Whiny programmers demand gravy train for life
Henry Blaskowski
(see http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/653598.html)
a group of 17 programmers, despite making well above the median wage,
demanded that the government "protect" them from all them yucky
foreigners who have the gall to want to make a living.
Don't those furriners know their place in the world.
The good news out of this article is that these 17 morons have
banded together and given themselves a name so that sensible people
everywhere can avoid them when they need computer work done.
grepcat
the number of people allowed to come and work in the US
under H1B visas during the dot-com explosion. That
number is currently 180,000 work visa granted every year.
It was a *temporary* solution to what businesses called
a "shortage of skilled American workers."
Over the past 2 years, many dot-coms have shriveled up
and the need for the temporary solution has passed,
however the fed is, (and this is no surprise) way too
slow to react and is expected to raise the cap to 200,000
workers this Oct.
In my experience, I've heard of and seen many companies
abuse the H1B program by claiming that they can't find
local skilled labor, and therefore must import labor
from India, China, etc. Once they get the workers here,
they pay them below market rate and the workers themselves
are exploited by the fact that they're locked into a job
for 3 years and have little to no options to change
employment.
The H1B program, if not slowed from it's runaway-train
momentum it's picked up will cause an even greater
unemployment index than what's already present in the US.
Couple this with the fact that Congress is working on a
bill called the Trade Promotion Authority. This bill will
give President Bush authority to negotiate NAFTA like
agreements that give fast track work visas to aliens.
This free movement of international labor will open our
borders to labor markets and that will render nonimmigrant
visas such as H-2A, H-2B, and H-1B unnecessary. These
agreements between the United States and other countries
will possibly be modeled after the NAFTA/TN visa. It will
essentially open our borders to the movement of labor and
will eliminate the need for any type of labor certification.
These agreements are being made because countries that
are allowing our companies into their territory argue that
they do not have goods to trade, but they do have vast
supplies of labor. In other words, we can send them our
companies if we accept their workers. They argue that if
we were willing to make TN visas available to Canada, we
should be willing to make similar agreements with them.
International companies favor these agreements because
they want to be able to send workers anywhere without
immigration reviews and visa hassles.
These trade bills are unique from other types of
immigration laws in one major way: they cannot be repealed
by congress without the consent of the country the agreement
was made with. Once these agreements are passed, the
American worker will be powerless to stop the flood of
workers that will arrive to compete with them in the job
market.
International companies have a tremendous incentive to
support the Trade Promotion Authority because they want
to be able to move workers freely across borders. Those
who are trying to reduce operating costs by finding cheaper
sources of labor will obviously benefit by pitting workers
of the world against each other jobs. (1)
((1) Source: http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/H1BHistory.htm )
Believe it or not, I *am* a republican, I am also a high
tech worker, (network engineer, not a programmer.)
I can also tell you that the salaries paid in MN to high
tech workers are some of the lowest in the US.
I also support what those "whiny programmers" you say
are doing.
We need to recover as a country from the bubble
bursting and we need to employ American workers.
-grep
"Henry Blaskowski" <hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:toknhjf...@corp.supernews.com...
Henry Blaskowski
> The U.S. Dept. of Immigration started raising the cap on
> the number of people allowed to come and work in the US
> under H1B visas during the dot-com explosion. That
> number is currently 180,000 work visa granted every year.
Why shouldn't people who happen to have born outside the US have the
chance to make a living? Do you consider them less human? Inferior
in some way? What justifies this idea?
> from India, China, etc. Once they get the workers here,
> they pay them below market rate and the workers themselves
> are exploited by the fact that they're locked into a job
> for 3 years and have little to no options to change
> employment.
Good for those workers.... I'm happy for anyone who can improve
their lot in life, even if it means a whiny white collar worker
has to drive a mid-size sedan instead of a towering imported SUV.
> The H1B program, if not slowed from it's runaway-train
> momentum it's picked up will cause an even greater
> unemployment index than what's already present in the US.
If you believe that more people equals more unemployment, perhaps
you should be advocating birth control in the US, since native
births contribute to population growth more than immigration. Or
is it only those who look and speak differently that lead to
unemployment? (Does anyone else think that there is a hint of
racism in anti-immigration rhetoric?)
In reality, all people create greater demand than they are capable
of producing because wants are unlimited and capabilities are
limited. Therefore, demand rises faster than population, and
population growth creates *more* employment. If this were not
true, we could look back at some point in time, say 200 years ago,
and see that there are the same number of jobs available as then
and that all extra people are unemployed. Clearly this is not
true, and the whole "more people = more unemployement" argument
falls apart.
> International companies have a tremendous incentive to
> support the Trade Promotion Authority because they want
> to be able to move workers freely across borders. Those
> who are trying to reduce operating costs by finding cheaper
> sources of labor will obviously benefit by pitting workers
> of the world against each other jobs. (1)
Why shouldn't people be allowed to buy and trade their skills however
they want? Why should Congress even get a say in it?
> Believe it or not, I *am* a republican, I am also a high
> tech worker, (network engineer, not a programmer.)
I am also a tech worker, a programmer in fact, and I welcome the
competition with open arms, because 1) they will advance the state
of technology, which improves my standard of living, 2) they will
make the things I want cheaper, improving my standard of living, and
3) they will eventually spend the money they make, which creates jobs
and improves my standard of living.
> I can also tell you that the salaries paid in MN to high
> tech workers are some of the lowest in the US.
So? The programmers in the article were making over $70K/year.
I really can't shed any tears for them.
grepcat
> grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
>
> Why shouldn't people who happen to have born outside the US have the
> chance to make a living?
Sure, I have no problem with this. As long as they're not
taking jobs from americans in a rapidly declining market.
> Do you consider them less human?
Not at all.
> Inferior in some way?
Nope. Why the hell would you even say that?
> > from India, China, etc. Once they get the workers here,
> > they pay them below market rate and the workers themselves
> > are exploited by the fact that they're locked into a job
> > for 3 years and have little to no options to change
> > employment.
>
> Good for those workers....
So, you're saying that you're happy that H1B visa holders
are being exploited by companies who aren't playing by
the rules?
> I'm happy for anyone who can improve
> their lot in life,
Then theoretically you should have no problem with these "whiny
programmers", as they're trying to `Improve thier lot in life.'
> > The H1B program, if not slowed from it's runaway-train
> > momentum it's picked up will cause an even greater
> > unemployment index than what's already present in the US.
>
> If you believe that more people equals more unemployment, perhaps
> you should be advocating birth control in the US, since native
> births contribute to population growth more than immigration.
Population growth? I don't think you understood what I wrote.
I said "unemployment". The argument you posted below to support
this idea is crap. Read on and find out why.
> Or is it only those who look and speak differently that lead to
> unemployment? (Does anyone else think that there is a hint of
> racism in anti-immigration rhetoric?)
Wasn't I the one who pointed out that these poor people are
being exploited by companies who are abusing the system?
Why are you so quick to call me a racist? I'm not a racist, I
stood on the steps of the St. Paul capital *PROTESTING* the
KKK rally. My friends are white, black, Indian, Pakastani,
Muslim, Catholic, Jewish.. I have no problem with anyone
of a different race from me.
In fact, for all you know, my mother could have quite possibly
been from India and my father from Columbia.
You're clouding your own point, stick to facts and stop the
implied insults.
> In reality, all people create greater demand than they are capable
> of producing because wants are unlimited and capabilities are
> limited. Therefore, demand rises faster than population, and
> population growth creates *more* employment.
That's *ONE* aspect of growth of employment.
> If this were not
> true, we could look back at some point in time, say 200 years ago,
> and see that there are the same number of jobs available as then
> and that all extra people are unemployed. Clearly this is not
> true, and the whole "more people = more unemployement" argument
> falls apart.
Hehehehehe, nice try, but that's bull and you know it. Re-read
what I wrote originally, it's all there, QED.
> Why shouldn't people be allowed to buy and trade their skills however
> they want? Why should Congress even get a say in it?
I'm starting to see the point of your post. You're trolling,
aren't you?
-grep
grepcat
What do you have against programmers making more money? Are
you anti-capitalist??!!
"Henry Blaskowski" <hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:toknhjf...@corp.supernews.com...
osmium
> grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
I don't really have an opinion on this H1-B thing. But that post is so full
of nonesense that it would take till midnight to correct it. Life is too
short for that.
grepcat
-grep
"osmium" <r124...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:O2zi7.1489$Q6.2...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
osmium
news:9meene$k94$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Apparently I linked to the wrong post. Or something. Blaskowski is the one
I was complaining about. For example, the population growth due to
native-born citizens of the US is *negative*.
grepcat
your flawed argument..
In a previous post on talk.politics.libertarian you wrote:
> From: Henry Blaskowski (hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com)
> Subject: Re: Permanant normal trade relations with China?
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.libertarian,
alt.anarchism,
> alt.politics.usa.republican, talk.politics.guns, alt.govt.abuse,
misc.survivalism
> Date: 2000/05/25
>
> Buying from the cheapest supplier is the best thing to do economically.
> The moral issues are separate. Buying from the cheapest supplier
> does not cause unemployment, it causes more employment, because
> people can get their needs met for a lower cost, causing more money
> to be available for other things that we do better and cheaper.
> The only way that buying cheaper products can cause unemployment
> is if we have no relative advantages, economically speaking. But
> in the US, we have many, including agriculture, which we are quite
> good at due to the abundance of prime growing land, and high tech,
> which we are quite good at because freedom attracts the best minds.
> So instead of hiring someone at $6/hr to make sneakers, we get them
> made for cheap, and use the extra money to hire a programmer at
> $30-$100/hour to produce things of greater value, plus more people
> can afford shoes.
Henry, it's no use re-selling this argument in mn.politics :)
Now be a good boy and stop trolling :)
-grep
"Henry Blaskowski" <hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:tol9vij...@corp.supernews.com...
grepcat
in there and my post had come out lopsided or what :)
-grep
"osmium" <r124...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:J7Ai7.1646
Henry Blaskowski
> Sure, I have no problem with this. As long as they're not
> taking jobs from americans in a rapidly declining market.
"Taking jobs"??!!! What is that supposed to mean? Do Americans
have some god-given birthright to perform a certain job at a certain
wage? If so, where did this birthright come from?
>> Do you consider them less human?
> Not at all.
>> Inferior in some way?
> Nope. Why the hell would you even say that?
Why else would you want to deprive them of their ability to earn a living?
>> > from India, China, etc. Once they get the workers here,
>> > they pay them below market rate and the workers themselves
>> > are exploited by the fact that they're locked into a job
>> > for 3 years and have little to no options to change
>> > employment.
>>
>> Good for those workers....
> So, you're saying that you're happy that H1B visa holders
> are being exploited by companies who aren't playing by
> the rules?
So let's see... are you claiming that the workers from foreign
countries are smart enough to work high tech jobs but not smart
enough to figure out when they are being exploited? This is
another interesting theory, but it doesn't really seem plausible?
>> I'm happy for anyone who can improve
>> their lot in life,
> Then theoretically you should have no problem with these "whiny
> programmers", as they're trying to `Improve thier lot in life.'
Only if they try to improve it through voluntary cooperation,
rather than by using political power to achieve something which
makes no sense economically.
>> Or is it only those who look and speak differently that lead to
>> unemployment? (Does anyone else think that there is a hint of
>> racism in anti-immigration rhetoric?)
> Wasn't I the one who pointed out that these poor people are
> being exploited by companies who are abusing the system?
How can you claim that college-educated, apparently intelligent
people are being exploited when they have to go out of their
way to come here, they do so voluntarily, and it involves great
hardship for them to do it? It seems to me that if intelligent
people make a decision to pursue an opportunity despite the
hardships it introduces in their life, it is more than a little
condescending for you to call them "exploited". This implies
that you know better than them what is good for their life and that
they somehow want your input on their decisions. That is either
egomaniacal or condescending, I'm not sure which.
> Why are you so quick to call me a racist? I'm not a racist, I
Sorry to make it sound like that.... it was more of a general
statement than a specific accusation to you... I can't help feeling
that there is a bit of racisim *in general* in the philosphophy that
those poor ignorant fer'ners need our protection.... especially
when they happen to be highly educated high-tech workers.
>> If this were not
>> true, we could look back at some point in time, say 200 years ago,
>> and see that there are the same number of jobs available as then
>> and that all extra people are unemployed. Clearly this is not
>> true, and the whole "more people = more unemployement" argument
>> falls apart.
> Hehehehehe, nice try, but that's bull and you know it. Re-read
> what I wrote originally, it's all there, QED.
No, it's not all there. More people equals more demand equals more
jobs, pure and simple. It has been the history of the world since
the dawn of civilization. You have shown no evidence that this is
false, just a general "fer'ner's need our protection" additude.
>> Why shouldn't people be allowed to buy and trade their skills however
>> they want? Why should Congress even get a say in it?
> I'm starting to see the point of your post. You're trolling,
> aren't you?
Nice evasion of a serious question. Noted.
Henry Blaskowski
>> So? The programmers in the article were making over $70K/year.
>> I really can't shed any tears for them.
> I don't really have an opinion on this H1-B thing. But that post is so full
> of nonesense that it would take till midnight to correct it. Life is too
> short for that.
Evasion noted....
Henry Blaskowski
>> Buying from the cheapest supplier is the best thing to do economically.
>> The moral issues are separate. Buying from the cheapest supplier
>> does not cause unemployment, it causes more employment, because
>> people can get their needs met for a lower cost, causing more money
>> to be available for other things that we do better and cheaper.
>> The only way that buying cheaper products can cause unemployment
>> is if we have no relative advantages, economically speaking. But
>> in the US, we have many, including agriculture, which we are quite
>> good at due to the abundance of prime growing land, and high tech,
>> which we are quite good at because freedom attracts the best minds.
>> So instead of hiring someone at $6/hr to make sneakers, we get them
>> made for cheap, and use the extra money to hire a programmer at
>> $30-$100/hour to produce things of greater value, plus more people
>> can afford shoes.
> Henry, it's no use re-selling this argument in mn.politics :)
> Now be a good boy and stop trolling :)
It must be convenient to avoid addressing the issue by insults.
Henry Blaskowski
> Now answer my question -
> What do you have against programmers making more money? Are
> you anti-capitalist??!!
I don't have any problem with them making money. I have a problem
with them trying to artificially influence their wages through
political means. Wage and price controls have failed every time they
have been tried in history, and cause economic damage. The
programmers are more worried about whether they can afford a third
SUV than what is moral or fair. They should not use politics to
influence simple economic transactions.
grepcat
> grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
>
> "Taking jobs"??!!! What is that supposed to mean? Do Americans
> have some god-given birthright to perform a certain job at a certain
> wage? If so, where did this birthright come from?
Of course American workers have the right to american jobs.
It works the same way in England, however, you'll probably
call me a racist for that comment :)
> Why else would you want to deprive them of their ability to earn a living?
Hehehehe.. I'm not depriving them of anything. Why can't
a software company in India provide the same product?
> So let's see... are you claiming that the workers from foreign
> countries are smart enough to work high tech jobs but not smart
> enough to figure out when they are being exploited? This is
> another interesting theory, but it doesn't really seem plausible?
No, I'm not claiming that they don't know they're being exploited.
They know they're being exploited, there are watchdog groups out
there that try to look out for H1B visa holders. This is
a problem with companies abusing the flawed H1B visa system.
> Only if they try to improve it through voluntary cooperation,
> rather than by using political power to achieve something which
> makes no sense economically.
Hahahahaha.. Your statement makes no sense. Why *wouldn't*
we use *our* government to improve ourselves?
What do you mean by "voluntary cooperation" and how would
that not involve *our* government?
> How can you claim that college-educated, apparently intelligent
> people are being exploited when they have to go out of their
> way to come here, they do so voluntarily, and it involves great
> hardship for them to do it?
Why do you say that they're not being exploited by companies
who abuse the H1B visa system?
> It seems to me that if intelligent people make a decision
> to pursue an opportunity despite the hardships it introduces
> in their life, it is more than a little condescending for
> you to call them "exploited".
Heh.. I don't think that you know what that word means..
> This implies that you know better than them what is
> good for their life and that they somehow want your
> input on their decisions. That is either
> egomaniacal or condescending, I'm not sure which.
No, exploited means "To make use of selfishly or unethically:
example: `A country that exploits peasant labor'"
I think you're deliberately avoiding my point, which is
that *OUR* companies are deliberately *EXPLOITING* H1B
visa holders labor.
