Do free market economists comprise a mafia within academia?
Richard McBeef
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/05/do-neoclassical-free-market-economists.html
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Do neoclassical free market economists comprise a mafia within
academia?
Christopher Hayes writes in the Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070611/hayes
Mafia is probably a tad hyperbolic, but there is undoubtedly something
of a code of omerta within the discipline. Just ask ... David
Card. ... Card, a highly esteemed economist at the University of
California, Berkeley, caught flak for his heresy not on trade but on
the minimum wage. In 1994 he conducted a study to see whether an
increase in the minimum wage in New Jersey had the negative effect on
employment that basic neoclassical theory would predict. He found it
didn't. In fact, his regression analysis showed that, controlling for
other factors, New Jersey gained fast-food jobs after increasing its
minimum wage, compared with Pennsylvania, which hadn't raised wages.
The paper attracted a tremendous amount of attention and criticism,
and Card himself largely abandoned working on the minimum wage. In a
2006 interview, he explained his decision to leave the topic behind
this way: "I've subsequently stayed away from the minimum wage
literature for a number of reasons. First, it cost me a lot of
friends. People that I had known for many years, for instance, some of
the ones I met at my first job at the University of Chicago, became
very angry or disappointed. They thought that in publishing our work
we were being traitors to the cause of economics as a whole."
Of course, Card's other famous study, the one of Miami in 1980-85
claiming that immigration doesn't lower wages, is wildly popular with
many of the same free market economists and open borders pundits who
hate the conclusion of his minimum wage study.
The problem with economics these days is not so much the various
models as that economists believe that having models lets them get
away without knowing much about the real world.
For example, Card's comparison of wage trends in Miami in 1980-85
relative to four other cities is pretty useless because that was the
peak of the Scarface - Miami Vice cocaine boom in that city, so
ceteris wasn't at all paribus. Now, anybody who watched TV in the
1980s should know that, but economists never seemed to notice it when
discussing Card's study.
Worse, economists seldom seem to care that they are often ignorant
about the realities that they so confidently pronounce upon.
By the way, I've never much looked into Card's famous minimum wage
study of New Jersey vs. Pennsylvania in 1992 when New Jersey raised
the state minimum to $5.05 versus $4.25 at the federal level, but I
recall seeing way back in 1987, when the federal minimum wage was
$3.35 per hour, a sign in the window of a New Jersey fast food
restaurant offering $5 per hour.
In general, though, I think economists tend to overestimate how
crucial low wages. For example, the use of boys as young as five as
chimney sweeps in London was recognized early as brutally cruel,
causing terrible and permanent medical problems, but was so
vociferously defended by laissez-faire ideologues that the Earl of
Shaftesbury wasn't able to push through a bill putting an end to child
labor as chimney sweeps until 1864. Did the chimneys of London then
become permanently clogged because there were no more tiny children to
squeeze into them? Nah... The master chimney sweeps just invented
better brushes and brooms so a full size man could do the job just
fine. In general, cheap labor turns out to be highly replaceable by
better technology and organizational techniques.
ro...@telus.net
<richar...@myway.com> wrote:
>Do neoclassical free market economists comprise a mafia within
>academia?
It's not hard to understand academic economics. Just as the
overprivileged of feudal times purchased clerics to rationalize the
injustices that benefited them -- the "divine right of kings" -- so do
the modern overprivileged purchase clerics (garbed, to be sure, in the
mathematical robes of the scientist) in university economics
departments to rationalize the injustices that benefit them.
-- Roy L
The Trucker
>
> http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/05/do-neoclassical-free-market-economists.html
>
>
> Sunday, May 27, 2007
>
> Do neoclassical free market economists comprise a mafia within
> academia?
"neoclassical free market" is turning out to be an oxygen moron.
The Mexican illegal/"Guest Worker" is a replacement for a robot. Rent it
and dispose of it.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
Bret Cahill
choose to dodge issues fundamental to free markets while GOP
politicians are _not_ free to choose to dodge 'n dodge 'n dodge 'n
dodge.
After all, any Republicon governor can be exposed as a fraud and
hypocrite simply by hauling him before the U. S. Supreme court for
censoring vital economic information.
This is the cheapest and most effective activism on earth.
But the bottom line is the bottom line and if the shills don't come up
with effective talking points and scams like school vouchers to get
tax cuts for the rich, they become useless to monied interests and the
funding will dry up.
This is already happening.
After the high tax economic boom of the 1990s discredited the "market"
economists, Cheney Rove abandoned most of the Gipster's rhetoric and
instead resorted to 100% jingoism as their only hope of survival.
This only hastened the process.
The Dumbya Administration is now impaling the GOP on the Gipper's 11th
Commandment.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
mafia isn't very appropriate.
Indeed, lately our outspoken "market" economists come off as being too
cowardly to answer the question:
"Does free speech preceed each and every free trade?"
Try it yourself and you'll understand what they mean by being "Free to
Choose To Dodge Issues Fundamental To Markets."
Bret Cahill
Nospam
> Card. ... Card, a highly esteemed economist at the University of
> California, Berkeley, caught flak for his heresy not on trade but on
> the minimum wage. In 1994 he conducted a study to see whether an
> increase in the minimum wage in New Jersey had the negative effect on
> employment that basic neoclassical theory would predict. He found it
> didn't. In fact, his regression analysis showed that, controlling for
> other factors, New Jersey gained fast-food jobs after increasing its
> minimum wage, compared with Pennsylvania, which hadn't raised wages.
> The paper attracted a tremendous amount of attention and criticism,
> and Card himself largely abandoned working on the minimum wage. In a
> 2006 interview, he explained his decision to leave the topic behind
> this way: "I've subsequently stayed away from the minimum wage
> literature for a number of reasons. First, it cost me a lot of
> friends. People that I had known for many years, for instance, some of
> the ones I met at my first job at the University of Chicago, became
> very angry or disappointed. They thought that in publishing our work
> we were being traitors to the cause of economics as a whole."
That is a very sad reality. Many of the so called "right winger economists",
are not researchers seeking scientific truth, but ideologues twisting the
science to provide usable PR. The results is that they transform the
economics into a sudo-science, a collection of faith based assertions
marginally covered in statements looking like science but unprovable or
completely taken out of context.
One way to spot this type of pseudo-economists is that they oppose what they
call "mathematical economics". They oppose demonstration of theories based
on the math or numeric models and claim that the problem with economics it
is the "over reliance in math". Often, they use the term
socialist-economists to name the economists using math models for their
studies.
> The problem with economics these days is not so much the various
> models as that economists believe that having models lets them get
> away without knowing much about the real world.
There is nothing wrong into making models. The real world it is too
complicated to use it directly to draw conclusions about various laws and
interactions.
What is wrong in modeling is when you start with some results you need to
prove and twist the model to fit the "political order" you got from the
guys paying for your "research". Instead of building the model to match the
facet of reality you study then do the math to see what is going on,
they "cook the books" to please the corporate sponsor of the project.
> In general, though, I think economists tend to overestimate how
> crucial low wages. For example, the use of boys as young as five as
> chimney sweeps in London was recognized early as brutally cruel,
> causing terrible and permanent medical problems, but was so
> vociferously defended by laissez-faire ideologues that the Earl of
> Shaftesbury wasn't able to push through a bill putting an end to child
> labor as chimney sweeps until 1864. Did the chimneys of London then
> become permanently clogged because there were no more tiny children to
> squeeze into them? Nah... The master chimney sweeps just invented
> better brushes and brooms so a full size man could do the job just
> fine. In general, cheap labor turns out to be highly replaceable by
> better technology and organizational techniques.
Very true. Cheap labor it is a recipe to stagnation:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/e9f93b25fd807c23
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/420ac2c066da8d8d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/e9721857dd552ec4
Fred Weiss
> "...In general, cheap labor turns out to be highly replaceable by
> better technology and organizational techniques." - Christopher Hayes writes in the Nation.
Ummm...yes. But that isn't exactly responsive to the point he was
supposedly addressing. The point is that if cheap labor isn't
available, than other ways will be found to accomplish the same thing
- the result is that labor is replaced by technology and (some) people
lose their jobs.
Does anyone think it was coincedental that the word processor emerged
right at the same time as the "9 to 5" secretarial movement
(popularized by Dolly Parton)? I clearly remember how difficult it
was to find competent secretarial help in that period. Once I learned
the word processor, I no longer needed a secretary. End of problem.
But also...ummm... the end of untold numbers of secretarial jobs. Of
course women then moved on to other exciting employment oppotunities.
Wal-Mart anyone?
Where does Hayes think the young 19th Cent. chimney sweeps went? To
school? To Little League? Their moms taking them to soccer practise?
How about to coal mines and factories - or begging on the streets. It
was a period when it was still necessary for children to work if they
were to survive - just as they had down through the millenia.
In Pakistan when young women were tossed out of "sweat shops" to
satisfy Western sensibilities they ended up on the streets begging or
as prostitutes.
I wonder what Hayes thinks a marginally competent 20 year old, who
slept through highschool and who has virtually no skills, should make?
Fred Weiss
Peter B. P.
> In message news:1180361615....@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> Richard McBeef sprach forth the following:
>
> > I
> > recall seeing way back in 1987, when the federal minimum wage was
> > $3.35 per hour, a sign in the window of a New Jersey fast food
> > restaurant offering $5 per hour.
>
> Thus proving that a minimum wage isn't needed.
Well, a /federal/ minwage certainly isn't!
--
regards , Peter B. P.
http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
James A. Donald
>
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070611/hayes
>
> Mafia is probably a tad hyperbolic, but there is
> undoubtedly something of a code of omerta within the
> discipline. Just ask ... David Card. ... Card, a
> highly esteemed economist at the University of
> California, Berkeley, caught flak for his heresy not
> on trade but on the minimum wage. In 1994 he conducted
> a study to see whether an increase in the minimum wage
> in New Jersey had the negative effect on employment
> that basic neoclassical theory would predict. He found
> it didn't. In fact, his regression analysis showed
> that, controlling for other factors, New Jersey gained
> fast-food jobs after increasing its minimum wage,
> compared with Pennsylvania, which hadn't raised wages.
> The paper attracted a tremendous amount of attention
> and criticism, and Card himself largely abandoned
> working on the minimum wage.
If the paper had been ignored, then he could complain
that there was capitalist conspiracy in economics.
It got a lot attention because it was a surprising and
difficult to believe result. Any surprising and
difficult to believe result needs careful and suspicious
examination - and most turn out to be bullshit.
His got careful and suspicious examination, as it should
have, and turned out to be bullshit, as such results
usually do. Science as usual.
His data showed more employed, but payroll records
showed fewer employed.
See: Neumark, David and William Wascher, The Effect of
New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-food
Employment: A Re-evaluation using Payroll Records.
National Bureau of Economic Research: 1995.
Card's data was experimental error, wishful thinking, or
pious fraud.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> Richard McBeef wrote:
>
> > Card. ... Card, a highly esteemed economist at the University of
> > California, Berkeley, caught flak for his heresy not on trade but on
> > the minimum wage. In 1994 he conducted a study to see whether an
> > increase in the minimum wage in New Jersey had the negative effect on
> > employment that basic neoclassical theory would predict. He found it
> > didn't. In fact, his regression analysis showed that, controlling for
> > other factors, New Jersey gained fast-food jobs after increasing its
> > minimum wage, compared with Pennsylvania, which hadn't raised wages.
> > The paper attracted a tremendous amount of attention and criticism,
> > and Card himself largely abandoned working on the minimum wage. In a
> > 2006 interview, he explained his decision to leave the topic behind
> > this way: "I've subsequently stayed away from the minimum wage
> > literature for a number of reasons. First, it cost me a lot of
> > friends. People that I had known for many years, for instance, some of
> > the ones I met at my first job at the University of Chicago, became
> > very angry or disappointed. They thought that in publishing our work
> > we were being traitors to the cause of economics as a whole."
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:04:02 -0400, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
> That is a very sad reality. Many of the so called "right winger economists",
> are not researchers seeking scientific truth, but ideologues twisting the
> science to provide usable PR.
Card has a notorious tendency to produce politically correct numbers -
when other people surveying the same events get very different
numbers.
His numbers are improbable, are frequently mutually inconsistent, and
their source is unclear and irreproducible. Neumark's numbers came
from payrolls. Where do Card's numbers come from?
Bret Cahill
"market" economists who want it both ways:
They like to claim that labor isn't available -- "that's why the
borders are wide open to Osama and other terrorists because there is
not enough labor to pick the lettuce in John McCain's fields" -- then
they want you to beg for a low paying job because "if you don't work
the unpaid overtime, we'll replace you in the snap of a finger with an
illegal."
When a Repug boss snaps his finger, he expects his trailer park trash
employees to JUMP!
It's not just the _biggest_ scam in the history of western
civilization, it's also the dumbest.
Bill Clinton whips Repugs so hard on their fat fannies with this
hypocrisy they squeal like pigs:
"Clinton got a blow job. Clinton got a blow job."
> The point is that if cheap labor isn't
> available, than other ways will be found to accomplish the same thing
> - the result is that labor is replaced by technology and (some) people
> lose their jobs.
How does anyone lose his job if the labor isn't there in the first
place?
You need to make up your empty head:
Is there a shortage of labor?
If yes, then according to market theory wages should increase.
In no, then shut the border to illegals and terrorists.
You can't have it both ways.
Bret Cahill
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
> > The point is that if cheap labor isn't
> > available, than other ways will be found to accomplish the same thing
> > - the result is that labor is replaced by technology and (some) people
> > lose their jobs.
>
> How does anyone lose his job if the labor isn't there in the first
> place?
What a fucking empty headed, off topic and stupid fucking statement.
If cars cant be made with cheap human labor, so as to satisfy the
price demand in the market of unproductive parasitical dumb arsed
leftist nasal whining retards like you Bwet, then robots will be used
instead of humans, what the fuck didn't you understand about that?
> Is there a shortage of labor?
>
> If yes, then according to market theory wages should increase.
Dopey cunt, paying a pack of useless unproductive monkeys more, just
because there aint enough of them to go around, aint no gaurantee of
getting the job done at a price to satisfy you dumb arsed and poor
retards Bwet.
You know nothing of how the business of satisfying the consumer's
demands work do you?
> In no, then shut the border to illegals and terrorists.
What the fuck is a socialist if not a terrorist?
MG
Fred Weiss
> > The point is that if cheap labor isn't
> > available, than other ways will be found to accomplish the same thing
> > - the result is that labor is replaced by technology and (some) people
> > lose their jobs.
>
> How does anyone lose his job if the labor isn't there in the first
> place?
The labor is there but the employer is required by law to pay more for
it than he thinks it is worth (or that he can afford).
For example in the "chimney sweep" illustration, there may have been
small-statured adults willing to do the work that the law now banned
children from. But the adults would have demanded more pay - probably
substantially more pay - which the chimney sweeps were unwilling or
uanble to pay. Under some economic conditions some adults might have
been willing to do the work for low wages. But by that point the
sweeps had developed the new technology which no longer required it
and it wouldn't be worth it to them even at very low wages.
True, eventually the technology would likely have replaced the labor
anyway, but in the meantime some workers who would have been willing
to do the work lost the opportunity.
> You need to make up your empty head:
You need to learn economics of which you are a total ignoramus. You
continually make pompous claims based on your ignorance.
> Is there a shortage of labor?
The law has created one - an artificial one. Where before workers were
available at an affordable wage, now there is not. Hence a shortage is
created by gov't fiat. The gov't does that often either by
artificially raising wages or artificially controlling prices. Rent
controls notoriously create shortages of apartments.
If the market can support it, the increased wages are paid but prices
go up. In that case *everyone else* pays the increased wages, reducing
the value of *their wages* accordingly. Net gain to - supposedly -
improving the lot of low wage workers: zero (the usual effect, at
best, of gov't attempts to manipulate the market - that's at best,
more often than not the effect is net negative).
> If yes, then according to market theory wages should increase.
If you understood economics, you would understand why that is not
necessarily the case. As the article clearly states, the other
alternative is that technology is devised to replace the workers.
Today, the work might go overseas. So much for the claim of
socialists and other do-gooders to be helping workers. Of course they
are helping workers overseas, but that's a concept the do-gooders are
incapable of grasping. They just see $1/day wages being paid and
assume the workers are being exploited.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> His data showed more employed, but payroll records
> showed fewer employed.
