Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

US severe poverty highest in three decades

1 view
Skip to first unread message

indiaBPOking

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 5:26:03 AM3/16/07
to
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/pov-m05.shtml

By Naomi Spencer
5 March 2007

Extreme poverty in the US has reached its highest point in at least
three decades, according to an analysis of Census Bureau figures by
McClatchy Newspapers published February 22. The increase reflects the
stark reality of declining living standards for the majority of the
population in the so-called capitalist recovery of the past five years
as well as during the period that preceded it.

In 2005, individuals earning less than $5,080 a year were considered
severely poor; a family of four with two children was severely poor if
they lived on less than $9,903. The data review found that nearly 16
million Americans in 2005 were living in severe poverty, or below half
the federally designated poverty threshold.

This figure represents nearly half of the total poverty population,
the highest proportion of the poverty population in dire straits since
at least 1975. Between 2000 and 2005 alone, this group grew by 26
percent, even as the economy recovered from recession.

According to Tony Pugh, the author of the report, this growth in
severe poverty was 56 percent more than the growth of the poverty
population overall, which also grew substantially over the period.

In 2005, 12.6 percent of the population, or 37 million people,
including 13 million children, lived below the official poverty line.
The McClatchy report notes that about one in three severely poor
people are under the age of 17, and that nearly two thirds of the poor
population are female. Families headed by women bear a great deal of
the deepest poverty in the US.

Minority families are disproportionately impoverished. Census data
suggests that low-income blacks are more than three times as likely as
non-Hispanic whites to be severely poor. Poor Hispanics are more than
twice as likely to suffer severe poverty. In 2005, 4.3 million of the
severely poor were black, and 3.7 million were Hispanic.

Many of the severely poor among minorities are older, having worked
for decades in the now-collapsed manufacturing sector and developed
job-related injuries and other health problems. The McClatchy report
quoted congressional testimony from Community Service Society of New
York City president David Jones, who remarked, "You have this whole
cohort of, particularly, African-Americans of limited skills, men, who
can't participate in the workforce because they don't have skills to
do anything but heavy labor."

University of Wisconsin social welfare professor Mark Rank told the
news agency that one in three Americans experience a full year of
extreme poverty at some point in life. Based on longitudinal research,
Rank estimated that 58 percent of Americans between ages 20 and 75
will spend at least a year in poverty. Two in three will use a public
assistance program between the ages of 20 and 65, and 40 percent of
Americans will rely on public assistance for at least five years. The
poverty estimates do not include the undocumented immigrant
population, which would certainly increase the rates.

According to the McClatchy review of Census data, 65 of 215 large US
counties saw statistically significant increases in severe poverty.
The report also suggested that, rather than being concentrated in
particular regions of the country, such as the Gulf Coast or
collapsing manufacturing centers in the Midwest, "the rise in severely
poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to
suburban and rural areas."

The US-Mexico border and the South registered the most extreme
poverty. Here, 6.5 million are severely poor. Many worked in generally
low-wage jobs in apparel, textile and furniture factories that are now
closing down or relocating. Similarly, severe poverty has grown in the
so-called rustbelt of the Midwest and Northeast in the wake of mass
layoffs and plant closures.

Washington, D.C., recorded a higher concentration of severe poverty
than any of the 50 states, at 10.8 percent of the total 2005
population. This exceeded even Mississippi and Louisiana, whose
populations were devastated by Hurricane Katrina. In the nation's
capital, nearly 6 in 10 poor residents were severely impoverished. At
the center of the richest country in the world, where trillions of
dollars are appropriated for war, tax cuts and corporate handouts, the
symbolism is unmistakable.

While damning in itself, data collected by the Census Bureau barely
begins to express the reality of poverty in the US, let alone explain
the real sources of its increase. Moreover, the official poverty line
is in itself wholly inadequate as a measure of economic well-being and
stability, and does more to understate the decline in living standards
than elucidate it.

When it was developed nearly half a century ago, the poverty line was
a calculation of the bare minimum required by a family to eat a
healthy diet based on the estimate that the average family spent a
third of their income on food. While it has been adjusted annually for
inflation, the poverty measure does not account for substantial
changes in the living expenses of working Americans, such as the cost
of child care and transportation, for the huge increase in housing
costs, or for the burden of healthcare expenditures among the largely
uninsured poverty population.