> Sorry to make it sound like that.... it was more of a general
> statement than a specific accusation to you...
If that's your opinion, whatever..
> No, it's not all there. More people equals more demand equals more
> jobs, pure and simple.
Only if it's the only variables in the equasion, and pretty
much only on paper.
> Nice evasion of a serious question. Noted.
Heh.. oh no, I've been "Noted"
-grep
grepcat
Hahahahahahaha, oh no, osmium! you've got the dreaded "Noted"
as well!! Better not tell him where he's wrong, or you might
get another "Evasion Noted!" again! :)
Is it just me, or is this guy a complete `tard?
grepcat
> grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
>>
> > Henry, it's no use re-selling this argument in mn.politics :)
>
> > Now be a good boy and stop trolling :)
>
> It must be convenient to avoid addressing the issue by insults.
Oh Henry.. Your evasion has been noted!
:)
-grep
Henry Blaskowski
> For example, the population growth due to
> native-born citizens of the US is *negative*.
"The Census Bureau estimates that natural increase (more births than
deaths) is responsible for about two-thirds of population growth in
the 1990s. The remaining one-third is almost entirely due to net
international migration (more foreign-born persons settling in
the United States than emigrants leaving it). "
Congressional Research Service Report for Congress
The U.S. Population: A Factsheet
Jennifer D. Williams
If you know something the Census Bureau doesn't, I'm sure they'd
be happy to hear from you.
grepcat
> grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
> The programmers are more worried about whether they can afford a third
> SUV than what is moral or fair. They should not use politics to
> influence simple economic transactions.
Hehehehehe.. Funny, I didn't see anything about a "Third SUV"
or really anything about an "SUV" in that article..
I think that there's a deeper issue here with you, IMHO
I think that you secretly want to buy an SUV..
I know a good auto broker out in the Minnetonka area who
hooked my girlfriend up with her Dodge Durango, you want
I should put a word in for you? :)
BTW - if anyone is a "whiny" programmer here, i think
that it's you :)
-grep
Henry Blaskowski
>> "Taking jobs"??!!! What is that supposed to mean? Do Americans
>> have some god-given birthright to perform a certain job at a certain
>> wage? If so, where did this birthright come from?
> Of course American workers have the right to american jobs.
> It works the same way in England, however, you'll probably
> call me a racist for that comment :)
Why? Do you think that being born in the US means that you may
approach any other US citizen and demand they pay you for doing a
specific job? Does free will of both parties have no say in this?
And if you accept that both parties have a say in this, why would
you claim that the job-offerer *has to* give the job to a US citizen?
>> So let's see... are you claiming that the workers from foreign
>> countries are smart enough to work high tech jobs but not smart
>> enough to figure out when they are being exploited? This is
>> another interesting theory, but it doesn't really seem plausible?
> No, I'm not claiming that they don't know they're being exploited.
> They know they're being exploited, there are watchdog groups out
> there that try to look out for H1B visa holders. This is
> a problem with companies abusing the flawed H1B visa system.
Yet they leave their families and go to great lengths to come
to the US? Your claim is condescending -- there is no way around
that. You think people leave their families and travel halfway
around the world to do something that is exploiting them. They
are not children, they are adults, and they would know if they are
being exploited and would just stay home if that were happening.
>> Only if they try to improve it through voluntary cooperation,
>> rather than by using political power to achieve something which
>> makes no sense economically.
> Hahahahaha.. Your statement makes no sense. Why *wouldn't*
> we use *our* government to improve ourselves?
Because we (should) have morals, ethics, and a sense of justice.
> What do you mean by "voluntary cooperation" and how would
> that not involve *our* government?
If I have a company and need help, I find a suitable employee and
hire them. The government shouldn't get a vote in who I hire.
That is called "voluntary cooperation". If a self-appointed band
of elitists interferes in that transaction for fear that someone
in the transaction is being treated poorly, despite the fact that
neither party feels they are being treated poorly, that is immoral
and unfair.
>> How can you claim that college-educated, apparently intelligent
>> people are being exploited when they have to go out of their
>> way to come here, they do so voluntarily, and it involves great
>> hardship for them to do it?
> Why do you say that they're not being exploited by companies
> who abuse the H1B visa system?
Because they know what they are getting into and they come here at
great cost to their life. They would not do that if they were
being exploited. Now would you like to answer my question, or are
you just going to avoid it again?
>> It seems to me that if intelligent people make a decision
>> to pursue an opportunity despite the hardships it introduces
>> in their life, it is more than a little condescending for
>> you to call them "exploited".
> Heh.. I don't think that you know what that word means..
OK, I'm beginning to see. Being condescending is your attitude
toward all things in life. At least that clears it up your position
a little.
>> This implies that you know better than them what is
>> good for their life and that they somehow want your
>> input on their decisions. That is either
>> egomaniacal or condescending, I'm not sure which.
> No, exploited means "To make use of selfishly or unethically:
> example: `A country that exploits peasant labor'"
Who is being exploited? The H1B worker is happy. The company is
happy. THe only people who are unhappy are a bunch of whiny
programmers who want the government to use the force of law to
give them a free ride for life. Well, boohoo for them. It's none
of their business what other people do with their labor.
> I think you're deliberately avoiding my point, which is
> that *OUR* companies are deliberately *EXPLOITING* H1B
> visa holders labor.
Apparently in your world "hire = exploit". That's a very strange,
non-standard usage of the word.
>> No, it's not all there. More people equals more demand equals more
>> jobs, pure and simple.
> Only if it's the only variables in the equasion, and pretty
> much only on paper.
You have yet to give any description of why this is not true.
Considering that the population has been growing for thousands
of years and the unemployment rate is reasonably stable for all
of those thousands of years, you'd need a doozy of an explanation
for why my statement is false. So far, you've made no attempt at
such an explanation.
Henry Blaskowski
>> The programmers are more worried about whether they can afford a third
>> SUV than what is moral or fair. They should not use politics to
>> influence simple economic transactions.
> Hehehehehe.. Funny, I didn't see anything about a "Third SUV"
> or really anything about an "SUV" in that article..
> I think that there's a deeper issue here with you, IMHO
> I think that you secretly want to buy an SUV..
Heheheh.... I have one. Purchased with my programming income. The
difference between me and the whiny programmers in the article is
that I don't believe that my having a job which allows me to afford
some nice things means that the government should be required to
guarantee that job at that income level for me for life. Only
a child could believe that the government could or should do such
a thing.
Scott Smith
Who ever said an SUV was a "nice thing"? ;)
grepcat
>
> Who ever said an SUV was a "nice thing"? ;)
>
Shit, I agree with you.. I'll take my Dodge Neon
over my girlfriend's Durango any day.. Damn thing
gets about 11mpg :)
-grep
grepcat
Seriously Henry, what's the url for that?
grepcat
> grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
>
> Why? Do you think that being born in the US means that you may
> approach any other US citizen and demand they pay you for doing a
> specific job?
Hahahahaha.. nice try, but that's not what I said or meant. Stick
to the facts, and try not to make stuff up.
> Does free will of both parties have no say in this?
Heh, your words not mine.
> And if you accept that both parties have a say in this, why would
> you claim that the job-offerer *has to* give the job to a US citizen?
I never claimed anything of the kind. Henry, Henry, you're
making stuff up again :) Is your argument so full of holes
that you have to resort to that tactic? :)
Let me state my point, clear and concise for you.
If a company needs to hire a software developer and there
are both american and foriegn professionals availible for
it, the job should go TO THE MOST QUALIFIED, FIRST AND
FOREMOST.
If there are qualified local applicants, who are willing to
work for the wage as specified by the company, the advantage
goes to them. Our government specifies this WHEN A COMPANY
IS CONSIDERING EMPLOYMENT OF H1B VISA HOLDERS..
The H1B visa program is only supposed to be used if the
company claims, `There are no locally qualified applicants
for the position, and unfortunately it is easy for
the companies to abuse the system.
> Yet they leave their families and go to great lengths to come
> to the US? Your claim is condescending -- there is no way around
> that. You think people leave their families and travel halfway
> around the world to do something that is exploiting them. They
> are not children, they are adults, and they would know if they are
> being exploited and would just stay home if that were happening.
Henry, my claim is not condecending.
They come here because they don't have many
other options. America is logically the best place for them
to come. When they do, they are at the mercy of the H1B visa
program, WHERE AMERICAN COMPANIES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND
EXPLOIT THEM. People in underdeveloped countries routinely have
to make hard decisions that trade one disadvantage for another.
They measure if it's easier to come to America, and work for a
job where they're not treated as fairly as american workers,
and are paid a wage that's probably less than thier american
counterparts, versus working in lousy conditions in thier
own country for employers who are even less regulated and
for a wage that's even LESS than what they would be paid
in thier own country.
A really good friend of mine from India, who was a software
developer I worked with in Sunnyvale, CA explained this to me.
Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
> > Hahahahaha.. Your statement makes no sense. Why *wouldn't*
> > we use *our* government to improve ourselves?
>
> Because we (should) have morals, ethics, and a sense of justice.
Henry, welcome to America. Our government is there to *help*
us.
In fact, something just occured to me.. perhaps you're not
American?
> > What do you mean by "voluntary cooperation" and how would
> > that not involve *our* government?
>
> If I have a company and need help, I find a suitable employee and
> hire them. The government shouldn't get a vote in who I hire.
> That is called "voluntary cooperation".
Hehehehehe.. NOW HENRY'S KOOKNESS SHOWS THROUGH!!!!!
Did you make that up? `voluntary cooperation'? What political
party supports this? Is it the libertarians?
Henry.. Are you an anarchist? :)
> If a self-appointed band of elitists
Are you talking about the US Government?
> interferes in that transaction for fear that someone
> in the transaction is being treated poorly, despite the fact that
> neither party feels they are being treated poorly, that is immoral
> and unfair.
Heh, no.. it's called Government. :)
> > Why do you say that they're not being exploited by companies
> > who abuse the H1B visa system?
>
> Because they know what they are getting into and they come here at
> great cost to their life. They would not do that if they were
> being exploited.
Bullshit. They would do that if it was the best choice they had.
*ding*, try again, my anarchist friend :)
> Now would you like to answer my question, or are
> you just going to avoid it again?
Oh no, it would appear that I've disagreed with you! Does
this mean that i'm being warned that I might get the dreaded
"Evasion noted." again??!!! :)
hehehehehehe..
> OK, I'm beginning to see. Being condescending is your attitude
> toward all things in life. At least that clears it up your position
> a little.
Hahahaha.. I condecend to *you*, because you're a kook Henry :)
> > No, exploited means "To make use of selfishly or unethically:
> > example: `A country that exploits peasant labor'"
>
> Who is being exploited? The H1B worker is happy. The company is
> happy.
Henry, wake up.. H1B visa workers that I HAVE WORKED WITH are
*not* happy, they're making on average less than what Americans
make. Did you know that alot of them are forced to
Henry, the H1B system is a mess. It's unfair to BOTH the
people who come over here looking to better themselves from
underdeveloped countries and qualified americans who are
at the mercy of the companies who abuse the system.
> THe only people who are unhappy are a bunch of whiny
> programmers
Read above..
> It's none of their business what other people do with their labor.
Well Henry, sorry to burst your bubble on this, but currently
American companies are subject to government intervention
when hiring out-of-country workers. Once again, welcome to the
USA.
The fact that you don't like it, dosen't make it wrong :)
-grep
Henry Blaskowski
> If a company needs to hire a software developer and there
> are both american and foriegn professionals availible for
> it, the job should go TO THE MOST QUALIFIED, FIRST AND
> FOREMOST.
> If there are qualified local applicants, who are willing to
> work for the wage as specified by the company, the advantage
> goes to them.
I believe this is good business, but I don't think it should be a law.
> Our government specifies this WHEN A COMPANY
> IS CONSIDERING EMPLOYMENT OF H1B VISA HOLDERS..
> The H1B visa program is only supposed to be used if the
> company claims, `There are no locally qualified applicants
> for the position, and unfortunately it is easy for
> the companies to abuse the system.
So? It is an immoral system. Abusing an immoral law is a virtue.
>> Yet they leave their families and go to great lengths to come
>> to the US? Your claim is condescending -- there is no way around
>> that. You think people leave their families and travel halfway
>> around the world to do something that is exploiting them. They
>> are not children, they are adults, and they would know if they are
>> being exploited and would just stay home if that were happening.
> Henry, my claim is not condecending.
> They come here because they don't have many
> other options. America is logically the best place for them
> to come. When they do, they are at the mercy of the H1B visa
> program, WHERE AMERICAN COMPANIES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND
> EXPLOIT THEM. People in underdeveloped countries routinely have
> to make hard decisions that trade one disadvantage for another.
So then the problem is that they are at the merrcy of the H1B
Visa program. It is immoral and should be eliminated. Problem
solved.
> They measure if it's easier to come to America, and work for a
> job where they're not treated as fairly as american workers,
> and are paid a wage that's probably less than thier american
> counterparts, versus working in lousy conditions in thier
> own country for employers who are even less regulated and
> for a wage that's even LESS than what they would be paid
> in thier own country.
So they are getting a great deal -- they come here and make more
than they could've at their old job. That doesn't sound like
exploitation, it sounds like a promotion. If that is your version
of exploitation, I hope somebody will exploit me by raising my
wages and giving me a better job.
>>
>> Because we (should) have morals, ethics, and a sense of justice.
> Henry, welcome to America. Our government is there to *help*
> us.
Whether we want it or not, apparently. Isn't that swell of them.
It sure is nice that the likes of Teddy "tequila" K, Jesse "freakshow"
Helms, and Gary "oops, I lost an intern" Condit are there to take
care of us poor, ignorant, huddled masses. What would we do without
them slowing down the economy?
>> If I have a company and need help, I find a suitable employee and
>> hire them. The government shouldn't get a vote in who I hire.
>> That is called "voluntary cooperation".
> Hehehehehe.. NOW HENRY'S KOOKNESS SHOWS THROUGH!!!!!
> Did you make that up? `voluntary cooperation'? What political
> party supports this? Is it the libertarians?
Gee, imagine a world in which people are allowed to voluntarily
cooperate without wise bureaucrats telling us what is good for
us. Oh, the horror.....
>> interferes in that transaction for fear that someone
>> in the transaction is being treated poorly, despite the fact that
>> neither party feels they are being treated poorly, that is immoral
>> and unfair.
> Heh, no.. it's called Government. :)
Yes, an immoral and unfair government.
>> > Why do you say that they're not being exploited by companies
>> > who abuse the H1B visa system?
>>
>> Because they know what they are getting into and they come here at
>> great cost to their life. They would not do that if they were
>> being exploited.
> Bullshit. They would do that if it was the best choice they had.
Getting a raise and better living conditions is a good choice.
Only in bizaaro world is that considered exploitation.
> Henry, the H1B system is a mess. It's unfair to BOTH the
> people who come over here looking to better themselves from
> underdeveloped countries and qualified americans who are
> at the mercy of the companies who abuse the system.
OK, eliminate it and let companies hire whoever they want. I'm
glad you agree that the program is a big mistake.
>> It's none of their business what other people do with their labor.
> Well Henry, sorry to burst your bubble on this, but currently
> American companies are subject to government intervention
> when hiring out-of-country workers. Once again, welcome to the
> USA.
Again, it is immoral. I know what the law *is*, I am wondering
how you justify, morally or ethically, interfering with a voluntary
transaction between consenting adults. So far all you seem to
be saying is "that's what the law says". That's not justification,
it's submission.
Henry Blaskowski
>>
>> > For example, the population growth due to
>> > native-born citizens of the US is *negative*.
>>
>> "The Census Bureau estimates that natural increase (more births than
>> deaths) is responsible for about two-thirds of population growth in
>> the 1990s. The remaining one-third is almost entirely due to net
>> international migration (more foreign-born persons settling in
>> the United States than emigrants leaving it). "
>>
>> Congressional Research Service Report for Congress
>> The U.S. Population: A Factsheet
>> Jennifer D. Williams
>>
>> If you know something the Census Bureau doesn't, I'm sure they'd
>> be happy to hear from you.
> Seriously Henry, what's the url for that?
Russ Anderson
Henry Blaskowski <hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com> writes:
>grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
>> Now answer my question -
>
>> What do you have against programmers making more money? Are
>> you anti-capitalist??!!
>
>I don't have any problem with them making money. I have a problem
>with them trying to artificially influence their wages through
>political means.
