Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'm not telling them how to spend their money, just how not to spend it. And there's no rule anywhere that says teaching fiscal responsibility is the end of freedom. In fact, I'd say education and the application of good education is key to freedom.
Anyway, it's not difficult to see when someone is spending his or her money in a way that's irresponsible. If someone is spending money on luxury items but can't afford enough food for his or her family, that should be lauded? Of course not. Worse still is the man making $30k a year that signed a mortgage for a home that costs $600k.
We're all interconnected, Pan. I spend very responsibly, I'm out of debt and have a respectable nest-egg in case something goes wrong. I make small investments that generally are slightly profitable, but I never take big risks. I am fiscally responsible. And yet the money in my savings has decreased in worth because the US$ has dropped in worth. My home is worth maybe 71% of what it was 3 years ago. Why? Not by my doing. No, it was by the irresponsible behaviors and beliefs of others that I've lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $350,000 worth of theoretical home value and monetary value. Because these things have a direct effect on me, they are mine to judge and I judge them without guilt. They don't have the freedom to damage my financial security.
|
Yes we are all interconnected and it shows more in turbulent times than it does in prosperous. I think our differences here maybe the fact I blame the top 5% class for their greed and making the problems we have by not paying the worker what the worker needs to survive.
It's easy to tell a worker "live within your means" while the CEO and upper management rape the company for all it's worth and get bonuses when they layoff people or golden parachutes when the company they ran goes into the dumpster.
Upper management wants to say it's paid because they put the stake into the company...again as Ford (I know I know) stated "A company is owned by the customer". If management worked as hard to find and develop better product as it does to blame the workers, government and so on for the way things are, they may show profitability and increase in their salaries that way instead of having to rape and pillage the workers and company into bankruptcy.
Quote:
|
Okay, bad example. I'll give you a good example: sub-prime people.
|
People are people. If they saw an opportunity to buy a house and were told they could afford it, then of course they are going to. Government knew what was going on so did the banks... they knew there would be a bubble bursting and they did nothing. So who is to truly blame. I can't blame the people for wanting a chance at a better life. I blame government for not protecting the people and the banks for knowing what they were doing but not caring. If the rates hadn't gone up, if gas hadn't ballooned, a lot of the housing would have been ok. The rates going up I still have to hear good reasons for.
Quote:
|
I was half-kidding. It's not alright with me either that incomes are so extreme. When I think of the billions of dollars that upper management or hedge fund managers made last year when there are so many minimum wage backs they built their fortunes on, it makes me sad. Still, liberals have been called socialist (or worse) for years for merely suggesting that income should be a little more fair.
|
True. I think that's a NeoCon right way to scare people. Scare tactics work.
Quote:
|
Once you allow the market to own anything, freedom, IMHO, goes out the door because the market wants to maximize the workers efficiency (more work for less pay), plus it allows the market too much control over the people. This is why you need a small measure of regulation, just to make sure that people aren't getting ripped off by millionaire CEOs.
|
Agreed 100% here as I stated a free market with restraints and regulations. I don't think that the top 5% are evil as a whole. I think greed takes one over as they acquire more and greed affects rational thinking.