-- On 26 Jul 2003 at 10:44, Eric Cordian wrote:
It comes from work. Back when I was but a tiny Thaumaturge, home ownership was within the reach of virtually everyone in AmeriKKKa. An entire household full of people could be supported on the income of a single adult working virtually any full time job. Leasure time and recreation were abundant. The Sheeple were happy sheep.
Fast forward to today, where a barely comfortable living requires every adult member of a household to work somewhere over full time at some sort of skilled occupation, one paycheck away from the street.
This is the usual Marxist shit that living standards fell as a result of the industrial revolution, and have been falling ever since. If it is getting harder to own a home, why is the proportion of people who own their own homes growing steadily, and been growing steadily (with some brief, minor, and infrequent dips) for as long as anyone has been keeping records? Why are the homes steadily getting bigger, while the number of inhabitants in the home get steadily smaller? You guys have been making up this data ever since Marx rewrote Gladstone's budget speech, to have Gladstone declare that "this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power ... is an augmentation entirely confined to classes of property." When in fact Gladstone said the direct opposite, and proved it with statistics, proved that the poor had experienced, as a result of the industrial revolution "this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power" This is the same moron marxism as expressed in the word "sweatshop": To a naive and ignorant socialist it seems that if each man selfishly pursues his own desire, the result will necessarily be chaos and hardship, that one person's plan will naturally harm those that are not part of it, hence such phrases and concepts as "sweatshop" which presuppose that one man producing a plan to create value and another man providing equipment to implement that plan, has somehow magically made the workers in a poor country worse off, that saving, investment and entrepeneurship is unproductive, that investment, particularly investment by rich people creating the means of production in poor countries, is a plot to swindle the poor, a scam, a transfer from poor to rich. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG NdQWI/wu/9VPiym9XbWFtjv+wm6k/HuBfDWmTCCN 4JgUdAd3YDdMyR471c4vZhsCG9wrbZADfgt+10DeZ