Only the very richest individuals have benefited from the economic
expansion since 2001; the vast majority of Americans have unarguably
seen a decline in living standards, job and retirement prospects, and
savings. As the Economic Policy Institute puts it in its current The
State of Working America, "Despite the fact that the most recent
economic expansion began in late 2001, the real income of the median
family fell each year through 2004. Between 2000 and 2005, real median
family income fell by 2.3 percent, or about $1,300 in 2004
dollars." [1]

While wages stagnated, cost of living rose significantly, driving the
low- and middle-income populations into more and more difficult
circumstances. Meanwhile, funding and access to social programs for
the poor have been greatly reduced. Debt, foreclosure, and bankruptcy
rates have all increased substantially. Those already in or near
poverty have been the most vulnerable to this backsliding because of
the "jobless" nature of the recovery.

A November 2006 New York Times analysis of 2004 federal tax
information found that the bottom fifth of American taxpayers earned
below $11,166, with their average income amounting to less than
$5,800. Accounting for the fact that the IRS definition of "taxpayer"
applies to single individuals as well as jointly filing couples, the
Times estimated that the poorest 26 million taxpayers represented
nearly 48 million adults and about 12 million dependent children. By
this measure, the Times estimated that the poorest 60 million
Americans lived on less than $7 a day. (See "60 million Americans
living on less than $7 a day-US income figures show staggering rise in
social inequality")

By comparison, the 2004 poverty line was $27 a day for a single adult
below retirement age and $42 a day for a household with one child. The
divergence of the average income of the poverty population and the
poverty line, as artificially low as it is, is an important indicator
of the real state of the economy. This measure is called the 'poverty
gap.'

In 2005, the average poverty gap was a record $8,000. The significance
of this gap is that, on average, poor families are truly poorer now
than in earlier periods. [2]

Many analysts assert that the hardships of poverty are overstated
because poverty measures do not include the worth of social services
such as food stamps and medical assistance, or the welfare program's
successor, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). However,
the latest available data from the Census Bureau's Survey of Income
and Program Participation reveals that in 2003, a mere 10 percent of
severely poor Americans received TANF aid, and only slightly more than
a third of the severely poor were enrolled in the Food Stamp program.

As the McClatchy report notes, "the low participation rates are
troubling because the worst byproducts of poverty, such as higher
crime and violence rates and poor health, nutrition and educational
outcomes, are worse for those in deep poverty."

Indeed, a study on the prevalence of severe poverty in the October
2006 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine concluded,
"A rise in poverty rates is important because of the enormous
difficulties faced by the poor in meeting the most basic human needs
(e.g., education, jobs, higher earnings)." [3]

The study enumerated the consequences of falling into poverty: "The
public health implications of increasing poverty are profound, given
how strongly social class is linked with premature mortality, disease,
and mental illness. The poor have greater exposure to risk factors,
such as those caused by homelessness, substandard housing, and
environmental pollutants. They experience greater rates of smoking,
physical inactivity, and obesity, in part because impoverished
neighborhoods are not conducive to healthy lifestyles (e.g., having
built environments for walking and supermarkets that offer healthy
food choices); these communities are also targets for the promotion of
cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and fast foods." For the third of the
poverty population without health insurance and the majority with no
savings, all of these factors compound one another.

Importantly, the study found that "the recent increase in poverty
rates is explained largely by a dramatic upsurge in severe poverty"
after the year 2000. "The population with an income deficit of at
least $8,000 below the poverty threshold," which includes a larger and
larger share of the overall poverty population, "appears to be
vulnerable to a different experience than those with incomes closer to
the poverty threshold."

The study suggested that the growth of extreme poverty was producing a
"sinkhole" effect on US income distribution as a whole, exposing
millions more Americans to dire circumstances.

These observations of poverty trends are quite valuable, and
disturbingly uncommon. The study's authors pointed out that their
queries on "severe poverty" and "deep poverty" in the Social Sciences
Citation Index and PubMed search engines from 2001 to the present
returned not one article. Between 2002 and 2005, the authors noted,
the Washington Post and New York Times ran only eight articles about
Census data, wherein a median of only two sentences were devoted to
the steady and substantial increase in poverty.