>
> See: Neumark, David and William Wascher, The Effect of
> New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-food
> Employment: A Re-evaluation using Payroll Records.
> National Bureau of Economic Research: 1995.
>
> Card's data was experimental error, wishful thinking, or
> pious fraud.
Thank you for that reference, James.
I wasn't aware of that counter-study - and of course Hayes never
mentions it.
It's good to know that there are now enough economists to counter
leftwing bullshit and distortions. I know for a fact and from personal
reading that there is now a substantial and continually growing
literature of economic history, especially business history, which is
correcting over a century of leftwing distortions going back to the
"muckrakers". I have read a number of very fine and scholarly recent
business biographies - of men like JJ Hill, Carnegie, and DuPont -
which give a much different perspective on their accomplishments than
the conventional leftist line.
We are also now seeing a lot of voices being raised in opposition to
the so-called "scientific consensus" concerning supposed human
causation of global warming.
That, too, is extremely encouraging.
I just wish that the opposition to socialized medicine was stronger
and louder. So there is still work to be done.
Fred Weiss
Fiat Lux
"Richard McBeef" <richar...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1180361615....@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I studied undergraduate Economics at Berkeley in 2001 and Card's work on the
minimum wage was being taught then. There was also, if I recall correctly,
alternative research suggesting that Card's findings were unable to be
replicated (or were outright refuted). Having studied econs at various
prestigious universities around the world, my experience is that most
programs tend to present a reasonably balanced (or only slightly
'right-biased') perpective on the discipline. Those who claim the existence
of a 'neo-classical mafia' tend to be disaffected Marxists whom are unhappy
that very few economists take their hero-pamphleteer seriously.
brique
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:1e9n53d3u0lh7vaoi...@4ax.com...
No...... surely people don't do that, make unsubstantiated claims with no
numbers or evidence to back it up?..... what is the world coming too....
Now, James.... speaking of unsubstantiated claims...... when have you ever
produced numbers that are probable, mutually consistent and from sources
that are clear and reproducable?
The Trucker
> On May 29, 12:08 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > The point is that if cheap labor isn't
>> > available, than other ways will be found to accomplish the same thing
>> > - the result is that labor is replaced by technology and (some) people
>> > lose their jobs.
>>
>> How does anyone lose his job if the labor isn't there in the first
>> place?
>
> The labor is there but the employer is required by law to pay more for
> it than he thinks it is worth (or that he can afford).
>
> For example in the "chimney sweep" illustration, there may have been
> small-statured adults willing to do the work that the law now banned
> children from. But the adults would have demanded more pay - probably
> substantially more pay - which the chimney sweeps were unwilling or
> uanble to pay.
Wait a minute! A chimney sweep is a dude that sweeps chimneys. You seem
to be talking about some sort of silver lipped salesman. Yer basic
entrepreneur (rip off artist), Mr. Bidness. And yeah, he can innovate or
he can suck eggs.
> Under some economic conditions some adults might have
> been willing to do the work for low wages. But by that point the
> sweeps had developed the new technology which no longer required it
> and it wouldn't be worth it to them even at very low wages.
But the lazy blood suckers were fat dumb and happy till the mean ole nasty
gummint forced them to innovate.
> True, eventually the technology would likely have replaced the labor
> anyway, but in the meantime some workers who would have been willing
> to do the work lost the opportunity.
And thus moved on to better things or moved back to Mexico.
>> You need to make up your empty head:
>
> You need to learn economics of which you are a total ignoramus. You
> continually make pompous claims based on your ignorance.
That may or may not be. But this continuing protection of the
establishment by the latter day neoconomist profession is quite palpable.
Where are you boot lickers when George Bush talks about a "labor shortage"
and pleads for a legal indentured servitude program to replace the current
ILLEGAL indentured servitude program? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
I know where you are. You dance over to the topic of "foreign aid".
>> Is there a shortage of labor?
>
> The law has created one - an artificial one. Where before workers were
> available at an affordable wage, now there is not. Hence a shortage is
> created by gov't fiat. The gov't does that often either by
> artificially raising wages or artificially controlling prices. Rent
> controls notoriously create shortages of apartments.
Let us shift the argument to something totally different, said the
neoconomist. Lets talk about rent control. Well two can play, Mr.
neoconomist, but I'll at least stay close to the actual topic:
The fact is that horsecrap like the tolerated illegal
workers and the H1B crap, and the proposed "Guest Worker" crap is what
drives down the wages in such a way as to demand silliness like the
minimum wage. We gave you liars NAFTA and the WTO and the rest and
you still can't make this pig sing. Perot claimed there'd be this giant
sucking sound as all the jobs went south of the boarder. It didn't happen
because the neoconomic profession gets paid reeeeelly well by the Mexican
plutocracy. Mexico is ripe for some sort of Marxist revolution and the
only way to stay alive and keep yer sideburns too is to let the Mexican
poor suck off the American economy. We be talkin bout min wage here.
> If the market can support it, the increased wages are paid but prices
> go up. In that case *everyone else* pays the increased wages, reducing
> the value of *their wages* accordingly. Net gain to - supposedly -
> improving the lot of low wage workers: zero (the usual effect, at
> best, of gov't attempts to manipulate the market - that's at best,
> more often than not the effect is net negative).
Higher wages are a loss to those who are unproductive and a gain to those
that are productive. The losers are the fat ass rich. And that is why
the neoconomics profession is in high gear making up stories about the
tragedy that will ensue if the silver lipped entrepreneur moves along to
greener fields. That translates INSTANTLY into a loss of JOBS (Oh
Martha, hide the kids). Maybe what really happens is that Mr.
Cheapskate goes out of business and the bank and the investors
loose some money. Maybe the price of land and capital as used in that
specific business will take a hit and be offered for less so that the
business (under new management of course) will still survive. Gee, that's
a lot better than losing ALL of the investment, isn't it. Businesses go
kapoop all the time because the costs changed in a way that was
detrimental. The capital and the land used by that business does not just
go away. It is typically placed on the market at lower prices so as to
not lose as much as a total failure. What happens in many cases is that
the current "entrepreneur" is replaced with a new entrepreneur and the
"investors" take a loss. And it is THIS scenario where Mr. Entrepreneur
and Mr. land owner, and Mr. banker lose some privilege that has the
neoconomists all marching to the tune of Der Fuhrer.
>> If yes, then according to market theory wages should increase.
>
> If you understood economics, you would understand why that is not
> necessarily the case. As the article clearly states, the other
> alternative is that technology is devised to replace the workers.
But the possibility of entrepreneurial dislocation, capital loss, and
falling land prices is NEVER mentioned. Perhaps the workers will band
together and take an even bigger raise by letting the entrepreneur go
bankrupt and then simply doing the sales themselves. Or maybe they'll hire
an outside salesman that will work cheaper than Boss Hog. To quote Ed
Schultz regarding a different matter "Let's throw some gasoline on this
sum bitch and see what happens". Forced wage increase is somewhat like
"the surge".
> Today, the work might go overseas.
Suuurrre! We'll send the chimneys over to India to get em swept. We're
talking about min wage here. Please try to stay inside the ballpark.
> So much for the claim of
> socialists and other do-gooders to be helping workers. Of course they
> are helping workers overseas, but that's a concept the do-gooders are
> incapable of grasping. They just see $1/day wages being paid and
> assume the workers are being exploited.
The answer to this problem of "overseas" is to tax the imports and stop
the imperialism. It is a matter of wealth distribution as opposed to
aggregates. The tax on imported goods ahould be used for National Health
Care, bolstering SS, improving unemployment compensation, etc. The
workers benefit at the expense of the owners. Owners, as owners make no
real contribution to production. Entrepreneurs and workers actually do
the contributing.
Beal
> On May 28, 10:13 am, Richard McBeef <richardmcb...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> > "...In general, cheap labor turns out to be highly replaceable by
> > better technology and organizational techniques." - Christopher Hayes writes in the Nation.
>
> Ummm...yes. But that isn't exactly responsive to the point he was
> supposedly addressing. The point is that if cheap labor isn't
> available, than other ways will be found to accomplish the same thing
> - the result is that labor is replaced by technology and (some) people
> lose their jobs.
>
> Does anyone think it was coincedental that the word processor emerged
> right at the same time as the "9 to 5" secretarial movement
> (popularized by Dolly Parton)? I clearly remember how difficult it
> was to find competent secretarial help in that period. Once I learned
> the word processor, I no longer needed a secretary. End of problem.
1) The movement (not as though it was more significant in the 1980s--
it wasn't) was part of the equal rights movement. It was not a
rebellion of secretaries, it was a rebellion of women who didn't want
their asses patted and didn't want to feel they had to sleep their way
to the top.
2) Assuming it was a "secretarial" movement, then yes, it was a
coincidence because the reason word processors revolutionized the
office is because computing and manufacturing technology progressed
enough to create cheap, compact computers capable of running programs
such as word processors. It wasn't because secretaries somehow cost
more in the 1980s. It was because since the 1950s, we had been
playing around with vacuum tubes and bits of sand to find better ways
to make a calculator.
> But also...ummm... the end of untold numbers of secretarial jobs. Of
> course women then moved on to other exciting employment oppotunities.
> Wal-Mart anyone?
Real median income for women is the highest it has ever been. Even in
years when it drops for men, it still increases for women.
Fred Weiss
> Where are you boot lickers when George Bush talks about a "labor shortage"
> and pleads for a legal indentured servitude program to replace the current
> ILLEGAL indentured servitude program? >HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
Whatever that means. In fact there is a labor shortage in many fields.
We should of course *welcome* immigration - even by the 10's of
millions - just as we once did.
Here's an irony. This is just anecdotal I know, but I understand that
in France - even with its 8% unemployment - that if you want to get
anything done in your house (say, to put on an addition or remodel a
bathroom) you hire a Polish worker. He may even be "illegal" . I don't
know. The Poles I gather are much in demand also in Spain and Ireland.
Apparently they bring skills and/or a work ethic which is much needed
and sought after in these countries.
> Higher wages are a loss to those who are unproductive and a gain to those
> that are productive. The losers are the fat ass rich.
Another economic ignoramus.
Higher (or lower) wages in and of themselves mean nothing and are
neither good or bad. The only relevant issue is whether they are
determined by the market or not - versus foisted on the market by
gov't fiat.
If they are foisted on the market then the cost of it has to be offset
somehow and somewhere - for example, by job losses and/or higher
prices.
> ...Perhaps the workers will band
> together and take an even bigger raise by letting the entrepreneur go
> bankrupt and then simply doing the sales themselves. Or maybe they'll hire
> an outside salesman that will work cheaper than Boss Hog.
Uh, huh. And the workers will get the capital where? And who will back
them? And they will get the skills to manage businesses how?
There are "worker owned" businesses and some are successful. But it
doesn't happen often for a reason - and it's certainly not because
anyone is stopping them.
> The answer to this problem of "overseas" is to tax the imports and stop
> the imperialism. It is a matter of wealth distribution as opposed to
> aggregates.
Uh, huh. Earth to "Trucker". If you tax imports you are merely taxing
everyone in the country who now has to pay more for those goods. The
exporting country suffers - along with all of their workers - but so
do we, and all of our workers.
> ...Owners, as owners make no
> real contribution to production. Entrepreneurs and workers actually do
> the contributing.
"Owners" merely provide the capital - and take the risk. But I'm sure
you've got a great scheme of how you will loot something or someone to
get that capital - and how you will distribute the loot.
Of course what you then end up with is a bustling and thriving economy
like...umm....Cuba's.
Come back when you've made even a minimal effort to learn some
economics.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> On May 28, 5:48 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone think it was coincedental that the word processor emerged
> > right at the same time as the "9 to 5" secretarial movement
> > (popularized by Dolly Parton)? I clearly remember how difficult it
> > was to find competent secretarial help in that period. Once I learned
> > the word processor, I no longer needed a secretary. End of problem.
>
> 2) Assuming it was a "secretarial" movement, then yes, it was a
> coincidence because the reason word processors revolutionized the
> office is because computing and manufacturing technology progressed
> enough to create cheap, compact computers capable of running programs
> such as word processors. It wasn't because secretaries somehow cost
> more in the 1980s. It was because since the 1950s, we had been
> playing around with vacuum tubes and bits of sand to find better ways
> to make a calculator.
That no doubt is true - and as I said the change would have eventually
occured anyway. But I think the situation with secretaries
*accelerated* the adoption of the technology. It certainly did in my
case. At the time, I was not particularly highly motivated to learn
word-processing - or, later, to learn how to use a computer.
> Real median income for women is the highest it has ever been. Even in
> years when it drops for men, it still increases for women.
Tell that to the feminists who still whine about the disparity of
incomes - and then send them to look at the gender mix in the typical
law or medical school these days.
Incidentally, the movement of women into formally male-dominated
professions had far less to do with the feminist movement than it did
with the birth control pill, the microwave oven, and fast food
restaurants and convenience foods in supermarkets.
Btw, that feminists are not primarily interested in advancing the
cause of women is easily demonstrated by both their odd silence toward
Islam and in some cases them even (disgustingly) apologizing for it.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
Republicon/"Market" economists' silly rhetoric, we can add one more:
Phishing, or rather the counter phishing tactics published by
financial web sites sound a lot like a smart Democrat's warning about
Republicons.
The phisher tries to look legitimate but he always has a sense on
urgency: You must give him your account number ASAP!
When the Republicon politician gets his talking points to gush hype
something like tax cuts for the rich or school vouchers or invading a
country as being urgent, you can be 100% certain that's a scam too.
But the constant phishing attacks and phishing warnings being issued
by the financial web pages educate the public about more than scam
Email.
Counter phishing has a penumbra or carry over effect that causes even
Americans to think more critically.
When the "market" economist says he's for free markets anyone doing
any business on the web might wonder, "you know, I didn't believe this
morning's Email about my Ebay account. Maybe, just maybe I shouldn't
believe that "market" economist really cares about free markets
either. Maybe he's as disreputable as an Email phisher."
Then they see my posts taunting the libtards and Rantards to get an
answer from our "outspoken" free marketeers and that clinches it.
The "market" economists may retire with some dough but they won't be
replaced. There will be no reason to pay anyone anymore.
Bret Cahill
The Trucker
We all appreciate you identifying yourself as a total rightard as opposed
to any sort of honest economist. Have a nice day.
knucmo
wrote:
If "they" can stomach it, Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is a
classic.
Fred Weiss
wrote:
> If "they" can stomach it, Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is a
> classic.
I'll definitely second that recommendation.
Or almost anything by Frederic Bastiat, the 19th Cent. economist.
The "free market" library is now very substantial and continues to
grow - much of it readily accessible to the layman. One of the better
recent additions is Andrew Bernstein's, "The Capitalist Manifesto".
Then of course, Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand provides the moral/philosophical
underpinning for capitalism which it has always lacked.
Fred Weiss
The Trucker
> On May 29, 12:15 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Where are you boot lickers when George Bush talks about a "labor shortage"
>> and pleads for a legal indentured servitude program to replace the current
>> ILLEGAL indentured servitude program? >HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
>
> Whatever that means. In fact there is a labor shortage in many fields.
There is NEVER a labor shortage, sir. That is like claiming a shortage of
polio. Labor is a disease that will hunt us down no matter where we hide.
Men have been trying to escape from labor (cost) since the beginning of
history.
> We should of course *welcome* immigration - even by the 10's of
> millions - just as we once did.
I doubt that you can find anywhere on any forum or usenet group where I
have been against IMMIGRATION.
> Here's an irony. This is just anecdotal I know, but I understand that
> in France - even with its 8% unemployment - that if you want to get
> anything done in your house (say, to put on an addition or remodel a
> bathroom) you hire a Polish worker. He may even be "illegal" . I don't
> know. The Poles I gather are much in demand also in Spain and Ireland.
> Apparently they bring skills and/or a work ethic which is much needed
> and sought after in these countries.
That says that in POLAND the government reeeeeeelllllyyyyy sucks.
>> Higher wages are a loss to those who are unproductive and a gain to those
>> that are productive. The losers are the fat ass rich.