Isn't that _exactly_ what businesses want to do by expanding
the visa program (and Bush's "guest worker" proposal)? They
have exherted their political influence (read: campaing contributions)
to hold down wages.
> Wage and price controls have failed every time they
>have been tried in history, and cause economic damage.
Does that apply to holding down wages?
> The
>programmers are more worried about whether they can afford a third
>SUV than what is moral or fair.
The same can be said for business owners.
> They should not use politics to
>influence simple economic transactions.
I take it that you are then opposed to Bush's "guest worker"
proposal?
--
Russ Anderson RAS group SGI r...@sgi.com
grepcat
> > it, the job should go TO THE MOST QUALIFIED, FIRST AND
> > FOREMOST.
>
> > If there are qualified local applicants, who are willing to
> > work for the wage as specified by the company, the advantage
> > goes to them.
>
> I believe this is good business, but I don't think it should be a law.
Okay, your opinion noted.
> > Our government specifies this WHEN A COMPANY
> > IS CONSIDERING EMPLOYMENT OF H1B VISA HOLDERS..
>
> > The H1B visa program is only supposed to be used if the
> > company claims, `There are no locally qualified applicants
> > for the position, and unfortunately it is easy for
> > the companies to abuse the system.
>
> So? It is an immoral system. Abusing an immoral law is a virtue.
OH MY GOD, AND THE RESPONSES JUST KEEP GETTING BETTER AND BETTER!!
Waitaminnit.. didn't you just say, `I don't think it should be
a law.' Now you're saying that because YOU don't think it should
be a law, it's immoral for everyone else.
Wow Henry, do you ignore or abuse ALL the other laws you don't like?
Henry - take stock for a second and realize that you're advocating
the bad treatment of these H1B workers. Your answer makes absolutely
no sense, but then again you don't have that many more corners to
back yourself into, do you?
Henry - you've changed your original stance over and over since
you began to embarrass yourself with your original post. Why
Henry? Could it be that this whole time YOU WERE WRONG??! :)
> > They come here because they don't have many
> > other options. America is logically the best place for them
> > to come. When they do, they are at the mercy of the H1B visa
> > program, WHERE AMERICAN COMPANIES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND
> > EXPLOIT THEM. People in underdeveloped countries routinely have
> > to make hard decisions that trade one disadvantage for another.
>
> So then the problem is that they are at the mercy of the H1B
> Visa program. It is immoral and should be eliminated. Problem
> solved.
HAHAHA, Nice try but you won't weasel out of your losing argument
like that. Now that you've gone and `come out of the closet' with your
anarchist views, I know that the rest of your argument is
moot. :)
Laws and government is there for our own good and there's a
system in place to change what we don't like about those laws
and government.
> > They measure if it's easier to come to America, and work for a
> > job where they're not treated as fairly as American workers,
> > and are paid a wage that's probably less than their American
> > counterparts, versus working in lousy conditions in their
> > own country for employers who are even less regulated and
> > for a wage that's even LESS than what they would be paid
> > in their own country.
>
> So they are getting a great deal -- they come here and make more
> than they could've at their old job. That doesn't sound like
> exploitation, it sounds like a promotion. If that is your version
> of exploitation, I hope somebody will exploit me by raising my
> wages and giving me a better job.
Hahahaha!! It's getting even better!! You blatantly chose
to IGNORE the part where I said that they're having to choose
between the lesser of two evils. Hahahahahahaha..
Henry! Evasion noted! :)
Covering your eyes and singing, "Lalalalalala" doesn't make
you right :)
> >> Because we (should) have morals, ethics, and a sense of justice.
>
> > Henry, welcome to America. Our government is there to *help*
> > us.
>
> Whether we want it or not, apparently. Isn't that swell of them.
You don't like it, get out. I'll go even farther, I'll even
buy you a plane ticket to your country of choice. Go ahead
and start the paperwork on renouncing your citizenship.
> It sure is nice that the likes of Teddy "tequila" K, Jesse "freakshow"
> Helms, and Gary "oops, I lost an intern" Condit are there to take
> care of us poor, ignorant, huddled masses. What would we do without
> them slowing down the economy?
Hahahahaha, congratulations Henry.. trying to distract the fact
that your argument is lost, you turn to cheap-shot political
jabbing.. You also miscalculated by thinking that I'd support
those right wing republican examples.. Wrong on both counts.
> > Did you make that up? `voluntary cooperation'? What political
> > party supports this? Is it the libertarians?
>
> Gee, imagine a world in which people are allowed to voluntarily
> cooperate without wise bureaucrats telling us what is good for
> us. Oh, the horror.....
Hahahhaha.. didn't think you'd actually tell me there too. So
it *is* in fact something that you just made up :)
Tell me something.. what happens in your utopian "voluntary
agreement" system when somebody takes advantage of someone
else? how about in your system if a group of companies
get together and form a `union' of sorts to *influence*
what happens? Why, it fails, doesn't it? :)
Don't try to counter with some numbskull statement
like, `Well, they won't do that, because employment will
be on the rise, and money will be made out of thin air,
etc, etc.'
It doesn't work Henry.
> >> interferes in that transaction for fear that someone
> >> in the transaction is being treated poorly, despite the fact that
> >> neither party feels they are being treated poorly, that is immoral
> >> and unfair.
>
> > Heh, no.. it's called Government. :)
>
> Yes, an immoral and unfair government.
Hehehehe.. so now the government is the enemy? I thought
it was the "whiny programmers" there Henry. BE CAREFUL,
THEY'RE OUT TO GET YOU!! :)
> >> Because they know what they are getting into and they come here at
> >> great cost to their life. They would not do that if they were
> >> being exploited.
>
> > Bullshit. They would do that if it was the best choice they had.
>
> Getting a raise and better living conditions is a good choice.
> Only in bizaaro world is that considered exploitation.
Again, you have to resort to ignoring the facts to make your
anarchist argument work.
Smell that Henry? The sharks are starting to close in.. I
know that deep down inside yourself, you know that you've
already lost :)
> > Henry, the H1B system is a mess. It's unfair to BOTH the
> > people who come over here looking to better themselves from
> > underdeveloped countries and qualified Americans who are
> > at the mercy of the companies who abuse the system.
>
> OK, eliminate it and let companies hire whoever they want. I'm
> glad you agree that the program is a big mistake.
It's there for a reason Henry.. we need to *change* it. Your
solution of, `let's get rid of all the laws we just don't like'
will lead to anarchy.
> >> It's none of their business what other people do with their labor.
>
> > Well Henry, sorry to burst your bubble on this, but currently
> > American companies are subject to government intervention
> > when hiring out-of-country workers. Once again, welcome to the
> > USA.
>
> Again, it is immoral.
According to YOU! Not according to the MAJORITY! What makes
you god, Henry? What gives you the right to make that decision
for the majority?
> I know what the law *is*, I am wondering how you justify,
> morally or ethically, interfering with a voluntary
> transaction between consenting adults.
Hahahahahahahaha.. more of this "voluntary agreement"
crap, eh? Whining about how the mean ole gov't just
won't let you or your company hire who they want. Now
who's the whiny programmer, Henry?
The laws in this country are there for our protection Henry.
Just because you disagree with something doesn't make *me* have
to prove how I justify it morally or ethically to myself.
Once again, if you don't like the laws, and you don't
advocate people using them to better themselves, looks
like you don't have much of choice, looks like you should
probably leave this country. You should go to Sierra Leone,
Somalia, any third-world nation where laws like ours DON'T
exist Henry, where you can start a country and hire
anyone you please, then see how you do there.
Your true self has finally shown through Henry, as a kook
anarchist. You claim that if a law is immoral, (in
YOUR mind) it's okay to abuse it. You claim to know what
is best for everyone.
-grep
Henry Blaskowski
>> So? It is an immoral system. Abusing an immoral law is a virtue.
> OH MY GOD, AND THE RESPONSES JUST KEEP GETTING BETTER AND BETTER!!
> Waitaminnit.. didn't you just say, `I don't think it should be
> a law.' Now you're saying that because YOU don't think it should
> be a law, it's immoral for everyone else.
No, that's not why I think it is an immoral law. It is an immoral
law because it prevents honest people from engaging in voluntary
consensual transactions that improve their lives.
> Wow Henry, do you ignore or abuse ALL the other laws you don't like?
I ignore the ones I can, but for some the risk is too big. For
example, I think a large portion of my tax bill is used for
unethical, immoral or wasteful programs, but I don't dare send in
a partial payment. It's a risk-benefit analysis.
> Henry - take stock for a second and realize that you're advocating
> the bad treatment of these H1B workers. Your answer makes absolutely
> no sense, but then again you don't have that many more corners to
> back yourself into, do you?
I'm not advocating poor treatment for anyone. I want the government
out of the way of honest people trying to make an honest living.
Why is that so hard to understand?
> Henry - you've changed your original stance over and over since
> you began to embarrass yourself with your original post. Why
> Henry? Could it be that this whole time YOU WERE WRONG??! :)
Which stance do you think has changed?
>> So then the problem is that they are at the mercy of the H1B
>> Visa program. It is immoral and should be eliminated. Problem
>> solved.
> HAHAHA, Nice try but you won't weasel out of your losing argument
> like that. Now that you've gone and `come out of the closet' with your
> anarchist views, I know that the rest of your argument is
> moot. :)
Huh? What weasaling? I started this argument oppposed to the
government having a say in the voluntary transactions of others,
and that is still where I stand. Where is the problem?
>> So they are getting a great deal -- they come here and make more
>> than they could've at their old job. That doesn't sound like
>> exploitation, it sounds like a promotion. If that is your version
>> of exploitation, I hope somebody will exploit me by raising my
>> wages and giving me a better job.
> Hahahaha!! It's getting even better!! You blatantly chose
> to IGNORE the part where I said that they're having to choose
> between the lesser of two evils. Hahahahahahaha..
So? Everyone in the world has to choose between different options
in life. Do you think foreigners should be granted some special
exemption to the notion that wants are unlimited and resources
are limited? I have a choice: spend the day playing with my son
and starve, or go to work and miss out on a large part of his day.
I have to choose the lesser of two evils. Will you support a law
that makes me not have to make such a choice? Or do you think
this is a privilege that should be reserved for foreign high-tech
workers?
>> Whether we want it or not, apparently. Isn't that swell of them.
> You don't like it, get out. I'll go even farther, I'll even
> buy you a plane ticket to your country of choice. Go ahead
> and start the paperwork on renouncing your citizenship.
Ah, isn't that swell. The last resort when you run out of arguments
trying to defend an immoral policy -- trot out the old "love it
or leave it" ploy. As an interesting historical note, this was
frequently the line used to attempt to demean the people protesting
the Viet Nam war.
>> It sure is nice that the likes of Teddy "tequila" K, Jesse "freakshow"
>> Helms, and Gary "oops, I lost an intern" Condit are there to take
>> care of us poor, ignorant, huddled masses. What would we do without
>> them slowing down the economy?
> Hahahahaha, congratulations Henry.. trying to distract the fact
> that your argument is lost, you turn to cheap-shot political
> jabbing.. You also miscalculated by thinking that I'd support
> those right wing republican examples.. Wrong on both counts.
Interesting... Condit and Kennedy right wing. That's a new one.
The point is, Congress is full of idiots on both sides of the aisle,
and they should not have a say in people's voluntary cooperative
attempts to improve their life.
>> Gee, imagine a world in which people are allowed to voluntarily
>> cooperate without wise bureaucrats telling us what is good for
>> us. Oh, the horror.....
> Hahahhaha.. didn't think you'd actually tell me there too. So
> it *is* in fact something that you just made up :)
> Tell me something.. what happens in your utopian "voluntary
> agreement" system when somebody takes advantage of someone
> else? how about in your system if a group of companies
> get together and form a `union' of sorts to *influence*
> what happens? Why, it fails, doesn't it? :)
Huh? I'm talking about a voluntary agreement between an
employer and an employee. Unions are a different issue. Why
do you have so much trouble believing that someone not born in
this country can make an intelligent decision about their own
life?
>> Yes, an immoral and unfair government.
> Hehehehe.. so now the government is the enemy? I thought
> it was the "whiny programmers" there Henry. BE CAREFUL,
> THEY'RE OUT TO GET YOU!! :)
Well, in this case, the government's enforcement of a particularly
bad law is the enemy.
>> Getting a raise and better living conditions is a good choice.
>> Only in bizaaro world is that considered exploitation.
> Again, you have to resort to ignoring the facts to make your
> anarchist argument work.
Are you denying that foreigners can make rational decisions about
how to improve their lives? Are you denying that a job in the
US is the best choice for them? Then why are you so determined
to limit their possibilities in life? Is this some sort of
hatred of foreigners, or just part of your condescending attitude
toward everyone?
>>
>> OK, eliminate it and let companies hire whoever they want. I'm
>> glad you agree that the program is a big mistake.
> It's there for a reason Henry.. we need to *change* it. Your
> solution of, `let's get rid of all the laws we just don't like'
> will lead to anarchy.
Getting rid of all the laws I don't like would not lead to anarchy,
it would lead to a predictable rule of law in which people engaged
in non-harmful, voluntary consensual behavior are left alone. That
is nothing like anarchy. It's called "morality" and "freedom".
>> Again, it is immoral.
> According to YOU! Not according to the MAJORITY! What makes
> you god, Henry? What gives you the right to make that decision
> for the majority?
What gives you the right to make a lifestyle decision for *anyone*?
Why do you think you should get a vote on transactions that don't
involve you? Would you be happy if a majority voted that you have
to live in a mud hut eating bugs? Would that make it moral? Is
that your only basis for morality: what the majority says?
You have yet to make any attempt to defend your case except
by saying "that's the way it is and therefore it is right". Sorry,
appeals to authority don't work with me. That's not justification,
it's a copout.
> The laws in this country are there for our protection Henry.
> Just because you disagree with something doesn't make *me* have
> to prove how I justify it morally or ethically to myself.
I don't want to be protected from voluntary consensual transactions
with others. I want them encouraged and promoted.
Henry Blaskowski
>>
>>I don't have any problem with them making money. I have a problem
>>with them trying to artificially influence their wages through
>>political means.
> Isn't that _exactly_ what businesses want to do by expanding
> the visa program (and Bush's "guest worker" proposal)? They
> have exherted their political influence (read: campaing contributions)
> to hold down wages.
The default should be that people should be allowed to engage in
voluntary consensual transactions without government interference.
Therefore, if an employer wants to bring a foreigner here at a wage
they both agree upon, the government should have no say in whether
to allow this to happen.
>> Wage and price controls have failed every time they
>>have been tried in history, and cause economic damage.
> Does that apply to holding down wages?
Yes.
>> They should not use politics to
>>influence simple economic transactions.
> I take it that you are then opposed to Bush's "guest worker"
> proposal?
I think people should be allowed to work when and where they want,
regardless of where they happen to have been born.
grepcat
> grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
>
> No, that's not why I think it is an immoral law. It is an immoral
> law because it prevents honest people from engaging in voluntary
> consensual transactions that improve their lives
The obvious solution is to *fix* the law.
Answer this one question:
If you take away the law, what's to stop dishonest
people from taking advantage?
> I ignore the ones I can, but for some the risk is too big.
Heh, I don't think you're smart enough to realize how
much this weakens your argument :)
Advocating lawlessness to support your flawed theory? :)
> I'm not advocating poor treatment for anyone. I want the government
> out of the way of honest people trying to make an honest living.
> Why is that so hard to understand?
Yes you did, I said that companies are abusing the system and
you said that it's okay to abuse an immoral law :)
Your argument breaks down as soon as a dishonest element is
introduced to the equation. If you disagree, then prove it
doesn't.
> Which stance do you think has changed?
In the beginning, you claimed that the `whiny programmers' were
at fault, now you say the government is at fault.
> Huh? What weaseling? I started this argument opposed to the
> government having a say in the voluntary transactions of others,
Heh, read above.
> and that is still where I stand. Where is the problem?
Nope, now you're saying that it's the government's fault :)
> So? Everyone in the world has to choose between different options
> in life. Do you think foreigners should be granted some special
> exemption to the notion that wants are unlimited and resources
> are limited?
> I have a choice: spend the day playing with my son
> and starve, or go to work and miss out on a large part of his day.
> I have to choose the lesser of two evils. Will you support a law
> that makes me not have to make such a choice?
There's no comparison between the two, apples and oranges. Try
again.
