses in order to allow those businesses to improve. An example: a non-rich individual has a great idea for a business, but he needs some initial capital to get it off the ground; he needs a rich investor. The investor gives him money, the individual creates a new, useful business that improves a lot of people's lives, and both the individual and the investor make money. This is exactly how it should be.

Another investment example: everyone needs a refrigerator. Frigidaire produces refrigerators, and they have come up with a new way to make refrigerators at a much cheaper cost, but they will need to invest capital in new machines, testing, and materials in order to produce them, so they announce the situation to their (rich) investors. Some of these investors have faith in this new method and invest more of their money. This money allows Frigidaire to verify the integrity of the new method and begin producing cheaper refrigerators. Now everyone who needs a new refrigerator is able to save money by buying this cheaper refrigerator, all because some rich guys invested their money.

In both cases, when the government decreases the incentives to invest, it harms everyone. Now, the individual or the existing company has a harder time getting the necessary capital, so they have to borrow much of the required money from a lender, money that they will have to start paying back before too long (along with interest) to a company that only serves to make profits, nothing else. Because the company is required to start paying money back on a timeline, and because the company's debt (along with disincentives) makes it even harder to raise additional capital down the line, the company is more likely to fail. If the company fails and goes under (which is now more likely than in the previous paragraphs), the lender now has to absorb that cost, leading to higher interest rates for other borrowers, leading to higher failure rates. The other option is to not create the company/improvement at all.

The key point is that investing is important. If the rich are getting richer off investing, that means they are investing in companies that are making money, and those companies are making money because they are providing a valuable service to everyone. Really, I didn't come to understand these things until sometime in the last year or two. The rich are really driving economic improvements for everyone, and the fact that they are getting richer in the process is not a bad thing; it is the fuel that drives the whole process.


Oh, there was one aspect of Smurf's post that I disagreed with:

This “under the table” labor is illegal and does not contribute anything to the economy, since it is not officially documented. This hinders the economy’s overall growth.

This is actually false. It contributes plenty to the economy. The illegal labor is leading to lower-priced goods (or the existence of a good or service that otherwise could not have existed at all) for everyone, allowing them to invest in other economic efforts or to spend their money on other things. Meanwhile, these illegal laborers will also be spending their money on stuff, and even if they're sending their money off to another country, they will be increasing that country's wealth and making the purchase of American exports more likely. It is the fact that "under the table" labor is illegal that is the problem, it doesn't hurt "the economy".

This idea of "the economy" is the real fallacy. We have been conditioned to believe that the government runs our economy, that it is important for them to tax nearly every transaction and to use that money on the programs they see fit. The government (at least much of what we have today) is nothing but administrative deadweight. They create laws (indirectly increasing the cost of goods), and in general, they produce nothing for general consumption. The smaller the government is, the better our lives are, since money that was previously funneled into the pockets of administrators and legislators is now being spent (or not taken away from us) on improving the means of production and our lives in general.

[The Smurf]

Sept 7, 2008 13:46:56 GMT -5 Doan the Nado said:

This “under the table” labor is illegal and does not contribute anything to the economy, since it is not officially documented. This hinders the economy’s overall growth.

This is actually false. It contributes plenty to the economy. The illegal labor is leading to lower-priced goods (or the existence of a good or service that otherwise could not have existed at all) for everyone, allowing them to invest in other economic efforts or to spend their money on other things. Meanwhile, these illegal laborers will also be spending their money on stuff, and even if they're sending their money off to another country, they will be increasing that country's wealth and making the purchase of American exports more likely. It is the fact that "under the table" labor is illegal that is the problem, it doesn't hurt "the economy".

That's a very interesting point. My point, however, was that with companies willing to hire more workers, the productive capacity of the company expands which increases supply and lowers prices. I actually never considered your point, though. However, with minimum wage eliminated, the "under the table" labor wouldn't exist anyway, and we'd get the same results legally.




-the smurf

[Doan the Nado]

Sept 7, 2008 14:18:50 GMT -5 The Smurf said:

That's a very interesting point. My point, however, was that with companies willing to hire more workers, the productive capacity of the company expands which increases supply and lowers prices.

Right. I agreed with that point. I only really intended to rebut the one thing that I quoted from your post .

[raithwall]

When the rich invest their money, they are giving it to businesses in order to allow those businesses to improve. An example: a non-rich individual has a great idea for a business, but he needs some initial capital to get it off the ground; he needs a rich investor. The investor gives him money, the individual creates a new, useful business that improves a lot of people's lives, and both the individual and the investor make money. This is exactly how it should be.