>
> Another economic ignoramus.
For that you must consult a mirror.
> Higher (or lower) wages in and of themselves mean nothing and are
> neither good or bad. The only relevant issue is whether they are
> determined by the market or not - versus foisted on the market by
> gov't fiat.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!! Wrongo!!
> If they are foisted on the market then the cost of it has to be offset
> somehow and somewhere - for example, by job losses and/or higher
> prices.
Why not eaten by landlords and bankers and some pretend entrepreneurs?
>> ...Perhaps the workers will band
>> together and take an even bigger raise by letting the entrepreneur go
>> bankrupt and then simply doing the sales themselves. Or maybe they'll hire
>> an outside salesman that will work cheaper than Boss Hog.
>
> Uh, huh. And the workers will get the capital where? And who will back
> them? And they will get the skills to manage businesses how?
>
> There are "worker owned" businesses and some are successful. But it
> doesn't happen often for a reason - and it's certainly not because
> anyone is stopping them.
In most cases it is economies of scale that prevent actual "small
business" from flowering. The only way to have the cake and eat it too is
through redistribution of economic rent (or PART OF what that commie Marx
called "surplus value"). He screwed up and included entrepreneurial
profit (which I like to call _real_ interest) in his "means of production
bag", but he was on the right track. Ricardo was also closing in for the
kill. Henry George finally bagged the rentier but the aristocrats were
able to hush it up and crank up the propaganda machine with the bought and
paid for "schools" of neoeconomics.
>> The answer to this problem of "overseas" is to tax the imports and stop
>> the imperialism. It is a matter of wealth distribution as opposed to
>> aggregates.
>
> Uh, huh. Earth to "Trucker". If you tax imports you are merely taxing
> everyone in the country who now has to pay more for those goods. The
> exporting country suffers - along with all of their workers - but so
> do we, and all of our workers.
Reality to neoconomists! The part about the workers of the exporting
country getting hurt has validity and I do feel for em. But the other
stuff is total crapola. It depends on what you do with the proceeds of
the tax. I included the words "stop the imperialism" for many reasons and
one of them was to make certain that we understand the cutting of
government expenditures in other areas. The application of the tax
revenue to health care and the like leaves the majority of the actual
workers in better financial shape even though they may have to pay more
for lip gloss and hoola hoops.
>> ...Owners, as owners make no
>> real contribution to production. Entrepreneurs and workers actually do
>> the contributing.
>
> "Owners" merely provide the capital
Capital is tractors, trucks, trains, highways, etc. and _OWNERS_ are the
people who _OWN_ the current capital and, more importantly, the land and
all the IP rights.
> - and take the risk.
Those who borrow money on thier homes so as to build a new business are
not really owners. The bank owns the homes at that point. You are
desribing _real_ entrepreneurs. They are the risk takers and they deserve
the rewards for taking the risks. My hat's off to such folks.
> But I'm sure
> you've got a great scheme of how you will loot something or someone to
> get that capital - and how you will distribute the loot.
He's REEEEEEEEEELLLLLLY wailin now folks!!!!!
> Of course what you then end up with is a bustling and thriving economy
> like...umm....Cuba's.
What a rightarded moron.
> Come back when you've made even a minimal effort to learn some
> economics.
>
> Fred Weiss
Once a rightard, always a rightard, Fred.
Tim
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1180418960.2...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 1:08 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > The point is that if cheap labor isn't
>> > available, than other ways will be found to accomplish the same thing
>> > - the result is that labor is replaced by technology and (some) people
>> > lose their jobs.
>>
>> How does anyone lose his job if the labor isn't there in the first
>> place?
>
> What a fucking empty headed, off topic and stupid fucking statement.
>
As opposed to the above? Ha, you really are a dim-wit, isn't you?
> If cars cant be made with cheap human labor, so as to satisfy the
> price demand in the market of unproductive parasitical dumb arsed
> leftist nasal whining retards like you Bwet, then robots will be used
> instead of humans, what the fuck didn't you understand about that?
>
Quack, quack, quack. Here's an idea for yuz: Why not go fuck a sheep, eh
shagger?
>> Is there a shortage of labor?
>>
>> If yes, then according to market theory wages should increase.
>
> Dopey cunt, paying a pack of useless unproductive monkeys more, just
> because there aint enough of them to go around, aint no gaurantee of
> getting the job done at a price to satisfy you dumb arsed and poor
> retards Bwet.
>
Dopey? Are you really denying the assertion?
> You know nothing of how the business of satisfying the consumer's
> demands work do you?
>
You can't sell rotten apples?
>> In no, then shut the border to illegals and terrorists.
>
> What the fuck is a socialist if not a terrorist?
>
You've never seen a dictionary, read a book, had an idea, other than those
implanted in that thick sheep-a-shaggin noggin of yours by the queen-cunt
Rand, have you shagger?
You're the piss. I really do get a good laugh reading the shit (and I mean
SHIT) you type (write would be a misnomer). Keep it up sheep-shagger. You
make Rand look almost intelligent! Almost, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
I just love when you use 'think for yourself' and quote The Cunt in the same
post. Keep it up Ram's ass stuffer.
>
> MG
>
>
>
>
Fred Weiss
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:43:47 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:
> > ...In fact there is a labor shortage in many fields.
>
> There is NEVER a labor shortage, sir. That is like claiming a shortage of
> polio. Labor is a disease...
I have no idea what that means.
> Men have been trying to escape from labor (cost) since the beginning of
> history.
No, not exactly. They have been trying to escape from *drudgery*, from
unpleasant work, from back-breaking work, from the necessity of
endless toil with little or no time to stop and rest and enjoy life.
What labor-saving devices enable us to do is more productive and/or
rewarding work. The farmer for example still works long hours but he
does much of it now from the comfort of an air-conditioned tractor
listening to country music on his CDplayer - rather than trudging
behind an ox with a plow. And he is able to work from an air-
conditioned tractor because the same plot of land now produces
100times more wheat or corn or whatever than it did when he trudged
behind the ox with a plow.
> ... it is economies of scale that prevent actual "small business" from flowering.
And who made these "economies of scale" possible - except the very
"owners" with investment capital whom you condemn. It is these very
economies of scale that make it possible to produce the vast
quantities of goods which are made available even to average people at
affordable prices. What do you think makes possible selling something
as complex as a DVD player for $50?
> ...The application of the tax <on imports>
> revenue to health care and the like leaves the majority of the actual
> workers in better financial shape even though they may have to pay more
> for lip gloss and hoola hoops.
How does it leave them in better financial shape if what you extract
from one pocket by forcing them to pay higher prices for imported
goods you merely put into the other pocket to pay for "health care and
the like". So, now they can afford to go to the doctor but they can't
afford clothes for their kids.
> >> ...Owners, as owners make no
> >> real contribution to production. Entrepreneurs and workers actually do
> >> the contributing.
>
> > "Owners" merely provide the capital
>
> Capital is tractors, trucks, trains, highways, etc. and _OWNERS_ are the
> people who _OWN_ the current capital and, more importantly, the land and
> all the IP rights.
And where did the owners get this capital? Do they have a secret place
where they can pick it from trees? Furthermore, having capital today
doesn't mean you will automatically have it tomorrow if you invest and
allocate it unwisely. Compare for example the wealthy gambling addict
who squanders his money at the casinos vs. Warren Buffett (who has
made 1,000's of people millionaires).
> Those who borrow money on thier homes so as to build a new business are
> not really owners. The bank owns the homes at that point. You are
> desribing _real_ entrepreneurs. They are the risk takers and they deserve
> the rewards for taking the risks. My hat's off to such folks.
You are making an entirely arbitrary distinction here with no basis in
reality. What difference does it make where the money comes from (so
long as it is legal)? The investor is still risking his home in his
new venture. If he fails, he loses the home. Are your workers willing
to do that?
Once again,
> > Come back when you've made even a minimal effort to learn some
> > economics.
And by that I mean *real* economics, not the delusions of crackpots
like Henry George or the like.
Fred Weiss
The Trucker
> On May 29, 5:45 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:43:47 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:
>
>> > ...In fact there is a labor shortage in many fields.
>>
>> There is NEVER a labor shortage, sir. That is like claiming a shortage of
>> polio. Labor is a disease...
>
> I have no idea what that means.
I can't even imagine the idea that ANYONE would think that labor is in
short supply. If you want some of it come on over to my place and cut
my lawn. When you're done I'll give you some more. You won't even have
to pay me for it. I'll give you all you can stand.
>> Men have been trying to escape from labor (cost) since the beginning of
>> history.
>
> No, not exactly. They have been trying to escape from *drudgery*, from
> unpleasant work, from back-breaking work, from the necessity of
> endless toil with little or no time to stop and rest and enjoy life.
That is true enough. But your take on this seems to be your desire to
foist the labor onto someone else without paying them a decent amount
for relieving you of the burden. That is the only way that anyone can
claim there is a shortage of labor. There is a virtual armies of people
willing to work for $20 per hour.
> What labor-saving devices enable us to do is more productive and/or
> rewarding work. The farmer for example still works long hours but he
> does much of it now from the comfort of an air-conditioned tractor
> listening to country music on his CDplayer - rather than trudging
> behind an ox with a plow. And he is able to work from an air-
> conditioned tractor because the same plot of land now produces
> 100times more wheat or corn or whatever than it did when he trudged
> behind the ox with a plow.
That's RIGHT!!!!! We have replace LABOR with machinery. So the amount of
labor needed is LESS. But you were trying to tell me that we had a
shortage of labor. There is no such thing as that unless you can imagine
that you are the king and you want some pyramids constructed and nobody
else want's the damned things. It is the fact that YOU want something but
you want someone else to do the labor FOR YOU. They would do it if you
paid em a bunch of dough, but otherwise they will have better things to do
such as building their kid's playhouse. There has never been nor will
there ever be a "labor shortage".
>> ... it is economies of scale that prevent actual "small business" from flowering.
>
> And who made these "economies of scale" possible - except the very
> "owners" with investment capital whom you condemn. It is these very
> economies of scale that make it possible to produce the vast
> quantities of goods which are made available even to average people at
> affordable prices. What do you think makes possible selling something
> as complex as a DVD player for $50?
You lying piece of rightarded filth. You cut out the part where I said
"The only way to have the cake and eat it too is through redistribution of
economic rent" As such I never impuned economies of scale. But a lying
piece of rightarded pig shit like you will take what you want out of
context and use it as a bludgeon because it is the only way you can ever
convince yourself that you have any validity at all. You are scum.
>> ...The application of the tax <on imports>
>> revenue to health care and the like leaves the majority of the actual
>> workers in better financial shape even though they may have to pay more
>> for lip gloss and hoola hoops.
>
> How does it leave them in better financial shape if what you extract
> from one pocket by forcing them to pay higher prices for imported
> goods you merely put into the other pocket to pay for "health care and
> the like". So, now they can afford to go to the doctor but they can't
> afford clothes for their kids.
Gee... You seem to have left out the part about the reduced military and
the point that most of the spending on junk from China is, in fact, junk
from China. But you have show yourself to be the typical lying rightarded
distortion artist already and I'm not the least supprised at your cherry
picking of the data.
>> >> ...Owners, as owners make no
>> >> real contribution to production. Entrepreneurs and workers actually do
>> >> the contributing.
>>
>> > "Owners" merely provide the capital
>>
>> Capital is tractors, trucks, trains, highways, etc. and _OWNERS_ are the
>> people who _OWN_ the current capital and, more importantly, the land and
>> all the IP rights.
>
> And where did the owners get this capital? Do they have a secret place
> where they can pick it from trees? Furthermore, having capital today
> doesn't mean you will automatically have it tomorrow if you invest and
> allocate it unwisely. Compare for example the wealthy gambling addict
> who squanders his money at the casinos vs. Warren Buffett (who has
> made 1,000's of people millionaires).
They got it in all sorts of ways. Many actually earned some of it.
>> Those who borrow money on thier homes so as to build a new business are
>> not really owners. The bank owns the homes at that point. You are
>> desribing _real_ entrepreneurs. They are the risk takers and they deserve
>> the rewards for taking the risks. My hat's off to such folks.
>
> You are making an entirely arbitrary distinction here with no basis in
> reality. What difference does it make where the money comes from (so
> long as it is legal)? The investor is still risking his home in his
> new venture. If he fails, he loses the home. Are your workers willing
> to do that?
Most workers do not have any capital to risk. You ask me why the source
of the money matters while above you seem to be very concerned about the
protection of those that have it. And the source DOES matter. Was the
venture based on money created from thin air in a bank? You conclude by
agreeing with me that if the entrepreneur is actually at risk then he
deserves the rewards. I fail to see what point you think you are making.
You seem to running in circles lika a headless chicken.
> Once again,
>
>> > Come back when you've made even a minimal effort to learn some
>> > economics.
>
> And by that I mean *real* economics, not the delusions of crackpots
> like Henry George or the like.
>
> Fred Weiss
I apparently know more accidentally about economics than you will ever
know on purpose.
Let me ask you something, Bozo Butt: What happens to the price of produce
and the price of farmland in California if illegal immigration is stopped
and there is no "Guest Worker" program? Take your time. I'll be prepared
to laugh my ass off at your non answer.
Fred Weiss
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:03:17 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:
> I can't even imagine the idea that ANYONE would think that labor is in
> short supply...There is a virtual armies of people
> willing to work for $20 per hour.
Oh, I see, you're being cute. You mean there is no shortage of labor
so long as you are willing to pay people some substantial amount more
than they are worth. But that's a little like saying there is no
shortage of people willing to take winning lottery tickets.
I assume you know that there are "virtual armies of people" willing to
work for $1 per hour in some parts of the world. In fact $1 per day is
more like the going wage that employers find attracts sufficient
numbers of workers in many places.
> Gee... You seem to have left out the part about the reduced military and
> the point that most of the spending on junk from China is, in fact, junk
> from China.
It may be junk to you, but it obviously isn't to the 100's of millions
of people who buy it - and who are particularly happy to buy it
because it is less expensive than the same products made in the USA.
You see, there is no shortage of labor in China willing to work for a
$1 or so a day - and for whom that is "a king's ransom".
> Most workers do not have any capital to risk.
Exactly.
>You ask me why the source
> of the money matters while above you seem to be very concerned about the
> protection of those that have it. And the source DOES matter. Was the
> venture based on money created from thin air in a bank?
Thin air? Where do you think banks get their money? Even apart from
that, apparently you have no grasp of banking principles.
> ...What happens to the price of produce
> and the price of farmland in California if illegal immigration is stopped
> and there is no "Guest Worker" program?
I don't know and don't care. I have no problem with immigration -
legal or illegal. I've already said that we should open the floodgates
and let in anyone who wants to come - ideally by the 10's of millions.
Then there surely would be no shortage of labor, now would there my
dear Trucker?
Fred Weiss
3464Dead
> On May 29, 10:51 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:03:17 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:
>
>> I can't even imagine the idea that ANYONE would think that labor is in
>> short supply...There is a virtual armies of people
>> willing to work for $20 per hour.
>
> Oh, I see, you're being cute. You mean there is no shortage of labor
> so long as you are willing to pay people some substantial amount more
> than they are worth. But that's a little like saying there is no
> shortage of people willing to take winning lottery tickets.
Say, whatever happened to supply and demand? Don't workers have the
right to decide if a job is worth it at the pay, and don't employers
have to respond to that?
Steve
<221134...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>Say, whatever happened to supply and demand?
Still in effect...
>Don't workers have the
>right to decide if a job is worth it at the pay,
Absolutely
>and don't employers
>have to respond to that?
well, of course... and if they can't find qualified and acceptable
employees at the wages they offer, they might have to raise the offer.
--
"See, I'm not the one of the two of us who
absolutely has to win every argument, no matter how stupid the
arguments I use to get there..."
--milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/c493affd21cbc640?hl=en&
*****
Consider Milt Shook's claims below and then ask yourself if his
statement above isn't the most obvious example of projection
you've ever seen?
*****
"I've explained it to you before; it's because the state is
obligated to protect your First Amendment rights, even
from private parties. "
--Milt Shook May 16 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/49833dff86ea3447
*****
So below is Milt Shook's spin on how the First Amendment
can apply to private persons as he claims above.
