Daniel Turner: California's latest descent into liberal madness – Berkeley bans natural gas

[Boris Farage 353]

43 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is capitalism fair, well, the outcomes certainly are not, but the opportunities are.

The outcomes certainly are fair. You get out of the system what you are willing to put in. If you want to put in a 9-5 workday for a fixed wage your employer has agreed to pay you, that's between you and your employer. If you want to invest your own capital into an enterprise, there is nothing stopping you.
 

What's not fair are the layabouts who don't want to contribute to society, but want to drive a Lexus, get free medical care, and in general expect the state to sponsor their laziness.

Capitalism is the most inherently fair system on the planet, but they keep trying to "fix" it by injecting the poison of socialism.

 

And if/when Mr. Trump eventually makes good on his promises to unshackle the invisible hand, the entire nation will benefit greatly, much to the chagrin of the Bernie throngs.

[Boris Farage 353]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

I won't say "if you don't like it, leave" because that would (1) be really hypocritical of me, since it's like saying "send her back" and (2) California is a better place by having people with differing points of view, from the very liberal to the very conservative. But if you disagree with how the state is going, what are you doing to improve it? I'm in a position where I have an independent source of income (I have a 25-30-hour a week job too, because I get bored) so I have extra time to volunteer in my community. I help at a food bank but I also do things like volunteering as an escort at a family planning clinic. Women's reproductive health means a lot to me, and even in this state and even in Berkeley we can't assume that a woman's right to control her body is going to always stick around. I also make charitable contributions to women's rights foundations since I am lucky enough to do so with my disposable income. These are the things I am doing to make this place better.

 

No one is making you buy an electric car. I mean, I don't even have a car now (personal choice) but if I did, I would consider an electric car. My commute is short (2 miles) so I prefer to walk or ride a bike or the bus. I'd really only need a car for short trips to San Francisco to see my fiance who lives there, and my landlord has a charging station. And even then, there are plenty of electric vehicles under $80k!!! Not everyone needs a Tesla, lol. I mean, I know it's different in Los Angeles -- most people unfortunately seem to need a car to get places there, and many people have long commutes. But the Metro is SO much better than when I was a kid! When I visit, I usually stay downtown and can get on the Expo Line and go straight to Santa Monica, no changes. A lot better than making that drive, and parking sucks in both places.

 

And what do you have against California girls?? I certainly don't have mismatched clothing and I don't chew gum. My accent seems pretty neutral to me, too.

 

Well hello there.
 

To your point (1), this sounds like putting words into my mouth. Have I said such a thing? (the coy "I won't say..." let's not insult each others' intelligence)

On point (2), I have no desire to improve the state. The state is a leech on my hard work. It is run by bureaucrats who have no incentive to provide value, and infinite incentive to keep sucking the lifeblood from its citizens. I provide the opposite of improving the state. I improve myself. And by improving myself, I improve the lives of those who work for me. I improve the value to the shareholders of my company (of which I am one), who in turn purchase goods and service to keep the economy flourishing.

I even support my ungrateful ex-wife with a monthly stipend so she has the freedom to write poetry and save homeless cats or whatever other activities her life of leisure on my dime provides her.

What is it you said you do again? Part-time volunteer? What value does that add to the economy? What have the beneficiaries of your volunteer work done to improve the economy? Or are you and your beneficiaries part of the reason my taxes are so unfairly high? I'm keen to know. I'd be interested in knowing where your "independent source of income" derives from as well. It's so easy to sit atop one's high horse, when somebody else is subsidizing the horse.

With regards to electric cars, yes, currently nobody is making me buy an electric car. Just like there was a time when the State of California wasn't requiring people to buy expensive low emission vehicles. Until they were. The slippery slope is real, and there are decades of California history to back me up. Do you really imagine if the State of California wanted to get rid of fossil fuels, they wouldn't do it at the first opportunity?

