Quote of The Year

[Ocala Mike]

From maybe a true world leader (and I'm a lapsed Catholic):

"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?" -

Pope Francis

[TJDave]

Has a Pope ever died homeless of exposure?

Or Cardinal, or Bishop, or...

[Saratoga_Mike]

From maybe a true world leader (and I'm a lapsed Catholic):

"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?" -

Pope Francis

The Pope should examine whether the poor live better in market economies or command economies. I do appreciate his focus on the poor, though - very refreshing.

[thaskalos]

The churches are only in use a small percentage of the time; couldn't they be used to provide shelter for the homeless when they are not being used for church services?

Didn't Jesus say that he who provides food to the hungry and shelter to the homeless is actually providing food and shelter to Jesus himself?

[tucker6]

The churches are only in use a small percentage of the time; couldn't they be used to provide shelter for the homeless when they are not being used for church services?

Didn't Jesus say that he who provides food to the hungry and shelter to the homeless is actually providing food and shelter to Jesus himself?
When religion started to become big business, many churches and pastors stopped caring about the flock. Case in point, I once went to the pastor of the church next to our house. I was lucky enough to win two frozen turkeys and wanted to give them to needy parishioners for Thanksgiving. This was 3 weeks before the holiday. He never got back to me so I gave them to a mission. So here it is two weeks after Thanksgiving and I see the ba$tard at a $75 a head beer dinner at a fancy restaurant yucking it up with a buddy. He must have remembered me from before as he averted his glance a couple times before finally saying hello. Before I could say anything, he says that he was sorry for not getting back to me but couldn't find a parishioner in need. Really!? I've seen the churchgoers there. There was plenty of need, but he didn't take the time to take care of his flock.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The churches are only in use a small percentage of the time; couldn't they be used to provide shelter for the homeless when they are not being used for church services?

Didn't Jesus say that he who provides food to the hungry and shelter to the homeless is actually providing food and shelter to Jesus himself?

This is exactly what is going to happen to the complex (palace) recently constructed by that disgraceful German bishop (could have been a cardinal). I suspect that directive came from the current Pope.

[mostpost]

The Pope should examine whether the poor live better in market economies or command economies. I do appreciate his focus on the poor, though - very refreshing.
They live better in neither. Poor is poor. The better question is, "Are you more likely to be poor in a free market economy or in a command economy?"

In the Soviet Union there was no poverty, but there were an awful lot of really poor people. The same holds true of the rest of the Soviet Bloc. So Communism is not the answer.

Does that mean that the answer is unfettered "Market economies?" Again the answer is no. During the seventies and eighties a number of countries in South America experienced military takeovers. Most notably Chile, but also Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay and Brazil. For economic counsel these countries looked to one man and one philosophy, Milton Friedman. Friedman acolytes filled many of the top economic posts in those countries. Others were unofficial advisers.

In each of those countries they initiated programs of total free market policies. Industries were privatized. School systems were privatized or voucher systems were instituted. Unions were banned or marginalized. Social programs were discontinued . The results?

In Chile inflation soared to 375%. The economy contracted by 15%. Unemployment reached 20% and by 1988 45% of the population was living in poverty. In Bolivia unemployment reached 30% and real wages dropped 40%.
In Argentina, inflation was 203% for a single month.

Let's look at the United States. We have never had a full free market economy such as Friedman and friends imposed in South America. We came close in the 1920's when laissez faire was the word of the day. This led inevitably to the Crash and the worst Depression in history.

Following that we imposed some common sense restrictions on business and the financial sector. We encouraged workers to stand up for their rights by forming unions. The result? Decades of prosperity with ever increasing wages, low unemployment, decreasing poverty levels and an ever growing middle class.

Then, a generation of fools came along led by Mr. Friedman and Mr Reagan. They cut the regulations, destroyed the unions and left us in the condition we now find ourselves.

So, my conclusion is that a market economy is the best economy to serve all the people, but an unregulated market economy is just as bad as a command economy.

[HUSKER55]

that is not true because in a true market driven economy everyone has a job.

otherwise it won't work.

[Saratoga_Mike]

They live better in neither. Poor is poor. The better question is, "Are you more likely to be poor in a free market economy or in a command economy?"

