Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts

Monday, August 17, 2015

4091 Rambles

Monday, August 17, 2015

If women are expected to do the same work as men,
we must teach them the same things.”
-- Plato --

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mentioned that I have been unable to go north to the country house for various reasons.  I realized the other day that there's another reason I have resisted getting in the car and just going.  My last two trips were both emotionally, physically, and financially draining.  I just can't face doing that again.

I'm actually afraid to go north again.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I find Bernie Sanders very interesting.  I like all his positions and observations.  But I doubt that he's electable.  He's a socialist, and to the average idiot 'Mericun voter socialism is a dirty word, even though they have no idea what it means and they aren't interested in finding out.  These are the same people, by the way, who seem to think that corporate fascism (the end game of capitalism) is just fine.

And even if by some miracle he was actually elected, he'd have even more opposition from Congress than Obama did on anything seen as even remotely "socialist"  even if it happened to be a "friendly" Congress, so he couldn't make any difference anyway.  

An exercise in futility.

-------------------------------------------------------------- 

People sure do love fireworks around here.  Every local fair, several a year, ends with an hour of house-rocking booms and huge colorful chrysanthemums, often six or eight in the sky at once for the whole damn hour, even long before the finale.  I see them through the trees, and every time I find myself wondering how many people could have been housed or fed on what it cost to burn all that material.  And I see my $8K in real estate taxes going up in smoke, even as my car falls into axle-breaking potholes.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't had a retirement raise in 15 years.  I don't understand.  I understood at the time I retired that I would be getting periodic COLAs.

I have this idealized version of how it should work.  In very simplified terms, let's say that at the time I retired there was $100 in the total employees retirement fund (you can think of that like 100 million or whatever, I'm just using $100 as an example), and let's say that I had contributed $5 to the fund before my retirement.  So my principle in the fund was $5, or 5% of the fund.  It seems like I should be entitled to 5% of the profits earned by the investment of that fund.

As more employees contribute and retire, the total fund balance goes up and my percentage share in the principle and profits in the fund goes down, but the total profit in the fund goes up, so the actual dollar value of my share of the profits should go up - especially when over time other contributors die off and their principle stays in but their profit share no longer goes out.

Carefully invested, the retirement fund should be earning at LEAST an average of 7% per year, even with the 2008 panic averaged in.  Properly invested, it should be earning more.  A lot more!  My IRAs and 401K without active management on my part earned 30%+ last year.

So, even though my idealization isn't the way it works, why haven't I seen a raise in 15 years?  Can you imagine the inflation in my costs over 15 years?   I've probably dropped in retirement income buying power by a huge amount.  A table I found online says that $100 in 2000 is $140 in 2015, at about 2.5% per year inflation.  It seems like there's something very wrong here.

The Company puts out an annual report on various employee funds.  It's both very high level and very complicated, so I don't pay much attention to it, don't attempt to figure out what's going on with it, but I think I might delve a little deeper next time.  I want to know what The Company is doing with the money they aren't giving to me.
.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

3602 Who votes Republican? And why?

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Too many people don’t know the difference between “possible” and “probable”.
--  Me  --

(...especially where gossip is concerned....)

----------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking about Rocky's comment on my previous post (go read it, I'll wait).  I know quite a few people who vote Republican all the time, and most of them are normally reasonable and intelligent people. If they are friends, it's understood that we never never ever talk politics.  Or religion.

Piper took a long time to learn that.  He kept trying to "educate" me.  He couldn't understand how I could be so invested in stock and real estate, and not vote my self-interest.  He finally gave up, but he will still rail in front of me at people who make stupid financial decisions, who don't work, who use "the system", and he fumes at the "socialist" government that forces him to pay for those people's mistakes.  There's a large "I made it, why can't they" component to his rants.

So, anyway, I was thinking about my politically conservative/Republican friends.  How would I define them, what are their characteristics? 

They seem to fall into two very different groups.

One group is Rocky's rich white men, some rich white women, and women who live off the rich white men.  This group is not as large as the second group, but  they have the money to contribute to candidates, and money counts heavily. Money wins elections.  These people see government as a good investment that can help them acquire more money.

