On 2021-04-30 4:56 p.m., Bryan Simmons wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 3:13:26 PM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
that someone else is going to get something they didn't pay for.
>>
>> It's all about the money, Dr. B.
>>
> There are a lot of real assholes here in the USA, and right wing ideology
> that mistakenly believes that pure capitalism triumphed over communism,
> which is outright BS. A mixed, balanced economy, coupled with free speech
> and such, is what brought down the Soviet Union, and most of the 1st World
> was somewhat more socialistic than the USA. It shouldn't be about ideology,
> but practicality.
>

It should be about a government working for the people to help the
people. There is no doubt that business and industry helps to create a
prosperous society that benefits all people, nut just the rich.

One of the selling points about our capitalist system is that it fosters
competition to increase efficiency and lowers prices. Then the big
businesses buy up the competitors.

In article >, writes:
>It should be about a government working for the people to help the
>people. There is no doubt that business and industry help to create a
>prosperous society that benefits all people, nut just the rich.
>One of the selling points about our capitalist system is that it fosters
>competition to increase efficiency and lowers prices. Then the big
>businesses buy up the competitors.

This assumes that prices can be lowered enough to include the chronically poor
in the market base, when in fact, many poor folks are systematically excluded
from purchasing even the cheapest, lowest-quality products. Competition
therefore doesn't help them.

Orlando Enrique Fiol
Charlotte, North Carolina
Professional Pianist/Keyboardist, Percussionist and Pedagogue
Ph.D. in Music theory
University of Pennsylvania: November, 2018

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> In article >, writes:
> >It should be about a government working for the people to help the
> >people. There is no doubt that business and industry help to create a
> >prosperous society that benefits all people, nut just the rich.
> >One of the selling points about our capitalist system is that it fosters
> >competition to increase efficiency and lowers prices. Then the big
> >businesses buy up the competitors.
>
> This assumes that prices can be lowered enough to include the chronically poor
> in the market base, when in fact, many poor folks are systematically excluded
> from purchasing even the cheapest, lowest-quality products. Competition
> therefore doesn't help them.


You are ABSOLUTELY FALSE, the poorer folks here in the states >>>>greatly<<<< benefit from capitalist market competition...per US Census data most all US lower - incomers have automobiles, cell phones, computing devices, large - screen TV's, microwaves, air con, travel by commercial airlines, and on and on, much of this stuff used to be luxury for a few...the majority of the US poor are also homeowners...food and clothing take up *far* less of a household's income than, say, in 1960...

Plus, social benefits such as Medicaid, housing assistance, SNAP, TANF, childcare, charities, etc. assist the poor in maintaining a better - quality life...

"Poverty" today ain't the poverty of "Tobacco Road" or "The Grapes of Wrath"...

[ It is somewhat amusing to see on the news of Thanksgiving/XMAS turkey/food give - aways these days in the poor areas of Chicago...there is of course plenty of real need, but many of the "poor" queueing up are driving Escalades, have iPhones, expensive clothes and hair weaves, etc...plenty of "bling" abounds..."Ma Joad" types are scant on the ground...]

Here ya go:

https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest...ons-of-europe/

The Poorest 20% of Americans Are Richer on Average Than Most European Nations

The privilege of living in the US affords poor people more material resources than the averages for most of the worlds richest nations.

Friday, August 30, 2019

"A groundbreaking study by Just Facts* has discovered that after accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and food stamps, the poorest 20 percent of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members. In other words, if the US €œpoor€� were a nation, it would be one of the worlds richest.

* https://www.justfacts.com/news_poore...er_than_europe

Notably, this study was reviewed by Dr. Henrique Schneider, professor of economics at Nordakademie University in Germany and the chief economist of the Swiss Federation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. After examining the source data and Just Facts methodology, he concluded: €œThis study is sound and conforms with academic standards. I personally think it provides valuable insight into poverty measures and adds considerably to this field of research.€�

....

US Bureau of Economic Analysis published a study that provides exactly that for 2010. Combined with World Bank data for the same year, these datasets show that the poorest 20 percent of US households have higher average consumption per person than the averages for all people in most nations of the OECD and Europe:

[>>>Click on the URL for comparison chart, the poorest 20% of Americans have higher consumption levels of goods/services than "wealthy" nations such as Canada, Sweden, UK...]

The high consumption of Americas €œpoor€� doesnt mean they live better than average people in the nations they outpace, like Spain, Denmark, Japan, Greece, and New Zealand. This is because peoples quality of life also depends on their communities and personal choices, like the local politicians they elect, the violent crimes they commit, and the spending decisions they make.

For instance, a Department of Agriculture study found that US households receiving food stamps spend about 50 percent more on sweetened drinks, desserts, and candy than on fruits and vegetables. In comparison, households not receiving food stamps spend slightly more on fruits & vegetables than on sweets.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that the privilege of living in the US affords poor people more material resources than the averages for most of the worlds richest nations..."

</>

In article >,
> US Bureau of Economic Analysis published a study that provides exactly that
for 2010. Combined with World Bank data for the same year, these datasets show
that the poorest 20 percent of US households have higher average consumption
per person than the averages for all people in most nations of the OECD and
Europe:
>[>>>Click on the URL for comparison chart, the poorest 20% of Americans have
higher consumption levels of goods/services than "wealthy" nations such as
Canada, Sweden, UK...]
>The high consumption of America?s ?poor? doesn?t mean they live better than
average people in the nations they outpace, like Spain, Denmark, Japan, Greece,
and New Zealand. This is because people?s quality of life also depends on their
communities and personal choices, like the local politicians they elect, the
violent crimes they commit, and the spending decisions they make.
>For instance, a Department of Agriculture study found that US households
receiving food stamps spend about 50 percent more on sweetened drinks,
desserts, and candy than on fruits and vegetables. In comparison, households
not receiving food stamps spend slightly more on fruits & vegetables than on
sweets.
>Nonetheless, the fact remains that the privilege of living in the US affords
poor people more material resources than the averages for most of the world?s
richest nations."

></Every dataset is only as good as its cross-section. If Americans living
below the poverty line were excluded, statistical analysis would indeed
conclude that poor people consume more than analogous folks within the same
socioeconomic bracket in developed nations. However, plenty of Americans cannot
afford any of the items mentioned in this study: mobile phones, microwaves,
computers, automobiles, etc. If they can, they are often of much poorer quality
than middle-class Americans can afford.
Therefore, two issues are fundamental he the poverty level included in this
economic study and the quality of goods consumed by the poorest people.