*****
"When the store owner is running me off the sidewalk, isn't he
taking on something of a "government role"?"
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/6a9a30c5a6575ab3?hl=en&
"I'm on a public sidewalk, and a private person acted as a policeman
and drove me off. The store owner was acting like a municipality."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/94a71e7a6eab07f5?hl=en&
"So, the city whose sidewalk I'm standing on isn't functioning as a
government?"
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/5939e85078682fed?hl=en&
brique
Steve <steven...@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message
news:8mvr53t66i0tb2ic0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:06:09 GMT, 3464Dead
> <221134...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Say, whatever happened to supply and demand?
>
> Still in effect...
>
> >Don't workers have the
> >right to decide if a job is worth it at the pay,
>
> Absolutely
>
> >and don't employers
> >have to respond to that?
>
> well, of course... and if they can't find qualified and acceptable
> employees at the wages they offer, they might have to raise the offer.
....or ship in cheap immigrant workers.or export the jobs to a lower cost
country. I await the day when similar practice governs the upper management
jobs.
Steve
wrote:
>
>Steve <steven...@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message
>news:8mvr53t66i0tb2ic0...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:06:09 GMT, 3464Dead
>> <221134...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Say, whatever happened to supply and demand?
>>
>> Still in effect...
>>
>> >Don't workers have the
>> >right to decide if a job is worth it at the pay,
>>
>> Absolutely
>>
>> >and don't employers
>> >have to respond to that?
>>
>> well, of course... and if they can't find qualified and acceptable
>> employees at the wages they offer, they might have to raise the offer.
>
>....or ship in cheap immigrant workers.or export the jobs to a lower cost
>country.
Competition is really tough on you losers.... here's a clue for
you... if the competition for you job consists of unskilled
foreigners, perhaps you screwed up somewhere...
>I await the day when similar practice governs the upper management
>jobs.
...will never happen....
Fred Weiss
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:12:12 +0100, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m>
> >> >Say, whatever happened to supply and demand?
>
> >> Still in effect...
>
> >> >Don't workers have the
> >> >right to decide if a job is worth it at the pay,
>
> >> Absolutely
>
> >> >and don't employers
> >> >have to respond to that?
>
> >> well, of course... and if they can't find qualified and acceptable
> >> employees at the wages they offer, they might have to raise the offer.
>
> >....or ship in cheap immigrant workers.or export the jobs to a lower cost
> >country.
>
> Competition is really tough on you losers.... here's a clue for
> you... if the competition for you job consists of unskilled
> foreigners, perhaps you screwed up somewhere...
Not necessarily. The cost differential might be so substantial that
you cannot compete with it no matter how good you are.
Brique's error here is not that. It is his not realizing the enormous
benefit to us of the lower costs, which means higher profits and/or
lower prices, which means capital available for new investments. This
is why, despite all of the supposed horrors of out-sourcing and
illegal immigration, that unemployment remains low and that overall
(real) wages are unaffected. Plenty of opportunities abound - and
plenty of good ones. It's just that the mix and nature of them will
change.
> >I await the day when similar practice governs the upper management
> >jobs.
>
> ...will never happen.... >> --
Oh, but it does, though perhaps more indirectly. Companies that can't
compete in the new, ever more global economy will get bought up and/or
go out of business. That effects upper management jobs as much if not
more than workers.
Fred Weiss
3472 Dead
wrote:
>On May 31, 6:20 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
Just one question for the capitalist contingient here, Fred: if
workers are all making $1.50 an hour so you can compete with the
Chinese, who is going to buy your stuff?
>
>> >I await the day when similar practice governs the upper management
>> >jobs.
>>
>> ...will never happen.... >> --
>
>Oh, but it does, though perhaps more indirectly. Companies that can't
>compete in the new, ever more global economy will get bought up and/or
>go out of business. That effects upper management jobs as much if not
>more than workers.
>
>Fred Weiss
--
"I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States
attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney."
--Alberto Gonzales, committing perjury before Congress
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Michael Ejercito
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:12:12 +0100, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message
> >news:8mvr53t66i0tb2ic0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:06:09 GMT, 3464Dead
> >> <22113464D...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Say, whatever happened to supply and demand?
>
> >> Still in effect...
>
> >> >Don't workers have the
> >> >right to decide if a job is worth it at the pay,
>
> >> Absolutely
>
> >> >and don't employers
> >> >have to respond to that?
>
> >> well, of course... and if they can't find qualified and acceptable
> >> employees at the wages they offer, they might have to raise the offer.
>
> >....or ship in cheap immigrant workers.or export the jobs to a lower cost
> >country.
>
> Competition is really tough on you losers.... here's a clue for
> you... if the competition for you job consists of unskilled
> foreigners, perhaps you screwed up somewhere...
>
dollars are not competing with unskilled foreigners?
Michael
brique
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:12:12 +0100, "brique" <briqu...@freeuk.c0m>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Steve <steven...@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message
> >news:8mvr53t66i0tb2ic0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:06:09 GMT, 3464Dead
> >> <221134...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Say, whatever happened to supply and demand?
> >>
> >> Still in effect...
> >>
> >> >Don't workers have the
> >> >right to decide if a job is worth it at the pay,
> >>
> >> Absolutely
> >>
> >> >and don't employers
> >> >have to respond to that?
> >>
> >> well, of course... and if they can't find qualified and acceptable
> >> employees at the wages they offer, they might have to raise the offer.
> >
> >....or ship in cheap immigrant workers.or export the jobs to a lower cost
> >country.
>
> Competition is really tough on you losers.... here's a clue for
> you... if the competition for you job consists of unskilled
> foreigners, perhaps you screwed up somewhere...
Not really, it's a bit hard to out-source para-medics to a third world
country.... seems the response times are not adequate enough.... still, they
are probably working on that even as we speak....
>
> >I await the day when similar practice governs the upper management
> >jobs.
>
> ...will never happen....
of course not, not even the most zealous upper mnagement will outsource
their own jobs or suggest taking a pay-cut because there is a vietnamese
business college graduate who will do the same job for less......
brique
Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:1180620731.0...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Your error is assuming that lower costs in themselves are a 'good thing'
regardless of how they are achieved. Not even Henry Ford fell for that one.
Currently, a major credit boom is funding purchase of these 'cheap'
commodities in developed nations. Indeed, the US state is funding itself on
cheap credit at the moment, courtesy of the producers of these 'cheap'
commodities.
What will happen when the credit runs out is going to be an interesting
spectacle. At the least the producers of these 'cheap' commodities will
start selling them to other , more liquid, customers and instead start
demanding the debts get paid before anymore are allocated to those customers
in default.
Meanwhile the errant purchasers will now discover they haven't got the
infrastructure left in place to produce the items at any price and worse,
they don't have the capital to build it, all the money is going to service
the debts, both personal and national.
Of course, individuals and state could both just default and refuse to
servcie the debt, but that will do little for their future
credit-worthiness.
Ford noted that if his own workers couldn't afford to buy his products, then
whose workers could? And if such was the posiiton, then where was the market
for the products of his new efficient, intensive production process? Mass
production requires a mass market, after all.
if your economy is built on exporting all that production, as in China, then
it doesn't matter that much if the mass of the local populace dont earn
enough to pay for them. But if your economy is based on home consumption
then it helps enormously if the populace actually earn enough to buy the
goods and keep that economy solvent.
>
> > >I await the day when similar practice governs the upper management
> > >jobs.
> >
> > ...will never happen.... >> --
>
> Oh, but it does, though perhaps more indirectly. Companies that can't
> compete in the new, ever more global economy will get bought up and/or
> go out of business. That effects upper management jobs as much if not
> more than workers.
here are two statements often heard from british business leaders :
1/ Companies have to pay workers low wages because overseas competitors pay
theirs less....
2/ Companies have to pay managers high salaries because overseas competitors
pay theirs more....
> Fred Weiss
>
Fred Weiss
> Just one question for the capitalist contingient here, Fred: if
> workers are all making $1.50 an hour so you can compete with the
> Chinese, who is going to buy your stuff?
Why would you want to compete with them?
As far as I can tell, no American company is even bothering to try
with American labor. The cost differential is too vast.
The question you should be asking is: if it is such a problem why
aren't wages going down in the US or why isn't unemployment going up?
In fact, there are many sectors where there is a shortage of labor in
the US, i.e. where employers would be happy to pay $10, 15/hr or more,
but they can't find competent help.
Also, do you know of any business - e.g. supermarket, fast food
restaurant, Wal-Mart - paying at or close to the US minimum wage which
doesn't have a sign in its window that they are hiring?
Why should I have to bring these simple facts to your attention? All
you have to do is look and its right in front of your eyes or by
opening the business section of any newspaper or Internet site.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Your error is assuming that lower costs in themselves are a 'good thing'
> regardless of how they are achieved.
I never said they were.
> Currently, a major credit boom is funding purchase of these 'cheap'
> commodities in developed nations... What will happen when the credit runs out > is going to be an interesting spectacle.
Apparently you don't realize that the US has been running a "trade
deficit" for decades. One would think that "the credit" would have
"run out" by now, if there was some problem with it.
I don't think it's the credit of the US that you have to worry about.
The rest of your comments in this regard are just "nightmare
fantasies". You can concoct an endless number of them going in any
direction and in regard to any issue you please. It's the stock in
trade of conspiracy theorists and "chicken littles" and they've been
doing it for a long time.
Remember Malthus and his predictions of mass starvation? Or that we've
been running out of oil (for the last 150 years).
I'm not saying the US is invulnerable. But I can think of far more
important things to worry about - like imminent socialized medicine.
> Ford noted that if his own workers couldn't afford to buy his products, then
> whose workers could?
Maybe that's why he drastically lowered the price of his cars and
raised the wages of his workers (getting the best workers as a result)
- and made a fortune in the process.
Besides, what's your point? The average American worker's home now is
filled to overflowing with mass produced goods from TV's to clock
radios. They obviously can afford them. The company you socialists
most love-to-hate - Wal-Mart - wouldn't be the largest retailer in the
world if that weren't the case.
Fred Weiss
Steve
I am!
the dumbass lefties can't understand that its only the dumbest workers
that are going to get replaced by cheap unskilled foreigners.
Steve
wrote:
Like I said... people with god job skills will never have to worry
about being replaced with cheap immigrant workers.
>> >I await the day when similar practice governs the upper management
>> >jobs.
>>
>> ...will never happen....
>
>of course not, not even the most zealous upper mnagement will outsource
>their own jobs or suggest taking a pay-cut because there is a vietnamese
>business college graduate who will do the same job for less......
>
--
milt....@gmail.com
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:02:30 GMT, 3472 Dead
>
>
>
> >On 31 May 2007 07:12:11 -0700, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com>
Do you ENJOY the fact that people think you're the dumbest fuck on
Usenet or what?
What you don't understand, you idiot, is that this country is running
pretty much exclusively on borrowed money now, and the more fucking
jobs your "genius" fucktards in the boardroom shoot overseas, the
greater our debt becomes, and the deeper the hole gets.
Do you GET that the bottom-level jobs are the most important in the
economy? Someone could shoot the entire board of McDonalds right now,
and the company wouldn't miss a beat. But if every fry guy in the
company walkd out tomorrow, they'd be fucked. Janitors and garbage men
are far more important to our economy than any CEO anywhere, and we're
seeing the results of right wing stupidity. For Chrissakes, what does
it take for you retards to figure out that you have fucked this
economy for generations with that attitude.
Please explain how it's intelligent economically, to shut millions of
people out of the workforce and depress wages, in an economy that is
entirely dependent on consumption? Why are you people so fucking
stupid to get that American manufacturing is on life support, and
being able to buy a Chinese-made spatula for a buck at Wal-Mart
actually weakens our economy? At what point does someone figure out
that an economy without a foundation crumbles, and we're selling off
our foundation?
And on a basic business/econ 101 level, do you understand that what
you've described in this thread is the OPPOSITE of competition?
Probably not. You know as much about this as you know about margin
trading and the First Amendment. Why don't you tell us all about IP
addresses while you're at it?
There really is no greater dumbass on Usenet.
Fred Weiss
> ...Someone could shoot the entire board of McDonalds right now,
> and the company wouldn't miss a beat.
You know, this was the basic idea behind communism - get rid of all of
those worthless "exploiters" who "don't do anything" and then there
would be a "worker's paradise".
Far be it for me to bore you with the actual facts of what happened
instead.
> But if every fry guy in the company walkd out tomorrow, they'd be fucked.
Well, sure, except they could replace 'em all in a matter of days
without skipping a beat. In fact they do it all the time. McDonalds
has - I would guess - several 100% turnover every year in those
posiitons.
>Janitors and garbage men
> are far more important to our economy than any CEO anywhere, ...
It's kinda curious then why all of those janitors and garbage men
don't become CEO's.
> .... Why are you people so fucking
> stupid to get that American manufacturing is on life support, ...
Manufacturing as a percent of GDP has been steadily declining in the
US for decades. This may surprise you, genius, but it now represents
only about 12% of GDP. But GDP in the US keeps climbing.
We must be doing something else.
Ya think?
>... being able to buy a Chinese-made spatula for a buck at Wal-Mart
> actually weakens our economy?
And how does buying a product for less weaken our economy? (I've seen
estimates that Wal-Mart saves their average customer about $2,000/yr.
Maybe that's why all of those McDonald's fry guys and all those
janitors and garbage men flock to Wal-Mart's in droves).
> There really is no greater dumbass on Usenet.
I presume when you said that you were looking in the mirror.
Fred Weiss
brique
> On May 31, 1:15 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>
> > Your error is assuming that lower costs in themselves are a 'good thing'
> > regardless of how they are achieved.
>
> I never said they were.
>
> > Currently, a major credit boom is funding purchase of these 'cheap'
> > commodities in developed nations... What will happen when the credit
runs out > is going to be an interesting spectacle.
>
> Apparently you don't realize that the US has been running a "trade
> deficit" for decades. One would think that "the credit" would have
> "run out" by now, if there was some problem with it.
yep, and financing it from internal production and export trading.... but
you have been closing down or selling off your production capacities
wholesale for the last two decades. Who is the biggest car maker in the USA
now? And do the profit dollars stay in the USA or go home eastwards? if they
stay, they just buy up the remainder of your economy, if they go home, they
compete for the oil and resources you need......
>
> I don't think it's the credit of the US that you have to worry about.
>
> The rest of your comments in this regard are just "nightmare
> fantasies". You can concoct an endless number of them going in any
> direction and in regard to any issue you please. It's the stock in
> trade of conspiracy theorists and "chicken littles" and they've been
> doing it for a long time.
>
> Remember Malthus and his predictions of mass starvation? Or that we've
> been running out of oil (for the last 150 years).
I think Malthus was correct on the basic theory but in error on how humanity
would respond. He seems to have assumed an even distribution of food across
the population, whereas the reality is that some remain well-fed whilst
whole regions are mal-nourished and suffer regular population depradation
due to that malnourishment, apart from the headline-making famines you might
have noticed flicking across your 1,999 channels of entertainment....
As ever, we do seem able to off-load the burdens of civilisation rather
neatly onto others whilst keeping the benefits strictly rationed to the
favored few. Thus we can gaze out across our lawns at our new cars in our
two-and-a-half garage whislt eating our breakfast and we can _know_ that all
is well with the world....
Oil is a finite resource : there is X amount of it. Once you start
exploiting those reserves you are, by definition, 'running out of it'. The
scientific debate has been about when, not if, the oil runs out. _Your_
debate has been about denial. Current estimates, from the oil companies
themselves no less, are ranged around 2025 as the point at which production
start to inevitably fall. As consumption is increasing, it doesn'ttake much
math to work out that increased consumption of a declining resource
accelerates the day when, literally, it 'runs out'.
But for most of us, it will have 'run out' long before then, first price
pressures and then government rationing to preserve supplies for military
and vital services will pre-empt the last drop being drained.
>
> I'm not saying the US is invulnerable. But I can think of far more
> important things to worry about - like imminent socialized medicine.
>
> > Ford noted that if his own workers couldn't afford to buy his products,
then
> > whose workers could?
>
> Maybe that's why he drastically lowered the price of his cars and
> raised the wages of his workers (getting the best workers as a result)
> - and made a fortune in the process.