In the Soviet Union there was no poverty, but there were an awful lot of really poor people. The same holds true of the rest of the Soviet Bloc. So Communism is not the answer.

Does that mean that the answer is unfettered "Market economies?" Again the answer is no. During the seventies and eighties a number of countries in South America experienced military takeovers. Most notably Chile, but also Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay and Brazil. For economic counsel these countries looked to one man and one philosophy, Milton Friedman. Friedman acolytes filled many of the top economic posts in those countries. Others were unofficial advisers.

In each of those countries they initiated programs of total free market policies. Industries were privatized. School systems were privatized or voucher systems were instituted. Unions were banned or marginalized. Social programs were discontinued . The results?

In Chile inflation soared to 375%. The economy contracted by 15%. Unemployment reached 20% and by 1988 45% of the population was living in poverty. In Bolivia unemployment reached 30% and real wages dropped 40%.
In Argentina, inflation was 203% for a single month.

Let's look at the United States. We have never had a full free market economy such as Friedman and friends imposed in South America. We came close in the 1920's when laissez faire was the word of the day. This led inevitably to the Crash and the worst Depression in history.

Following that we imposed some common sense restrictions on business and the financial sector. We encouraged workers to stand up for their rights by forming unions. The result? Decades of prosperity with ever increasing wages, low unemployment, decreasing poverty levels and an ever growing middle class.

Then, a generation of fools came along led by Mr. Friedman and Mr Reagan. They cut the regulations, destroyed the unions and left us in the condition we now find ourselves.

So, my conclusion is that a market economy is the best economy to serve all the people, but an unregulated market economy is just as bad as a command economy.

This post would make Paul Krugman proud - like his columns, it's riddled with factual inaccuracies.

[mostpost]

This post would make Paul Krugman proud - like his columns, it's riddled with factual inaccuracies.
Then by all means point them out.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Then by all means point them out.

Okay. I'll do it by only using liberal or government sources.

[Saratoga_Mike]

#1 MOSTPOST FACTUAL INACCURACY

They live better in neither. Poor is poor. The better question is, "Are you more likely to be poor in a free market economy or in a command economy?"

In the Soviet Union there was no poverty, but there were an awful lot of really poor people. The same holds true of the rest of the Soviet Bloc. So Communism is not the answer.

.


Poverty Exists For Millions Of Soviets, Ussr Admits
January 30, 1989|By New York Times News Service.
MOSCOW — Soviet authorities, who once denied that poverty existed in their country and pronounced it an evil of capitalism, now say that tens of millions of Soviet citizens-at least 20 percent of the population-live in poverty, compared with about 14 percent in the United States.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-01-30/news/8903010453_1_soviet-officials-rubles-poverty

COMMENTS:

Source: the NY Times news service

I guess you never got the memo - it was all spin - there was poverty in the USSR.

[Clocker]

In the Soviet Union there was no poverty

Certainly quote of the day.

Stay tuned for convoluted, nitpicking discussion of the definition of poverty.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Certainly quote of the day.

Stay tuned for convoluted, nitpicking discussion of the definition of poverty.

There's no debate - the NY Times says there was poverty!

[mostpost]

#1 MOSTPOST FACTUAL INACCURACY




Poverty Exists For Millions Of Soviets, Ussr Admits
January 30, 1989|By New York Times News Service.
MOSCOW — Soviet authorities, who once denied that poverty existed in their country and pronounced it an evil of capitalism, now say that tens of millions of Soviet citizens-at least 20 percent of the population-live in poverty, compared with about 14 percent in the United States.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-01-30/news/8903010453_1_soviet-officials-rubles-poverty

COMMENTS:

Source: the NY Times news service

I guess you never got the memo - it was all spin - there was poverty in the USSR.
I can't believe you took that quote seriously. :bang: I was parodying the Soviet propaganda machine. Obviously-to most people anyway-"An awful lot of really poor people" means poverty.
The question was (paraphrased) Where do poor people live better? Here was my reply. So Communism is not the answer.

[Clocker]

For economic counsel these countries looked to one man and one philosophy, Milton Friedman. Friedman acolytes filled many of the top economic posts in those countries. Others were unofficial advisers.



We have never had a full free market economy such as Friedman and friends imposed in South America.