Given your life of leisure, I'm sure public transport and bicycles provide a convenient illusion that you are somehow not part of the problem. I don't say this to be cruel, but to make you think a little more out of the box. For example, if your women's clinic were a for-profit venture, these women would receive better care by people who are incentivized by a pay check to support their own families, rather than the goodness of their own fickle hearts. Those people, instead of wasting time on busses and bicycles, could afford to go buy cars and televisions to stimulate the economy. Volunteers and their organizations just keep the exact same cycle going they are trying to end.

Finally, I have nothing against California girls, Uggs with yoga pants just don't suit me. Calling back to my previous example, I find New York women, or at least the crowds I run in, to be more sophisticated and in behavior and appearance. Although honestly I've just thrown my hands up at American women in general, hence why I am here.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

Oh don't even get me started on minimum wage.

 

But since you have...

 

I come from a country with a firmly entrenched class system. Modern Brits will tell you it's changing, but it's not. Not really. And for good reason.

Americans--and good for you (us)--decided, amongst other things, they wanted an even playing field because they believed the same line that your preschool teachers foisted on you: everything must be fair and equal. Except for the slaves of course, but what's a little hypocrisy amongst revolutionists eh? Fortunately the majority of their other reasons for revolution were more sound and enduring.

 

The unpopular truth is that Americans have slowly rediscovered in two hundred years what the British have known for over a thousand: the class system works. It is the foundation of any western society, even the US.

 

In the UK, we have posh titles, pomp, ceremony and such, but don't fool yourself. It's only less formalized in the US, and one aspect is shared: class and wealth go arm in arm.

The wealthy take the risk, invest the wealth, and build the factory or dot com, or whatever. The workers have less invested, and most importantly, can walk away at any time. The wealthy do not have that option. They reap the rewards, yes, but they also incur the failures.

 

If the worker loses their job because the business failed, he just goes to find another. If the investor's business fails, they might lose everything. Do I get to demand wages back from my employees when my business fails? No, of course not. Yet socialists will have you believe the man who takes the risks must also provide above and beyond for those who only reap benefits.

 

I can just hear the liberal keyboards warming up, so consider: Unlike most of the history of Britain, in America it's simple to escape your class bonds if you're just willing to put in some work. The formula is simple: If you want the reward, take on the risk. Be a shareholder. If you believe in the organisation enough that you believe it can pay some arbitrary minimum wage, then invest your own wealth in stock and take your minimum wage as the company succeeds. (yes I'm sorry, you may have to cut back from lunching every day at Jack in the Box or drive a Chevy instead of a monster truck, but if you have the veracity to hold a job, then if you truly believe you are owed more than you reap, you will find a way to save, invest, and take control.)

 

The socialists will tell you how unfair it is to insist the worker invest in the company he works for, that it's too much risk for the worker to bear. Oh the bitter irony. Yet the concern stops at the dear worker, because as much risk as the actual investors are taking on, the socialists are very, very happy to tax the organs of the economy until blood.

It's ironic you mention slavery and the UK in the same post.  One of my pet peeves.  America seems to be under the microscope/in the spotlight, (whatever your favorite saying is) about slavery and reparations.   How we as a country are so terrible because of how we had slaves back in the day.  

 

Well hoorah for us!!  Our country is less 5han 250 years old, yet we seem to have the majority of the blame for slavery focused on us.  In reality, the UK is 100% to blame for the (very short stint) slavery in the US.  Do your due diligence, folks.  Look at all the islands in the Caribbean,  the Dutch West Indies, etc.  Look how long slaves were held in captivity there, and from Africa.  And still today, slave trade is going on, though the media doesn't bring it up much.

 

But it's strange how the US, with such a small part to play in the whole slavery debacle, is held in such contempt the world over.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

Don't forget the British dominance of the opium era in China, just another avenue to cow the populace into dependance and servitude

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Boris Farage said:

 

Well hello there.
 

To your point (1), this sounds like putting words into my mouth. Have I said such a thing? (the coy "I won't say..." let's not insult each others' intelligence)

Laylex hasn't been posting here in CEHST long, but I feel.pretty confident that the words she used about "like it or leave it" are more in reference to another thread about Trump telling someone to leave and fix their countries of origin, and had nothing to do with your thoughtful post.  Hopefully I'm not wrong.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, laylalex said:

(2) California is a better place by having people with differing points of view, from the very liberal to the very conservative. But if you disagree with how the state is going, what are you doing to improve it?