>
> Besides, what's your point? The average American worker's home now is
> filled to overflowing with mass produced goods from TV's to clock
> radios. They obviously can afford them. The company you socialists
> most love-to-hate - Wal-Mart - wouldn't be the largest retailer in the
> world if that weren't the case.
Grow-up Fred..... everyone who dis-agrees with you is not necessarily a
'socialist'.
Yep, the homes are filled with consumer goodies, produced abroad and paid
for with credit cards. That can make for a nice booming economy, but not
forever. It suits business, for business is not about forever, its about
profit today and happy stockholders today. Come the fall, there will be
businessmen making money out of that too, debt consolidation, liquidation
sales, bailiffs, auctioneers, bankruptcy advisors, litigators, etc.......
The musical chairs of 'success' will rotate and lo, every in the garden view
will be lovely once more, it just that a different arse will be sititng
looking out over it..... probably chinese....
>
> Fred Weiss
>
brique
The skills are irelevant.... I know countless highly skilled people who are
unemployable. It's whether the economy as structured wants to employ those
skills. That is what decides the skill level of the 'job' and the rate
paid. Para-medics have gone from cheap 'scoop-and-run' van drivers to highly
trained and expensively equipped practitioners.
It would only take a simple financial calculation to decide cheap
'scoop-and-run' is more viable than expensive para-medics and lo, back to
the fifties we would rush, helter skelter lauding the brave advance we have
made......
Your theory will last a about as long as 'your' job skills are valued...
then you may change your opinion.
brique
Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:1180665975....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The current US deficit will cost each US family $2000 a year in servicing
charges...
Well, you could call that a balanced economy.... I suppose.....
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> That's from "Milt.Shook" who pathetically created a sock
puppet
named Biff to reply to his own posts, but stupidly used the same IP
address..
..then even more stupidly claimed that everybody in hs neighborhood
had
the same IP address... See below...
"I'm not Milt Shook"
-- Milt Shook pretending to be "Biff
and replying to his own post.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/56c2899fdc3376e3?output=gplain
Header lines from "Biff's post:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.55.111.77
X-Complaints-To: a...@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
Header lines from "Milt.Shook's" post:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.55.111.77
X-Complaints-To: a...@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Odidnf_Se7ME51PdRVn-hQ%40comcast.co...
Below is "Shook's" <LOL> explanation...
"If you knew anything about Comcast, you'd
know that everyone who posts from the same geographical area
will have the same IP address, unless they pay twice as much."
"Milt.Shook"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/1c0c985824dcbbd8?hl=en&
Steve
wrote:
That's included in what I meant when I said good job skills.... it's
obvious that somebody who is really highly skilled at making buggy
whips might have limited employment opportunities. Part of getting
good job skills includes picking ones that are in demand and shall
continue to be in demand.
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> > And how does buying a product for less weaken our economy? (I've seen
> > estimates that Wal-Mart saves their average customer about $2,000/yr.
> > Maybe that's why all of those McDonald's fry guys and all those
> > janitors and garbage men flock to Wal-Mart's in droves).
>
> The current US deficit will cost each US family $2000 a year in servicing
> charges...
If you are referring to the (interest) cost of servicing the total
Federal debt (which is a different number than the "deficit"), you may
be right - altho' the way you put it as "cost each family" is somewhat
misleading. I assume you realize that the top 5% of taxpayers
(calculated by adjusted gross income) paid over 50% of total Federal
income taxes. The top 25% paid over 80%. So the actual cost to "each
US family" is considerably less than you are suggesting.
Also, I assume that a much smaller percent of these particular
taxpayers shop at Wal-Mart, so there is a considerable lack of
symmetry to the point you are trying to make.
Furthermore any average taxpayer who holds $10-20K of gov't bonds or
CD's is *collecting* interest payments from the Federal gov't and,
depending on their own tax bill, might actually be receiving a * net
income* from the Federal gov't vs. whatever % of their own tax bills
goes to debt servicing. Certainly anyone receiving Social Security,
Medicare, Disability or any other substantial payments from the
Federal gov't is likely receiving such net payments.
However, all that said, I sympathize with your point. Also, I'm sure
you agree that it is patently unfair for such a small % of taxpayers
to be paying such a disproportionate amount of the total tax receipts.
The solution to that of course is eliminating the progressivity of
taxes and replacing it with a flat tax. This would have great benefit
to the economy - and very likely tax compliance and receipts - as I'm
sure you know.
But the real solution of course is a massive reduction in Federal
spending, including a phasing out of Social Security and Medicare.
Then, viola, as the Federal debt is eliminated we hand each of your
"US families" a $2,000 per annum gift in reduced taxes. Then between
reduced taxes and Wal-Mart's cost cutting efforts (not to mention
other American companies paying $1/hr to Chinese workers) we hand each
American family thousands upon thousands of dollars of reduced annual
costs.
Wouldn't that be grand?
Not to mention all those jobs we are giving the Chinese.
So, everyone benefits!! What could be better?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> > Apparently you don't realize that the US has been running a "trade
> > deficit" for decades. One would think that "the credit" would have
> > "run out" by now, if there was some problem with it.
>
> yep, and financing it from internal production and export trading.... but
> you have been closing down or selling off your production capacities
> wholesale for the last two decades. Who is the biggest car maker in the USA
> now? And do the profit dollars stay in the USA or go home eastwards? if they
> stay, they just buy up the remainder of your economy, if they go home, they
> compete for the oil and resources you need......
Brique, my dear fellow, I hate to think you are losing sleep over
these delusional economic nightmares of yours. I recommend a good dose
of basic economics before you go to bed and calling me in the
morning.
You do remember, I assume, all the nightmares of how the Japanese were
"buying up" our economy in the 1980's and early 1990's and that soon
we would all be working for them - the nightmare in that instance
being that this time the Japanese would actually succeed in invading
the US and conquering it - and without firing a shot. (As it turned
out the Japanese economy imploded and their economy went into a 10yr
recession which they are just now barely recovering from).
I see you, too, have night terrors about the lose of our "production
capabilities". As I mentioned to the other gentlemen with similar
symptoms, manufacturing now represents only about 12% of our GDP. Why
doesn't it occur to you to think how we are managing to do so nicely
despite that - not to mention all that reduced pollution which the
Chinese are choking on instead of us (while graciously producing all
of the same things we used to at a small fraction of the cost. Think
about it, how cool is that)?
> > Remember Malthus and his predictions of mass starvation? Or that we've
> > been running out of oil (for the last 150 years).
>
> I think Malthus was correct on the basic theory but in error on how humanity
> would respond. He seems to have assumed an even distribution of food across
> the population, whereas the reality is that some remain well-fed whilst
> whole regions are mal-nourished and suffer regular population depradation
> due to that malnourishment, apart from the headline-making famines you might
> have noticed flicking across your 1,999 channels of entertainment....
But, my dear Brique, it has nothing whatever to do with
"distribution". It has to do with the vast improvements in
agricultural productivity which have resulted from the applications of
ever more technology to farming - both in chemicals and equipment and
knowledge of plant genetics. That productivity has in fact gotten so
huge that it probably wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration that 3-4
of our states (such as Georgia, Iowa, etc) farming full-out could
comfortably feed the entire world.
I don't have the exact number but I've heard figures like productivity
per acre increased 100fold or more in the 20th Cent. That's why only
3million farmers today in the US can actually produce more food than
the 50 million farmers in 1900. Also food expense as a percent of
total income has dropped dramatically. How big a deal is a "chicken in
every pot" now in the US?
All of those grossly obese New Orleans women that the poor helicopters
strained to lift out of the Katrina aftermath, were obviously not
exactly starving - and I think one could safely say that their body
weight vastly exceeded their IQ's by a factor of at least 2 or 3.
Furthermore their massive girths were apparently mostly achieved with
modest welfare checks. Talk about living off the fat of the land!!
Not that these women are particularly unique, black or white. We are
perhaps the first civilization in history which has had obesity as a
supposed national "crisis".
Of course there are people starving in other parts of the world - and
who are unable to stuff themselves at the US welfare trough. However,
if you would stop wringing your hands and instead get behind some
effort to bring those people a better knowledge of the connection
between economic freedom and wealth, you would do them much good - and
I might add fairly quickly. So much so that they, too, might soon have
obesity as their national crisis as we do. But of course that
presupposes that you yourself have some grasp of the connection
between economic freedom and wealth which unfortunately you don't.
Hence your chronic nightmares, poor lad.
> ...we can gaze out across our lawns at our new cars in our
> two-and-a-half garage whislt eating our breakfast and we can _know_ that all
> is well with the world....
But it is my good fellow. All it takes is grasping *why* that is the
case here and not elsewhere.
Basic economics once again.
> Oil is a finite resource : there is X amount of it.
The total proven reserves of which somehow mysteriously though never
dropping, even with steadily increasing consumption.
Why is that?
(Basic economics, again).
> Grow-up Fred..... everyone who dis-agrees with you is not necessarily a
> 'socialist'.
I don't know what you are but you are obviously suffering needlessly.
If I can help in any way just let me know.
Fred Weiss
brique
You are too unambitous.... think of the vast tax dollars that could be
returned if you also dismantle the socialized penal, policing, military and
science systems. Why are tens of thousands of heartland taxpayers funding
the Coastguard? Or Washington staters funding hurricane watch and research?
Come on, don't adopt such half-measures as you have proposed so far. Dump
the whole shebang!
>
> Fred Weiss
>
>
brique
> On Jun 1, 12:49 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Apparently you don't realize that the US has been running a "trade
> > > deficit" for decades. One would think that "the credit" would have
> > > "run out" by now, if there was some problem with it.
> >
> > yep, and financing it from internal production and export trading....
but
> > you have been closing down or selling off your production capacities
> > wholesale for the last two decades. Who is the biggest car maker in the
USA
> > now? And do the profit dollars stay in the USA or go home eastwards? if
they
> > stay, they just buy up the remainder of your economy, if they go home,
they
> > compete for the oil and resources you need......
>
> Brique, my dear fellow, I hate to think you are losing sleep over
> these delusional economic nightmares of yours. I recommend a good dose
> of basic economics before you go to bed and calling me in the
> morning.
You can't get more basic than the reality that if you spend more than you
have got this week you have less to spend next week due to repaying the loan
you took out to spend more last week.
What then for your consumption led economy when all the consumers are
servicing their credit cards debt instead of buying your goods?
It's a false economy, its the appearance of a robust demand which will only
last as long as the credit keeps flowing. Once that flow of extra
discretionary spending power is turned off the demand will drop like a
stone.
>
> You do remember, I assume, all the nightmares of how the Japanese were
> "buying up" our economy in the 1980's and early 1990's and that soon
> we would all be working for them - the nightmare in that instance
> being that this time the Japanese would actually succeed in invading
> the US and conquering it - and without firing a shot. (As it turned
> out the Japanese economy imploded and their economy went into a 10yr
> recession which they are just now barely recovering from).
I recall it well, the Japaneses over-played their hand and took a bath. So
what, you thinkt he chinese will ignore that lesson of history? You seem to
be overly reliant on history repeatign itself as favorably in the future.
>
> I see you, too, have night terrors about the lose of our "production
> capabilities". As I mentioned to the other gentlemen with similar
> symptoms, manufacturing now represents only about 12% of our GDP. Why
> doesn't it occur to you to think how we are managing to do so nicely
> despite that - not to mention all that reduced pollution which the
> Chinese are choking on instead of us (while graciously producing all
> of the same things we used to at a small fraction of the cost. Think
> about it, how cool is that)?
The Roman Empire did very nicely on even less domestic production than that.
All the way up until the cheap foreign imports stopped flowing. That was
because some other empire-builders diverted them towards their domestic
economy.
>
> > > Remember Malthus and his predictions of mass starvation? Or that we've
> > > been running out of oil (for the last 150 years).
> >
> > I think Malthus was correct on the basic theory but in error on how
humanity
> > would respond. He seems to have assumed an even distribution of food
across
> > the population, whereas the reality is that some remain well-fed whilst
> > whole regions are mal-nourished and suffer regular population
depradation
> > due to that malnourishment, apart from the headline-making famines you
might
> > have noticed flicking across your 1,999 channels of entertainment....
>
> But, my dear Brique, it has nothing whatever to do with
> "distribution". It has to do with the vast improvements in
> agricultural productivity which have resulted from the applications of
> ever more technology to farming - both in chemicals and equipment and
> knowledge of plant genetics. That productivity has in fact gotten so
> huge that it probably wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration that 3-4
> of our states (such as Georgia, Iowa, etc) farming full-out could
> comfortably feed the entire world.
But they don't, do they? Now, why is that?
>
> I don't have the exact number but I've heard figures like productivity
> per acre increased 100fold or more in the 20th Cent. That's why only
> 3million farmers today in the US can actually produce more food than
> the 50 million farmers in 1900. Also food expense as a percent of
> total income has dropped dramatically. How big a deal is a "chicken in
> every pot" now in the US?
>
> All of those grossly obese New Orleans women that the poor helicopters
> strained to lift out of the Katrina aftermath, were obviously not
> exactly starving - and I think one could safely say that their body
> weight vastly exceeded their IQ's by a factor of at least 2 or 3.
> Furthermore their massive girths were apparently mostly achieved with
> modest welfare checks. Talk about living off the fat of the land!!
>
> Not that these women are particularly unique, black or white. We are
> perhaps the first civilization in history which has had obesity as a
> supposed national "crisis".
Do you know where the word 'dole' comes from? It's from the Roman Empire,
and it described the free wine, oil and grain distributed to any citizen who
turned up to claim it. The empire could do this because it imported all
these items at very low cost from its overseas holdings. needless to say,
the overseas holdings producing this bounty didn't get to claim any of it
but rarely complained as such complaints were generally met by a few legions
come to explain the small print of deal.
But when the empire contracted, due to all that foreign competition, the
cost of maintaing the 'dole' grew horrendous but it could not be halted, the
citizenry would have got rather pissed off. But end it did and the citizenry
got pissed off and in no time at all, the Greatest Empire of its age, the
mightiest military machine to have tramped across a continent or two, was so
much memory and dust.
>
> Of course there are people starving in other parts of the world - and
> who are unable to stuff themselves at the US welfare trough. However,
> if you would stop wringing your hands and instead get behind some
> effort to bring those people a better knowledge of the connection
> between economic freedom and wealth, you would do them much good - and
> I might add fairly quickly. So much so that they, too, might soon have
> obesity as their national crisis as we do. But of course that
> presupposes that you yourself have some grasp of the connection
> between economic freedom and wealth which unfortunately you don't.
I see the connection quite clearly, economic freedom for some, wealth for
fewer.
It 'works' as long as the few can maintian power, domestically it political
power, internationally its military power.
Consider this, just what has the Iraq debacle done for the international
perception of US military might?
Just who is going to be scared of the USA on that evidence? Well, looking at
Iran and N Korea, its become obvious that people have noticed the inability
of the US to militarily have their own way.
Sure, it can blow stuff to smithereens, but it can't hold and secure
anything.
Much the same happened to Rome, once the Vandals arrived at the gates the
myth of great power was lost and suddenly everyone decided that, thanks for
all the fish, but adios, we'll take it from here..
>
> Hence your chronic nightmares, poor lad.
Oh, dont worry, I don't have nightmares. The total destruction of the
capitalist economic system is hardly the stuff of nightmares.
>
> > ...we can gaze out across our lawns at our new cars in our
> > two-and-a-half garage whislt eating our breakfast and we can _know_ that
all
> > is well with the world....
>
> But it is my good fellow. All it takes is grasping *why* that is the
> case here and not elsewhere.
>
> Basic economics once again.
Nope, all is good in your little world, the limited horizons you gaze upon
and, like a fool, you assume the eden stretches to infinity. It doesn't.
>
> > Oil is a finite resource : there is X amount of it.
>
> The total proven reserves of which somehow mysteriously though never
> dropping, even with steadily increasing consumption.
>
> Why is that?
>
> (Basic economics, again).
You cant seriously be suggesting that the earth is somehow producing more
oil? There is X amount. That's it. It got made a long time ago under
specific geological circumstance and there is not any more than that. The
reserves grow as more is found, true. that doesn';t mean there is even more
to be found, rather, the reverse. The new reserves are being found in the
last places left to look for it, the most inhospitable places, the hardest
places to build the systems to extract it from. The most expensive places to
exploit.
