Conservatives Win While Republicans Lose

I voted here in Texas for an Independent for Governor, Kinky Freedman. Other than that I voted a straight Democratic ticket.

 

But what people never question, is what exactly is "earning", or how much is actually "earned". The division between CEO's and the average worker has widened incredibly, and it's not that the CEO's are doing more work to "earn" more, but that they are in a position where they can get the companies to give them more, and their demands apparently keep going up, regardless of the economy or even the state of the company. Plus, the way capitalism raises prices, and cuts quality and services (ever hear the expression "they don't make things the way they used to", and how a lot of stuff is poor quality junk?), and the whole system just thrives off of trying to get more with less, it is questionable whether they even "earn" all of that stuff at all. See if they accept goods and sevices they buy that are no good, but they have thousands to spend on the best of everything.
Meanwhile, on the other end of it, this "earning" rhetoric sounds like all the people struggling with all the high costs have not "earned" the right not to have to struggle; like they are not working hard enough. This would suggest that we are all supposed to work ourselves into the ground to become CEO's, and spend 16 hours a day like them; or we haven't "earned" anything. Christians tell the poor not to envy that lifestyle, it doesn't satisfy, etc. it's an idol, etc. but we sure do uphold it, in our political rhetoric!

See, that's just what I was saying. Our thinking is either ALL "Right" or ALL "Left". So any criticism of a conservative statement then is assumed to be pushing for state control and confiscation or "stealing" of weath. I know that will not work. But "the people" can at least be conscious of the economic inequities, and look for better alternatives; just like enough people complained about Welfare, and that was changed. Then, the govt. wouldn't be needed for that.

Maybe so, but what I meant by "the poor" was welfare and immigrants. The past 25 years, you would think welfare people got all of the wealth of the nation, from listening to Conservatives. The rich deserve it all, but the dirty liberals stole it from them and gave it all to the lazy, undeserving. This whole thing of the liberals making an excuse for the govt. stealing someone's earnings and giving it to someone who doesn't deserve is still high on the conservative conscience, as we can see here.

OK, but with many others, including some here, "the border" is the new issue that has taken the place Welfare had.

 

Yes it is. The owners of the wealth as well as every consumer consider what one's efforts are worth constantly.

There are problems that need to be fixed but people are paid what the owners think they are worth to the bottom line. You might not agree with what CEO's are paid but it ISN'T YOUR MONEY. If they aren't worth it then no fool will continue to pay it unless there is some other rationale for doing so. Sometimes there is- usually gov't being too involved rather than not involved enough.

If you truly think this is an issue then form a group, do studies, boycotts, whatever you can to bring pressure to bear.

Do what?

First off, that expression as a generalization is false. On the whole, product value today is better than it has ever been. Cars can reasonably be expected to go twice as far as they could 20 years ago... with alot more bells and whistles. Just consider the variety and quality of restaurants and retailers and banks.

Capitalism or better the free market responds to demands. It brings the decision to the consumer on how finite resources and capital will be used. No one cuts quality when the consumer demands more. No one raises prices above what the market and competition will bear.

There is absolutely no question they earn it. Doing more with less isn't bad... it is very, very, very good. There are wastes and abuses in a free market system but they aren't nearly as great as any other system known to man... certainly not socialism.

If you are this ignorant about basic economics, I have to wonder what you do for a living. I have actually been involved in producing products for the last 20 years. Every manufacturing/service company has the same objective- produce a product/service that meets the customer's expectations for price and quality while making a profit and staying in business. Because of this objective, you have to find and keep the employees that make it possible... and pay them what the market says they are worth.

The question isn't about effort. It is about value.

Turn your own argument around. Consider an individual a business. When he offers the product of his labor you are implying that he should not be responsible to offer the kind of service, quality, and price that the consumer (the employer) needs.

That's wrong. If a company produced the best widget in the world and could sell it for a penny their efforts would be completely meaningless if no one wanted or needed widgets. A person can work as hard as can be imagined and if they offer no value to an employer... why should they be rewarded?

In everything you buy there is waste. Waste increases the price and decreases the value of your money. You pay for that union dock worker who sits and waits for the contract specified lift operator when he could do the job himself for instance. Those drawing unemployment add waste to the cost of the products you buy. Perhaps necessary but waste nonetheless.

A system with lots of waste will be poor. The less waste your economy has, the richer it will be from top to bottom.

Anytime gov't forces waste into the system through wage/benefit rules or regulations, it will increase prices and/or reduce the net wealth of the country by introducing artificial waste. The most cruel part of this lie is that the "wealthy" have much more power to protect themselves from this effect than those who supposedly benefited.

NO. It would simply suggest that: a) you and I have made a value choice within the scope of our abilities. I have specifically chosen not to continue to climb the corporate ladder because the non-financial costs were too high. b) it would suggest that they have convinced someone through some performance measure that they are worth it while someone who makes less and works less finds their own worth with the sacrifice they are willing to make.

Indirectly, you have approved of what people make as well when you buy the product. You are affirming that they met your critetia for cost, quality, service, etc. Stop buying it and the CEO will be one of the first ones to take a hit normally. The media reports the exceptions, not the rule. The rule is the guy at the top gets chopped first when things go bad. I've seen it repeatedly. Only the really savvy politician can avoid it... and even then it eventually catches up with them.

Not at all. We don't live in a feudal system with lords and slaves. We have a full range of employment opportunities, business opportunities, and professions with the incumbent sacrifices.

The Bible praises work, industry, and profit (parable of the talents). It condemns sloth and lack of industry. The servant that hid on his talent rather than investing it was condemned. He was responsible to find a way to make it profitable in the market... just like each individual person is.