Yeah thats awesome. Hmm is that the way mututal funds work? I have some ideas, now where do I find me some investors? lol

All I actually meant to point out was that I find it ironic the Rich could live off interest alone while the poor wind up in debt and having to pay lots of interest to money lenders. Really seems to burn the candle at both ends.

"He that has shall receive more, he that has not shall lose even what he has." What Christ said here seems to be a universal condition of nature. What is doing good will grow, what isn't doing so good will decay.

So as much as I don't like the way this is, I do find it oddly appropriate.

[Doan the Nado]

Sept 7, 2008 19:15:18 GMT -5 raithwall said:

All I actually meant to point out was that I find it ironic the Rich could live off interest alone while the poor wind up in debt and having to pay lots of interest to money lenders. Really seems to burn the candle at both ends.

The rich can live off interest alone, if they're making good investments. If they're only putting their money in the bank, they will eventually lose out to inflation: they will be constantly skimming off their original savings to maintain the same standard of living, leading to even less interest income and even more skimming, and eventually spiraling down to nothing. The only way to avoid this cycle is to continue to create wealth, and that is done either by investing money in capital enterprises (new and existing companies, and yes, mutual funds, which are the same thing except that they invest in a broad list of companies on your behalf). When I say "create wealth", I don't mean paper money, I mean new or improved goods or services that are valued by enough people that they are willing to pay for them.

Why are the poor in debt to begin with? What do you actually need in your life to survive? Food, clothing, and shelter. You can buy several outfits (including coats, shoes, even some dress clothes) at the Goodwill store for under $100, and many of those clothes will be good for years. How about food? I can go spend $20 per week at the grocery store on some beans, produce, oatmeal, pasta, and yogurt or milk. Let's round up and say that costs $100 per month. Shelter, then, becomes the most expensive thing. I live in a reasonably-high-demand area in a three-story townhouse that I share with two roommates. We have a basement, three bedrooms, and a large living room and kitchen, and each of us pays just $233 per month. A smaller place in a lower-demand area would be even less, so let's put that at $225 per month. Of course, we also need power to run a small refrigerator to keep our produce and dairy products cold and to heat our living space in the winter, and we also need running water. Those things could be easily had for under $100 per month on average. And then there are incidentals: toilet paper, hygiene items, etc. Let's put that at another $25 per month.

So what does that come to? (100+225+100+25)*12+100 = $5500 per year. As a server, on a slow day, I made at least $50. On a Friday or Saturday, I made $100, and I only ever worked about 5-6 hours per shift. In other words, I could work 400-500 hours per year (less than 2 hours per day) and make enough money to support myself. Of course, I could choose to work more in order to afford a car, a TV, cable, and other entertainment, but the fact is, these are not necessary to live, or even to live well. Free entertainment can be had at your local library and at various other community events.

What I am getting at is that the majority of people who are in debt are in that position because they are living beyond their means. In reality, everyone in America lives better than 99.999995% of the world did just 300 years ago, and still better than probably 75% of the population of the rest of the world today. Arguments that the gap between rich and poor is widening is irrelevant, because regardless, the quality of life available to even the poorest continues to increase. The only reason we even care about the "gap" is because we are so influenced by marketing and keeping up with the Joneses.

EDIT: Sorry to derail your original thread, Smurf.

[raithwall]

I don't know. Going into debt seems to be the American way. I myself try to stay clear of it, but I don't know if everyone can think that way. I think people try to plan for themselves financially, but prices go up, bills go up, if they get fired or change jobs theres problems. For whatever reasons things don't always go as planned.

You've got 2 room mates, which is a great way to beat the rent and other house bills, but you've also got car insurance and medical insurance to factor in, paying off the car, paying off student loans if you have them, income tax, and I don't know if town houses have to deal with home owners insurance and home taxes, mainly so you don't lose everything if someone has an injury on your property. Of course you have a better idea of what you spend and your income then I do.

From: wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-freedom-isnt-free.html

"Americans pride themselves on being free, but how free is a man who:

* Does not own his house

* Does not own his car

* Owes thousands of dollars to various banks

* Has to send his wife to work out of necessity, because his expenses are so high

* Sends his children to public school, because he cannot afford private school

* Restricts the number of children he has, because he feels he cannot afford more

* Pays a huge portion of his earnings every month to his "masters", the bankers

Those traits describe someone living in serfdom or slavery, not freedom. It describes someone living under a tyrant—who takes most of the peasant's income, and just keeps them alive enough to keep working for him."


I don't know how everyone's situation is. The statistics seem to say people aren't shopping as much these days, and that the economy is in trouble.