> Ah, isn't that swell. The last resort when you run out of arguments
> trying to defend an immoral policy -- trot out the old "love it
> or leave it" ploy.
But Henry, you say that people using the government to better
themselves is wrong, yet the law is wrong and you want it removed?
How could you possibly be happy, except if you lived someplace else,
where the laws are more to your liking? :)
> The point is, Congress is full of idiots on both sides of the aisle,
> and they should not have a say in people's voluntary cooperative
> attempts to improve their life.
I say again then, why don't you *do* something about it, instead
of whining how the government is so bad? Get out there and
change something Henry! Get out there and use that system we have
to *your* advantage! Don't post whiny crap about how people
are bad because they're trying to change what they feel is right,
Umm, also.. aren't these 17 `whiny programmers' you originally posted
about banding together in a `voluntary cooperative' in an attempt
to improve their life? :)
> Huh? I'm talking about a voluntary agreement between an
> employer and an employee.
Again I ask you.. what's there to protect the employees, if
companies start to act dishonestly? Where is your allowance
for that?
> Well, in this case, the government's enforcement of a particularly
> bad law is the enemy.
Hmmmm! Yet, in your first post you complained about the
programmers?
> Are you denying that foreigners can make rational decisions about
> how to improve their lives?
you seem to keep returning this, like it's some big conspiratorial
attitude that I have, so I'll go ahead and answer it for you, once
and for all so you can;t bring it up again; no, I do believe
that foreign workers can make rational decisions.
> Are you denying that a job in the US is the best choice for them?
Heh, Henry, nice try but didn't I just say THIS:
>> They come here because they don't have many
>> other options. America is logically the best place for them
>> to come.
Nice try. Reload and this time try to get something right :)
> Then why are you so determined to limit their possibilities
> in life?
I'm not, and I proved your above accusation baseless. Try again.
> Is this some sort of hatred of foreigners,
Uhoh! Am I being branded a racist again? Didn't you
already apologize for doing this? :)
Come up with something better than, `You're a racist, you
hate foreigners and that's why I'm right' :)
> Getting rid of all the laws I don't like would not lead to anarchy,
> it would lead to a predictable rule of law in which people engaged
> in non-harmful, voluntary consensual behavior are left alone.
*sigh* ...okay Henry, I'll bite. If you could get rid of the
laws you didn't like, what laws would you get rid of? How would
getting rid of those laws help America? Can you *prove* that your
theory would work?
> That is nothing like anarchy. It's called "morality" and "freedom".
Well now.. let's just see what you have to say in response to my above
question?
> What gives you the right to make a lifestyle decision for *anyone*?
> Why do you think you should get a vote on transactions that don't
> involve you?
How do you know that it doesn't or won't involve me? Why shouldn't
I have a say in what my government does? :)
grepcat
thread started above.. Hmmm.. I wonder why? :)
Henry Blaskowski
> Answer this one question:
> If you take away the law, what's to stop dishonest
> people from taking advantage?
All you need is a law that if somebody commits fraud, i.e., brings
a programmer over under false pretenses, they can be fined or jailed.
Fraud is already against the law. Why do we need more (broken)
laws that cause more problems and solve nothing?
>> I'm not advocating poor treatment for anyone. I want the government
>> out of the way of honest people trying to make an honest living.
>> Why is that so hard to understand?
> Yes you did, I said that companies are abusing the system and
> you said that it's okay to abuse an immoral law :)
Abusing the system is different than abusing a person, especially
if the system is immoral.
> Your argument breaks down as soon as a dishonest element is
> introduced to the equation. If you disagree, then prove it
> doesn't.
As stated above, we already have laws against dishonesty. We don't
need to interfere in the private transactions of others.
>> Which stance do you think has changed?
> In the beginning, you claimed that the `whiny programmers' were
> at fault, now you say the government is at fault.
It is a dual problem: the government has allowed itself to be
manipulated by special interests, whereas the whiny programmers
see this opening and hope to use it to their advantage by eliminating
the right of others to improve their life.
>> I have a choice: spend the day playing with my son
>> and starve, or go to work and miss out on a large part of his day.
>> I have to choose the lesser of two evils. Will you support a law
>> that makes me not have to make such a choice?
> There's no comparison between the two, apples and oranges. Try
> again.
It is an exact comparison. The world is not perfect for anybody.
You seem to think that it is OK for the government to single out
certain people to make the world perfect for them. If so, I want
to be on that list. If not, they can do what the rest of us do:
evaluate our options, choose the best one, work hard, and reevaluate
our options. Why is that complicated?
>> The point is, Congress is full of idiots on both sides of the aisle,
>> and they should not have a say in people's voluntary cooperative
>> attempts to improve their life.
> I say again then, why don't you *do* something about it, instead
> of whining how the government is so bad? Get out there and
> change something Henry! Get out there and use that system we have
> to *your* advantage! Don't post whiny crap about how people
> are bad because they're trying to change what they feel is right,
I am doing something -- I am arguing these points for thousands of
people to read. Seeing as how Nightline won't invite me as a guest,
and I don't have the millions necessary to buy a congresscritter,
and there is no election this week, it is the best I can do for now.
> Umm, also.. aren't these 17 `whiny programmers' you originally posted
> about banding together in a `voluntary cooperative' in an attempt
> to improve their life? :)
If they banded together and went on strike, I'd have no problem.
They were banding together to try to interfere in the private
transactions of others. That makes them immoral.
>> Huh? I'm talking about a voluntary agreement between an
>> employer and an employee.
> Again I ask you.. what's there to protect the employees, if
> companies start to act dishonestly? Where is your allowance
> for that?
Laws against fraud.
>> Well, in this case, the government's enforcement of a particularly
>> bad law is the enemy.
> Hmmmm! Yet, in your first post you complained about the
> programmers?
Gee, it's really not that complicated. The programmers are the
problem for asking special favors, the gov't is the problem for
being open to such a thing.
>> Are you denying that foreigners can make rational decisions about
>> how to improve their lives?
> you seem to keep returning this, like it's some big conspiratorial
> attitude that I have, so I'll go ahead and answer it for you, once
> and for all so you can;t bring it up again; no, I do believe
> that foreign workers can make rational decisions.
Then why do you think they want yours or Jesse Helms or Teddy Kennedy's
help with their career choices?
>> Then why are you so determined to limit their possibilities
>> in life?
> I'm not, and I proved your above accusation baseless. Try again.
You are the one that wants a program in place that gives bureaucrats
the right to decided if and when they can work here, apparently
because you think you know more about their lives than they do,
because they did not ask for your help.
>> Getting rid of all the laws I don't like would not lead to anarchy,
>> it would lead to a predictable rule of law in which people engaged
>> in non-harmful, voluntary consensual behavior are left alone.
> *sigh* ...okay Henry, I'll bite. If you could get rid of the
> laws you didn't like, what laws would you get rid of? How would
> getting rid of those laws help America? Can you *prove* that your
> theory would work?
I would make all non-harmful, voluntary consensual behavior legal.
Does it work? Of course it does. There is a massive world-wide
experiment going on right now. First rank all countries on a
continuum from "allows most or all non-harmful, voluntary consensual
behavior" to "controls all aspects of people's personal and economic
freedom". Then rank all countries on "per capita income" or
"standard of living", or any other measure of well-being. Check
the correlation. It is quite strong: freedom works.
>> What gives you the right to make a lifestyle decision for *anyone*?
>> Why do you think you should get a vote on transactions that don't
>> involve you?
> How do you know that it doesn't or won't involve me? Why shouldn't
> I have a say in what my government does? :)
It doesn't involve you if you are not the employer hiring the programmer
or the programmer being hired. You should have a say in your gov't,
but the gov't should have no say in such a hiring decision.
Henry Blaskowski
> BTW - I see you never responded to the "High Tech Lockout"
> thread started above.. Hmmm.. I wonder why? :)
I read it and didn't respond because I couldn't make much sense
out of what the author was complaining about, and much of it was
just one person's guesses about what was really going on. In
other words, it wasn't written well enough to make a meaningful
reply.
grepcat
> grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
>
> > Answer this one question:
> > If you take away the law, what's to stop dishonest
> > people from taking advantage?
>
> All you need is a law that if somebody commits fraud, i.e., brings
> a programmer over under false pretenses, they can be fined or jailed.
> Fraud is already against the law. Why do we need more (broken)
> laws that cause more problems and solve nothing?
I won't even say, `nice try' because it's not. It's crap.
It's a complete oversimplification. You loose because you
can't come up with any decent system in place of the one
you're advocating the removal of, all you give is
a *general* statement. The assinine assumption that
"Fraud" will cover whatever you want it to be is
completely off the mark, and characteristic of someone
whose talking out of thier ass. You come off sounding
like someone who's taken poly-sci 101 course at a community
college and thinks they can fix complex legal problems with
the equivlent of a piece of tape, some gum and a pencil.
The only way you can back up your idiotic statement is
by actually PROVING that existing laws against fraud
would cover gaps left in the removal of the USDoL
work visa program, but you can't, can you? All you are
left with saying is, `If my program was in place, it'd
work, and if you don't like it, you're a racist!' :)
> >> I'm not advocating poor treatment for anyone. I want the government
> >> out of the way of honest people trying to make an honest living.
> >> Why is that so hard to understand?
>
> > Yes you did, I said that companies are abusing the system and
> > you said that it's okay to abuse an immoral law :)
>
> Abusing the system is different than abusing a person, especially
> if the system is immoral.
You loose again because you're trying to worm out of a
statement you made, that I called you on. People can read Henry.
> > Your argument breaks down as soon as a dishonest element is
> > introduced to the equation. If you disagree, then prove it
> > doesn't.
>
> As stated above, we already have laws against dishonesty. We don't
> need to interfere in the private transactions of others.
You're ignoring again Henry.. You sadly try to use your
oversimplified, "we'll just do this, problem solved."
knee-jerk reaction and it falls far short of the mark.
I've challanged you for proof above.. produce it.
> >> Which stance do you think has changed?
>
> > In the beginning, you claimed that the `whiny programmers' were
> > at fault, now you say the government is at fault.
>
> It is a dual problem: the government has allowed itself to be
> manipulated by special interests,
Hahahahahaha.. Okay so you capitulated on that one, and not
only that but you added a THIRD bad guy, the `special interest
groups'. How many more twists and turns will you add to your
original position? How many more will you continue to blame? :)
You loose again, as I just proved above. Damn Henry, you're
zero for three so far.
> whereas the whiny programmers
> see this opening and hope to use it to their advantage by eliminating
> the right of others to improve their life.
As I've told you before, and i'll tell you again.. American
rights are first and foremost in America. Just as Brazilian
rights are first and foremost in Brazil, Russian rights, in
Russia, etc..
> >> I have a choice: spend the day playing with my son
> >> and starve, or go to work and miss out on a large part of his day.
> >> I have to choose the lesser of two evils. Will you support a law
> >> that makes me not have to make such a choice?
>
> > There's no comparison between the two, apples and oranges. Try
> > again.
>
> It is an exact comparison. The world is not perfect for anybody.
> You seem to think that it is OK for the government to single out
> certain people to make the world perfect for them.
I thought that was a good thing, the ability our great nation
gives us to change our own laws, rules, whatever with a majority
vote? You certainly don't oppose the democratic process, do you?
Are you against giving power to the people?
Also Henry, you were *just* arguing that I used the example
of the *majority* in my last post? Which is it do you mistakenly
think that I support? The few or the many?
Heh, you're making stuff up again. :)
> > I say again then, why don't you *do* something about it, instead
> > of whining how the government is so bad? Get out there and
> > change something Henry! Get out there and use that system we have
> > to *your* advantage! Don't post whiny crap about how people
> > are bad because they're trying to change what they feel is right,
>
> I am doing something -- I am arguing these points for thousands of
> people to read.
What do you think that's going to accomplish, except prove
the fact that you're an anarchist kook, Henry?
> Seeing as how Nightline won't invite me as a guest,
> and I don't have the millions necessary to buy a congresscritter,
> and there is no election this week, it is the best I can do for now.
Fight on, my anarchist martyr.. I'm sure that sooner or later
you'll find some other kooks to ally with, against the injustices
imposed on us by `whiny programmers'. :)
> > Umm, also.. aren't these 17 `whiny programmers' you originally posted
> > about banding together in a `voluntary cooperative' in an attempt
> > to improve their life? :)
>
> If they banded together and went on strike, I'd have no problem.
Ohhhhhhhh, I see your argument now.. It's only the version of
`voluntary cooperation' that jives with whatever weird definition
you have of that in your head. What *EXACTLY* are the legal parameters
of your `voluntary cooperation' that you like to use so much for
a cure-all?
> They were banding together to try to interfere in the private
> transactions of others. That makes them immoral.
Once *again* you lose because the `private transactions' that
you claim companies are doing are not private because currently
they have to use the DoL work visas laws. Since these are not
`private transactions', rather they're public transactions
that involve government restrictions, your `this is immoral'
conclusion only works, in your head.
> >> Huh? I'm talking about a voluntary agreement between an
> >> employer and an employee.
>
> > Again I ask you.. what's there to protect the employees, if
> > companies start to act dishonestly? Where is your allowance
> > for that?
>
> Laws against fraud.
Prove it. Give concrete examples that I asked for above.
>
> >> Well, in this case, the government's enforcement of a particularly
> >> bad law is the enemy.
>
> > Hmmmm! Yet, in your first post you complained about the
> > programmers?
>
> Gee, it's really not that complicated.
Heh, you complicate it by continuing to say who is
wrong here, first the programmers, then the government,
finally (as you mentioned above) the `special interest
groups'.
> The programmers are the
> problem for asking special favors, the gov't is the problem for
> being open to such a thing.
You forgot your third `bad guy', your special interest groups.
> >> Are you denying that foreigners can make rational decisions about
> >> how to improve their lives?
>
> > you seem to keep returning this, like it's some big conspiratorial
> > attitude that I have, so I'll go ahead and answer it for you, once
> > and for all so you can;t bring it up again; no, I do believe
> > that foreign workers can make rational decisions.
>
> Then why do you think they want yours or Jesse Helms or Teddy Kennedy's
> help with their career choices?
Heh, you lose *AGAIN* because it dosen't matter what they want,
they're guests of a foriegn country, and are therefore subject
to that country's laws and regulations.
>
> >> Then why are you so determined to limit their possibilities
> >> in life?
>
> > I'm not, and I proved your above accusation baseless. Try again.
>
> You are the one that wants a program in place that gives bureaucrats
> the right to decided if and when they can work here, apparently
> because you think you know more about their lives than they do,
> because they did not ask for your help.
That's your assumption, Henry. It's also your opinion and as
I've said before, because you think it's right dosen't necessarily
make it right. Where is *your* majority, Henry? What political
group do you belong to?
> >> Getting rid of all the laws I don't like would not lead to anarchy,
> >> it would lead to a predictable rule of law in which people engaged
> >> in non-harmful, voluntary consensual behavior are left alone.
>
> > *sigh* ...okay Henry, I'll bite. If you could get rid of the
> > laws you didn't like, what laws would you get rid of? How would
> > getting rid of those laws help America? Can you *prove* that your
> > theory would work?
>
> I would make all non-harmful, voluntary consensual behavior legal.
You haven't really said anything with that statement. I'll give
you one more chance; re-state your general statement into something
concrete.
> Does it work? Of course it does.
Heh, you loose again because, `of course it does' dosen't prove shit,
does it Henry? :)
> There is a massive world-wide experiment going on right now.
> First rank all countries on a continuum from "allows most
> or all non-harmful, voluntary consensual "behavior"
> to "controls all aspects of people's personal and economic
> freedom". Then rank all countries on "per capita income" or
> "standard of living", or any other measure of well-being. Check
> the correlation. It is quite strong: freedom works.
The burden of proof of how *YOUR* theory is not on me, it's on
you. Since you claim that your theory works, (and that is
YOUR theory, the `voluntary consensual behavior') then prove it.
List all those countries you just mentioned, crossreferenced
with those figures, and BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT WITH PROOF.
To make it easy on you, I'll even accept it in MS Excell format.
Proof Henry, I'm calling you out right now.. and while it's fun
to read your wacky rantings of what you think government should
be, frankly if you don't post something concrete in the next few
posts, I'm going to have to let you slide back down into that
great kooky pool from which you come. Admittedly it was fun
to poke holes in your crackpot theories, but now it's getting
old..