The second group is much larger.  These are people who make just a little bit too much to qualify for social programs and financial aid.  They work hard.  They aspire to the good life they see on TV.  They are less well educated, tend to distrust "book-smarts", and are the target audience for Madison Avenue advertisers.  They fall for buzz words and sound bites.  They tend to be patriotic and love their cars and their guns.   This is a very large group.  They vote.  Votes win elections.  They fiercely resent that the government is taking money from them and giving it to people they see as less deserving. 

Think about the conservative political rhetoric.  It's tailored to appeal to the second group.  But the first group knows the real agenda (nudge nudge wink wink).

I said that the second group falls for buzz words.  Here's an example.  Say "socialism" to a member of that group and you get an immediate spittingly negative reaction.  Now ask that person what socialism is.  Dollars to donuts you won't get an answer beyond that it's bad.  They seem to equate it to the perverted form of communism practiced in Russia.  (I wonder if they are aware that the Israeli kibbutz is pure communism?)  If you want to get punched out, point out to them that their local fire department and police force are socialistic.  And how about bridges and the highway system?  Socialism.  Streetlights?  State colleges?  Utility rate regulation?  Socialism.  Ask them if they really want every road to be a toll road, including the street they live on.

Pure unadulterated capitalism puts profit above everything else.  The first group loves capitalism. 

Socialism puts profit secondary to the social good.  Pure unadulterated socialism discourages innovation.  

The ideal is a mix of the two - capitalism dominating for non-necessities, socialism dominating for necessities.  The first group, the group with all the money and ability to control "the message", hates being restricted in their quest for profit, so they want to ensure that the second group, with all those votes, rejects socialism.

It seems to me that the only argument should be in defining what is a necessity and what is not.

Shall we discuss health care?
.

Friday, June 18, 2010

2992 More things I don't understand

Friday, June 18, 2010

"All human beings should try to learn before they die
what they are running from, and to, and why."
-- James Thurber --

---------------------------------------------------------------

I've finally found someone willing to work on the van, and now I can't find the keys.

Typical.

---------------------------------

From yesterday's episode of "The Drs", a true story:

A guy working in a pizzeria was injured when a freezer door swung open unexpectedly and hit him in the back. He needs back surgery. A court ruled that the employer (through workman's compensation insurance?) must pay for the back surgery.

So far, so good. Sounds right and fair to me.

However, the guy weighs well over 300 lbs. Back surgery on someone that overweight is unlikely to be successful, so no reputable surgeon will operate until he loses weight first.

So the court has ruled that the employer must also pay for lap band surgery! If Workman's Comp won't pay for it, the employer must pay out of his own pocket.

What!?! How is the employer responsible for the guy's being too fat for back surgery?

I think this is very wrong.

The result will be that no one will want to hire overweight people, if they'll end up held responsible for the consequences of that obesity.

Bad bad bad court!

----------------------------------

Just found an article on the above: http://www.weightlosssurgerychannel.com/breaking-wls-news/lap-band-surgery-to-be-covered-by-pizza-shop.html/

----------------------------------

On POTUS radio today, two guys were discussing what that mineral discovery in Afghanistan might mean to the Afghan people.

The "expert" said not much, that the local warlords and government officials would be putting the profits into their personal bank accounts, and the Afghan people won't see much improvement in their lives from it, that in fact it's happening already. China has been for some time paying warlords and certain government officials for the right to mine in Afghanistan.

Both the interviewer and the expert were unhappy with that.

That left me wondering. What did they want to see happen? That the general population would share in the wealth somehow, sort of like some oil-rich middle eastern countries, where every citizen gets a cut of the oil money, so much so that most of them have no need to work? Or like Alaska, where citizens get a cut of oil and gas contracts? Isn't that, um, socialism? [Wikipedia defines socialism as "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people.]

I suspect that local people are working in the Chinese mines, so they have a job and are getting paid. The profits are going to the top dogs. If you want to make a whole bunch of money, you just have to grow yourself into a top dog. Um, isn't that the essence of capitalism?

So, um, if capitalism is so wonderful and socialism is so bad, what exactly is the problem with what's happening in Afghanistan?
.