From: www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2938

"What we are witnessing is a systemic failure in our entire financial system.

WHY? Quite simply - There's Not Enough Money on Earth to Satisfy all Outstanding Debts. And there never will be.

Because ours is a debt-based financial system PLUS interest.
And interest is NEVER issued, It's only charged.

As a result, the Fed must continually pump "new money" into the economy just to keep it solvent. Where does all that money go?

Into real estate.

Into stocks.

Into bonds.

Into all sorts of commodities.

Into ANY legal instrument concocted - no matter how exotic - that promises to "yield" a profit.

The trouble is - the more money they pump into the system, the higher the prices climb.

The higher the prices climb, the more money needs to be pumped into the system to keep it running - and to keep its "value" afloat (long enough for the kingpins to bail out, taking the value with them).

And so on and so forth until the whole system reveals itself for what it really is - a path to self-destruction.

Americans will never rid themselves of this financial tyranny until they learn how to pinpoint the source of the malignancy - interest and speculation (aka, usury and gambling) - fueled by a private banking cartel.

Those two practices have destroyed civilizations before us and they are destroying us now."

National debt just keeps on getting higher. Its a good thing no is calling in the payment or else our whole country might wind up owned by China lol.

[The Smurf]

This is a short one, and it really isn't an article per se. It's more of a rant, and isn't based on any factual information. I'm just kinda pissed at people right now. Warning, there's a bit of profanity.

Article 3: My Generation

No, this isn’t about The Who. But, like The Who, I’m talkin’ ‘bout my generation. I hate it. I know, welcome to college life, wake up, this is the real world, I know, I GET it. But I hate it. I’m tired of all the bull. And let’s face it, there’s a lot of bull.

It’s as if people no longer have any values whatsoever, and those who do are “uptight.” Though it’s very nice that we’ve seen the dawn of the age in which smoking is no longer cool, it seems that drinking to excess has usurped its position. For whatever reason, people love to drink. A lot. Like, blackout a lot. And of course, that’s something for them to be proud of.

I’ve been at college for five weeks or so, and already I’ve heard people talking about how smashed they got, how much they’ve thrown up, and how crazy the parties were ad nauseum. I’m beginning to wonder if there’s a single person on campus besides myself and my roommate who don’t drink. Just a week ago fifteen people got a citation in my building, and thought it was funny. Yeah, ing hilarious.

Now, I respect people’s decisions to drink and I’ll gladly look the other way, as it is none of my business if it isn’t affecting me. However, it depresses me. Is everybody like this? Why is it so hard to find somebody who doesn’t love to get smashed and black out?

This isn’t the full picture. The drinking, although obnoxious, isn’t the whole problem. It’s the fact that we’re a “hook-up” generation. Does alcohol really make a relationship better? No, it makes a one-night stand possible. I know that a lot of guys are pigs. But now it’s gotten to the point where women are encouraged to be. The idea that a woman shouldn’t be a is considered sexism, when you get right down to it. Why shouldn’t a woman allow countless guys to get her drunk and take advantage of her? Guys are proud of it, sure. But what kills me is that the girls are proud of it, too.

Is it too much to ask that people value the meaning of a relationship? To me, I consider love, trust, and intimacy to be tied to each other. Hook-ups are degrading. Of course, by hook-up I mean a meaningless relationship lasting a very short time involving or caused by alcohol. Watch the movie Rocky. Watch the scene after Rocky’s date with Adrian. Watch how hard it is for him to tell her how he feels, and how much meaning lies behind their passionate kiss. Does that even exist anymore? Kisses mean nothing. Sex means nothing. And to suggest otherwise makes you uptight, old-fashioned, or sexist.

I’m tired of being the only one who still retains a sense of value for things. I know that not all guys are pigs. I know not all women are s. But at this point, that’s all I ever see. Will I ever find someone who is an exception to the ridiculous rules of this generation? It doesn’t seem very likely. It seems that we’ve become too obsessed with the moment, the here and now, and we no longer care what will happen later. I guess I’m just tired of all the bull. Please convince me that this isn’t how it is.


-the smurf

[raithwall]

I know exactly how you feel. Our kind are few and far in between. College is all about the drinking and partying, )well maybe all of them except Harvard and Yale). Welcome to the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Lets face it, you aren't going to find a girl with old fashioned values outside of the hardcore religious.

You're in college having problems. I'm 27, nowhere, and about to conclude I'll be alone forever.

No, I can't give you any advice, I'm even worse off.

