Craigslist Exec To Soon Catch Bullet With His Forehead

[Amianthus]

Nobody CHOOSES a lifestyle.

Sure they do. I've known people that made conscious decisions like this. I know one couple that were raised in the suburbs, always used a car to get around, etc. Probably very similar to your lifestyle. They decided they wanted to live the "urban life" and moved into the heart of a large city (Chicago in this case). They got rid of their car, if they wanted to visit someone outside the city, they either had to arrange a ride, rent a vehicle, or take a train / bus. But they chose that for themselves, and spent very little on gasoline over a year's time. Another couple went the other way, raised in the heart of a city (NYC is this case) and after they had their second child, they moved out into NJ, got the house with a yard, bought a couple of cars, and started driving everywhere.

Just because you were raised one way of the other doesn't mean that you have to continue to live that way.

[Amianthus]

My choice would be to get gas that doesn't pollute the air for free.  That would be my choice. 

Then invent this hypothetical fuel source, and give it away.

No one is stopping you.

[Brassmask]

Longer term studies covering a decade or more have been done, and they have shown that the migration trend for middle class is into the upper class, not downward.

Now look, I may sound like a rube at times but come on, I am smarter than this.  You're saying if we went back ten years we'd see that more people moved up.  So, let's say we went back to '95 because then we'd have ten years through 2005.  Five of those years would be during the tech boom.  Well, OF COURSE, if you include some of those years when everyone and their brother was getting loaded in the stock market with tech stocks, you're going to see increases.  And I would definitely bet that your article's info only went up to early 2005 at the very latest.  Even with the slides of the last five years under Bush, there would surely still be some sign of the moves from middle to upper class.

Where we differ is that I don't want to see averages over years where the shrinking of the middle class lately (to the lower class) is masked by the growth of the upper class 5 to 10 years ago.  What I want to see is steady increases every year in the size of the upper class while the middle and lower classes shrinks.  And I would even go so far as to say that I don't want to see the creation of some kind of new super upper class until there is no longer a lower class at the very least but ideally neither a middle class.

This averages stuff is bunk.  I'd never imagine you to try to put something like that over.  Sirs, sure, any time but you, come on.  You're way more intellectually honest that that.

[domer]

Trying once again to focus the discussion on principles instead of Ami's inane use of statistics, I repeat:

Properly conceived and emotionally modulated, the debate should focus on circumstance rather than the "fungibility" of individuals occupying slots among the "rich" or the "poor." The question is not should there be freedom and upper mobility -- there should -- but whether we can morally, socially and politically tolerate "want" or "serious want" or "severe want" in the richest country in the world, and how we should fashion our legal/economic system to assure that the "burdens of society" are carried equitably, that is, not only by ability to contribute but degree of benefit derived.

[Universe Prince]

And yet there is no real reason to consider [bartering] capitalism, other than to provide a simplistic definition.

It is the exchange of privately owned property. Why shouldn't it be considered capitalism?

We could have an entire discussion on just this. I would think that Pinochet's Chile and it's link to Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" was a nice testament to the fact that freedom of market does not correlate to freedom of people.

That assumes that Pinochet's Chile was an example of freedom of market. Oh, and the link between Pinochet and Friedman is minuscule. I recommend checking out Brian Doherty's article, "The Economist and the Dictator", about Friedman, Pinochet and Chile over at Reason Online.

Can you explain how interest rates and exchange rates are artificial constructs within capitalism that do not have to exist?

Interest rates and exchange rates are artificial in that they are not naturally occurring things. Money or property does not earn interest by itself. It does so because people have established a system wherein they agree to the concept of interest and a specific rate of interest. Exchange rates have to do with currency, which is itself really an artificial construct. We have and use currency, money, because we all essentially agree to use it as a means of exchange rather than bartering with deeds, physical objects and the like. I don't know how things like interest rates and exchange rates could not be seen as artificial constructs. I realize I'm probably not explaining this very well, but I am not an economist.

I'm especially keen on understanding how interest rates do not have to exist as this would seem contradictory to the entire concept of the time value of money. Without it, the entire system of annuities, credit, banking, discounting, etc would be gone. So, let's start there and we can tackle currency exchange at a later time.

The time value of money exists because people tend to prefer a sum of money now rather than the same sum of money in the future, and therefore there needs to be a reason to invest money, which leads us to the concepts of interest and the time value of money. We do not have to have these concepts for people to own property or to use it to increase wealth. These concepts make that easier certainly, but they are not required. Yes, without interest we would see a vastly different operation of capitalism, but that things would be different does not make interest a necessary concept. I'm not saying it isn't an extremely valuable and useful concept, I'm just saying it isn't absolutely necessary.

We didn't even touch on arbitrage, surely that's a capitalistic endeavor?

Of course it is. So is currency exchange and investment with interest. I never said they were not. They fit within capitalism; they do not define it. I would have thought that was obvious.

[Universe Prince]

I know there are some replies (to my posts) to which I have not yet responded, but I'm out of time right now. I'll have to get to them later or tomorrow.

[domer]

Leaving aside the dispute over whether interest is a "necessary concept," I would say that it is an inexorable phenomenon, that is, logically compelled, in a mature capitalist economy. In that stance, of course, it becomes a "necessary concept," to be ignored at your peril, in any but rudimentary forms of capitalism.

[Brassmask]

Properly conceived and emotionally modulated, the debate should focus on circumstance rather than the "fungibility" of individuals occupying slots among the "rich" or the "poor." The question is not should there be freedom and upper mobility -- there should -- but whether we can morally, socially and politically tolerate "want" or "serious want" or "severe want" in the richest country in the world, and how we should fashion our legal/economic system to assure that the "burdens of society" are carried equitably, that is, not only by ability to contribute but degree of benefit derived.