To recap, here's your homework assignment Henry:
1.) Prove without a doubt, with concrete examples that
existing laws against fraud would cover gaps left in
the removal of the USDoL work visa program. Each point
that the DoL work visa program is designed to cover,
you must prove that existing fraud laws will take over
for it.
2.) Define *EXACTLY* the legal parameters of your
`voluntary cooperation' system and how it's better
than our existing system in a point-comparative
format. (I know that this will probably be a big one,
since you have ALOT to compare it to, so I'll give
you a little extra time to complete this.)
3.) Explain what your political party is.
4.) Re-define your statement, "I would make all
non-harmful, voluntary consensual behavior legal."
into something concrete, rather than a generalization.
Cite more than 6 examples where your system would be
more beneficial that the one already in place.
5.) Produce the excel doc I asked above.
The time you've taken to spout crackpot theories is
over, complete the assignments above and prove that
you're right.
Dan Nelson
>
> To recap, here's your homework assignment Henry:
Troll. Heh.
As a software developer who has worked on code that was imported from
India, Pakistan, and several other countries (e.g. cleaning up the mess)
and who has worked cheek-by-jowl with people from numerous countries, I
know for a fact that this entire discussion is moot.
I've seen exactly one "foriegn" developer (from India, as it happens)
that was worth his salt (and he was actually worth gold...what a digital
god). The rest have mostly been garden-variety wannabes. Bring 'em
on. If they take someone's job, those who lost the jobs seriously
deserved not to work.
I should add that in my experience, German developers seem markedly more
competent than others.
--
Flonkish ambassador to the Elven Court of the Wild Hunt
Chosen Studmuffin of the Avatars of the Apocalypse
mhm27x20, smeeter #11
OK, I admit it. I think of your winkie day and night. I often have
to stop myself from saying "Oh Yes, Dan, YES!" during moments of
passion with balloo.
- Jellibun, telling it like it is.
"Personally, I don't know why anyone would want to live in that
shithole. As a Jew, I consider my homeland to be Manhattan."
- David Rosenfield, on Israel/the middle east. Mheh.
grepcat
news:3B8D95C9...@black-hole.com...
> grepcat wrote:
>
> I've seen exactly one "foriegn" developer (from India, as it happens)
> that was worth his salt (and he was actually worth gold...what a digital
> god). The rest have mostly been garden-variety wannabes. Bring 'em
> on. If they take someone's job, those who lost the jobs seriously
> deserved not to work.
>
> I should add that in my experience, German developers seem markedly more
> competent than others.
Yeah, I've seen good H1B holding developers and bad ones, one
of the best ones so far was an Oracle DBA.. She had a head
for logic and mathematics that would blow people away.. Even
our egghead MIT grads were impressed.. the worst was a VB
developer who sat down and thought that we were going to
*teach* him how to code.. Far as I know, he's still there
checking syntax.
Never worked with any Germans, besides one of our creative
guys who threw the *best* fucking parties :)
-grep
Dan Nelson
I worked with some Germans on a project awhile back. Those guys are
serious about getting it right. I was providing them with C++ headers
for a library, and it was a game to see if they could catch me out in
mistakes. They made me do a final revision to correct two spelling
mistakes I had made in my comments. They were only half joking. I
would have been pissed, but they gave me a breed of cooperation and
professional respect I've never seen before and likely won't again.
Vicious.
Henry Blaskowski
>>
>> All you need is a law that if somebody commits fraud, i.e., brings
>> a programmer over under false pretenses, they can be fined or jailed.
>> Fraud is already against the law. Why do we need more (broken)
>> laws that cause more problems and solve nothing?
> I won't even say, `nice try' because it's not. It's crap.
Why do you believe this? Fraud is an easily enforceable crime.
Two people sign a contract. One of them doesn't live up to it.
That is a crime. The end. Why is that complicated?
But I guess insults are easier than thinking, so I don't expect
you to explain yourself.
> [...additional insults deleted...]
>> Abusing the system is different than abusing a person, especially
>> if the system is immoral.
> You loose again because you're trying to worm out of a
> statement you made, that I called you on. People can read Henry.
I'm not trying to "worm out" of anything. You are claiming that
people making voluntary consensual agreements is "abuse", even
though both parties enter the agreement willingly. That is
an abuse of the word "abuse". You seem to think it is abuse
because there is an immoral law which interferes with their
ability to make this contract. Hint: laws don't decide
morality, only legality.
> I've challanged you for proof above.. produce it.
Many people are prosecuted for fraud and breach of contract
every day. The law works.
>>
>> It is a dual problem: the government has allowed itself to be
>> manipulated by special interests,
> Hahahahahaha.. Okay so you capitulated on that one, and not
> only that but you added a THIRD bad guy, the `special interest
> groups'. How many more twists and turns will you add to your
> original position? How many more will you continue to blame? :)
You really are not paying attention, are you? In the case we
are discussing, the "special interest" is the whiny programmers.
See? This discussion is not that complicated, but I will try
to type more slowly.
>> whereas the whiny programmers
>> see this opening and hope to use it to their advantage by eliminating
>> the right of others to improve their life.
> As I've told you before, and i'll tell you again.. American
> rights are first and foremost in America. Just as Brazilian
> rights are first and foremost in Brazil, Russian rights, in
> Russia, etc..
I'm glad you agree. Therefore, the right of the American employer
should not be interfered with.
>>
>> It is an exact comparison. The world is not perfect for anybody.
>> You seem to think that it is OK for the government to single out
>> certain people to make the world perfect for them.
> I thought that was a good thing, the ability our great nation
> gives us to change our own laws, rules, whatever with a majority
> vote? You certainly don't oppose the democratic process, do you?
> Are you against giving power to the people?
I don't think that do-gooder bureaucrats should be allowed to
interfere in private transactions in the name of some nebulous
vision of "the common good". Central planning has failed everywhere
it has been tried. The fact that it is done on a small scale
doesn't make it less harmful, just less noticeable.
>> If they banded together and went on strike, I'd have no problem.
> Ohhhhhhhh, I see your argument now.. It's only the version of
> `voluntary cooperation' that jives with whatever weird definition
> you have of that in your head. What *EXACTLY* are the legal parameters
> of your `voluntary cooperation' that you like to use so much for
> a cure-all?
Do you really not understand the concept of cooperation? Boy,
I have to go back further than I thought with you. You see, if
two people agree to something, and they are not forced by anyone
else to agree to it, and they follow through with it, that is
voluntary cooperation.
On the other hand, if two people agree to something, but are
prevented from following through on that agreement by meddling
bureacrats backed by the threat of fines and/or jail, that is
not voluntary cooperation. That is force/politics. It's really
quite a simple concept.
>> They were banding together to try to interfere in the private
>> transactions of others. That makes them immoral.
> Once *again* you lose because the `private transactions' that
> you claim companies are doing are not private because currently
> they have to use the DoL work visas laws. Since these are not
Exactly -- DoL work visa laws that interfere in the voluntary
consensual behavior of intelligent, informed adults.
>> Laws against fraud.
> Prove it. Give concrete examples that I asked for above.
If a company give me a contract that says they will pay me $70K
for a years work, and I do the work and they don't pay me, they
will definitely lose in court. Are you that naive to the world
that you believe that contracts are unenforceable in the US?
>> Then why do you think they want yours or Jesse Helms or Teddy Kennedy's
>> help with their career choices?
> Heh, you lose *AGAIN* because it dosen't matter what they want,
> they're guests of a foriegn country, and are therefore subject
> to that country's laws and regulations.
Oh, I see. So you really do believe that people are less human,
somehow less deserving, by virtue of being born on the wrong side
of an imaginary thick line on a map. That's a very sad view. I
think that people born on the other side of imaginary map lines
are real people with real feelings and real human rights and therefore
should be allowed to pursue opportunities that they feel will
improve their life.
>> I would make all non-harmful, voluntary consensual behavior legal.
> You haven't really said anything with that statement. I'll give
> you one more chance; re-state your general statement into something
> concrete.
In this particular case, I would allow the non-harmful voluntary
consensual behavior of an employer and an employee agreeing to
a contractual agreement.
>> There is a massive world-wide experiment going on right now.
>> First rank all countries on a continuum from "allows most
>> or all non-harmful, voluntary consensual "behavior"
>> to "controls all aspects of people's personal and economic
>> freedom". Then rank all countries on "per capita income" or
>> "standard of living", or any other measure of well-being. Check
>> the correlation. It is quite strong: freedom works.
> The burden of proof of how *YOUR* theory is not on me, it's on
> you. Since you claim that your theory works, (and that is
> YOUR theory, the `voluntary consensual behavior') then prove it.
> List all those countries you just mentioned, crossreferenced
> with those figures, and BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT WITH PROOF.
Here's a good starting point for you. Before you go, think about
which countries are rich and which countries are poor. What's on
your list for rich ones? Probably the US, Japan, Hong Kong, England,
Germany, Canada, right? What about the poor ones? Somalia, Cuba,
North Korea, Angola, the former USSR countries, right? Ok, now
check this list of economic freedom:
http://database.townhall.com/heritage/index/indexoffreedom.cfm
and see where these countries rank. If you are still not convinced,
look them up. I know that is complicated for you, so I will look
into the top ten and bottom ten and post it later, but you should
be able to convince yourself without this exact data.
br
US salary demands just don't get the kind of reaction engendered
when a company fires union workers and hires scabs.
But even then the scabs are likely to be US citizens.
To visualize a blue collar equivalent to what is happening in
the programming world, imagine the big commercial farms in the
San Fernando Valley firing their migrant workers and contracting with
a government sponsored Sudanese company who transports their
slaves over to harvest the crops. Don't you think they could do it a lot
cheaper?
US don't make
Henry Blaskowski
> To recap, here's your homework assignment Henry:
I don't take orders from you, but I am willing to fight ignorance
whereever possible, so here goes....
> 1.) Prove without a doubt, with concrete examples that
> existing laws against fraud would cover gaps left in
> the removal of the USDoL work visa program. Each point
> that the DoL work visa program is designed to cover,
> you must prove that existing fraud laws will take over
> for it.
I don't know what proof you could possibly want if you can see the
number of fraud and breach of contract cases that are successfully
prosecuted every day. Look around.
> 2.) Define *EXACTLY* the legal parameters of your
> `voluntary cooperation' system and how it's better
> than our existing system in a point-comparative
> format. (I know that this will probably be a big one,
> since you have ALOT to compare it to, so I'll give
> you a little extra time to complete this.)
1) You may not lie or trick a person
2) If you make an agreement, you must live up to it.
3) You may not use threats of harm or violence to get a
person to agree to a contract or give up something they
would not otherwise give up.
> 3.) Explain what your political party is.
I don't need a political party. I have a brain.
> 4.) Re-define your statement, "I would make all
> non-harmful, voluntary consensual behavior legal."
> into something concrete, rather than a generalization.
> Cite more than 6 examples where your system would be
> more beneficial that the one already in place.
This makes no sense. I don't even know what you are talking about
here. The definition of voluntary consensual behavior is obvious
and well-known, plus I've spelled in out above. Six examples?
Try "in every instance". That is millions of cases.
> 5.) Produce the excel doc I asked above.
Using the sources:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
and http://www.heritage.org/index/
Top 20 (20+ with ties) Free Countries
Life Infant Per Capita Unemployment
Expectency Rate GDP Rate
Hong Kong 79.54 5.93 $23,100 6%
Singapore 80.05 3.65 $27,800 3.2%
Ireland 76.81 5.62 $20,300 5.5%
New Zealand 77.82 6.39 $17,400 7%
Luxemborg 77.13 4.83 $34,200 2.7%
United States 77.12 6.82 $33,900 4.2%
Netherlands 78.28 4.42 $23,100 3.5%
Australia 79.75 5.04 $22,200 7.5%
Bahrain 72.98 20.48 $13,700 15%
Switzerland 79.6 4.53 $27,100 2.8%
El Salvador 69.74 29.22 $3,100 7.7%
Chile 75.74 9.6 $12,400 9%
Austria 77.68 4.5 $23,400 4.4%
Canada 79.43 7.39 $23,300 7.6%
Denmark 76.54 5.11 $23,800 5.7%
Estonia 69.45 12.92 $5,600 11.7%
Japan 80.7 3.91 $23,400 4.7%
U.A.E 74.06 3.68 $17,700 N/A
Belgium 77.8 4.76 $23,900 9%
Germany 77.44 4.77 $22.700 10.5%
Taiwan 76.35 7.06 $16,100 2.9%
Least Free Countries:
N.Korea 70.74 24.29 $1000 N/A
Libya 75.45 30.08 $7,900 30%
Iran 69.66 30.02 $5,300 25%
Laos 53.09 94.8 $1,300 5.7%
Uzbekistan 63.71 72.13 $2,500 5%+
Turkmenistan 60.91 73.3 $1,800 NA
Zimbabwe 37.78 62.25 $2,400 50%
Belarus 68.0 14.63 $5,300 2.3%
Burma 54.91 75.3 $1,200 7.1%
Vietnam 69.72 31.13 $1,850 25%
Syria 68.46 34.86 $2,500 12%
Guinea-Bissan 49.04 112.25 $900 NA
Bosnia 71.49 25.17 $1,770 35%
Tajikistan 64.08 117.42 $1,020 5.7%
Azerbaijan 62.87 83.41 $1,770 20%
Haiti 49.21 97.1 $1,340 70%
Equatorial Guinea 53.36 94.83 $2,000 30%
Yemen 59.83 70.28 $750 30%
Ukraine 65.98 21.67 $2,200 4.3%
Averages:
20 Most Free: 76.85 7.65 $19,786 6.5%
20 Least Free 61.94 61.31 $2357 23.4%
Now, I know you have trouble following along here, so let me summarize
all this for you. All the countries in the world were ranked by
economic freedom. This is the freedom to engage in voluntary consensual
transactions without interference. The free-est countries allow this,
as I advocate. The least free countries have governments that think
they know better what is good for the citizens, as you advocate.
This desire to interfere costs the citizens of of the least free
countries approximately 15 years of life expectency. This desire
to interfere means that citizens of the least free countries
have an appalling 54 additional infants deaths per thousand. This
desire to interfere costs the citizens of the least free countries
a stunning $17,400 per year. This desire to interfere means that
the an additional 17% of the citizens of the least free countries
are without jobs (and that is a conservative estimate, according
to the CIA world factbook estimates of unemployment rates).
Now, these statistics are overwhelming. They are appalling. It
is amazing to me, in the face of such frightening and stunning
statistics, anyone can claim that government interference in the
economy is a good thing.
You wanted proof. Here is the ultimate real-world experiment.
The results are overwhelming and undeniable.
The ball is in your court mister "prove it". Please explain why
you think it is OK for so many people to suffer so much so that
you may have the right to interfere in the voluntary transactions
of others.
Henry Blaskowski
>> To recap, here's your homework assignment Henry:
> Troll. Heh.
That's for sure... but a marginally humorous one...
> As a software developer who has worked on code that was imported from
> India, Pakistan, and several other countries (e.g. cleaning up the mess)
> and who has worked cheek-by-jowl with people from numerous countries, I
> know for a fact that this entire discussion is moot.
> I've seen exactly one "foriegn" developer (from India, as it happens)
> that was worth his salt (and he was actually worth gold...what a digital
> god). The rest have mostly been garden-variety wannabes. Bring 'em
> on. If they take someone's job, those who lost the jobs seriously
> deserved not to work.
I've had better experience wth themthan that, but I agree: bring 'em on.
My command of the language plus my programming skills mean that they
are little threat to me. They will be my customers and suppliers.
They are an asset.
Henry Blaskowski
> To visualize a blue collar equivalent to what is happening in
> the programming world, imagine the big commercial farms in the
> San Fernando Valley firing their migrant workers and contracting with
> a government sponsored Sudanese company who transports their
> slaves over to harvest the crops. Don't you think they could do it a lot
> cheaper?
If the Sudanese citizens voluntarily and willingly come here, knowing
what they are getting into, I say good for them. Your paragraph
implies that they are brought here against their will. That makes
it "force", not voluntary, and I would be opposed to that.
I have no idea if Sudanese citizens are more cost-effective than
the current migrant workers.
grepcat
> Dan Nelson <dne...@black-hole.com> wrote:
>
> > Troll. Heh.
>
> That's for sure... but a marginally humorous one...
>
(I'll get this small one in quick while replying to your other posts)
Actually Henry, *you* are the troll, and here's why:
As taken from the Jargon Lexicon,
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html
troll - 1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or,
the post itself.
