As you know, Liberals adhere to a set of beliefs just like Conservatives do. Granted it’s not fair to put words in your mouth but we “have” been reading you for 10 years and have an idea (in our minds) what you are thinking.

You’re pissed because Tom used you for a soapbox, just like you’ve done with me.

I think you’re looking for an apology and you probably deserve one.

By the way you never answered Tom’s question:

“Can you honestly say you envisioned that ideal “trade worker” as NOT being a loyal member of a union?”.

You’re just pretending not to understand me, which has always been your fallback position.

The rest of the post is bubbleheaded nonsense. If you think Ghadaffi’s Libya is the ideal, there’s really nowhere left for this conversation to go.

I”m making a last stab at discussing anything with him, or maybe I’ve made it. There just isn’t any dealing with that. He’s a nice guy, I’d be proud to buy him a beer or have him as a neighbor, and as I have my blind spots I believe he does and some things are best not even discussed.

Then you say it’s working really, really well.

I gave a description of standard of living, and you completely distorted it. Whether that was on purpose or plain inability to understand plain English only you know. But it’s one or the other. And then you say it can’t work because there are twice as many people and that things like “hunger” aren’t relevant because it’s redefined only to make it a political issue.

Your description of the ideal is “free market capitalism is an outgrowth of the basic concept of individual liberty and the right to own the fruits of our labor, skills and ideas.” Let’s go with that.

Sounds socialist to me. The State would own the factories, and employ labor reimbursing them according to their skills. The folks with ideas would be reimbursed more, and could get patents, etc., which they would own. No one would get paid for just sitting around owning hedge funds or clipping coupons and producing nothing.

I think there needs to be a role for capital, and yet it need not be amassed to obscene levels if there is poverty, also. There is a limit to what someone needs, and that is easily defined.

Trying to defend capitalism as practiced today in the US is futile. All the major companies are subsidized, the oil companies to the tune of the cost of the Middle East wars, and the little guy is screwed to the wall.

Everybody deserves to share in the riches of the State, the material which is pulled from the ground being part of it. Everyone deserves health insurance, yes, even that 15%. Everybody deserves water, a modicum of electricity, enough food on which to live and a modest roof over their heads. Oh, yes. Free education for as far as they want to go. (Did you know that under Ghadaffi all Libyians had that right, and if they wanted to go to college elsewhere the government would pay for them to do so. Anywhere.)

When someone can give themselves a $100 million bonus and there is one American without health insurance the system is failing.

That’s an opinion, but you didn’t make your case. You made mine.

As a percentage of population, there are twice as many high school graduates now as there were in 1960, and almost twice as many college graduates. As a percentage of population, the number of people without health insurance has been nearly flat – floating around 15 percent – for almost 30 years. The term “hunger” has to be continually defined downward over the years to keep “hunger” an issue in this country.

The rich are richer, but the poor are not poorer. That statement was incorrect. Everything has been about “wealth gaps,” not absolute values. We are told it’s a bad thing if we get a bit richer but somebody else gets a lot richer, as though somehow that money came out of our pockets and is rightfully ours.

Do you know how old I was before my parents finally had two cars? Or more than one television set? Long distance phone calls were a rare luxury when I was young. Wireless phones were something you only saw in black limousines. Walk into a modern grocery store, and remember the one you went to as a youngster. My Dad was the first in his family to go to college, a rarity in his generation. Yet this is the current state of “poverty” in this country. I have to sit here while people tell me – at the same time – that we are getting poor, and that we are being buried under “consumerist” abundance.

There is power to be had in misery, and the promise to hand out loot from those above us on the ladder. This is why misery and hatred of the wealthy is being sold to us on every front. To put it as bluntly as possible, there is no place for the Left in a nation where life doesn’t suck, and people are well-off and not angry. They say they’re all for a contented middle class. No. They’re not. The engine that powers the Democratic Party is sitting in sullen groups in parks, waiting for a leader to hand them their torches.

Free market capitalism is an outgrowth of the basic concept of individual liberty and the right to own the fruits of our labor, skills, and ideas. It frigging works, while “progressive” economic ideas have failed miserably in every nation, and in every culture. If that’s a “sacred cow,” make the most of it.

This economic system will fail when somebody deliberately kills it.

A good answer would take a lot of work and I’m not up for that either. Like you said, it’s complicated.

The questions:

(1)How well is capitalism as practiced in the US working for the good of all the people?

(2)Is the “American Dream” a viable possibility for a majority of the people?

(3)If present trends continue (rich richer, poor poorer) when will the present American economic system fail for most of the people?

When you compare our system to the rest of the world, the first question is a no-brainer but Bowser is looking at the country as a frame of reference. He answered question 2 with question 3- by asking “when” will the system fail implies it’s hasn’t failed yet.

The stickler is the part about “present trends continuing”- the falling standard of living.

Did you ever see “Weekend at Bernie’s”? Well, our standard of living was kind of like the dearly departed Bernie, propped up and paraded about in a party atmosphere. I know, I know, we live like kings compared to the rest of the world but we need to look in the mirror and worry about the standards we’ve set for ourselves.

For awhile we got a big boost to the standard of living when the number of wage earners in the home increased from one to two. But it didn’t take long for things to level out and dual middle class incomes are now pretty much necessary to live the dream.

So that still wasn’t enough. To keep up with the Jones’s it became acceptable to charge up your credit cards. It was no longer shameful to carry high balances. Heck, If you could make the payment, you could afford it.

And to put another drink in Bernie’s hand, they came up with the adjustable rate mortgage, further allowing and encouraging us to live beyond our means which was ok, as long as we were still “dreaming”.

And then came……the great home ATM debacle. Money that was previously used for improving the value of the home went for toys and trips and bobbles. And it is at this point we can clearly hear “CLANG” “CLANG” “CLANG” as Bernie careens off the channel markers while being towed behind the ski boat……

You see the problems Tom but it looks like you won’t accept any underlying causes that can’t be directly tied to the failings of liberal policies. It’s like free market capitalism is your sacred cow?

But your issue with Tom reached the point of being theatrical a few posts back.

Tom dodged your question regarding the status of the American Dream:

If you really were interested in an answer, the objective verdict on “American-style” capitalism has been in for decades……… our system is working better for its citizens than anything else currently out there.

You can drive a car on a tire that’s going flat but it’s usually a good idea to stop and have a look instead of continuing down the highway.

But it’s a Cadillac!! says Tom….

TB didn’t reply to my comment on college. That was a non-issue. My objections were to his misinterpretations of my other points.

I’m hoping you aren’t making that mistake, too. For instance, does “average high school graduate” translate into “all high school graduates” in your world too? Somehow I doubt it, but one can’t tell. I was completely dumbfounded by TB, for instance. He seems to genuinely interpret the English language as used by me in that manner. “Average” equals “all”.

I’m puzzled.

Arf