I'll pipe in and tell what I did to improve things.  I left the state, and will never live in it again.  Why?  Because I realized I could do nothing to impose what i felt were positive change, so rather than fight the beast,  and remain and be miserable, I left.  Visiting is fine (certain areas), but that's about it.  Ditto NYC.  I would never buy property nor live there again.

 

People are leaving both states, and migrating to "better places", as Boris alluded to in another post (the Eastward comment, which I feel is very accurate)... the trouble is, they tend to drag their ideals with them, trying to change people where they are moving to, as opposed to embracing the difference (and often betterment) of their new location.

 

If you love California, more power to you (speaking generally, not to any members here specifically).   But many cities have gone downhill over the past 3 decades (never been to Berkeley,  so cannot say).  It will be interesting to see (from far away) where CA is as a whole in 10 or 20 years.  For some, CA or NY is all they know, the only place they have lived for their entire life.  I am thankful I have lived in both places, as well as at least a dozen more, to include foreign countries.  It really helps to open one's eyes to the illogical ideological processes prevalent in strong left-leaning locales.

Edited July 23, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Boris Farage 353]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

It's ironic you mention slavery and the UK in the same post.  One of my pet peeves.  America seems to be under the microscope/in the spotlight, (whatever your favorite saying is) about slavery and reparations.   How we as a country are so terrible because of how we had slaves back in the day.  

 

Well hoorah for us!!  Our country is less 5han 250 years old, yet we seem to have the majority of the blame for slavery focused on us.  In reality, the UK is 100% to blame for the (very short stint) slavery in the US.  Do your due diligence, folks.  Look at all the islands in the Caribbean,  the Dutch West Indies, etc.  Look how long slaves were held in captivity there, and from Africa.  And still today, slave trade is going on, though the media doesn't bring it up much.

 

But it's strange how the US, with such a small part to play in the whole slavery debacle, is held in such contempt the world over.

Don't go looking for insult where obviously none was intended. Had I been speaking of Britain in similar context, I would have mentioned her past connections to slavery if it were appropriate to the discussion. But as you well know, I was speaking of a very specific period (revolutionary America) in a very specific region (America). It would have been ridiculous of me to digress into a completely different nation's past whilst speaking of the American founding fathers and their high ideals of freedom except as pertains to a specific subset of their populace.

[laylalex 7,266]

1 hour ago, Boris Farage said:

 

Well hello there.
 

To your point (1), this sounds like putting words into my mouth. Have I said such a thing? (the coy "I won't say..." let's not insult each others' intelligence)

On point (2), I have no desire to improve the state. The state is a leech on my hard work. It is run by bureaucrats who have no incentive to provide value, and infinite incentive to keep sucking the lifeblood from its citizens. I provide the opposite of improving the state. I improve myself. And by improving myself, I improve the lives of those who work for me. I improve the value to the shareholders of my company (of which I am one), who in turn purchase goods and service to keep the economy flourishing.

I even support my ungrateful ex-wife with a monthly stipend so she has the freedom to write poetry and save homeless cats or whatever other activities her life of leisure on my dime provides her.

What is it you said you do again? Part-time volunteer? What value does that add to the economy? What have the beneficiaries of your volunteer work done to improve the economy? Or are you and your beneficiaries part of the reason my taxes are so unfairly high? I'm keen to know. I'd be interested in knowing where your "independent source of income" derives from as well. It's so easy to sit atop one's high horse, when somebody else is subsidizing the horse.

With regards to electric cars, yes, currently nobody is making me buy an electric car. Just like there was a time when the State of California wasn't requiring people to buy expensive low emission vehicles. Until they were. The slippery slope is real, and there are decades of California history to back me up. Do you really imagine if the State of California wanted to get rid of fossil fuels, they wouldn't do it at the first opportunity?