Your original post, quoted here:
> In an article in today's Star-Tribune
> (see http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/653598.html)
> a group of 17 programmers, despite making well above the median wage,
> demanded that the government "protect" them from all them yucky
> foreigners who have the gall to want to make a living.
>
> Don't those furriners know their place in the world.
>
> The good news out of this article is that these 17 morons have
> banded together and given themselves a name so that sensible people
> everywhere can avoid them when they need computer work done.
..fits that *exact* definition :)
KABOOM, Henry! - Now take your lumps like the whiny programmer you are :)
(now back to Henry's spanking..)
-grep
grepcat
> Dan Nelson <dne...@black-hole.com> wrote:
> > grepcat wrote:
>
> > Troll. Heh.
>
> That's for sure... but a marginally humorous one...
>
Oh man, and if you look deeper, Henry's been trolling since
1999! :)
A few *MORE* examples, of Henry the troll:
----------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski (hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com)
Subject: Whiners
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian
Date: 2000/04/25
I don't know what little Elian's relatives are complaining
about in regard to Reno's "rescue" of Elian. They got off
relatively easily. She could've used the same tactics she
used to "rescue" the children in the Branch Davidian compound.
(crackle crackle)
hblask
--------------------------------
From: Gilly (nospam@please)
Subject: Re: Shame on us . . .
Newsgroups: mn.politics
Date: 2000/04/12
Henry, for your own sake, give it up. It's the same pattern in every
discussion. Henry says something stupid, Henry gets called on it, Henry
lies to cover it up, Henry ends up ranting and squealing and denying and
accusing and getting all hyper while the subject of the discussion goes
begging. That's what a 'troll' is Henry--that's YOU. (I'll bet you mower
at sheephead, too.)
..[snipped]..
----------------------------------
Search Result 73
From: Henry Blaskowski (hbl...@mirage.skypoint.net)
Subject: Help, I'm starving....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian
Date: 1999/10/14
According to an article in our nation's finest news source,
the USAToday, one in six families in this country is "hungry
or near hunger". So, what does this mean?
Well, first, invent a creative and ridiculously lax definition of
hunger:
"In the "hunger" category, at least one member of a household
experienced hunger pangs once a month for at least three
consecutive months. "
Guess what? According to that definition, I fall into the
"hunger" category. Whoo hoo... can I get federal aid? And
if that's "hunger", what is "near hunger"? And what percent
fall into each category out of that 16%? If you ask me,
if only 16% of all people have hunger pangs once a month OR
live in some condition not even that bad, this country is
in great shape.
The real question this study raises is, why didn't they use a
reasonable definition of hunger? Can you say "inflated
numbers"? Can you say "political agenda"?
----------------------------------
Henry Blaskowski
>> There is a massive world-wide experiment going on right now.
>> First rank all countries on a continuum from "allows most
>> or all non-harmful, voluntary consensual "behavior"
>> to "controls all aspects of people's personal and economic
>> freedom". Then rank all countries on "per capita income" or
>> "standard of living", or any other measure of well-being. Check
>> the correlation. It is quite strong: freedom works.
> The burden of proof of how *YOUR* theory is not on me, it's on
> you. Since you claim that your theory works, (and that is
> YOUR theory, the `voluntary consensual behavior') then prove it.
> List all those countries you just mentioned, crossreferenced
> with those figures, and BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT WITH PROOF.
I know you sometimes have trouble with words, so I found a
graphical depiction of the data too:
http://www.heritage.org/index/2001/wealth.html
Now, an interesting item to look at is right about the midpoint, 3.0.
Look at the percent of countries that are ranked below 3.0 that have
a per capita GDP of more than $8000. That's right, there are none
(maybe one, right on the border at 3.0/$8000 -- I'd have to look through
the raw data to be sure). Now look at the percent of countries ranked
3.0 or above that have per capita GDP of more than $8000. It's
hard to count exactly, but it appears to be about 60%.
Now do another experiment. Draw a line at the $4000 point.
Count the percentage of countries with a GDP of less than $4000 per
person that have a freedom index of less than 3.0. That's right,
it's approximately 80%.
With that kind of evidence, can you really argue with a straight
face that central planning works? That interfering in the private
transactions of others is a good thing? And you dare to call me
a troll. Hah.
Dan Nelson
>
> "Henry Blaskowski" <hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:tosp9j3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Dan Nelson <dne...@black-hole.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Troll. Heh.
> >
> > That's for sure... but a marginally humorous one...
> >
>
> (I'll get this small one in quick while replying to your other posts)
>
> Actually Henry, *you* are the troll, and here's why:
>
> As taken from the Jargon Lexicon,
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html
>
> troll - 1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
> posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or,
> the post itself.
I should clarify that I was using the word as a noun meaning the
originator of the post. I was commenting that you were a troll. Which,
in my mind, is not a bad thing, as I hang out mostly in the troll
newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy. A well-executed troll is widely
admired in certain circles. Heh.
Scott Smith
<dne...@black-hole.com> wrote:
>grepcat wrote:
>>
>> "Henry Blaskowski" <hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote in message
>> news:tosp9j3...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Dan Nelson <dne...@black-hole.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Troll. Heh.
>> >
>> > That's for sure... but a marginally humorous one...
>> >
>> (I'll get this small one in quick while replying to your other posts)
>>
>> Actually Henry, *you* are the troll, and here's why:
>>
>> As taken from the Jargon Lexicon,
>> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html
>>
>> troll - 1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
>> posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or,
>> the post itself.
>
>I should clarify that I was using the word as a noun meaning the
>originator of the post. I was commenting that you were a troll. Which,
>in my mind, is not a bad thing, as I hang out mostly in the troll
>newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy. A well-executed troll is widely
>admired in certain circles. Heh.
Personally, I can appreciate a troll with a little bite and substance
to it, especially if it presents an interesting issue or viewpoint.
I actually think Dege does a pretty good job of trolling this group
regularly. Sometimes his trolls initiate some of the best debates
in this group, IMO.
grepcat
>
> I should clarify that I was using the word as a noun meaning the
> originator of the post. I was commenting that you were a troll. Which,
> in my mind, is not a bad thing, as I hang out mostly in the troll
> newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy. A well-executed troll is widely
> admired in certain circles. Heh.
I will truly and honestly take that as a compliment, coming from a
bonifide usenet performance artist as yourself :)
Actually, I'm kinda curious as to what brought you out of
a.f.k.m.n and a.a.v.f.f.f ?
-grep
grepcat
news:nd7totsl2a4ud1b00...@4ax.com...
>
> Personally, I can appreciate a troll with a little bite and substance
> to it, especially if it presents an interesting issue or viewpoint.
>
> I actually think Dege does a pretty good job of trolling this group
> regularly. Sometimes his trolls initiate some of the best debates
> in this group, IMO.
>
Heh, I'm just having fun with Henry. :)
grepcat
> > existing laws against fraud would cover gaps left in
> > the removal of the USDoL work visa program. Each point
> > that the DoL work visa program is designed to cover,
> > you must prove that existing fraud laws will take over
> > for it.
>
> I don't know what proof you could possibly want if you can see the
> number of fraud and breach of contract cases that are successfully
> prosecuted every day. Look around.
Hahaha, once again you prove the uselessness of your argument
by failing to PROVE anything. You failed to provide the proof
that I asked for, "CONCRETE EXAMPLES", because you simply
can't, can you?
Sorry, but I'm going to have to fail you on this part because
you FAILED to illustrate how existing fraud laws would cover
the gaps left by the removal of the DoL's work visa program.
(In all actuality, I thought that you'd at least ATTEMPT to
accomplish this task.)
> > 2.) Define *EXACTLY* the legal parameters of your
> > `voluntary cooperation' system and how it's better
> > than our existing system in a point-comparative
> > format. (I know that this will probably be a big one,
> > since you have ALLOT to compare it to, so I'll give
> > you a little extra time to complete this.)
>
> 1) You may not lie or trick a person
> 2) If you make an agreement, you must live up to it.
> 3) You may not use threats of harm or violence to get a
> person to agree to a contract or give up something they
> would not otherwise give up.
Once again, you FAIL TO DELIVER THE PROOF, because all
you're doing is stating your erroneous ideas over and
over, MINUS ANY COMPARISON OF HOW IT WOULD BE BETTER
THAN THE SYSTEM WE ALREADY HAVE!! You can't compare it,
can you Henry? Yours just doesn't measure up! :)
Hahahahahaha.. 2 objectives down and you're not coming up
with anything concrete. Your argument is in the last stages
of swirling down the toilet.
> > 3.) Explain what your political party is.
>
> I don't need a political party. I have a brain.
You know, I've been in the process of spanking you for
a while now, and I feel kind of sorry for you, so I'll
pass you on this one.
Congrats Henry, you've accomplished one objective so far.
You've honestly answered what political party you affiliate
yourself with, (which is none.)
> > 4.) Re-define your statement, "I would make all
> > non-harmful, voluntary consensual behavior legal."
> > into something concrete, rather than a generalization.
> > Cite more than 6 examples where your system would be
> > more beneficial that the one already in place.
>
> This makes no sense. I don't even know what you are talking about
> here. The definition of voluntary consensual behavior is obvious
> and well-known, plus I've spelled in out above. Six examples?
> Try "in every instance". That is millions of cases.
Heh, FAILED AGAIN! you say, `in every instance' and `millions of cases'
YET WHERE ARE THESE CASES YOU SPEAK OF, EH HENRY???
Wow Henry, your point grows smaller and smaller with every loss,
doesn't it?
> > 5.) Produce the excel doc I asked above.
>
> Using the sources:
> http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
> and http://www.heritage.org/index/
>
> Top 20 (20+ with ties) Free Countries
>
> Life Infant Per Capita Unemployment
> Expectancy Rate GDP Rate
>
> Hong Kong 79.54 5.93 $23,100 6%
> Singapore 80.05 3.65 $27,800 3.2%
> Ireland 76.81 5.62 $20,300 5.5%
> New Zealand 77.82 6.39 $17,400 7%
> Luxemborg 77.13 4.83 $34,200 2.7%
> United States 77.12 6.82 $33,900 4.2%
> Netherlands 78.28 4.42 $23,100 3.5%
> Australia 79.75 5.04 $22,200 7.5%
> Bahrain 72.98 20.48 $13,700 15%
> Switzerland 79.6 4.53 $27,100 2.8%
> El Salvador 69.74 29.22 $3,100 7.7%
> Chile 75.74 9.6 $12,400 9%
> Austria 77.68 4.5 $23,400 4.4%
> Canada 79.43 7.39 $23,300 7.6%
> Denmark 76.54 5.11 $23,800 5.7%
> Estonia 69.45 12.9 2 $5,600 11.7%
> Japan 80.7 3.91 $23,400 4.7%
> U.A.E 74.06 3.68 $17,700 N/A
> Belgium 77.8 4.76 $23,900 9%
> Germany 77.44 4.77 $22.700 10.5%
> Taiwan 76.35 7.06 $16,100 2.9%
>
> Least Free Countries:
>
> Life Infant Per Capita Unemployment
> Expectancy Rate GDP Rate
>
> N.Korea 70.74 24.29 $1000 N/A
> Libya 75.45 30.08 $7,900 30%
> Iran 69.66 30.02 $5,300 25%
> Laos 53.09 94.8 $1,300 5.7%
> Uzbekistan 63.71 72.13 $2,500 5%+
> Turkmenistan 60.91 73.3 $1,800 NA
> Zimbabwe 37.78 62.25 $2,400 50%
> Belarus 68.0 14.63 $5,300 2.3%
> Burma 54.91 75.3 $1,200 7.1%
> Vietnam 69.72 31.13 $1,850 25%
> Syria 68.46 34.86 $2,500 12%
> Guinea-Bissan 49.04 112.25 $900 NA
> Bosnia 71.49 25.17 $1,770 35%
> Tajikistan 64.08 117.42 $1,020 5.7%
> Azerbaijan 62.87 83.41 $1,770 20%
> Haiti 49.21 97.1 $1,340 70%
> Equatorial Guinea 53.36 94.83 $2,000 30%
> Yemen 59.83 70.28 $750 30%
> Ukraine 65.98 21.67 $2,200 4.3%
>
> Averages:
> 20 Most Free: 76.85 7.65 $19,786 6.5%
> 20 Least Free 61.94 61.31 $2357 23.4%
>
Nice to see that you're actually starting to quote some numbers
instead of your usual lackluster, `I'm right, you're wrong.. and
a racist!'
Let's see if you can keep it up :)
> All the countries in the world were ranked by
> economic freedom. This is the freedom to engage in voluntary consensual
> transactions without interference.
Actually, here's the main point where you're wrong because there's more to
the definition of `economic freedom' than the single-sentence definition
you've been saying all along. Dr. Alvin Rabushka, talks about trying to
define `economic freedom' in `Economic Freedom: Toward a Theory of
Measurement', http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/books/measurement/
I think the most interesting thing here is the fact that there are more
variables than you think, in `economic freedom'. On a related side
note, I've looked high and low, all around and NOWHERE does it define
"economic freedom" as SIMPLY "the freedom to engage in voluntary
consensual transactions without interference." Admit it, there's
more to it Henry, allot more that you're willing to see.
Oh, and by the way - Since I had to go out and actually find the
correct definition for you, you FAIL on that one as well.
> The free-est countries allow this, as I advocate.
Depends on the use of the word "free". (Oh, and it's
`most free' countries, by the way..) A country can
be classified as `economically free' by applying certain
sets of measurable standards, but when you look at the
big picture it might not be "free" in the sense of
personal rights, property, government control, etc..
> The least free countries have governments that think
> they know better what is good for the citizens, as
> you advocate.
Henry, you're wrong about this too, because here's what
I found USING YOUR GIVEN REFERENCES:
Hong Kong, free or not?
"In August 1998, the government intervened in the country's stock
exchange to counter speculative attacks. This raised concerns
about the government's commitment to a free market."
"Since the handover, the rule of law in Hong Kong has been called
into question by political interference in the operation of Hong Kong's
independent judiciary."
"Freedom of the press has been threatened by chilling warnings from
Mainland representatives about what types of news should not be
published in Hong Kong."
"More recently, the government was accused of interfering with academic
public opinion research that produced findings unflattering to the
government."
Singapore, free or not?
"Government-linked corporations (GLCs) dominate Singapore's economy,
constituting up to 70 percent of Singapore-owned companies and
generating 60 percent of GDP."
"the government uses libel and defamation laws against its
political opponents."
"There is increasing evidence of government intervention in
Singapore's economy."
etc, etc.. Here's an interesting article that
illustrates my point again:
> WHEN "ECONOMIC FREEDOM" BARS CHEWING GUM
>
> By Norman Solomon / Creators Syndicate
>
>
> America's top business newspaper has put out a fascinating
> document called the 1997 Index of Economic Freedom. It's a thick
> book that illuminates the priorities of Wall Street Journal
> editors, who teamed up with the influential Heritage Foundation
> to rank the countries of the world.
>
> So, which sovereign nation scored highest in economic
> liberty?
>
> The answer: Singapore.
>
> In Singapore, the indexers of "economic freedom" have seen
> the future, and it works: "an efficient, strike-free labor
> force...no minimum wage...no antitrust regulations."
>
> But some significant facts go unmentioned. For instance,
> chewing gum has been illegal in Singapore since 1992. The
> government recently reaffirmed the ban and warned citizens that
> ordering gum from foreign mail catalogs could bring a year in
> jail and a fine of $6,173.
>
> The crackdown came after authorities blamed wads of gum for
> jamming subway doors. Evidently, the visionary leaders of
> Singapore have realized that people can't have economic freedom
> and chew gum at the same time.
>
> Nor do financial liberties on the Asian island extend to
> anyone who might want to buy or sell -- or read -- a copy of
> Watchtower magazine. The Jehovah's Witness religious group and
> its literature have been banned in Singapore for a quarter of a
> century.
>
> Throughout last year, at least 40 Jehovah's Witnesses were
> behind bars in Singapore for refusing military service on
> religious grounds. Amnesty International calls them "prisoners of
> conscience." Dozens of other Jehovah's Witnesses spent weeks in
> jail for "peacefully exercising their right to freedom of
> expression."
>
> The unfettered commerce that dazzled the "economic freedom"
> indexers does not include the exchange of ideas or information.
> As the Associated Press reported last spring, Singapore "has some
> of the world's strictest media controls."
