bradleybadly wrote:@ player: nice post
sorry it took me so long to respond. I have been spending my time in the "insignificant
part of CC .. namely the games (and debating the new feedback system).
- obviously I don't agree with how you portray executives & stockholders but I'm guessing part of that is due to your own past experiences and resentment to the way you were treated.
But some of my best friends are executives ...
Seriously, I am not quite sure what you mean by "how I was treated" . If you said "how I was educated", though, I would agree.
And that, I guess is the real problem/issue. There is a VERY wide gap in what people know right now about science, particularly natural science and just how things relate to each other aand impact us, in turn. If you look at the number of new chemicals introduced just within the past year, never mind the past 40 and it is phenomenally huge. It is impossible to truly know the impact each of these has even just on human beings, never mind some obscur frog or butterfly ... or bees. Even when tests are done, they are done in "isolation", that is one chemical is tested by itself. This can be entirely different than what happens when that chemical is combined with others.
bradleybadly wrote:I guess my main problem with the left wing is generally that they form their arguments to make companies, corporations, and stock holders all look evil. I think most of this is based on jealousy of those who have more money. Instead of trying to imitate success and prosperity there is an effort to portray those people as villains. I hear people at work say "why is there such a huge gap between the rich and poor". Well, I've never heard of a law that said everyone must be economically equal. So that's where I'm coming from.
The media, politicians have definite interests in making "enemies". Battles are good for selling papers, good for drawing folks to a particular cause. But, we would do well to remember the difference between the hype and reality. Few people really and truly ascribe to the poles on any issue.
But, it is tempting at times to see corporations as "evil", but the worst the vast majority are guilty of is just "not looking". As I already mentioned, the shear numbers of chemicals introduced
should give some pause. There a certain tests that these things must go through to get approved, but the REAL truth is that it often can take 20-30 or more YEARS before real impacts are known. Look at asbestos. It was the "wonder material" for years.... until suddenly someone found it caused lung cancer. Just the litigation, the clean up ... well the only ones benefitting are the lawyers. And, though there was a lot of hype about removing it, sealing it and so forth, the reality is that thousands of schools (the priority) across the nation, never mind office buildings and homes, are still full of asbestos. In many cases because the removal would cost far more and actually be more hazardous than leaving it, for now. BUT, each bit of asbestos left is really just a ticking time bomb of sorts. In time, the sealants will degrade. It might be OK for 100 years, but eventually those schools will likely have to be torn down or remodeled.
Lead is another example. You are probably quite aware of the dangers of lead to young children. BUT, did you know that, even today, we still do not have a real comprehensive study on the true impacts. They started one not so long ago here in the U.S. Kids with high lead exposure were randomly selected to NOT get treatment. parents gave consent, they were offered other "goodies" like child safety devices (that really and truly do save lives), so it was perhaps not as cruel as it might seem... BUT, it had to be halted for what are probably quite obvious reasons. Waht they did find is that, if anything, the current lead levels are far too high. Instead of 10ppm, you really should have less than 3 ppm. I can hardly think of a house in our area that does not have lead paint. I know all this, I know what steps to take ... and BOTH my sons have lead levels of 9ppm. Worse, you know what I was told when I called to get the results ... that they had "normal" levels! (and, if you don't know it is not from eating lead chips -- lead paint, like all paint deteriorate over time. It has been thirty years since lead paint was sold in the U.S. Even given that some people used it after that date, stuff happens in 20-30 years. The dust scatters. It gets in soil, in wind. It getst racked in clothing, etc. Add to that all the lead from gasoline fumes ... and this is just ONE mineral.
Were the people who used lead "evil"? Of course not! My own grandmother (now deceased), a nurse, caring, lamented the loss of lead paint because it was so much more durable. A family friend, (not so educated, that is true) once asked me how folks got this "ridiculous notion" that lead caused harm... The dangers of lead poisoning have been known, but they key is folks did not know exactly HOW harmful or HOW litte it took. That, and folks just did not think as much about the future as they do now. As one professor put it, when 1 in ten children is DYING from "simple" diseases like measles, when the average life expectancy is 40, then the rates of cancer and heart disease tend to be pretty low.
Here is the thing I want to stress... These things are EXCEEDINGLY complicated.
Howe easy it is, in the face of no real and concrete and absolutely conclusive data to just dismiss as "poppycock" the idea that this or that chemical or process might be harmful. HOw DIFFICULT, at times almost impossible, it is to really consider all that. And yet, if we don't ....
It is not a matter of evil, it is a matter of lack of knowledge combined with HUGE changes.
ANYWAY, to get back to the original issue, "is socialism any good?"
Teh ultimate answer is some socialism is necessary and prudent. This comes on several levels. On one level, I truly believe that when we stand by and watch someone in real need suffer, we ourselves are harmed. But, the old adage "teach a man to fish" absolutely holds true... as does the parenting analogy of "spare the rod". Right now, in the U.S., as in much of Europe, things are skewed. Old people go hungry and single mothers get free housing, schooling and jsut about anything else they want ... if they know where to go, where to look.
What I want? A basic level of care for everyone. The Elderly, in particular, deserve better treatment. The truly disabled are not far behind, though that does not mean that we have to have elevators going up Mount Everest to accomodate wheel chairs.