Given your life of leisure, I'm sure public transport and bicycles provide a convenient illusion that you are somehow not part of the problem. I don't say this to be cruel, but to make you think a little more out of the box. For example, if your women's clinic were a for-profit venture, these women would receive better care by people who are incentivized by a pay check to support their own families, rather than the goodness of their own fickle hearts. Those people, instead of wasting time on busses and bicycles, could afford to go buy cars and televisions to stimulate the economy. Volunteers and their organizations just keep the exact same cycle going they are trying to end.

Finally, I have nothing against California girls, Uggs with yoga pants just don't suit me. Calling back to my previous example, I find New York women, or at least the crowds I run in, to be more sophisticated and in behavior and appearance. Although honestly I've just thrown my hands up at American women in general, hence why I am here.

There's a lot here to go through (and I really have tried to give it some time to think about what you've said) so I'll try my best. 

 

(1) I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth -- what I meant is if you don't like California (as opposed to America) if I were trying to be unfair, I would say you can always leave. I think I saw somewhere that you said you don't like living in LA or California but you're here for work. I mean, that's understandable. My ex-husband said (says) much the same thing. But if work weren't keeping you here, and if I were being unfair, I could say well, you can always leave, 49 more states and some territories, etc. But I won't say that because I think it would be hypocritical of me given my disgust with the current "America Love It or Leave It" vibe.

 

(2) I read and re-read this bit. So basically, you're saying that you're in it for yourself and you have nothing to give back to America in terms of improving it beyond providing jobs and value for shareholders and money flowing back into the economy? Huh. I was raised to believe that we owe society an obligation to do good wherever we can, and that doing good takes forms other than money or value or capital. It can be through things like assisting people (young and old) learn how to read, or volunteering at a shelter for animals, or even helping clean up graffiti. All of these have what I think is both a moral and an economic positive impact on society. You teach a person who cannot read how to do so, and they not only have the world opened up to them, they can hold down a better job and provide for their family. (Maybe even work for your company!) You help a shelter pet off the streets and into a new home after the animal has been spayed or neutered, and you make the life of the animal AND their new people more enriched, plus you have fewer animals on the street having multiple litters which cost money to clean up after, etc. And cleaning up graffiti makes a neighborhood take more pride in its surroundings, PLUS people will feel it is more welcoming and spend more money there.

 

So yes, I part-time volunteer at a women's health clinic. What does it add to the economy? Does it HAVE to add to the economy? I help women who are feeling vulnerable coming into the clinic (yes, even in Berkeley we get anti-abortion protesters) feel that they do not have to be ashamed. Most of them aren't having abortions anyway. I myself have no children -- never happened for me in my marriage -- but I can put myself in their shoes easily. When I had a miscarriage, I had only sympathy from everyone. Why should these women have no less? If there is an economic component, I would say it is that I help women stay healthy and in the workforce (if that's what they choose).

 

Although I don't owe you an explanation for where my money comes from, I'll tell you. I work a minimum wage job for 25-30 hours a week in a job where I'm basically there to be of help to customers, look nice and occasionally acquire... what it is we sell in the shop. My mom says it's a waste of my degree, but I got married youngish (25) and left the workforce at my ex's request to be a homemaker. When I tried to get a job after we split up, I had been out of a job in my field (marketing) for six years, and I wasn't senior when I left. I lucked into this job through a friend who manages the shop. But it's not a lot of money. I get the main source of my income from spousal support and for that I am grateful since it has allowed me the space to get myself back on my feet. I am learning skills in this job that may allow me to branch out on my own one day. My ex-husband doesn't even think I need to work, since I could just live off what I get from him, but working gives me some purpose in life. I also do not like being financially dependent on him even now, and if there is some small way I can regain control from him, I will take it. He was a domineering man, very charming but controlling. He's still inserting himself into my life (he doesn't approve of my fiance) and he continues to try to control me with money. However, I don't spend all the support in a month and instead invest the surplus in an active portfolio, along with other money I have from the settlement. My fiance makes decent money, but I don't like to take money from him, and he has his own spousal/child support obligations to meet.