>
> And Singapore's methods of punishment remain harsh. Brutal
> caning is mandatory for vandalism and 30 other crimes. Death by
> hanging awaits those caught with 500 grams of marijuana. As you
> might guess, dictator Lee Kuan Yew has scorned "decadent" notions
> of civil liberties.
>
> Ranked just behind Singapore -- and also classified as
> "free" in the Index of Economic Freedom -- is Bahrain. The small
> Persian Gulf country wins profuse accolades: "a free-market
> economic system...no taxes on income or corporate profits...no
> capital gains tax...few barriers to foreign investment...a
> vibrant and competitive banking market with few government
> restrictions."
>
> Overall, in Bahrain, "businesses are free to operate as they
> see fit." To investors, that's high praise indeed. But you
> wouldn't know from the report that Bahrain is a traditional
> monarchy. Long ruled by the al-Khalifa family, it's a nation that
> gives plutocracy a bad name.
>
> A royal decree abolished Bahrain's parliament 22 years ago,
> and since then the government has suppressed dissent. During the
> mid-1990s, several thousand people were arrested for pro-
> democracy street protests. Amnesty International notes that
> Bahrain's recent political detainees have included "children as
> young as 10."
>
> In Bahrain, the past year has brought "large-scale and
> indiscriminate arrests," says Human Rights Watch. "Serious,
> extensive and recurrent human rights abuses continued in the form
> of arbitrary detention, abusive treatment of prisoners and denial
> of due process rights." Torture has been common. But "there were
> no known instances of officials being held accountable."
>
> Clearly, political tyranny can be quite compatible with the
> kind of economic order favored by folks at The Wall Street
> Journal and the Heritage Foundation. The touting of countries
> like Singapore and Bahrain is proof that one-dimensional
> fixations are foolish -- and dangerous.
>
> Despite persistent efforts by some media outlets and think
> tanks, it's not possible to credibly separate the flow of money
> from the exercise of power. Every day, much of the real world is
> buffeted by a political version of the golden rule: Those who
> have the gold make the rules.
>
> All too often, terms like "economic freedom" get defined in
> ways that just so happen to favor the interests of the wealthy
> few. In the process, such definitions set aside democratic
> values.
------------------------------
> This desire to interfere costs the citizens of of the least free
> countries approximately 15 years of life expectancy.
Ah, and here's where you fail again.. You're claiming that in
the cause of a `government interfering in economic freedom'
the life expectancy of citizens are cut short? HOW EXACTLY
IS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN ECONOMIC FREEDOM THE SOLE
REASON OF LOW LIFE EXPECTANCY RATES? (I'll give you a hint
here, I'm looking for cause and effect..)
Why do you choose to ignore the *thousands* of other variables
that factor in on the life expectancy of a certain citizen, living
in a certain country?
I'll say that it's a FACTOR of the life expectancy, but one
of THOUSANDS that make up the whole.
> This desire to interfere means that citizens of the least
> free countries have an appalling 54 additional infants deaths
> per thousand.
Here again claiming `economic freedom' as the sole influence
for high infant mortality rates. It's ONE FACTOR, out of
thousands. Again, you spout off with the overly-simplified definition
to champion your cause.
I won't bother with the rest of the "why are you choosing to
ignore the thousands of other factors that define, etc.."
quoting and responding..
> Now, these statistics are overwhelming. They are appalling. It
> is amazing to me, in the face of such frightening and stunning
> statistics, anyone can claim that government interference in the
> economy is a good thing.
You haven't linked any of your statistics with concrete examples.
You've taken a BROAD RANGE of statistics, grouped as `countries
that are economically free and those that aren't' and applied
the GENERAL STATEMENT that all those statistics are there because
of "government interference."
I can prove that your conclusion that all these are caused by
`government interference' is incomplete by simply adding more
variables that you haven't accounted for: Natural disasters,
lack of adequate medical personnel and supplies, (if they were
more `economically free', that wouldn't be a problem now, would it? :)
> You wanted proof. Here is the ultimate real-world experiment.
> The results are overwhelming and undeniable.
Oh lord, it's not proof, all you've managed to do is gang
together a shiteload of statistics about countries and try
to tell us that they're all caused by the interference of
government in economic freedom. :)
> The ball is in your court mister "prove it". Please explain why
> you think it is OK for so many people to suffer so much so that
> you may have the right to interfere in the voluntary transactions
> of others.
You're becoming boring Henry.. Try to liven it up a bit, eh? :)
BTW - you haven't passed many of the assignments given to you,
have you? :)
-grep
Henry Blaskowski
> Sorry, but I'm going to have to fail you on this part because
> you FAILED to illustrate how existing fraud laws would cover
> the gaps left by the removal of the DoL's work visa program.
> (In all actuality, I thought that you'd at least ATTEMPT to
> accomplish this task.)
OK, you didn't ask for that specifically. Here's what happens:
a company needs a qualified programmer. They look around and
find the best deal with someone from another country. They
contact that person and say "will you work for me for $X?".
The person says yes. If the company and the employee live
up to the agreement, then no harm, no foul. If the company
fails to live up to the agreement after the employee has gone
to the trouble of coming to the US, the employee sues the
company in court, providing proof of damages, and recovers
any lost wages and expenses, plus warns his/her friends not to
deal with this company anymore. Problem solved.
>> Using the sources:
>> http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
>> and http://www.heritage.org/index/
>>
>> Top 20 (20+ with ties) Free Countries
>>
>> Averages:
>> 20 Most Free: 76.85 7.65 $19,786 6.5%
>> 20 Least Free 61.94 61.31 $2357 23.4%
>>
>> All the countries in the world were ranked by
>> economic freedom. This is the freedom to engage in voluntary consensual
>> transactions without interference.
> I think the most interesting thing here is the fact that there are more
> variables than you think, in `economic freedom'. On a related side
> note, I've looked high and low, all around and NOWHERE does it define
> "economic freedom" as SIMPLY "the freedom to engage in voluntary
> consensual transactions without interference." Admit it, there's
> more to it Henry, allot more that you're willing to see.
By and large, that is the definition. Did I repeat all of the
variables they discussed? Of course not. I assume you can read
for yourself. But the theme that ties them together is that people
are left alone to make voluntary agreements, and those agreements
are enforceable by law. *That* is what makes up this definition
of freedom. Admit it, you've been trounced by data.
>> The free-est countries allow this, as I advocate.
> Depends on the use of the word "free". (Oh, and it's
> `most free' countries, by the way..) A country can
> be classified as `economically free' by applying certain
> sets of measurable standards, but when you look at the
> big picture it might not be "free" in the sense of
> personal rights, property, government control, etc..
Uh, duh... gee wally, think so? See, that's why they have a
ranking on a continuum... there are many ways to be free from
coercion, and they came up with a measure that scores the *overall*
freedom level, based on a bunch of factors. And the clear winner
is freedom beat central planners and statists.
>> The least free countries have governments that think
>> they know better what is good for the citizens, as
>> you advocate.
> Henry, you're wrong about this too, because here's what
> I found USING YOUR GIVEN REFERENCES:
> Hong Kong, free or not?
Mostly free, as the data shows.
> "In August 1998, the government intervened in the country's stock
> exchange to counter speculative attacks. This raised concerns
> about the government's commitment to a free market."
> "Since the handover, the rule of law in Hong Kong has been called
> into question by political interference in the operation of Hong Kong's
> independent judiciary."
> "Freedom of the press has been threatened by chilling warnings from
> Mainland representatives about what types of news should not be
> published in Hong Kong."
> "More recently, the government was accused of interfering with academic
> public opinion research that produced findings unflattering to the
> government."
Yes, the handover to China has been quite concerning. If China
interferes, you can expect to see the standard of living in Hong
Kong drop to Chinese levels. It may take a decade or two, though.
You didn't really think these things happen overnight, do you?
> Singapore, free or not?
> "Government-linked corporations (GLCs) dominate Singapore's economy,
> constituting up to 70 percent of Singapore-owned companies and
> generating 60 percent of GDP."
> "the government uses libel and defamation laws against its
> political opponents."
> "There is increasing evidence of government intervention in
> Singapore's economy."
You just don't get it (intentionally, I assume). An intervention
here and there causes less harm than massive intervention. It
doesn't mean that the intervention is good, just less harmful
when it is done on a small scale.
Your article (snipped for space) basically indicated that it is
possible to have economic freedom without some personal freedoms.
So? Does this surprise you? And how is this relevant to the
discussion, as we were discussing economic transactions?
>> This desire to interfere costs the citizens of of the least free
>> countries approximately 15 years of life expectancy.
> Ah, and here's where you fail again.. You're claiming that in
> the cause of a `government interfering in economic freedom'
> the life expectancy of citizens are cut short? HOW EXACTLY
> IS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN ECONOMIC FREEDOM THE SOLE
> REASON OF LOW LIFE EXPECTANCY RATES? (I'll give you a hint
> here, I'm looking for cause and effect..)
I can't recite all of economics for you... you'll have to look some
things up yourself. But basically, when people are poor, they
can't afford the things that make their lives safer and healther,
such as medicine, food, shelter, etc. It's a pretty simple
connection.
> Why do you choose to ignore the *thousands* of other variables
> that factor in on the life expectancy of a certain citizen, living
> in a certain country?
Because the correlation is so strong, there is no need to consider
all the other things.
> I'll say that it's a FACTOR of the life expectancy, but one
> of THOUSANDS that make up the whole.
Isn't that special... there are thousands of other (unnamed) factors,
but you don't have time to mention them, study them, or present any
data. So, it's your turn. Find a study that shows that some of
these other mysteriously unnamed factors have even a fraction of
the effect of economic freedom. Otherwise, by the same arguments
you used against me, you are just making shit up. Go ahead,
your turn to do research to support your claim or quit bluffing.
>> This desire to interfere means that citizens of the least
>> free countries have an appalling 54 additional infants deaths
>> per thousand.
> Here again claiming `economic freedom' as the sole influence
> for high infant mortality rates. It's ONE FACTOR, out of
> thousands. Again, you spout off with the overly-simplified definition
> to champion your cause.
Research, research, research, bluff-man.
>> Now, these statistics are overwhelming. They are appalling. It
>> is amazing to me, in the face of such frightening and stunning
>> statistics, anyone can claim that government interference in the
>> economy is a good thing.
> You haven't linked any of your statistics with concrete examples.
> You've taken a BROAD RANGE of statistics, grouped as `countries
> that are economically free and those that aren't' and applied
> the GENERAL STATEMENT that all those statistics are there because
> of "government interference."
I assume you are being intentionally difficult here since the
connection is so strong. If not, check the graph I link to in
the next post, and continue to tell me it is not a strong correlation.
> I can prove that your conclusion that all these are caused by
> `government interference' is incomplete by simply adding more
> variables that you haven't accounted for: Natural disasters,
> lack of adequate medical personnel and supplies, (if they were
> more `economically free', that wouldn't be a problem now, would it? :)
Right, North Korea has had more natural disasters than all the
other countries in that region, including South Korea. Sorry,
your argument is a non-starter.
>> You wanted proof. Here is the ultimate real-world experiment.
>> The results are overwhelming and undeniable.
> Oh lord, it's not proof, all you've managed to do is gang
> together a shiteload of statistics about countries and try
> to tell us that they're all caused by the interference of
> government in economic freedom. :)
Bullshit. A correlation that strong in the absence of any other
reasonable explanation is proof. Admit it: you are out of arguments.
br
sanction slavery. Not that there is a lot of difference to a programmer
living in India where the per capita yearly income is 150$. Maybe you
want to compete on a cost basis with indentured servants but I don't
think your standard of living will be quite the same.
Dan Nelson
An interesting question to which I don't really have an answer. I guess
I finally realized that there was a mn.* hierarchy. I mean, I've seen
it around, but never really thought about it. Heh. It would be
interesting to have someone offer to meet me on Lake Street to kick the
shit out of me for a change, instead of some street in some town I've
never been in.
I doubt I'll ever leave aav3f though. That place is *way* too
interesting. Oh, and it *was* a compliment. You seem to have quite a
dance going here.
grepcat
> grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but I'm going to have to fail you on this part because
> > you FAILED to illustrate how existing fraud laws would cover
> > the gaps left by the removal of the DoL's work visa program.
> > (In all actuality, I thought that you'd at least ATTEMPT to
> > accomplish this task.)
>
> OK, you didn't ask for that specifically.
Ohhhh, reeeeeeealy?
>>> 1.) Prove without a doubt, with concrete examples that
>>> existing laws against fraud would cover gaps left in
>>> the removal of the USDoL work visa program. Each point
>>> that the DoL work visa program is designed to cover,
>>> you must prove that existing fraud laws will take over
>>> for it.
Ouch, I bet that really smarts..
Face it Henry, you've been spanked :)
> Here's what happens:
> a company needs a qualified programmer. They look around and
> find the best deal with someone from another country. They
> contact that person and say "will you work for me for $X?".
> The person says yes. If the company and the employee live
> up to the agreement, then no harm, no foul. If the company
> fails to live up to the agreement after the employee has gone
> to the trouble of coming to the US, the employee sues the
> company in court, providing proof of damages, and recovers
> any lost wages and expenses, plus warns his/her friends not to
> deal with this company anymore. Problem solved.
Finally, you've given me something to work with. Finally you've
attempted to define your non-government interference policy.. but
wait.. You've involved the courts? Isn't that interference?
Oh wait, I forgot.. what you said below, "I guess some interference
is okay"..
> By and large, that is the definition. Did I repeat all of the
> variables they discussed? Of course not.
..and therefore fail the assignments :)
> for yourself. But the theme that ties them together is that people
> are left alone to make voluntary agreements, and those agreements
> are enforceable by law. *That* is what makes up this definition
Once again.. involving the courts.. at what point does your
interference/non-interference policy stop with the government?
I think that's what I've been trying to get you to do all along..
to actually explain yourself in some detailed fashion, pity you
have to continue to rely on vague definitions that can be
generally fitted around almost *anything*
> > Hong Kong, free or not?
>
> Mostly free, as the data shows.
Heh, is that like `kinda pregnant'? :)
> > "Freedom of the press has been threatened by chilling warnings from
> > Mainland representatives about what types of news should not be
> > published in Hong Kong."
>
> > "More recently, the government was accused of interfering with academic
> > public opinion research that produced findings unflattering to the
> > government."
>
> Yes, the handover to China has been quite concerning. If China
> interferes, you can expect to see the standard of living in Hong
> Kong drop to Chinese levels. It may take a decade or two, though.
> You didn't really think these things happen overnight, do you?
Heh, I'll take that answer as, `gosh grep, you're right!' :)
> > Singapore, free or not?
>
> > "Government-linked corporations (GLCs) dominate Singapore's economy,
> > constituting up to 70 percent of Singapore-owned companies and
> > generating 60 percent of GDP."
>
> > "the government uses libel and defamation laws against its
> > political opponents."
>
> > "There is increasing evidence of government intervention in
> > Singapore's economy."
>
> You just don't get it (intentionally, I assume). An intervention
> here and there causes less harm than massive intervention.
But it's still `government interference' isn't it? :)
> It doesn't mean that the intervention is good, just less harmful
> when it is done on a small scale.
Hahahaha, okay.. so now you've changed your tune to, `Well,
some government interference is okay, I guess..' :)
I'll take that as another, `Gee grep, you're right again!'
> Your article (snipped for space) basically indicated that it is
> possible to have economic freedom without some personal freedoms.
> So?
Heh, so everything's okay in your world as long as we
have the `economic freedom' for companies to hire whomever
they want, EVEN if it means the loss of certain personal freedoms?
> Does this surprise you? And how is this relevant to the
> discussion, as we were discussing economic transactions?
Well, now we've opened up an interesting can of worms, eh Henry?
Why do you feel that it's okay to sacrifice personal freedoms
for economic freedom? :)
> >> This desire to interfere costs the citizens of of the least free
> >> countries approximately 15 years of life expectancy.
>
> > Ah, and here's where you fail again.. You're claiming that in
> > the cause of a `government interfering in economic freedom'
> > the life expectancy of citizens are cut short? HOW EXACTLY
> > IS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN ECONOMIC FREEDOM THE SOLE
> > REASON OF LOW LIFE EXPECTANCY RATES? (I'll give you a hint
> > here, I'm looking for cause and effect..)
>
> I can't recite all of economics for you...
..and you fail to support your point as a result :)
> you'll have to look some things up yourself.
Heheh, the task was upon you to prove.. You pitifully
try to pass the buck.. (do you do the same thing at work
with your code?) There'll be no sloughing off the
responsibilities on my watch, mister!
