*sigh* Left or Right....

It's not the left or the right...

It's the HAVE-A-LOTS and everyone else.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/

Seems like EVERY decision whether on the left or right, the have-a-lots make out.

Sincerely,
ElSol

LEFT VERSUS RIGHT The result of an unfortunate seating arrangement.

In October 1789 the Paris mob, led by women, walked to Versailles, stormed the palace and dragged the king back to town with them. The Assembly had no choice but to follow. Louis was put in his gilded cage, the Tuileries Palace. The nearest building capable of seating several hundred elected representatives in the same room was the palace stables out in what are now the Tuileries Gardens. The need to board and exercise a large number of horses had imposed a particular sort of structure. That shape in turn imposed a semi-circular seating plan on the carpenters brought in to do the emergency conversion.

It naturally followed that those who hated each other most sat as far away from each other as possible, to the extreme right and left of the podium. Thus the needs of horses helped to create our idea of irreconcilable political opposites. Had architecture permitted this semi-circle to complete itself, the reactionaries and the revolutionaries would have found themselves quite naturally sitting together.

The Doubter's Companion - John Ralston Saul

Click to expand...

As Jefferson pointed out, it's simply those who believe in democracy against those who don't.

elsol said:

It's not the left or the right...

It's the HAVE-A-LOTS and everyone else.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/

Seems like EVERY decision whether on the left or right, the have-a-lots make out.

Sincerely,
ElSol

Click to expand...

I would politely disagree. My parents lived for a time in a smallish town in California. The town was basically dying economically. They elected a black mayor with a plan. Once elected, the new mayor turned his girlfriend [fresh from a job in Washington D.C.] loose on the federal money machine. The town used eminent domain to seize quite a bit of property from folks too poor and uneducated to fight back. The town bulldozed the seized houses and small businesses. The town the use the federal millions to attract enough first rate companies to fill two large malls, build two hotels and also build a half dozen new restaurants. Over 1000 new jobs were created ranging from room maids and janitors to executive chefs and store managers. Existing businesses in town got free advice from the SBA and switched to heavily marketing to locals who found many of the new businesses a little expensive.

Yes, the have-a-lots got even richer. However the real benefits fell to the have-very-littles who mostly had better paying jobs because of the competition for workers in an area where there are suddenly 1000 new jobs. The property that was seized was paid for at market rates although each and every one whose property was seized claimed that there was {oil, gold, diamonds; pick one} just under the dirt. However, those who immediately bought new property to replace the old, seized property did quite well when the new property went up in price due to the improved economic conditions.

Do I support the idea of seizing private property? Hell no! However, properly done it can benefit almost all of the people in an area. Strangely, the biggest percentage winners are the have-very-littles who benefit from the jobs suddenly available in the redeveloped area.

Do the have-a-lots win? Of course they win; they almost always win anyhow
Why do you think they are have-a-lots?

Let me also state the danger here. A town controlled by just a few people can squeeze almost everyone else out and rip off almost all of the economic gains for themselves. That last is the danger.

JMHO.

R. Richard said:

Do I support the idea of seizing private property? Hell no! However, properly done it can benefit almost all of the people in an area. Strangely, the biggest percentage winners are the have-very-littles who benefit from the jobs suddenly available in the redeveloped area.

Click to expand...

Yes - but imagine a community composed of two people: Alphred and Betafred.

Alphred has property worth $1,000
Betafred has property worth $100,000

Now, let's say the wealth of the community nearly doubles (+$100,000) and let's say Alphred's property value increased by 200%, while Betafred gained "only" 98%. So:

Alphred has $3,000
Betafred has $198,000

It's still not fair to poor Alphred. *shrug*

SummerMorning said:

Yes - but imagine a community composed of two people: Alphred and Betafred.

Alphred has property worth $1,000
Betafred has property worth $100,000

Now, let's say the wealth of the community nearly doubles (+$100,000) and let's say Alphred's property value increased by 200%, while Betafred gained "only" 98%. So:

Alphred has $3,000
Betafred has $198,000

It's still not fair to poor Alphred. *shrug*

Click to expand...

I hope you will excuse me for pointing this out. Carol and Dan have been lured into the community by the new opportunity. They both want to hire Alphred; not because they are nice people, but because the need Alphred to staff their new money making enterprises. Alphred can now make $8.50 per hour instead of $5.25 per hour. In addition, Alphred now gets health insurance and paid vacations, not because anyone cares about Alpherd as an individual, but because of market forces. Alphred's capital account does not increase to move him up near Betafred, but Alphred's cashflow account increases dramatically. Alphred does not worry about how much Betafred has or makes, because Alphred is counting his own new wealth.

Also, Alphred should also invest some of his new wealth in a name change, IMHO.

Only in fiction could someone think that $8.50 an hour is "wealth."

Kassiana said:

Only in fiction could someone think that $8.50 an hour is "wealth."

Click to expand...

I must again politely disagree. The wage of $8.50 an hour is wealth to a person who is currently making only $5.25 an hour. The wage of $8.50 an hour is still not much, but a person has to eat.

If you will then consider the possible long term effects. The person who suddenly makes $8.50 per hour may just realize that there is opportunity. Perhaps more training might yield a wage of $9.50 an hour; undreamed of wealth! The concept of a worker being worth more money because of training is difficult to sell in the abstract. However, when the person can see a "hefty" current wage increase, motivation becomes that much easier.