 

Wow, I've been writing forever. Let's see, what else... I would hardly call this a life of leisure! I have my work and I volunteer 10 hours a week (or I try to), not only escorting but also in the office at the clinic. I have been working in a literacy project too. And not all the people at the clinic are volunteers because, um, hello? Doctors and nurses are paid! (And well.) They own cars and TVs, and many of the people who volunteer also do too. I could own a car if I wanted, and a TV too, but I choose not to.  

 

And FINALLY (lol) I have not owned a pair of Uggs since 2004, though I own up to the yoga pants.  What else am I supposed to wear at yoga? Good for you that you like sophisticated New York women, I guess we California girls are safe from you! 

[laylalex 7,266]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

Laylex hasn't been posting here in CEHST long, but I feel.pretty confident that the words she used about "like it or leave it" are more in reference to another thread about Trump telling someone to leave and fix their countries of origin, and had nothing to do with your thoughtful post.  Hopefully I'm not wrong.

Thank you! I was referencing that thread, but also focusing in on the idea that it might be said about loving or leaving a state as opposed to all of America.  

[Dashinka 23,409]

5 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

The outcomes certainly are fair. You get out of the system what you are willing to put in. If you want to put in a 9-5 workday for a fixed wage your employer has agreed to pay you, that's between you and your employer. If you want to invest your own capital into an enterprise, there is nothing stopping you.
 

What's not fair are the layabouts who don't want to contribute to society, but want to drive a Lexus, get free medical care, and in general expect the state to sponsor their laziness.

Capitalism is the most inherently fair system on the planet, but they keep trying to "fix" it by injecting the poison of socialism.

 

And if/when Mr. Trump eventually makes good on his promises to unshackle the invisible hand, the entire nation will benefit greatly, much to the chagrin of the Bernie throngs.

You are correct, I said it wrong in a rush to get to a meeting.  People get what they put into it which is fair.  This whole, wait for the federal government to take care of me attitude, really gets to me.  I wish more folks (young and old) would listen more to those that have actually lived through the mess of socialism instead of those that propose a better socialist mousetrap.

[Boris Farage 353]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

You are correct, I said it wrong in a rush to get to a meeting.  People get what they put into it which is fair.  This whole, wait for the federal government to take care of me attitude, really gets to me.  I wish more folks (young and old) would listen more to those that have actually lived through the mess of socialism instead of those that propose a better socialist mousetrap.

Yes, you get it. One only need visit an NHS hospital in Britain to see socialism in action. Yes, the NHS will set your broken leg for "free." And the low paid government medical staff may even set it right if you catch them on a good day. And that's after hours waiting for them to get around to you. I'm told Canada's similar.

 

I too wish people, especially the Bernie types, could experience the world and see what you and I understand.

[laylalex 7,266]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

If you love California, more power to you (speaking generally, not to any members here specifically).   But many cities have gone downhill over the past 3 decades (never been to Berkeley,  so cannot say).  It will be interesting to see (from far away) where CA is as a whole in 10 or 20 years.  For some, CA or NY is all they know, the only place they have lived for their entire life.  I am thankful I have lived in both places, as well as at least a dozen more, to include foreign countries.  It really helps to open one's eyes to the illogical ideological processes prevalent in strong left-leaning locales.

I do love it here. I am a California girl at heart, raised in SoCal. I have lived for a time in the Northeast for college, and while I had a great time in New England while I was there, it wasn't "me." I moved back to Burbank and eventually Pasadena. I also spent a year abroad in the UK (southwest England) and then six months in mostly London as a "trial run" on an engagement with my now ex-husband. So I have been exposed to some different areas and seen different ways of living and being. Ultimately I decided this is a good fit, or at least a better fit for me.