'Reserves' means oil they have found. Period. It does not mean it can be
extracted economically. It does not mean it can be extracted in viable
amounts at any cost. It just means it is there.
> > Grow-up Fred..... everyone who dis-agrees with you is not necessarily a
> > 'socialist'.
>
> I don't know what you are but you are obviously suffering needlessly.
>
> If I can help in any way just let me know.
Oh don't worry, you and those like you are merrily accelerating the downfall
of the economic system you favor.... carry on.
>
> Fred Weiss
>
Fred Weiss
> You are too unambitous.... think of the vast tax dollars that could be
> returned if you also dismantle the socialized penal, policing, military and
> science systems. Why are tens of thousands of heartland taxpayers funding
> the Coastguard? Or Washington staters funding hurricane watch and research?
> Come on, don't adopt such half-measures as you have proposed so far. Dump
> the whole shebang!
Actually considerable savings could be realized in these areas as well
- such as releasing all prisoners who have been convicted of
"victimless" crimes such as drug use. If the whole stupid (and
ineffective) "war on drugs" were stopped it would also release police
resources to protect us against real crimes.
However, the courts, police, and military are the one and only
legitimate and proper function of gov't so we cannot "dump the whole
shebang" as you so eloquently put it.
But eliminating the rest which is 70-80% of it would constitute a
substantial savings and end a huge drain on the economy. It would
certainly make it possible to eliminate the national debt fairly
quickly and thus the costs of servicing that debt which so concerns
you.
And since you worry about so many things needlessly I was hopeful that
this would at least reduce your worries in this one area.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> What then for your consumption led economy when all the consumers are
> servicing their credit cards debt instead of buying your goods?
> It's a false economy, its the appearance of a robust demand which will only
> last as long as the credit keeps flowing. Once that flow of extra
> discretionary spending power is turned off the demand will drop like a
> stone.
We seem to be jumping from one delusional nightmare to another. First
it was the national debt. Now it is consumer debt.
Credit issuing companies, e.g. credit card companies, banks, etc., are
quite aware of the problem you mention and adjust their practices
accordingly, both in terms of their approvals and the interest rates
they charge. For example, consumers who use credit card debt
excessively pay exorbitant interest rates which should discourage all
but the most profligate from running up the amounts they owe. Mortgage
companies which are too lax in approving loans will experience a large
number of defaults, as has happened recently. A number of these
companies have now gone out of business.
In other words the market makes the necessary adjustments and the
various factors will ebb and flow between credit laxity and tightness,
higher or lower interest rates accordingly, etc.
So, Brique, "Stop worrying and be happy". :-)
> I recall it well, the Japaneses over-played their hand and took a bath. So
> what, you thinkt he chinese will ignore that lesson of history?
Most probably. Judging from their over-heated stock market it looks
highly likely at this point. Personally, I think it's already gone
well past the point where they can have any reasonable expectation of
a "soft landing". But I don't claim any special powers of foreseeing
the future as it pertains to the financial markets.
If I were that schmart, I'd be rich. :-)
> > ... productivity has in fact gotten so
> > huge that it probably wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration that 3-4
> > of our states (such as Georgia, Iowa, etc) farming full-out could
> > comfortably feed the entire world.
>
> But they don't, do they? Now, why is that?
Protectionism. Which of course cuts both ways. We have it, too, to
keep out cheap agricultural products. We should let the free market
settle the matter and find out who can produce what most cheaply and
in sufficient qusntities.
If that were to happen your Malthusian fears would evaporate fairly
quickly.
> Do you know where the word 'dole' comes from? It's from the Roman Empire,
Just goes to show, Brique, that we shouldn't have a dole.
Notice in New Orleans how the great outcry was how these people
weren't rescued fast enough - as if the world exists to pull them out
of the messes of their own creation and the consequences of their own
incompetence.
> I see the connection quite clearly, economic freedom for some, wealth for
> fewer.
I don't know what you think you are "seeing". Who said anything about
economic freedom "for some"?
In fact, economic freedom to the extent it has existed and been
practised has produced vast wealth and improvements in the standard of
living of all segments of societies down to the poorest.
>... all is good in your little world, the limited horizons you gaze upon
> and, like a fool, you assume the eden stretches to infinity. It doesn't.
I didn't say it does. I said it could.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> > > Oil is a finite resource : there is X amount of it.
>
> > The total proven reserves of which somehow mysteriously though never
> > dropping, even with steadily increasing consumption.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> > (Basic economics, again).
>
> You cant seriously be suggesting that the earth is somehow producing more
> oil? There is X amount. That's it. It got made a long time ago under
> specific geological circumstance and there is not any more than that. The
> reserves grow as more is found, true. that doesn';t mean there is even more
> to be found, rather, the reverse. The new reserves are being found in the
> last places left to look for it, the most inhospitable places, the hardest
> places to build the systems to extract it from. The most expensive places to
> exploit.
>
> 'Reserves' means oil they have found. Period. It does not mean it can be
> extracted economically. It does not mean it can be extracted in viable
> amounts at any cost. It just means it is there.
I could be wrong about this but actually I think "reserves" does mean
"capable of being extracted economically" by current technology. The
point is that technology keeps improving and we are in fact able to
extract that harder to get at oil. Much of that is the case with oil
in the Gulf of Mexico for example.
However there is still a lot of relatively easy-to-get-at oil. The
problem is politics. The oil companies were quite willing to spend the
billions - maybe even 10's of billions - necessary to get the oil out
of ANWR. But we can't disturb the caribou, can we?
That aside, the technology now does exist to get at oil from tar
sands and at current oil prices it is my understanding that they are
ramping up at great speed to increase production (most especially in
Canada). The reserves from tar sands oil is vast - at least as much as
the entire Mideast if not more.
Then there is oil from shale.
So, once again, my dear Brique, "don't worry be happy".
> ...you and those like you are merrily accelerating the downfall
> of the economic system you favor.... carry on.
We'd be happy to. Will you agree to get out of the way and let us do
our work? If you are right that should accelerate it even more which
is apparently what you want. So, how about it?
Fred Weiss
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> and replying to his own post.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/56c2899fdc3...
>
> Header lines from "Biff's post:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.55.111.77
> X-Complaints-To: a...@comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
>
> Header lines from "Milt.Shook's" post:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.55.111.77
> X-Complaints-To: a...@comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Odidnf_Se7ME51PdRVn-hQ%40comcast.co...
>
> Below is "Shook's" <LOL> explanation...
>
> "If you knew anything about Comcast, you'd
> know that everyone who posts from the same geographical area
> will have the same IP address, unless they pay twice as much."
Yep. Definite pattern. Keep it up there, Canyon...
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> the only "pattern" is Shook's ignorance and denials, and now
this
ridiculous paranoia about some mysterious similarity between me and
Rob....
...that the fool cant disclose.. ..and still the little dweeb
hasn't "disclosed"
the mysterious IP address that he claims I used to stalk him....
...all in all, I'd say that Milt is headed towards a much more
concentrated
relationship with the the mental health professionals....
...and I do hope I had some little part in making that happen...
Dan Clore
> And how does buying a product for less weaken our economy? (I've seen
> estimates that Wal-Mart saves their average customer about $2,000/yr.
> Maybe that's why all of those McDonald's fry guys and all those
> janitors and garbage men flock to Wal-Mart's in droves).
I'm guessing that these estimates don't take into account how much in
taxes those customers have to pay for corporate welfare to Wal-Mart. One
study tallied up more than a billion dollars in corporate welfare that
Wal-Mart has received:
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Dan Clore
> Also, do you know of any business - e.g. supermarket, fast food
> restaurant, Wal-Mart - paying at or close to the US minimum wage which
> doesn't have a sign in its window that they are hiring?
Thus demonstrating just how desirable those jobs are.
Steve
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Fred Weiss wrote:
>
>> And how does buying a product for less weaken our economy? (I've seen
>> estimates that Wal-Mart saves their average customer about $2,000/yr.
>> Maybe that's why all of those McDonald's fry guys and all those
>> janitors and garbage men flock to Wal-Mart's in droves).
>
>I'm guessing that these estimates don't take into account how much in
>taxes those customers have to pay for corporate welfare to Wal-Mart. One
>study tallied up more than a billion dollars in corporate welfare that
>Wal-Mart has received:
>
>http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
<ROTFLMAO> "studies" by leftist organizations don't count...
especially when all they have is undocumented rhetoric...
Dan Clore
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:25:38 -0700, Dan Clore
> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Fred Weiss wrote:
>>
>>> And how does buying a product for less weaken our economy? (I've seen
>>> estimates that Wal-Mart saves their average customer about $2,000/yr.
>>> Maybe that's why all of those McDonald's fry guys and all those
>>> janitors and garbage men flock to Wal-Mart's in droves).
>> I'm guessing that these estimates don't take into account how much in
>> taxes those customers have to pay for corporate welfare to Wal-Mart. One
>> study tallied up more than a billion dollars in corporate welfare that
>> Wal-Mart has received:
>>
>> http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
> <ROTFLMAO> "studies" by leftist organizations don't count...
> especially when all they have is undocumented rhetoric...
They provide full documentation of all their claims, as readers who
actually look at the study will find.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Steve
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:25:38 -0700, Dan Clore
>> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>> Fred Weiss wrote:
>>>
>>>> And how does buying a product for less weaken our economy? (I've seen
>>>> estimates that Wal-Mart saves their average customer about $2,000/yr.
>>>> Maybe that's why all of those McDonald's fry guys and all those
>>>> janitors and garbage men flock to Wal-Mart's in droves).
>
>>> I'm guessing that these estimates don't take into account how much in
>>> taxes those customers have to pay for corporate welfare to Wal-Mart. One
>>> study tallied up more than a billion dollars in corporate welfare that
>>> Wal-Mart has received:
>>>
>>> http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
>
>> <ROTFLMAO> "studies" by leftist organizations don't count...
>> especially when all they have is undocumented rhetoric...
>
>They provide full documentation of all their claims, as readers who
>actually look at the study will find.
<OL> no "documentation" except for rhetoric... rhetoric doesn't
count as documentation.
Dan Clore
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:43:23 -0700, Dan Clore
> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:25:38 -0700, Dan Clore
>>> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>>> Fred Weiss wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And how does buying a product for less weaken our economy? (I've seen
>>>>> estimates that Wal-Mart saves their average customer about $2,000/yr.
>>>>> Maybe that's why all of those McDonald's fry guys and all those
>>>>> janitors and garbage men flock to Wal-Mart's in droves).
>>>> I'm guessing that these estimates don't take into account how much in
>>>> taxes those customers have to pay for corporate welfare to Wal-Mart. One
>>>> study tallied up more than a billion dollars in corporate welfare that
>>>> Wal-Mart has received:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
>>> <ROTFLMAO> "studies" by leftist organizations don't count...
>>> especially when all they have is undocumented rhetoric...
>> They provide full documentation of all their claims, as readers who
>> actually look at the study will find.
>
> <OL> no "documentation" except for rhetoric... rhetoric doesn't
> count as documentation.
Did you even look at the study?
Here's an example:
A local offical who worked on a deal involving a Wal-Mart distribution
center in Midway, Tennessee said: "I couldn't believe we were giving
away all this money."
An endnote gives this reference:
Telephone interview with Roger Woolsey, County Attorney of Greene
County, Tennessee, January 15, 2004.
I took that at random.
Steve
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:43:23 -0700, Dan Clore
>> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:25:38 -0700, Dan Clore
>>>> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>>>> Fred Weiss wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And how does buying a product for less weaken our economy? (I've seen
>>>>>> estimates that Wal-Mart saves their average customer about $2,000/yr.
>>>>>> Maybe that's why all of those McDonald's fry guys and all those
>>>>>> janitors and garbage men flock to Wal-Mart's in droves).
>>>>> I'm guessing that these estimates don't take into account how much in
>>>>> taxes those customers have to pay for corporate welfare to Wal-Mart. One
>>>>> study tallied up more than a billion dollars in corporate welfare that
>>>>> Wal-Mart has received:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
>>>> <ROTFLMAO> "studies" by leftist organizations don't count...
>>>> especially when all they have is undocumented rhetoric...
>
>>> They provide full documentation of all their claims, as readers who
>>> actually look at the study will find.
>>
>> <OL> no "documentation" except for rhetoric... rhetoric doesn't
>> count as documentation.
>
>Did you even look at the study?
Yep.... nothing but rhetoric.....
>Here's an example:
>
>A local offical who worked on a deal involving a Wal-Mart distribution
>center in Midway, Tennessee said: "I couldn't believe we were giving
>away all this money."
>
>An endnote gives this reference:
>
>Telephone interview with Roger Woolsey, County Attorney of Greene
>County, Tennessee, January 15, 2004.
>
>I took that at random.
<LOL> ...and that was exactly what I meant by "nothing but
rhetoric." thanks for making my point..
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > And how does buying a product for less weaken our economy? (I've seen
> > estimates that Wal-Mart saves their average customer about $2,000/yr.
> > Maybe that's why all of those McDonald's fry guys and all those
> > janitors and garbage men flock to Wal-Mart's in droves).
>
> I'm guessing that these estimates don't take into account how much in
> taxes those customers have to pay for corporate welfare to Wal-Mart. One
> study tallied up more than a billion dollars in corporate welfare that
> Wal-Mart has received:
Assuming those numbers are even true, that billion dollars comes to
about $5 per average adult American. So would you prefer from here on
that when I refer to the estimates of what Wal-Mart saves its
customers that I deduct the $5 per customer it receives in supposed
"corporate welfare".?
Incidentally, I've seen one estimate that Wal-Mart paid $4 billion in
Federal taxes in 2004. Overall, corporations currently pay about
$300billion in Federal income taxes. I don't know the figures for
state taxes.
Also, "corporate welfare" is a "package-deal" and mostly a smear.
Corporations are definitely beneficiaries of unjustified gov't
programs, e.g. the subsidization of ethanol and other products, tariff
protections, eminent domain etc, but it mostly refers to *tax breaks*
which corporations receive. Tax breaks are almost always a *good
thing*. It is that much less loot that stays in the economy to be used
productively vs. being squandered and wasted by the gov't.
I'm all for corporate tax breaks - as well as individual tax breaks.
The more tax breaks the better. In fact something like an 80% tax
break would be lovely. :-)
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > Also, do you know of any business - e.g. supermarket, fast food
> > restaurant, Wal-Mart - paying at or close to the US minimum wage which
> > doesn't have a sign in its window that they are hiring?
>
> Thus demonstrating just how desirable those jobs are.
Or demonstrating the availability of jobs.
Those jobs are predominantly either entry-level for teenagers or part-
time/supplementary or temporary for adults (while they look for
something better). High turn-over is built into the hiring economics
of those businesses.
I imagine it is justified on the grounds that the training required is
minimal. They are in fact not exactly rocket science.
What do you think someone should be paid for taking orders or bagging
groceries at automated registers? Rhetorical question.
Fred Weiss
brique
> On Jun 1, 11:59 am, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>
> > You are too unambitous.... think of the vast tax dollars that could be
> > returned if you also dismantle the socialized penal, policing, military
and
> > science systems. Why are tens of thousands of heartland taxpayers
funding
> > the Coastguard? Or Washington staters funding hurricane watch and
research?
> > Come on, don't adopt such half-measures as you have proposed so far.
Dump
> > the whole shebang!
>
> Actually considerable savings could be realized in these areas as well
> - such as releasing all prisoners who have been convicted of
> "victimless" crimes such as drug use. If the whole stupid (and
> ineffective) "war on drugs" were stopped it would also release police
> resources to protect us against real crimes.
Again, you are too unambitous.... why are your tax dollars paying to lock up
someone who hasn't harmed you? True, they may have raped, killed, robbed,
mutilated some one else, but that's not your fault so let them pay for it.
>
> However, the courts, police, and military are the one and only
> legitimate and proper function of gov't so we cannot "dump the whole
> shebang" as you so eloquently put it.
Why not? You complain about your tax dollars paying for other folks medicine
and education, why should your tax dollars pay for their security as well?