> But basically, when people are poor, they can't
> afford the things that make their lives safer and healthier,
> such as medicine, food, shelter, etc. It's a pretty simple
> connection.
So now you're claiming that `government interference' is what
causes countries denizens to be poor, that they can't afford
medicine, etc..
How come the, `more free' underdeveloped countries suffer the
most then?
> > Why do you choose to ignore the *thousands* of other variables
> > that factor in on the life expectancy of a certain citizen, living
> > in a certain country?
>
> Because the correlation is so strong, there is no need to consider
> all the other things.
Hah, evasion noted! :)
> > I'll say that it's a FACTOR of the life expectancy, but one
> > of THOUSANDS that make up the whole.
>
> Isn't that special... there are thousands of other (unnamed) factors,
> but you don't have time to mention them, study them, or present any
> data.
Factors in a person's life expectancy:
http://www.northampton.ac.uk/ncr/who/indicators/lifexp.html
http://www.indicators.ak.org/indicators/lifeexpectfactors98F.htm
(Heh, there's even a graph for you too! :)
> So, it's your turn. Find a study that shows that some of
> these other mysteriously unnamed factors have even a fraction of
> the effect of economic freedom.
Infant mortality rate:
http://www.northampton.ac.uk/ncr/who/indicators/infmort.html
"The range of factors affecting infant mortality is, however,
large so specific risk factors - or the effects of specific
interventions - cannot necessarily be inferred."
(That itself proves you wrong, but I thought I might toss
the rest of those below in, just for giggles.)
http://www.icicicommunities.org/communities/infant_mortality.htm
"Infant mortality Rate provides a measure of a community/country's
health status. A high IMR in the community appears to be directly
related to poor health services, poor public health systems, poor
sanitation and poor nutritional status, all factors that directly
impact the basic health of all the members of the community.
Infant mortality is often used as an indicator of socioeconomic
development."
http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/childinfant/childinfant.html
(Won't quote for the sake of brevity, but there's some
great info in there.)
> you used against me, you are just making shit up.
Heh, I've been quoting from other sources. How is
that `making shit up' oh and..
Haha, I made you say `shit' :)
> Go ahead,
> your turn to do research to support your claim or quit bluffing.
Signed, sealed and delivered, as posted above :)
> > You haven't linked any of your statistics with concrete examples.
> > You've taken a BROAD RANGE of statistics, grouped as `countries
> > that are economically free and those that aren't' and applied
> > the GENERAL STATEMENT that all those statistics are there because
> > of "government interference."
>
> I assume you are being intentionally difficult here since the
> connection is so strong.
Heh, no Henry.. I'm just telling you that the way
you've presented your "statistics" is wrong :) (I
mean, come on.. even reading it over again, *I* could
go through and make a stronger case for your side..)
Oh, are we going to have to let it come to that? Am
*I* going to have to start defending your position?
Wait, I *did* use references to try to define `economic
freedom', something you couldn't. Don't tell me that
I'm going to have to spank you, AND hold up your end
of the argument.
Quick! this is where you call me a racist again, don't
hesitate to get your feeble lumps in where you can! :)
> If not, check the graph I link to in
> the next post, and continue to tell me it is not a strong correlation.
Hehehehe.. Henry, that's a `per capita wealth' graph, and
not only that but it's from 1998 :)
> > I can prove that your conclusion that all these are caused by
> > `government interference' is incomplete by simply adding more
> > variables that you haven't accounted for: Natural disasters,
> > lack of adequate medical personnel and supplies, (if they were
> > more `economically free', that wouldn't be a problem now, would it? :)
>
> Right, North Korea has had more natural disasters than all the
> other countries in that region, including South Korea.
Henry, the mere fact that they're variables that must be
counted as factors, and not even remotely related to `economic
freedom' destroys the extremely weak bond you're tried to
wrap around your statistics.
> Bullshit. A correlation that strong in the absence of any other
> reasonable explanation is proof. Admit it: you are out of arguments.
Hahahaha, so now you're saying it's got to be right because
*YOU* haven't been able to find an argument to contradict it??!
See ya on Tuesday Henry, I'm off to Duluth for the long weekend.
-grep
(If you're lucky, I might even bring my laptop and wireless rig
with me.)
grepcat
>
> Heh. It would be interesting to have someone offer to meet me
> on Lake Street to kick the shit out of me for a change, instead
> of some street in some town I've never been in.
Hehehe.. I've been on usenet off and on for about 8
years now, and I'll *never* for the life of me, understand
why some people take it so personally :)
> I doubt I'll ever leave aav3f though. That place is *way* too
> interesting.
Heh, I used to lurk quite a bit around those groups.. you're
not kidding, it's one of the most interesting ng's out there.
After a while, I had to stop reading, there was way to much
to go through. Kinda like the dc-stuff list, (don't know if
you've ever been on that one, it can get pretty chatty)
> Oh, and it *was* a compliment. You seem to have quite a
> dance going here.
..and I do appreciate it, and thanks again..
have a good weekend, for me it's off to Duluth in search
of seedy bars for my friends and I to occupy.
-grep
Henry Blaskowski
>>
> Finally, you've given me something to work with. Finally you've
> attempted to define your non-government interference policy.. but
> wait.. You've involved the courts? Isn't that interference?
> Oh wait, I forgot.. what you said below, "I guess some interference
> is okay"..
Are you really that naive? I've been explaining my position clearly
for a number of posts. The role of government is to enforce contracts
and prevent fraud, theft, harm, etc. Other than that they should
stay out of the private transactions of others.
>> By and large, that is the definition. Did I repeat all of the
>> variables they discussed? Of course not.
> ..and therefore fail the assignments :)
I gave you a link to the page. I suppose I could've cut and
pasted everything from a multi-page website so that you wouldn't
have to actually (sigh) click (moan) on a link, but I assumed you
would be able to handle the task of following a link. I'll try not
to give you so much credit from now on.... :-)
>> for yourself. But the theme that ties them together is that people
>> are left alone to make voluntary agreements, and those agreements
>> are enforceable by law. *That* is what makes up this definition
> Once again.. involving the courts.. at what point does your
> interference/non-interference policy stop with the government?
The interference doesn't even start unless one of the people involved
in the transaction asks to have a dispute settled. For example,
right now I go to work and get paid. The courts don't get involved.
But if my company suddenly refused to pay me for the previous months'
work, I would ask the court to settle it. Very simple, very effective.
>> > Hong Kong, free or not?
>>
>> Mostly free, as the data shows.
> Heh, is that like `kinda pregnant'? :)
Not at all, as pregnant is an either-or condition, whereas economic
freedom has many variables, as I have pointed out a number of times.
If you had read the website, you would see the number of variables
involved. That's why there is a ranking. And the ranking clearly
shows that, as a general rule, more economic freedom = higher standard
of living.
>> You just don't get it (intentionally, I assume). An intervention
>> here and there causes less harm than massive intervention.
> But it's still `government interference' isn't it? :)
Yes it is, and it is still harmful. The harm is in proportion to
the interference, as clearly shown by the graph I provided you with.
Simple concept, really.
>> It doesn't mean that the intervention is good, just less harmful
>> when it is done on a small scale.
> Hahahaha, okay.. so now you've changed your tune to, `Well,
> some government interference is okay, I guess..' :)
Sorry, I guess I typed too fast again. I'll type it more slowly this
time: It doesn't mean that the intervention is good, just less harmful
when it is done on a small scale. See, what that means is that it
is still harmful, just less harmful. I hardly think that "we
unnecessarily hurt our constituents only a little" should be a political
goal. Why not just avoid harm at all, instead of doling it out in
small doses?
>> Your article (snipped for space) basically indicated that it is
>> possible to have economic freedom without some personal freedoms.
>> So?
> Heh, so everything's okay in your world as long as we
> have the `economic freedom' for companies to hire whomever
> they want, EVEN if it means the loss of certain personal freedoms?
Not at all. I believe in both personal freedom *AND* economic
freedom. But seeing how economic well-being is an economic issue,
and we were discussing an economic issue, that is what I have
been sticking to. I can't possibly discuss every issue in the
world in one post, but if you'd like to start a new thread about
some personal freedom issue, just direct me to it, and I'll be
happy to defend personal freedom for you as well.
As it's related to this discussion, the tendency is for governments
that allow economic freedom to allow personal freedom as well. It's
a mindset kind of thing. Clearly there are counter-examples, and
they will succeed to varying degrees. I believe in the *very* long
run, say 100 years, those that offer economic freedom *and* personal
freedom will do better than those that only offer economic freedom.
But economic freedom is more important for the economic well-being
of people, and takes effect over a few decades. In other words,
economic freedom has a stronger, more rapid effect on economic
well-being than personal freedoms. But in general, the two are
ultimately tied together because economics is, in the end, about
people getting what they want in their personal lives.
> Why do you feel that it's okay to sacrifice personal freedoms
> for economic freedom? :)
I don't, as explained above. I'm guessing that if we compared our
stances on personal freedoms, I support more personal freedom than you do,
too.
>> you'll have to look some things up yourself.
> Heheh, the task was upon you to prove.. You pitifully
> try to pass the buck.. (do you do the same thing at work
> with your code?) There'll be no sloughing off the
> responsibilities on my watch, mister!
I proved it clearly. The correlation is undeniable. It's your
turn to come up with an alternative explanation of this correlation
if you believe such an explanation exists. Just saying "there
could be other explanations" is a copout. So go ahead, I wouldn't
want you to fail your assignment.
>> But basically, when people are poor, they can't
>> afford the things that make their lives safer and healthier,
>> such as medicine, food, shelter, etc. It's a pretty simple
>> connection.
> So now you're claiming that `government interference' is what
> causes countries denizens to be poor, that they can't afford
> medicine, etc..
> How come the, `more free' underdeveloped countries suffer the
> most then?
The data shows that freedom leads to longer lives and higher incomes
and generally higher standards of living. Where did you get the
idea that 'more free' countries suffer the most?
>> Isn't that special... there are thousands of other (unnamed) factors,
>> but you don't have time to mention them, study them, or present any
>> data.
> Factors in a person's life expectancy:
> http://www.northampton.ac.uk/ncr/who/indicators/lifexp.html
This one lists factors, but is surprisingly short on any actual
data. Do you have some indication of the strength of these effects
across countries? And you would need to separate the strength of
these effects from the freedom effect already identified, seeing as
how so much of the variation between countries is already explained
by the freedom effect. But go ahead, collect the data and provide
a graph for each of these factors and compare it to the graph for
economic freedom. Go ahead, I'd hate to have you fail this
assignment.
> http://www.indicators.ak.org/indicators/lifeexpectfactors98F.htm
This one is clearly only within a country, and makes no attempt
at inter-country comparisons. Furthermore, the factors listed
are directly controlled by economic well-being. Sorry, I'll have
to fail you on this one, too.
>> So, it's your turn. Find a study that shows that some of
>> these other mysteriously unnamed factors have even a fraction of
>> the effect of economic freedom.
> Infant mortality rate:
> http://www.northampton.ac.uk/ncr/who/indicators/infmort.html
> "The range of factors affecting infant mortality is, however,
> large so specific risk factors - or the effects of specific
> interventions - cannot necessarily be inferred."
Sorry, I don't see any data there. People can make up whatever
they want, but unless they can provide some data, we'll have to
assume they are bluffing.
> http://www.icicicommunities.org/communities/infant_mortality.htm
> "Infant mortality Rate provides a measure of a community/country's
> health status. A high IMR in the community appears to be directly
> related to poor health services, poor public health systems, poor
> sanitation and poor nutritional status, all factors that directly
> impact the basic health of all the members of the community.
> Infant mortality is often used as an indicator of socioeconomic
> development."
This confirms my point: harming the economy harms it's residents.
Thank you for reinforcing my points.
> http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/childinfant/childinfant.html
This confirms my point: harming the economy harms it's residents.
Thank you for reinforcing my points.
> Haha, I made you say `shit' :)
Hehe...hehe...shit... hehe
>> Go ahead,
>> your turn to do research to support your claim or quit bluffing.
> Signed, sealed and delivered, as posted above :)
That's the best you can do? It makes no attempt at showing any
correlation between these "other factors" and economic well-being.
And the discussions that do exist (sans data) basically just state
what I've been saying: poor countries have higher death rates. So
far your links strengthen my point, and have nothing to do with
your point, which was that it is OK to intervene in the private
transactions of others.
>> If not, check the graph I link to in
>> the next post, and continue to tell me it is not a strong correlation.
> Hehehehe.. Henry, that's a `per capita wealth' graph, and
> not only that but it's from 1998 :)
Yeah... per capita wealth vs economic freedom. That is what we
have been discussing. You're not trying to change the subject now,
are you?
>>
>> Right, North Korea has had more natural disasters than all the
>> other countries in that region, including South Korea.
> Henry, the mere fact that they're variables that must be
> counted as factors, and not even remotely related to `economic
> freedom' destroys the extremely weak bond you're tried to
> wrap around your statistics.
It is very easy to check. All you have to do is compare the
number of natural disasters, the weather, etc, for the rich vs
poor areas. So for example, you could compare North vs South
Korea, or East vs West Germany, or Haiti and the Dominican Republic,
or Hong Kong and the Phillipines. Your theory seems to be that
for each pair, the first has had an extraordinary number of
natural disasters and bad luck as compared to the second. If you
have evidence of such a thing, you should present it, or else,
once again, you are bluffing. As a bonus you could compare the
geography, terrain, and weather of the former USSR vs the US and
Canada, and explain the economic difference between those countries
in terms of these mysterious "other factors". C'mon bluffman.
Henry Blaskowski
> I meant slaves since Sudan is one of the several African countries that
> sanction slavery. Not that there is a lot of difference to a programmer
> living in India where the per capita yearly income is 150$. Maybe you
> want to compete on a cost basis with indentured servants but I don't
> think your standard of living will be quite the same.
As I said, I am opposed to slavery, and think the people forced into
slavery should be freed. Once they are freed, I will be happy to
compete against them, even if adding workers to the workforce should
somehow inexplicably lower my standard of living. There doesn't seem
to be any reason why it should lower my standard of living though,
so I'm not too worried.
Gilly
> br <bi...@minn.net> wrote:
>
> > To visualize a blue collar equivalent to what is happening in
> > the programming world, imagine the big commercial farms in the
> > San Fernando Valley firing their migrant workers and contracting with
> > a government sponsored Sudanese company who transports their
> > slaves over to harvest the crops. Don't you think they could do it a
lot
> > cheaper?
>
> If the Sudanese citizens voluntarily and willingly come here, knowing
> what they are getting into, I say good for them. Your paragraph
> implies that they are brought here against their will. That makes
> it "force", not voluntary, and I would be opposed to that.
Good eye. Bl'owski has a pattern of ineptly trying to conceal his racism in
self-contradiction like this.
Gilly
grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote in message
news:9mm8au$rg7$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Henry Blaskowski" <hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:tosp46t...@corp.supernews.com...
> > grepcat <gre...@dis.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > To recap, here's your homework assignment Henry:
> >
> > > 1.) Prove without a doubt, with concrete examples that
> > > existing laws against fraud would cover gaps left in
> > > the removal of the USDoL work visa program. Each point
> > > that the DoL work visa program is designed to cover,
> > > you must prove that existing fraud laws will take over
> > > for it.
> >
> > I don't know what proof you could possibly want if you can see the
> > number of fraud and breach of contract cases that are successfully
> > prosecuted every day. Look around.
>
> Hahaha, once again you prove the uselessness of your argument
> by failing to PROVE anything. You failed to provide the proof
> that I asked for, "CONCRETE EXAMPLES", because you simply
> can't, can you?
This is all too typical of a Bl'owski thread. Next he comes up with
'examples' that have no bearing on the point he's trying to make and lies
about the content. After that balloon is punctured, he lies about what he
was trying to say all along and claims to have 'proved' something that has
absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. And as for Henry claiming
someone ELSE is racist. . . well, just don't expect his pretense to go much
deeper than the bumper-sticker Reaganomics he still clings to against all
historical evidence.
Henry Blaskowski
to compile all this alleged data that you have.....
grepcat
Sorry Henry, started a new job on monday of last week, then to
Wisconsin for a `guys weekend' with my friends from friday to
today.. (Imagine that, a life away from usenet? :) Provided
next week isn't as bad as last week, you may get a response
as soon as they hook me up with a machine..
other than that, looks like you're going to have to listen
to the silence for a little while..
-greg