Clearly, Domer, the answer lies in one's own ideology.  The predominant two can easily be summed up in these ways.  

The conservative/capitalist "MINE! Get your own!"

The liberal/socialist "We're all in this together."

These are absolutes and regardless of a conservative's adherence to "charitable organizations lending a hand" idea or a socialist's desire for toys of every stripe, the two ideology's will remain at core.

There are shared beliefs between the two ends of the spectrum and I've attempted to broach them innumerably in the past in our RBE discussions (and you know how those go) but the disagreements arise from how best to resolve the problems that we all know are there.  Poverty being the number one problem that I see.

[Amianthus]

This averages stuff is bunk.  I'd never imagine you to try to put something like that over.  Sirs, sure, any time but you, come on.  You're way more intellectually honest that that.

You're never going to find a period of time where every year is better than the last. The economy doesn't work that way. There will always be "up" years and "down" years, which is why averages over time is a better way of looking at the data. Actually, they use much more sophisticated techniques than straight averages - but I'm sure you know what I mean.

If you want to avoid the tech boom 90s, and there is no reliable data past 2004 yet, we have to look at the 80s.

This Economic Letter reports on recent research by Burkhauser, Crews, Daly, and Jenkins (1996) (hereafter BCDJ); which examines changes in the distribution of real family income and pinpoints movements of the U.S. middle class over the 1980s. Contrary to conventional wisdom, BCDJ find that the shrinking of the U.S. middle class during the 1980s was primarily due to improvements, rather than to declines, in economic well-being. They show that the majority of the middle class that vanished did so by increasing its income. That is, the great majority of working families under age 62 as well as older families in the middle of the income distribution were better off at the end of the decade (1989) than were their counterparts at the beginning (1979). Only those living in families under age 62 and dependent on social assistance lost ground between 1979 and 1989. Thus, while inequality unquestionably increased and the size of the middle class declined during the 1980s, the decline occurred through disproportionate increases, rather than through large-scale reductions in economic well-being.

http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html

And this is a trend that has been going on for a long time.

[Amianthus]

Trying once again to focus the discussion on principles instead of Ami's inane use of statistics, I repeat:

I find most of your posts to be inane.

[domer]

I shouldn't have said "inane," Ami, but "useful in its place," which is not to guide, much less define, discussion.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, sure

You can buy biodiesel at a few places. But you will pay much more for it than you will for "dino diesel", and you will have to use quite a bit of it driving to the biodiesel station. Here in South Florida, there are just two locations, both around 20 miles from where I live, both are much more expensive than "petro diesel, and neither is open convenient hours

[Amianthus]

Yeah, sure

You can buy biodiesel at a few places. But you will pay much more for it than you will for "dino diesel", and you will have to use quite a bit of it driving to the biodiesel station. Here in South Florida, there are just two locations, both around 20 miles from where I live, both are much more expensive than "petro diesel, and neither is open convenient hours

As I'm trying to point out - any choice you make will have negative consequences. Which negative consequences you are willing to live with will help define your choice.

[Plane]

[

Clearly, Domer, the answer lies in one's own ideology.  The predominant two can easily be summed up in these ways.  

The conservative/capitalist "MINE! Get your own!"

The liberal/socialist "We're all in this together."

These are absolutes and regardless of a conservative's adherence to "charitable organizations lending a hand" idea or a socialist's desire for toys of every stripe, the two ideology's will remain at core.

There are shared beliefs between the two ends of the spectrum and I've attempted to broach them innumerably in the past in our RBE discussions (and you know how those go) but the disagreements arise from how best to resolve the problems that we all know are there.  Poverty being the number one problem that I see.

No , it is more like this,...
The conservative/capitalist "Lets negotiate our exchanges twards mutual benefit"

The liberal/socialist "You are a butt headed selfish idiot , so we are going to make our exchanges my way."

[_JS]

It is the exchange of privately owned property. Why shouldn't it be considered capitalism?

I don't recall Brass saying that it was privately owned. Regardless, it could occur in a capitalist system but it isn't the definition of capitalism.

That assumes that Pinochet's Chile was an example of freedom of market. Oh, and the link between Pinochet and Friedman is minuscule. I recommend checking out Brian Doherty's article, "The Economist and the Dictator", about Friedman, Pinochet and Chile over at Reason Online.

Yes, yes I know that Friedman only spoke there once, but his students were the economic advisors to Pinochet and Augusto loved the little economist. I've heard this defended from more directions that I'd ever thought possible, from complete non-association (Pin-who?) to intense worship of both (And lo, the Lord came and tooketh both Augusto and Milton into paradise). OK, I exaggerate a little. Yet, monetarism proved costly to many people both in Chile and around the world.

Interest rates and exchange rates are artificial in that they are not naturally occurring things. Money or property does not earn interest by itself.

By that same notion, money and property are not naturally occurring things. Both are concepts created by man. To remove interest rates and exchange rates, cornerstones of today's financial sector as not being central to capitalism strikes me as being intellectually dishonest.

The time value of money exists because people tend to prefer a sum of money now rather than the same sum of money in the future, and therefore there needs to be a reason to invest money, which leads us to the concepts of interest and the time value of money.

Exactly. There must be a reason to invest money, right? Without that, how does capitalism function? You shouldn't mistake capitalism for a simple bartering society. It simply does not function that way.