>
> But eliminating the rest which is 70-80% of it would constitute a
> substantial savings and end a huge drain on the economy. It would
> certainly make it possible to eliminate the national debt fairly
> quickly and thus the costs of servicing that debt which so concerns
> you.
Again, to unambitous,an almost liberal dependency on the state to keep you
safe and warm.
>
> And since you worry about so many things needlessly I was hopeful that
> this would at least reduce your worries in this one area.
I've already told you, I'm not worried. You should be, its your natinal
economy going down the pan.
>
> Fred Weiss
>
>
brique
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:43:23 -0700, Dan Clore
> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
> >Steve wrote:
> >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:25:38 -0700, Dan Clore
> >> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >>> Fred Weiss wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And how does buying a product for less weaken our economy? (I've seen
> >>>> estimates that Wal-Mart saves their average customer about $2,000/yr.
> >>>> Maybe that's why all of those McDonald's fry guys and all those
> >>>> janitors and garbage men flock to Wal-Mart's in droves).
> >
> >>> I'm guessing that these estimates don't take into account how much in
> >>> taxes those customers have to pay for corporate welfare to Wal-Mart.
One
> >>> study tallied up more than a billion dollars in corporate welfare that
> >>> Wal-Mart has received:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/walmart.cfm
> >
> >> <ROTFLMAO> "studies" by leftist organizations don't count...
> >> especially when all they have is undocumented rhetoric...
> >
> >They provide full documentation of all their claims, as readers who
> >actually look at the study will find.
>
> <OL> no "documentation" except for rhetoric... rhetoric doesn't
> count as documentation.
Head > Sand > Bury > Blissful ignorance
brique
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:5cc9odF...@mid.individual.net...
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> > Also, do you know of any business - e.g. supermarket, fast food
> > restaurant, Wal-Mart - paying at or close to the US minimum wage which
> > doesn't have a sign in its window that they are hiring?
>
> Thus demonstrating just how desirable those jobs are.
And how well paid and such immense job-satisfaction is to be found.... why,
nobody ever leaves...
Steve
wrote:
Well dan can pull his head out of the sand anytime.... and yes, his
cite was an example of blissful ignorance.
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> > However, the courts, police, and military are the one and only
> > legitimate and proper function of gov't so we cannot "dump the whole
> > shebang" as you so eloquently put it.
>
> Why not? You complain about your tax dollars paying for other folks medicine
> and education, why should your tax dollars pay for their security as well?
But I'm not paying for "their security". I'm paying for mine. In order
to protect me we need a trained and efficient police force. If a
criminal is indicted we need a court and penal system to handle it. If
the country is invaded, we need an effective military to repel it.
The fundamental issue is not me vs. others. Or, what's good for me vs.
what's good for others. The issue is what we need gov't for. It is
not to redistribute our income. It is to retaliate against the
initiation of force, i.e. crime or foreign invasion.
You may not like that I don't want to contribute to your gall bladder
operation or your children's education, but I am not committing any
moral crime against you. My keeping my money is not an act of force
against you. A hold-up man with a gun to your head is engaged in act
of force against you. Capturing such men is obviously to my interest
because after he's done with you, he could well come after me. I want
such men behind bars not roaming the streets.
Fred Weiss
Dan Clore
> On Jun 2, 12:29 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
>
> to protect me we need a trained and efficient police force. If a
> criminal is indicted we need a court and penal system to handle it. If
> the country is invaded, we need an effective military to repel it.
I'm starting to think that this guy is costing me too much money, and
I'm not sure he's worth it.
Dan Clore
I think you wrote "Sand" when you meant "Ass" (or "Arse", you silly
Brit). This guy apparently has no idea what words like "documentation"
and "rhetoric" mean.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Steve
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
Errrr, documentation is when you have facts and figures to back up you
claim... Rhetoric is when you say that somebody said something....
I'm pretty sure I could find somebody to say that leftists are all
perverts... so would that document it in your eyes?
brique
So, you think the military should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan too?
>
> Fred Weiss
>
brique
Oh no, I was being polite..... if I meant 'arse' I would have written the
following formula:
Head > Insert > Arse > Dumb ignorance....
trouble with us brits..... too damn polite at times.....
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
brique
> On Jun 2, 12:29 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
>
> > > However, the courts, police, and military are the one and only
> > > legitimate and proper function of gov't so we cannot "dump the whole
> > > shebang" as you so eloquently put it.
> >
> > Why not? You complain about your tax dollars paying for other folks
medicine
> > and education, why should your tax dollars pay for their security as
well?
>
> But I'm not paying for "their security". I'm paying for mine. In order
> to protect me we need a trained and efficient police force. If a
> criminal is indicted we need a court and penal system to handle it. If
> the country is invaded, we need an effective military to repel it.
But why should you pay for other peoples security? You dont want to pay for
their health or their education, why should this excuse for the governemnt
to steal tax dollars be permitted?
>
> The fundamental issue is not me vs. others. Or, what's good for me vs.
> what's good for others. The issue is what we need gov't for. It is
> not to redistribute our income. It is to retaliate against the
> initiation of force, i.e. crime or foreign invasion.
Okay, so its okay for them to re-distribute tax dollars in the direction of
munitions suppliers, aircraft builders, missile manufacturers, etc..... just
not in the direction of the citizens whose money is paying for it.....
>
> You may not like that I don't want to contribute to your gall bladder
> operation or your children's education, but I am not committing any
> moral crime against you. My keeping my money is not an act of force
> against you. A hold-up man with a gun to your head is engaged in act
> of force against you. Capturing such men is obviously to my interest
> because after he's done with you, he could well come after me. I want
> such men behind bars not roaming the streets.
But why should I like paying for your security? Not paying for your security
is not a moral crime either. Why should others care if you are murdered,
robbed, raped or otherwise inconvenienced. Look after yourself the same way
you demand that they look after themselves.You don't care about others
health or education, do you? Come on, let's be truly consistent about
things.... you should pay for your health, education, security and
self-defence, why demand that others pay for you?
You are being rather ambiguous, aren't you... government is bad when you
don't want to share the cost of what you think is unecessary for you, but
good when you think others should share the cost of what you do think is
necessary for you.
> Fred Weiss
>
brique
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 12:29 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> >> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> >
> > But I'm not paying for "their security". I'm paying for mine. In order
> > to protect me we need a trained and efficient police force. If a
> > criminal is indicted we need a court and penal system to handle it. If
> > the country is invaded, we need an effective military to repel it.
>
> I'm starting to think that this guy is costing me too much money, and
> I'm not sure he's worth it.
The argument that private enterprise can handle all things much more
efficiently and cheaply seems to have been dropped in favour of governmental
wallet-dipping.. doesn't it?
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Fred Weiss
> So, you think the military should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan too?
And that relates to Wal-Mart and corporate tax breaks how exactly?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> > The fundamental issue is not me vs. others. Or, what's good for me vs.
> > what's good for others. The issue is what we need gov't for. It is
> > not to redistribute our income. It is to retaliate against the
> > initiation of force, i.e. crime or foreign invasion.
>
> Okay, so its okay for them to re-distribute tax dollars in the direction of
> munitions suppliers, aircraft builders, missile manufacturers, etc..... just
> not in the direction of the citizens whose money is paying for it.....
Brique, really, it's hard to motivate me to continue this discussion
with you if you are going to make blatantly stupid comments like this.
If a proper role of the gov't is to defend the country from foreign
invasion it will need the means to accomplish that which will include
munitions, aircraft, missles, etc. etc. It has nothing whatever to do
with "re-distributing" tax dollars, of in effect saying that munitions
makers somehow have a right to or are entitled to my money for some
reason. They are merely supplying a product which is needed and they
are being paid for it. Period.
> But why should I like paying for your security? Not paying for your security
> is not a moral crime either. Why should others care if you are murdered,
> robbed, raped or otherwise inconvenienced. Look after yourself the same way
> you demand that they look after themselves.You don't care about others
> health or education, do you? Come on, let's be truly consistent about
> things.... you should pay for your health, education, security and
> self-defence, why demand that others pay for you?
> You are being rather ambiguous, aren't you... government is bad when you
> don't want to share the cost of what you think is unecessary for you, but
> good when you think others should share the cost of what you do think is
> necessary for you.
I already answered you. I will repeat what I said. Maybe this time
you will actually read and respond to what I say. If you don't, we'll
just end the conversation here.
> But I'm not paying for "their security". I'm paying for mine. In order
> to protect me we need a trained and efficient police force. If a
> criminal is indicted we need a court and penal system to handle it. If
> the country is invaded, we need an effective military to repel it.
> The fundamental issue is not me vs. others. Or, what's good for me vs.
> what's good for others. The issue is what we need gov't for. It is
> not to redistribute our income. It is to retaliate against the
> initiation of force, i.e. crime or foreign invasion.
I'll expand on the point only to this extent so there is even less
justification in your choosing not to respond it. Are you asking, What
if I were so wealthy that I could afford my own private police force
and army, my own personal courts and jails? Then, in that case, why
should I pay for the protection of others when I feel fully protected?
Let them hire their own police and army.
This is anarchism and would quickly result in the collapse of
civilized society. (It is inevitable that private police/armies would
clash and without gov't there would be no means of resolving the
dispute except war.)
Since the issue here is force and the necessity of putting its proper
use under the rule of objective law, it is not comparable to any other
private choice we may make which doesn't violate the rights of others.
So, for example, there is no problem with someone having a personal
physician (if you can afford one). That takes nothing away from anyone
else and doesn't prevent anyone else from enjoying the services of the
many thousands of other physicians available.
So, please, stop making artificial analogies or concocting
implications where none exist.
Fred Weiss
James A. Donald
wrote:
> What you don't understand, you idiot, is that this
> country is running pretty much exclusively on borrowed
> money now, and the more fucking jobs your "genius"
> fucktards in the boardroom shoot overseas, the greater
> our debt becomes, and the deeper the hole gets.
Rather, it is running on capital flight. People who
have money in other countries want to stash their money
in America, often at great personal risk. Ask yourself
why.
The US offers crap interest rates. It is not begging
for money, rather non Americans are ingeniously finding ways to
stuff money into the hands of Americans, despite the
fact that doing so is usually a crime against the state
where the money is coming from.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Fred Weiss
> The argument that private enterprise can handle all things much more
> efficiently and cheaply seems to have been dropped in favour of governmental
> wallet-dipping.. doesn't it?
It's bad enough when Dan makes a stupid, irrelevant comment which I
chose to ignore. Then you have to add your own stupid, irrelevant
comment on top of it?
What does "private enterprise can handle all things much more
efficiently and cheaply" have to do with the issues pertinent to the
need for law which cannot in principle be handled by private
enterprise, even if it could do it "more efficiently and cheaply".
There may be anarchists here, but I am not one of them. The issues
relevant to the basis for law are not primarily questions related to
questions of efficiency and cost. The law should not be bought and
sold and the need for a single body of law applying to everyone
equally precludes any relevance of the principles of competition which
apply to business enterprises.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:12:55 -0700, milt.sh...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > What you don't understand, you idiot, is that this
> > country is running pretty much exclusively on borrowed
> > money now, and the more fucking jobs your "genius"
> > fucktards in the boardroom shoot overseas, the greater
> > our debt becomes, and the deeper the hole gets.
>
> Rather, it is running on capital flight. People who
> have money in other countries want to stash their money
> in America, often at great personal risk. Ask yourself
> why.
>
> The US offers crap interest rates. It is not begging
> for money, rather non Americans are ingeniously finding ways to
> stuff money into the hands of Americans, despite the
> fact that doing so is usually a crime against the state
> where the money is coming from.
As you often do, you make good points here.
Even apart from capital flight, foreigners are sending money here in
the trillions because they consider the US safe. Also, relative to
some other countries, esp. in Europe and Japan, they can get higher
interest rates here. If we were really either now or imminently
"deeply in the hole" interest rates would have to be much higher than
they are now to attract foreign capital.
Incidentally, when this point first came up I poked around a little to
get some more background on it. I found out that US debt is actually a
significantly lower percent of our overall GDP.than in many other
industrialized countries. US debt is high - and should be lowered by
reducing gov't spending - but don't forget how huge the US economy is
either. In other words we can handle it, just as can the average
person who may need 20-30 years to pay off his house mortgage. Some
people might even be able to pay off their mortgage but choose not to
because they would rather invest their money elsewhere and/or they
enjoy the tax deductions in home ownership.
So the amount of debt in and of itself is not necessarily that
important - not if there is sufficient income to service it. (Don't
take this as apologetics for Federal debt or deficit spending which in
fact I oppose and would like to see ended via large cuts in federal
spending).
Fred Weiss
milt....@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > What you don't understand, you idiot, is that this
> > country is running pretty much exclusively on borrowed
> > money now, and the more fucking jobs your "genius"
> > fucktards in the boardroom shoot overseas, the greater
> > our debt becomes, and the deeper the hole gets.
>
> Rather, it is running on capital flight. People who
> have money in other countries want to stash their money
> in America, often at great personal risk. Ask yourself
> why.
>
> The US offers crap interest rates. It is not begging
> for money, rather non Americans are ingeniously finding ways to
> stuff money into the hands of Americans, despite the
> fact that doing so is usually a crime against the state
> where the money is coming from.
>
declining rate for years. In fact, the amount of foreign investment in
the US dropped sharply in 2000, and has never recovered. That, coupled
with the increasing occurrences of US companies moving their money
overseas, and I'm afraid your basic premise is, shall we say, flawed.
You really should stay current... what you're suggesting was the case
twenty years ago, but times have changed. In fact, many countries
aren't even buying the dollar as a hedge any longer; the Euro is
quickly becoming the preferred currency.
It's a slow process, but the time has come to start paying the piper
for about, lessee, 26 1/2 years of abject economic stupidity...
steven...@yahoo.com
Now here's Mit Shook, a middle aged, deeply introvered loser who,
at nearly fifty years old, is still paying off his college loan, is
still living
in a rented apatment, and, by his own admission, is really terrible at
handling money, and yet he thinks *he* is qualified to pass judgement
on the country's economic status....
"if you're standing on the corner, legally handing
out flyers, speaking out against the store in front of which you're
standing, and the owner comes out and takes your fliers and has big
guys remove you from in front of his building, you have the basis for
a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the fact that no
government was involved."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=RsqdnZmLhL5ofAHdRVn-sw%40comcast.com
"say you're standing on a street corner -- and someone else
comes along and interrupts that, then that action can be
seen as a violation of your right to free speech. Note that
I didn't say First Amendment right to free speech."
--Milt Shook Nov 8 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1c0f82e2085adb5e?hl=en&
brique
> On Jun 2, 8:15 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>
> > The argument that private enterprise can handle all things much more
> > efficiently and cheaply seems to have been dropped in favour of
governmental
> > wallet-dipping.. doesn't it?
>
> It's bad enough when Dan makes a stupid, irrelevant comment which I
> chose to ignore. Then you have to add your own stupid, irrelevant
> comment on top of it?
irrelevant? then why respond, seems there is a bit of relevance after all,
maybe?
>
> What does "private enterprise can handle all things much more
> efficiently and cheaply" have to do with the issues pertinent to the
> need for law which cannot in principle be handled by private
> enterprise, even if it could do it "more efficiently and cheaply".
> There may be anarchists here, but I am not one of them. The issues
> relevant to the basis for law are not primarily questions related to
> questions of efficiency and cost. The law should not be bought and
> sold and the need for a single body of law applying to everyone
> equally precludes any relevance of the principles of competition which
> apply to business enterprises.
How does 'law' become so exceptional in your desired society? Not bought
and sold? Don't be silly, 'law' is subject to the marketplace like
everything else in a market economy.
But your conversion to the communitarian principle, in this area at least,
is amusing...
> Fred Weiss
>
milt....@gmail.com
> On Jun 2, 9:54 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:12:55 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > > What you don't understand, you idiot, is that this
> > > country is running pretty much exclusively on borrowed
> > > money now, and the more fucking jobs your "genius"
> > > fucktards in the boardroom shoot overseas, the greater
> > > our debt becomes, and the deeper the hole gets.
>
> > Rather, it is running on capital flight. People who
> > have money in other countries want to stash their money
> > in America, often at great personal risk. Ask yourself
> > why.