I think we need to require a bit more of single mothers and provide more help to those WORKING folks .. married or not. Part of that does involve requiring corporations to pay more and to provide more things like health care (or to have a universal system). That means, socialism.
I think we provide a basic level of care in part because it is plain civilized and humane to do so, but also because it benefits us in real and tangible ways. It is cheaper to provide some simple housing and food than to deal with crime and disease from having large numbers of individuals on the "street" or hungry. BUT, "basic shelter" does not mean they have to have a three bedroom house with cable TV. But, at the same time, if that cable TV will keep "derelicts" " off the street" .. it might well be cost effective.
I would venture to say that real concrete numbers of real-life instead of hypotheticals would produce a more accurate picture, but I do understand what you're saying.
[/quote]
Granted, I did leave out facts and figures some. However, let me talk specifically about my community, which I will not name and Santa Barbara, CA .. which was recently on our news.
In our area, we recently passed the 70% mark for subsidized lunches. That means that over 70% of our community is below the poverty line. This is a heavily industrial area. A LARGE percentage of those under the poverty line are working FULL TIME. Not even at what is typically considered "menial" or "low paying" work, either ... these are full time factory employees. Some, such as my husband, are actually considered skilled labor. So, the factories around here are paying poverty wages to skilled labor. Just think about that. Think about the effect it has not only on our local community, but on society. Now, that might not be quite so bad if it were not for the added fact that the head corporations (there are 3 specific companies) are making pretty substantial profits. The executives bring in salaries in the millions.
In addition to factories, you can work for Walmart, Dollar General (a minimum wage discount store) a few other smaller chains. (Rite Aid drugs, Eckerd, Jiffy Lube, a couple of small chain groceries, etc.) Many of the employees work part-time. Few provide any kind of health care. And, while they may not be technically providing minimum wages, they are not offering much above -- usually the most they make is $8 an hour, even for managers.
Folks CAN get by in our area. The average house, according to local realtors, is around $70,000. BUT, that means a lot go for much less. In many cases, that means houses with lead paint, some in flood zones, etc. There was a lead clean-up program, but it is out of money, offers little but regulations. There ARE no professional lead removal services here. That means home owners sand, burn or simply paint over old paint. Sometimes they know it matters, in many cases they don't. Maybe this is part of why roughly 25% of kids here have ADHD or other issues ... maybe not.
Please note, we live in a NICE area. We do have decent schools, we are very close to the Allegheny National Forest, Elk herds, etc. Tourism is growing. BUT, the food pantry has a growing list. There is something around a 20% foreclosure rate, largely due to high divorce rates. Money issues contribute a lot to divorces.
Now for Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara is not typical in any real sense. It is quite an expensive place to live, even for California. But, they are also unusual in their response. Homelessness has gotten to be such a problem that they actually opened up a beach area for folks who live in their cars, trailers and such. This includes
families I saw in interview wth several. These were not the "lazy folks" these were hard working folks who lost jobs, had medical costs, etc and ended up losing their homes as a result. Understand, that in many cases the mortgage payments these folks would have been making would be less than the cost to rent an apartment or home. In some cases, prices have dropped a bit now, but not all that much. You still cannot get anything liveable for under $200,000 ...and I DON'T mean it "has to have a pool and fancy yard". I mean it had a roof that does not leak, a workind sewer, etc. Now why would Santa Barbara go out of its way to take such a step? Partly altruism, for sure, but a very big part is that S.B. is a wealthy town that depends a lot on tourism. Folks don't like seeing families sleeping in cars. Santa Barbara (even with Goleta, Isla Vista, Montecito, etc.) is small enough and surrounded by mountains, forets, so that even a few folks on the street are noticeable. There just isn't anywhere for them to "go" and still be around to show up for their jobs. (remember, these are either actively working folks or folks actively looking for work). And, staying in a car isn't exactly safe, even in Santa Barbara. So, they have a gated beach. This works because Santa Barbara has a nice climate.
Yet, I, living in a house that barely caps $50,000 (never mind that it is twice the size of that $300,000 house in S.B.), barely above the national poverty line ourselves, are helping to support those individuals out there. THAT is not quite right. The folks who live out there, who need those workers, who choose to locate their businesses there ... THEY should be the ones supporting these folks, not I.
The other issue has to do with business itself. In "straight" capitalism, the individual profit takes precedence even over long term profit of many businesses. Monopolies are prime examples of something that benefitted a few intensely, but at too much of a cost to everyone else. They were, ultimately, a deteriment to business itself. So, laws were needed. I would put much of what is happening today, in the U.S., in credit to fall into that category. The idea that a company should even be allowed to offer someone an adjustable-rate mortgage that would triple in interest is just plain wrong. Granted, people "should" have known better, but let me tell you. Those sales people, evne the honest ones, are quire persuasive. I KNOW better and yet, sometimes I find myself "almost" tempted at times.
So, the ultimate answer is that no system is perfect. We absolutely need a level of socialism. We absolutely need some controls and regulations on the activities of companies because so many of these things don't adhere to supply/demand, etc "capitalistic" or "profit driven" systems.
The key that I would like to see is something called "sustainability". Sustainability in ALL areas -- LONG term profits, LONG term impacts and results , LONG term human care needs. This involves a mixture of government controls and freedoms. Ironically, though without government, there is no true freedome to do business.