 

I never thought I would end up in the Bay Area though... or that I would like it. I thought I was strictly SoCal. Then my fiance (at that point my boyfriend) was transferred from London to San Francisco on an L1 visa, so after trying to make a LA/SF commuter relationship work (it was hard) I eventually moved up here. And I found I actually liked the change to a smaller city and a slightly slower pace of life. I would have moved to SF but I couldn't make the money work without spending all the support payment on rent. Also, my ex put down his foot about me moving to SF because (1) he thought it was too dangerous (won't lie -- it is pretty scary, but I don't go hanging out in the Tenderloin!) and (2) as I mentioned above, he doesn't like my fiance, whom he blames for blowing up our marriage.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

43 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I do love it here. I am a California girl at heart, raised in SoCal. I have lived for a time in the Northeast for college, and while I had a great time in New England while I was there, it wasn't "me." I moved back to Burbank and eventually Pasadena. I also spent a year abroad in the UK (southwest England) and then six months in mostly London as a "trial run" on an engagement with my now ex-husband. So I have been exposed to some different areas and seen different ways of living and being. Ultimately I decided this is a good fit, or at least a better fit for me.

 

I never thought I would end up in the Bay Area though... or that I would like it. I thought I was strictly SoCal. Then my fiance (at that point my boyfriend) was transferred from London to San Francisco on an L1 visa, so after trying to make a LA/SF commuter relationship work (it was hard) I eventually moved up here. And I found I actually liked the change to a smaller city and a slightly slower pace of life. I would have moved to SF but I couldn't make the money work without spending all the support payment on rent. Also, my ex put down his foot about me moving to SF because (1) he thought it was too dangerous (won't lie -- it is pretty scary, but I don't go hanging out in the Tenderloin!) and (2) as I mentioned above, he doesn't like my fiance, whom he blames for blowing up our marriage.

Where in Pasadena did you live if you don't mind me asking??? I lived on S. Parkwood Ave about 50 yards North of Colorado Blvd. 

 

I will write more about everything else in a bit.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Cyberfx1024

[Boris Farage 353]

21 minutes ago, laylalex said:

(1) I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth -- what I meant is if you don't like California (as opposed to America) if I were trying to be unfair, I would say you can always leave. I think I saw somewhere that you said you don't like living in LA or California but you're here for work. I mean, that's understandable. My ex-husband said (says) much the same thing. But if work weren't keeping you here, and if I were being unfair, I could say well, you can always leave, 49 more states and some territories, etc. But I won't say that because I think it would be hypocritical of me given my disgust with the current "America Love It or Leave It" vibe.
 

Typically when somebody says "if I were trying to be unfair, I would say..." what they actually mean is the "I would say..." part. But ok. If work weren't keeping me in LA, and I had a few other loose ends tidied up, then yes I would probably leave.

 

21 minutes ago, laylalex said:

(2) I read and re-read this bit. So basically, you're saying that you're in it for yourself and you have nothing to give back to America in terms of improving it beyond providing jobs and value for shareholders and money flowing back into the economy? Huh. I was raised to believe that we owe society an obligation to do good wherever we can, and that doing good takes forms other than money or value or capital. It can be through things like assisting people (young and old) learn how to read, or volunteering at a shelter for animals, or even helping clean up graffiti. All of these have what I think is both a moral and an economic positive impact on society. You teach a person who cannot read how to do so, and they not only have the world opened up to them, they can hold down a better job and provide for their family. (Maybe even work for your company!) You help a shelter pet off the streets and into a new home after the animal has been spayed or neutered, and you make the life of the animal AND their new people more enriched, plus you have fewer animals on the street having multiple litters which cost money to clean up after, etc. And cleaning up graffiti makes a neighborhood take more pride in its surroundings, PLUS people will feel it is more welcoming and spend more money there.

For as many times as you profess to have read my explanation, I'm surprised you got it so entirely wrong. Here's the rub: in a capitalist economy, when you act out of self interest you benefit the economy. When you benefit the economy, you benefit the people who live in the economy. It has nothing to do with selfishness or doing "evil," it's just the way the system works. And thus far, nobody's found a better system. So if you really want to do good, then start helping yourself. If you're volunteering for a non-profit, then not only are you not doing any good to society, neither is the non-profit. You and the non-profit are just swimming against the tide. If your women's shelter or whatever was a for-profit business, they would be in much better shape to actually help women. They would have well paid staff, modern equipment, and motivation to help women in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. They would be answerable to a board, and shareholders. They would have to provide the best possible services or go out of business to make way for a company that would. No tax handouts to bail them out, only the forces of the marketplace. I hope that makes my position clearer.