At no point does it praise waste.

Christ used a parable where laborers disputed their wages because they thought the owner was unfair. He affirmed that the owner was only liable to pay what he had agreed to... the owner's character was completely positive... he was figuratively God. The owner, not the laborer, has the right and responsibility to determine what labor is worth. If he doesn't pay enough then he gets punished by the market as other employers take the best helpers.

"Inequity" implies injustice. That isn't the rule. The rule is that when allowed to reach an equillibrium, a free market economy will pay people their relative worth. We were about there and now the Dems are going to lie again.

However, people should always be looking for better alternatives. That is one of the chief means of keeping integrity in the system.

No. We just recognize the injustice and inefficiency of rewarding the unproductive at the direct expense of the productive.

No. The investor deserves his part just as Jesus affirmed. The laborer deserves his part just as Jesus affirmed. The liberals are definitely wrong for stealing from these two groups and giving to the lazy and undeserving. That is what the NT teaches in a nutshell.

It should be high on the conscience of anyone who is interested in a just society or even the real welfare of those individuals. If you look at the long term effects of gov't dependency... it is very destructive on the "beneficiary". I grew up in the southern Appalachians a few miles from an Indian Reservation. I have seen what gov't dependence can do to people up close and personal. I've seen cheaters. I've seen people who literally thought the deserved what other people earned while being unwilling to work themselves.

How close have you actually been to this problem? I've literally lived next door to it.

 

So they jack up prices, and basically declare that the extra money you pay that was yours is now not yours. Funny, but when the government does it, people not only do not accept that, but freak out over it.

That begins with trying to inform people of these things. If everyone thinks all is well with our economics, except for those rotten liberals, then they will not see any reason to fdo that, but rather continue to form groups, botycotts, etc. against taxes or govt. programs as we have a lot of already.

That's not what I've always heard for cars. And those that do, plus all the quality services cost way much more, while average stuff falls apart.

So again, it comes down to a comparison with socialism, and being "not as bad". Again, noone is pitching socialism.

This is not ignorance, it is a difference of perspective. You apparently have done well, and see this system through rose colored glasses. You are giving a lot of nice abstract ideals, but they are just that: ideals, like socialism had, but did not take into consideration man's sin, and how man corripts the system with his loopholes and pulling of strings. We have always said that about socialism, but this system is the same way.

And that is labeling people "valuable" and "less valuable". (Didn't Jesus say that a man's "life" (worth) is NOT in the abundance of things he posesses?)
Many employers do not value their workers. They are just pawns, and if they don't like what we do to them, they can leave, and we'll find someone else (who is more desperate). That is what is happening with the immigrants, and not only that, but relocations to those countries, going to them, instead of them coming to us. They have all sorts of such strings they can pull. Again, it is an ideal that does not take into consideration all the loopholes.
As Michael Horton, Beyond Culture Wars has pointed out, the capitalism and communism are twin sisters of modernity that believe in the goodness of man, yet reduce him to an economic animal goverend by factors of production and consumption. One makes an idol out of the state, and the other makes an idol out of "the market". (And notice how it is spoken of here like it is a living entity that has rule over people and determines their worth!)

So unions and unemployment benefits are bad, right? Unions are there to prevent management from running vitrual slave camps, with multitasking and such. I agree that it gets too meticulous, but to use this to blame the government regulations for everything on the premise that management has earned the right for the near absolute control some of the rhetoris gives them is going way too far. Shoule my employer (NYCT Transit) be allowed to work me into the ground, (and then fire me for making dangerous mistakes from being fatigued?)

 

So this sounds like Darwinian survival of the fittest. Because we may not have the drive and abilities (opportunities, connections, etc) then we deserve to struggle as we do to live, and it is our own "choice", so just accept our lot, or become a CEO.
It's the law of the jungle, and while I don't see govt. control as the answer (as govt. is just as much apart of this jungle) I don't see how so many Christians think God favors something like this, especially while condemning the "atheism" of the other system.

So again, we do it to ourselves just because we buy something at the inflated price. So just don't buy anything (including necessities), or accept ypur lot, ot strive and rise to the top. But one person does not walk into the store and decide what to pay. And when you have people who go on and pay for it, but direct all the blame at taxes, liberals, and lazy bums taking all the money, then yes, they do approve of the prices, and that is the irony I am pointing out.

But one person cannot do this, and again, when everyone else goes along with it, then it is not that simple.

It also condemns making an idol out of success, even if you "earned" it (Luke 12:16-21, 18:18-23). People look at only one side of it, and that does basically uphold that lifestyle or position in life.

And we should remember that was a parable about God, and not give the human "owners" all of this sovereignty and absolute right over people, as if they were God. That basically gives them the power we decry the government holding over us. What difference does it make whether it is a private corporation, or state-chartered agency having all the power? You have the same type of people running them, who are all about their own profit at the expense of all "the little, [worth-less] people". But it was actually "Caesar" Jesus said to give what is due him, not any "private" mini-Caesarettes!

So again, the system isn't working the way it should only because of the liberals.

True, but the problem is, that all of this "government giving to the lazy and undeserving" is blown way out of proportion, while the excesses of those on top are justified based on their "worth", and others' "less" worth. Welfare was actually very little of the tax money, yet for 25+ years or more, it was shouted from the mountaintops, until it was finally changed, and now people are still complaining about it.

I'm the one really in the middle of it, as most of the "lazy bums living off of our taxes" rhetoric is aimed as inner city minorities, not Appalachians. Yes, I knew some who cheated the system, but still, the high costs of living, and many of those kids watching their parents work themselves into the grave and still live in squalor basically discouraged them, and showed them the only way was to get over. And even that has been changed alot.