You keep digging up this poor dead horse and beating it to death once again. Those economic experiments in South America were based on distortions and misunderstandings of Chicago School economics, and were denounced by Friedman.

[Saratoga_Mike]

#2 MOSTPOST



In Chile inflation soared to 375%. The economy contracted by 15%. Unemployment reached 20% and by 1988 45% of the population was living in poverty. In Bolivia unemployment reached 30% and real wages dropped 40%.
In Argentina, inflation was 203% for a single month.



According to the WorldBank, the inflation (GDP deflator) in Chile for 1988 was 22.7%

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG/countries/CL?page=5&display=default

[mostpost]

Certainly quote of the day.

Stay tuned for convoluted, nitpicking discussion of the definition of poverty.
So there are two people on this board who don't recognize sarcasm. Must I post this :rolleyes: every time?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I can't believe you took that quote seriously. :bang: I was parodying the Soviet propaganda machine. Obviously-to most people anyway-"An awful lot of really poor people" means poverty.
The question was (paraphrased) Where do poor people live better? Here was my reply. So Communism is not the answer.

I don't believe you; I think you believed it. Sorry. Your education will continue. I will post one more inaccuracy tonight and more tomorrow.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So there are two people on this board who don't recognize sarcasm. Must I post this :rolleyes: every time?

I recognize dishonesty. There was no sarcasm in what you wrote.

[Clocker]

So there are two people on this board who don't recognize sarcasm.

It can be hard, depending on the source. :rolleyes:

[Saratoga_Mike]

In each of those countries they initiated programs of total free market policies. Industries were privatized. School systems were privatized or voucher systems were instituted. Unions were banned or marginalized. Social programs were discontinued . The results?

In Chile inflation soared to 375%. The economy contracted by 15%. Unemployment reached 20% and by 1988 45% of the population was living in poverty. In Bolivia unemployment reached 30% and real wages dropped 40%.
In Argentina, inflation was 203% for a single month.

.

The unemployment rate was 18% in Bolivia in 1988.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS?page=6

Enough. You play fast and loose with facts. I'm done here.

[Saratoga_Mike]

It can be hard, depending on the source. :rolleyes:

I re-read what he said. It was absolutely not sarcasm. No way.

[mostpost]

#2 MOSTPOST



According to the WorldBank, the inflation (GDP deflator) in Chile for 1988 was 22.7%

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG/countries/CL?page=5&display=default
This one is my fault in that I was not clear on the dates. The inflation rate was from 1974, the contraction and unemployment rates were from that same time frame. I included the 1988 poverty rate to show how long the damage lasted.
Here is a neutral link showing the inflation rate in Chile in 1974. It turns out 375% was a conservative number.
http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/chile/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-chile-1974.aspx

[Saratoga_Mike]

This one is my fault in that I was not clear on the dates. The inflation rate was from 1974, the contraction and unemployment rates were from that same time frame. I included the 1988 poverty rate to show how long the damage lasted.
Here is a neutral link showing the inflation rate in Chile in 1974. It turns out 375% was a conservative number.
http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/chile/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-chile-1974.aspx

Hmm, could have been a result on monetary policy? Just maybe? The Chicago School influence only started in 1973 - you're way, way off on cause and effect on this one.

[NJ Stinks]

In the Soviet Union there was no poverty, but there were an awful lot of really poor people.



If that's not sarcasm, I don't lean left.

[Robert Goren]

The churches are only in use a small percentage of the time; couldn't they be used to provide shelter for the homeless when they are not being used for church services?

Didn't Jesus say that he who provides food to the hungry and shelter to the homeless is actually providing food and shelter to Jesus himself?Many churches if not most are not into "the providing aid to poor" business, but are into "the evangelizing and providing fellowship" business. I am not saying what they are doing is right or wrong, just what they are actually doing. I am pretty sure if you gave the "United Methodists" (which I am a member) money to be used help the poor, they would give it to a homeless shelter rather attempt to start one themselves. I am also sure the same is true of many other, but not all, sects.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Old banned joke from the USSR that would get a citizen incarcerated:

Teacher: "Class, what is the United States?"

Ivan: "It is a land of horrible repression and economic trouble where everyone is poor and destitute."

Teacher: "Very good Ivan! Now class, what is the goal of the Soviet Union?"

Nicholas: "To keep up with the United States."