 

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Although I don't owe you an explanation for where my money comes from, I'll tell you. I work a minimum wage job for 25-30 hours a week in a job where I'm basically there to be of help to customers, look nice and occasionally acquire... what it is we sell in the shop. My mom says it's a waste of my degree, but I got married youngish (25) and left the workforce at my ex's request to be a homemaker. When I tried to get a job after we split up, I had been out of a job in my field (marketing) for six years, and I wasn't senior when I left. I lucked into this job through a friend who manages the shop. But it's not a lot of money. I get the main source of my income from spousal support and for that I am grateful since it has allowed me the space to get myself back on my feet. I am learning skills in this job that may allow me to branch out on my own one day. My ex-husband doesn't even think I need to work, since I could just live off what I get from him, but working gives me some purpose in life. I also do not like being financially dependent on him even now, and if there is some small way I can regain control from him, I will take it. He was a domineering man, very charming but controlling. He's still inserting himself into my life (he doesn't approve of my fiance) and he continues to try to control me with money. However, I don't spend all the support in a month and instead invest the surplus in an active portfolio, along with other money I have from the settlement. My fiance makes decent money, but I don't like to take money from him, and he has his own spousal/child support obligations to meet.

Far be it from me to give relationship advice on the grounds of just a few sentences, but this fiance sounds like he has his own issues, and you taking any money from him is just fostering some false illusion that you're "regaining control."

[laylalex 7,266]

5 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

For as many times as you profess to have read my explanation, I'm surprised you got it so entirely wrong. Here's the rub: in a capitalist economy, when you act out of self interest you benefit the economy. When you benefit the economy, you benefit the people who live in the economy. It has nothing to do with selfishness or doing "evil," it's just the way the system works. And thus far, nobody's found a better system. So if you really want to do good, then start helping yourself. If you're volunteering for a non-profit, then not only are you not doing any good to society, neither is the non-profit. You and the non-profit are just swimming against the tide. If your women's shelter or whatever was a for-profit business, they would be in much better shape to actually help women. They would have well paid staff, modern equipment, and motivation to help women in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. They would be answerable to a board, and shareholders. They would have to provide the best possible services or go out of business to make way for a company that would. No tax handouts to bail them out, only the forces of the marketplace. I hope that makes my position clearer.

Well, I think it does make it clearer, but I have to disagree, and I think we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.  I am no economist, and though I consider myself a capitalist (I have benefited my entire life from living in a capitalist society, I am totally aware of that), I don't think that a "pure" form of capitalism (which I think is what you're talking about, have been talking about) is really workable in real life. I mean, the reality is that humans are really messy and imperfect, and it's humans running the market. So I just think it's unrealistic to think that the marketplace is perfect, or will always reward the most efficient or most cost-effective organizations out there. And I also think it's unrealistic to think that the market is going to have a solution for every need, so there are always going to have to be charities and non-profits to plug these holes. Please bear with me -- been a long day here, and I haven't thought much about economics since college! 

 

5 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

Far be it from me to give relationship advice on the grounds of just a few sentences, but this fiance sounds like he has his own issues, and you taking any money from him is just fostering some false illusion that you're "regaining control."

Um, really? I don't think you read what *I* wrote. I am not taking ANY money from him. And he is very supportive of me taking control of my own life. He knows my story very well, knows my ex very well and what he put me through, and supports me in my goal to reestablish myself. Also, you think he has his own issues just because he has an ex-wife and a daughter to support? Wow. I think I read above that you resent giving your ex-wife support she is entitled to just because she writes poetry! Sorry, I just read what I wrote there and it sounds a little rude, but it's how I feel. If I weren't so tired, maybe I'd be able to express it better.