I hate to generalize, but the fact of the matter is theres very little chance the dirt beneath my feet is going to contain a diamond mine. So I've stopped digging. If I want a diamond I'll have to go the store and buy one like everyone else, one that has passed hands a multitude of times. The feeling of discovery I will never know.

[The Smurf]

Sept 27, 2008 19:59:07 GMT -5 raithwall said:

Lets face it, you aren't going to find a girl with old fashioned values outside of the hardcore religious.

It's not even about "old-fashioned" values. It's stuff like common courtesy (the biggest oxymoron ever), common sense, a sense of right and wrong, and the idea that love is more than just whose pants you can get into on a Friday night with a little booze. The fact that this stuff is looked at as "old-fashioned" is downright shameful. I keep hoping that it's just college.

*sigh* I need a drink ... ... ...


-the smurf

[raithwall]

Sept 27, 2008 20:33:22 GMT -5 The Smurf said:

Sept 27, 2008 19:59:07 GMT -5 raithwall said:

Lets face it, you aren't going to find a girl with old fashioned values outside of the hardcore religious.

It's not even about "old-fashioned" values. It's stuff like common courtesy (the biggest oxymoron ever), common sense, a sense of right and wrong, and the idea that love is more than just whose pants you can get into on a Friday night with a little booze. The fact that this stuff is looked at as "old-fashioned" is downright shameful. I keep hoping that it's just college.

Well reality is a lot different then college. Put the way you feel right now on hold because it will serve you well in the real world.

It has been said "theres a time and a place for everything, its called college." This is the time to just mess around and have fun and look back on fondly.

A girl living in the real world will want a committed man with a steady job, but until then college is like some kind of giant nonstop party.

I made it look worse then it seems, because I'm weirder then most and more likely to have difficulties, but you'll be okay.

So unless you want someone who avoids getting involved until mr right comes along, you might as well just enjoy the orgy while you can.

If you wait you can find someone. The chance of finding a virgin is nonexistant, so bear in the mind the girls you will find are like the ones you see now, just ready to get serious about their lives, settle for a single partner, and keep their wild party days in their past. It doesn't make much sense to deprive yourself of the fun, after all she won't have. You don't want them to feel unworthy of you do you?


I prefer the faithful type myself. Either creative with a tricky mind like myself, or an emotional unpopular reject, someone like Hinata. Yeah I would love to become the happiness in her life. Or someone really spiritual. I'd be happier alone then with your average person.

[Doan the Nado]

I really can identify with what you're saying, but the fact is that you just can't put girls on a pedestal. As much as we all want to find the right girl and worship her, giving her everything we possibly can and being the only guy for her, that really is old-fashioned in this day and age.

Believe me, I tried for 5 years. What college-age girls want these days is really close to what guys have wanted forever, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if you're one of those kinds of guys. Everyone likes to be irresponsible for a period of time. Everyone likes to be well-liked. For a lot girls, that means having guys show interest in them. It means doing things that you would frown upon.

Am I saying that you should be part of that crowd? Only if you want to. When I'm drunk (I'm actually a bit drunk now. Isn't that sad?), that stuff all sounds great. When reality sets in, I'm incapable (literally) of being with someone sexually that I don't love. I don't think this is a bad thing either.

The real question is, what do you really want? It's easy to watch porn online or modern media and think that the ideal life is the one where you're having meaningless physical relationships every night. It's really easy to beat yourself up if you're not. But before you do all that, you truly have to ask yourself what you want. If what you want is to blaze your own trail, do something interesting with your life, and have a truly meaningful relationship eventually, then do it. There is honestly nothing holding you back except your own expectations of how you should be living.

In the process, you'll likely be sad because you don't fit in. I'm telling you now that you should definitely go out and have fun, party it up, and enjoy college. Drink a little bit, come on. Just don't drive or drink too much, but as Benjamin Franklin said, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." There is plenty of time to be healthy, rational, serious, and responsible before you die, but you only live once, so try to live without regrets.

But if you don't like the idea of the hook-up crowd and you don't want "one of those people", definitely do not feel bad about it. Be patient, enjoy yourself, focus on your own life, and eventually things will go your way.

[The Smurf]

Great posts. Thanks, guys.

Meh. I'm fine. I'm enjoying myself at college, and I know a few people that seem genuine. I don't know what kinds of things they do, but it really isn't any of my business, nor do I have any desire to find out.

This was really just a rant. A whole bunch of events within the past few days just kinda pissed me off, and I needed to vent. I know there are plently of people out there who don't conform to the frat kid stereotype, and there are plenty of them around me, I'm sure. I just gotta get off my lazy ass and look for them.

Next time I'll have a real article.


-the smurf