>
> > The US offers crap interest rates. It is not begging
> > for money, rather non Americans are ingeniously finding ways to
> > stuff money into the hands of Americans, despite the
> > fact that doing so is usually a crime against the state
> > where the money is coming from.
>
> As you often do, you make good points here.
>
> Even apart from capital flight, foreigners are sending money here in
> the trillions because they consider the US safe.
"in the trillions"?? Are you kidding here?
> Also, relative to
> some other countries, esp. in Europe and Japan, they can get higher
> interest rates here. If we were really either now or imminently
> "deeply in the hole" interest rates would have to be much higher than
> they are now to attract foreign capital.
We're not attracting foreign capital anymore; have you been paying
attention?
Foreign capital starting drying up in 2000, after the tech bubble
burst. (No, it was not Bush's fault, those who might accuse me of Bush
bashing here) It's never recovered. And the Euro is quickly becoming
the preferred currency around the world.
I mean, think about it; wtf do we have for anyone to invest IN?? Wal-
Mart? Seriously, we don't manufacture much of anything anymore. The
largest manufacturing plants in the country are owned by foreign
corporations, but pretty much all of the profit goes off shore, and
they are building plants with less frequency now.
This cheerleading bullshit is based on facts that are no longer in
evidence. For the last 26 1/2 years, we sat back, as we watched plants
and companies go overseas, we gave tax subsidies to businesses that
engaged in horrible business practices, we deregulated everything in
this lame-brained idea that "free market" was the way to end all of
our woes, and we watched our country go from being the largest
creditor nation in the world to being the largest debtor nation in the
history of the world. And the price is being paid, albeit slowly; we
have been on a steep decline for a generation -- Clinton started to
pull us out a little, but he was too much of a "free market" whore to
make much of a dent -- but even the modest advances Clinton made have
been reversed by little Georgie "Herbert Hoover" Walker Bush there.
>
> Incidentally, when this point first came up I poked around a little to
> get some more background on it. I found out that US debt is actually a
> significantly lower percent of our overall GDP.than in many other
> industrialized countries. US debt is high - and should be lowered by
> reducing gov't spending - but don't forget how huge the US economy is
> either. In other words we can handle it, just as can the average
> person who may need 20-30 years to pay off his house mortgage. Some
> people might even be able to pay off their mortgage but choose not to
> because they would rather invest their money elsewhere and/or they
> enjoy the tax deductions in home ownership.
Better try again.
You see, the debt had been dropping like a rock from World War II
until Reagan, as a % of GDP. Clinton reversed the trend a little, and
we saw the debt/GDP ratio drop for the first time since Carter. That
has effectively been reversed by the idiot king and his horde, who
don't think debt is so bad, really.
But here's the problem with your little "theory," really.
Several other countries, like Japan and Germany, have been suffering
through economic downturns, so their debt to GDP ratio is a little
high for the last few years. We've been told we are on an economic
UPturn for the last few years, and yet our debt to GDP ratio is
increasing. And frankly, a large portion of our GDP consists of
shoving money from one place to another, and little more, so I would
posit that our GDP is inflated in the first place. I would also point
out that the only thing that has kept the debt from exploding over the
last few years has been the low interest rates. Our debt service alone
was over $400 billion last year. Hmmm... that means, without the debt,
we would have had a surplus, and the government would have been able
to reduce taxes... isn't that odd??
Plus, the GDP doesn't tell the tale. The rich keep getting richer, the
poor keep getting poorer, and the middle class continues to evaporate
before our eyes. A whole bunch of families who used to be able to make
it on one really good income are now attempting to scrape by on two
mediocre incomes. The only reason the housing boom continued unabated
for as long as it did was because of the proliferation of "mortgage
options" that are based on the likelihood that over-inflated housing
prices will continue to over-inflate, precisely due to the
proliferation of these "creative" mortgages. And now that the housing
bubble has begun to burst, now people are turning back to the stock
market, which can only hold up for so long.
You see, even forgetting the government debt ratio for a moment, we
have created an economy that is fueled almost entirely by debt. People
have to receive 20% on their investment to counteract the interest on
their personal debt. Think about that conundrum, and tell us why
that's good for the economy, wouldja please?
> So the amount of debt in and of itself is not necessarily that
> important - not if there is sufficient income to service it. (Don't
> take this as apologetics for Federal debt or deficit spending which in
> fact I oppose and would like to see ended via large cuts in federal
> spending).
Oh, but you are "apologetic" about it. And there ISN'T sufficient
income to service it. In fact, the debt service is HIGHER than the
deficit every year. Which means that the debt service is forcing us to
borrow money to pay it. Now, I think you would agree that using one
credit card to make the minimum payment on another credit card is
financially a stupid thing to do. Yet, that is how our government's
finances are set up.
If you want to see the REAL effect on our finances all of this
borrowing has Google "current account deficit." THAT is a far more
accurate and honest assessment of our finances, in relation to the
rest of the global economy.
Regardless of your cheerleading, our economy is fucked, unless we
reclaim it from the morons who brought us "trickle down" economics,
and the religious fervor of the "free market." Free markets are
better, no doubt about it. but raw, unregulated capitalism leads to a
lack of competition in the marketplace, and a corporate oligarchy as
we're seeing now.
The US is on the decline, fellas. You may choose not to see it, but
your refusal to see it doesn't change the fact that we're living on
borrowed money, and that far more money is leaving this country than
is coming in.
Fred Weiss
Original rant:
> > > What you don't understand, you idiot, is that this
> > > country is running pretty much exclusively on borrowed
> > > money now, and the more fucking jobs your "genius"
> > > fucktards in the boardroom shoot overseas, the greater
> > > our debt becomes, and the deeper the hole gets.
Latest rant:
> You'd do better to check again. They have been doing that at a steeply
> declining rate for years. In fact, the amount of foreign investment in
> the US dropped sharply in 2000, and has never recovered.
Umm...it was clearly you who had to check again. You were ranting
previously about how we are "running...on borrowed money" and how much
"greater our debt becomes". Now you are saying that FDI into the US
has been declining - even "dropped sharply" from previous levels.
>That, coupled with the increasing occurrences of US companies moving their
> money overseas, ...
Umm...is that being done on borrowed money?
The problem here is that you are not clear what point you are trying
to make - other than diffuse ranting about the American economy.
Maybe you need to stick to a rant with a single subject and rant your
little heart out about it without confusing it with other issues to
rant about. Rant about those separately.
Sorry to interrupt. Rant away.
Fred Weiss
brique
> On Jun 2, 8:20 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>
> > So, you think the military should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan too?
>
> And that relates to Wal-Mart and corporate tax breaks how exactly?
You want an 80% cut in your taxes? Well, if the state stopped spending all
that money 'reconstructing' Iraq and Afghanistan in the shape of a smoking
hole in the ground surrounded by pissed off jihadists...
>
> Fred Weiss
>
brique
> On Jun 2, 8:14 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
>
> > > The fundamental issue is not me vs. others. Or, what's good for me vs.
> > > what's good for others. The issue is what we need gov't for. It is
> > > not to redistribute our income. It is to retaliate against the
> > > initiation of force, i.e. crime or foreign invasion.
> >
> > Okay, so its okay for them to re-distribute tax dollars in the direction
of
> > munitions suppliers, aircraft builders, missile manufacturers, etc.....
just
> > not in the direction of the citizens whose money is paying for it.....
>
> Brique, really, it's hard to motivate me to continue this discussion
> with you if you are going to make blatantly stupid comments like this.
Then dont, you seem unable to comprehend your own contradictions regarding
governments 'right' to tax and what they use it for.
->
> If a proper role of the gov't is to defend the country from foreign
> invasion it will need the means to accomplish that which will include
> munitions, aircraft, missles, etc. etc. It has nothing whatever to do
> with "re-distributing" tax dollars, of in effect saying that munitions
> makers somehow have a right to or are entitled to my money for some
> reason. They are merely supplying a product which is needed and they
> are being paid for it. Period.
But they enforce the cost of paying for that onto all, regardless of
whether all wish to pay, which is your argument against the state using tax
dollars in health or in education. You dont want to be burdened with my
health care costs and consider it immoral to be forced to share that cost.
Fine, so why does the logical basis of your argument change when it comes to
others being forced to share the cost of your security?
>
> > But why should I like paying for your security? Not paying for your
security
> > is not a moral crime either. Why should others care if you are murdered,
> > robbed, raped or otherwise inconvenienced. Look after yourself the same
way
> > you demand that they look after themselves.You don't care about others
> > health or education, do you? Come on, let's be truly consistent about
> > things.... you should pay for your health, education, security and
> > self-defence, why demand that others pay for you?
>
> > You are being rather ambiguous, aren't you... government is bad when you
> > don't want to share the cost of what you think is unecessary for you,
but
> > good when you think others should share the cost of what you do think is
> > necessary for you.
>
> I already answered you. I will repeat what I said. Maybe this time
> you will actually read and respond to what I say. If you don't, we'll
> just end the conversation here.
Sure, you just want everyone to share the cost of what you want the state to
provide but consider it a crime to be asked to share the cost of what others
wish the state to provide......
But they are your implications, Fred... you seem to hold that the state
should not force its citizens to fund projects you deem undesirable..... but
should force its citizens to fund the projects you do deem desirable. This
logic you seem to find to be an ethically sound one. But when others, who
perhaps wish the state to fund healthcare and education adopt your stance,
.i.e. all the citizens should share the cost of this desirable
project....why.... now the logic is unethical.
Dont duck and dive behind complaints of analogies or concoctions, Fred, just
have the honesty to say you just think you should get the governemnt
services you desire as cheaply as posisble and the rets of your fellow
citizens should just accept that is 'right' and never even consider
demanding what they may deem to be desirable...for why, that would 'oppress'
you.... would it not?
>
> Fred Weiss
>
>
brique
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:el74631p2otrelro0...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:12:55 -0700, milt....@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > What you don't understand, you idiot, is that this
> > country is running pretty much exclusively on borrowed
> > money now, and the more fucking jobs your "genius"
> > fucktards in the boardroom shoot overseas, the greater
> > our debt becomes, and the deeper the hole gets.
>
> Rather, it is running on capital flight. People who
> have money in other countries want to stash their money
> in America, often at great personal risk. Ask yourself
> why.
What personal risk is the Chinese government running, James?
>
> The US offers crap interest rates. It is not begging
> for money, rather non Americans are ingeniously finding ways to
> stuff money into the hands of Americans, despite the
> fact that doing so is usually a crime against the state
> where the money is coming from.
Cite please..... you know, dull stuff like what states forbid investing in
the US and what percentage of incoming funds is attrributable to citizens of
those states.....
Fred Weiss
> On Jun 3, 8:17 am, milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Latest rant:
> > ...the amount of foreign investment in
> > the US dropped sharply in 2000, and has never recovered.
Btw, my sympathies. Apparently it is no longer possible for you to
rant about how foreign companies are "buying up" the United States.
But...umm...now you are suggesting that is not a good thing. Are you
now suggesting it would be a good thing if they started buying us up
again?
(Wanna bet if that did happen he'd be ranting about that just as
strongly as he is ranting about the opposite now. Ever get the idea
with leftists that it is lose-lose whatever we do and whatever
happens? Here's an illustration.)
Fred Weiss
The Trucker
So let us return to the actual subject of this thread and do a little
"exposing". You want a flat tax, sir. I'll give you an excruciatingly
flat and fair tax that I presented 5 years ago. It needs to be updated to
alter the tax rates such that _real_ capital (tools and structures and the
like) are taxed at a somewhat lower rate than natural resources (i.e.
land), but other than that the proposed tax system has survived the last 5
years pretty well:
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Asset_Tax_System.php
The more assets you personally own, the more you _need_ security. Those
who own nothing need no "security" from those who would rob them. Those
who own nothing might be better off under communism or some other form of
government. An invasion of "comminists" would leave both the rich and the
poor worse off on average but the rich would lose a lot more than the
poor. The asset tax is a FLAT TAX and a FAIR TAX. We then have proposed
a large tax on transportation fuel to fund the more "socialized" aspects
of government. Such a tax hits all persons, not just the rich, but is
much more easily applied than is a sales tax or a vat tax.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
steven...@yahoo.com
Milt has this "thing" about borrowed money.... It's probably
a result of his own problems with credit cards... At any rate,
it's very clear that Milt doesn't have a clue about economics...
"You think by dumping some of your liquid cash
into an account containing borrowed money, you're
not experiencing a loss of anything. The mind reels."
-- Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/92ef5d248b3d3828?hl=en&
"[...] Which means, if you invest that money,
you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."
-- Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a54cd?hl=en&
"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share
of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity,
right? Well, a loss is negative equity."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
<LOL> Indeed, the mind reels, Milt.....
Steve
wrote:
<LOL> A tax on assets is a leftist's dream.. Taxing one's
long-range financial security is a sure way to insure that everyone is
dependant upon the government, instead of on themselves... No need
to worry though... not a snowball's chance in hell that will ever
happen.... This country is deeply into individualism and that's why
the leftists can't find a foothold..
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> at nearly fifty years old, is still paying off his college loan, is
> still living
> in a rented apatment, and, by his own admission, is really terrible at
> handling money, and yet he thinks *he* is qualified to pass judgement
> on the country's economic status....
>
Hmmm... as opposed to a peg-legged loner living in a trailer and
spending all of his time on Usenet, stalking other people on Usenet,
and trying to convince us that his "anonymous" ass is a rich "sailor
man." I'd say there's another one for the ironic files...
And I am "passing judgement" on the country's economics based on what
experts say, whereas you just "pass(ed) judgement" on my life, based
on pretty much no information about me.
http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/203/ib203.pdf
http://www.concordcoalition.org/doc/crs-debt-basics.pdf
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html
http://www.federalbudget.com/
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp06153.pdf
http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/US_Dollar.htm
http://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12333.html
(the paper referred to is available from SSRN.. dry as hell, but I had
to read it at work...)
Not that you will understand any of the above, or the implications.
Your reading comprehension skills kinda suck. But the other two in
this thread, with whom I disagree, but who at least make an attempt at
cogent thought (though a little dated and jingoistic for my tastes)
might read and think about what's really going on...
You just keep thinking and posting there, Canyon. Someday, there might
actually be a spark...
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> irony anyone? Here's dumbass Shook, admiting that I am
anonymous, yet pretending to know about my living conditions....
> And I am "passing judgement" on the country's economics based on what
...and that's why you made two contradictory claims.. about foriegn
investments....
> experts say, whereas you just "pass(ed) judgement" on my life, based
> on pretty much no information about me.
>
> (the paper referred to is available from SSRN.. dry as hell, but I had
> to read it at work...)
Milt posts a bunch of cites which he claims to support what he
says....
Knowing Milt's ignorance about these things, is doubtful that any of
that
says what he thinks it says....
> Not that you will understand any of the above, or the implications.
> Your reading comprehension skills kinda suck.
More irony from Milt who cannot comprehend that the fact that the
state
governments are required to obey the Constitution does not make the
Constitution "state law."
"[The US Constitution is] also state law,[]"
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d162eaa4668419a1?&hl=en
>But the other two in
> this thread, with whom I disagree, but who at least make an attempt at
> cogent thought (though a little dated and jingoistic for my tastes)
> might read and think about what's really going on...
>
> You just keep thinking and posting there, Canyon. Someday, there might
> actually be a spark...
so when are you going to "disclose" all this infromation about Rob and
myself
being the same person, Dumbass? and when are you going to disclose
the
IP address you've been claiming proves that I've been stalkin you, you
pathetic
moron?
"If you knew anything about Comcast, you'd
know that everyone who posts from the same geographical area will have
the same IP address, unless they pay twice as much."
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/1c0c985824dcbbd8?hl=en&
Dan Clore
> On Jun 2, 8:15 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>
>> The argument that private enterprise can handle all things much more
>> efficiently and cheaply seems to have been dropped in favour of governmental
>> wallet-dipping.. doesn't it?
>
> It's bad enough when Dan makes a stupid, irrelevant comment which I
> chose to ignore. Then you have to add your own stupid, irrelevant
> comment on top of it?
Well, you did after all list a bunch of very expensive items that you
"need", and make me pay for with taxes. It seems like I ought to have
some sort of say about whether I find this expense worthwhile.