alt.politics.economics

royls@ wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:00:57 -0400, alexy wrote:
>
>>Video61@ wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 11, 5:01 pm, alexy wrote:
>>>> ro...@ wrote:
>>>> >They didn't place themselves on the treadmill that powers the
>>>> >landowners' escalator.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting image. 30 years ago, I owned no property. Now, after 30
>>>> years of foregoing current consumption, and a couple of houses and a
>>>> couple of refi's later, I am about five years from owning my house
>>>> free and clear. Does that mean that for another 5 years, I can whine
>>>> about having to run on the treadmill? Or does the fact that I
>>>> voluntarily purchased my property make me ineligible? At that point,
>>>> do I jump over and join the evil ones on the escalator?
>>>>
>>> what ever happened to that worry about the little guy. kinda
>>>diissapeared fast hey alex:)
>>No. That wasn't the subject here, at least that I was aware.
>
>How admirably accurate: not, at least, that you were aware.
Thank you. Intellectual honesty is a matter of pride for me. I try to
differentiate and identify my opinions or perceptions from statements
of fact, and point out the basis for my opinions or perceptions. But,
since you were the other party to the conversation, would I have been
accurate if I had left off the qualifier? Was it your impression as
well that we were talking about landowners and non-landowners, or did
you also think we were talking about "the little guy"
>
>>I asking
>>Roy about his little treadmill/excalator analogy, and where someone
>>fit as they were transitioning from non-landowner to landowner.
>
>More or less the same as the slave who wins promotion to overseer, and
>starts to appreciate the advantages of preserving the existing system.
But that analogy leaves a bit to be desired when the person being
compared to a slave takes their role voluntarily.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.