Press statements from the Census Bureau were no better; only a single
briefing on severe poverty has been released since 2000, during a 2003
review of 2002 data. The mention consisted of a single sentence: "The
14.1 million people with incomes less than half their thresholds
represent 4.9 percent of the population (and 41 percent of the poverty
population), percentages not different from 2001." [4]

Virtually nowhere is the relationship between the rise in extreme
poverty and the extreme concentration of wealth raised. The growth of
severe impoverishment is an unmistakable manifestation of inequality,
itself the product of definite policies aimed at diverting social
resources into the hands of a financial elite. At a time when the top
1 percent of US households received 17 percent of all national income,
held more than a third of all net worth, and more than 42 percent of
all net assets, nearly a fifth of households held zero or negative net
worth. Another third of the population held less than $10,000. [5]

Straydog

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 8:44:59 AM3/16/07
to

(see quoted material below)

And...does anyone have any references to the extreme poverty in India and
China? Where there was actually a reduction in the number of jobs in both
countries over the last ten years? All due to the reforms that each
country made so that "deadwood" could be laid off to improve the
efficiency and profits to the party hacks who were running the companies?

No, indiaBPOking just places propaganda here and avoids the dirty truth
that tens to hundreds of millions of people in India and China are much
worse off today than ten years ago, and that is a whole lot worse
situation than poverty in the USA. BPOking, the big propagandist.

BPOking, the big nutcase obsessed with pro-India propaganda and anti-US
propaganda and not interested in honest debate.

===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====

BobR

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 10:32:01 AM3/16/07
to
> The study suggested that the growth of extreme poverty ...
>
> read more »

Is there no end to your stupidity? People listed as being in severe
poverty in the US are still better off than over half the population
of India and wouldn't trade places for anything. What we, in the US,
look at as severe poverty is based on a standard that most of the
world would consider wealth. Eight thousand $8,000 below the
"threshold"...hell most of the world doesn't even begin to earn $8,000
to begin with.

Keep on posting your ignorance for the whole world to see.


princeandy

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 4:01:55 PM3/16/07
to

"BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
news:1174055521....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

So what are you proposing? That we lower our standards so that we drop to
those inefficient or corrupt or not to bright governments that do such a
poor job for their respecive country/s so that we can claim comparability?

Not on the standards of some poorly run country without the advantages and
wealth of our countries which could possibly be rectified if they raised
their standards?

Or do we blindfold ourselves and talk about the stats without any reference
to the reasons.

Itchy

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 5:51:45 PM3/16/07
to
"princeandy" <an...@home.com> wrote in
news:TICKh.12022$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

Great post! Some people just have "NO GRATITUDE". Being the patriot that
I am, I have a new plan for the military.

The military is only 1-2% of the population..right?

Well.. since 1-2% of the population have almost ALL of the money and
assets.. these grateful citizens should be the very first to answer the
country's call.

Indeed..I would design a draft examining who had the lions share. After
all, they will be the most patriotic.. might 'even make 'em suicide
bombers. They would be the FINEST soldiers!

There would Paul Dupont, Donald Trump, the NFL, Oprah Winfrey, Mel
Gibson, Arnold Scwarzenegger..and oh yes..the Bush team.

Nospam

unread,
Mar 17, 2007, 9:39:43 AM3/17/07
to
BobR wrote:

> Is there no end to your stupidity? People listed as being in severe
> poverty in the US are still better off than over half the population
> of India and wouldn't trade places for anything. What we, in the US,
> look at as severe poverty is based on a standard that most of the
> world would consider wealth. Eight thousand $8,000 below the
> "threshold"...hell most of the world doesn't even begin to earn $8,000
> to begin with.
>
> Keep on posting your ignorance for the whole world to see.

How many hours of medical care can afford somebody making 8k in US and how
many in India ?

If you have 8k and try to bid on a house into a country where anybody else
have only 5k, you get it.
If you have 8k and try to bid on a house into a country where anybody else
have at least 50k you will never have a roof over your head.

The poverty it is directly influenced by the environment where you live for
the simple reason that the market is influenced by it, and you need to
compete on the market. So yes, there is such a thing as being poor into a
rich country.

The truth is that the poverty it is a serious problem in US and it is a
growing problem. And the poverty in US it is a direct result of
polarization betwen poor and rich.


BobR

unread,
Mar 17, 2007, 10:05:54 PM3/17/07
to


BULL! The polarization between rich and poor is nothing more than
envy by those too damn lazy to work at bettering their lives. Yes, it
is a serious problem that for the most part is the direct result of
poor decisions made by people who find it easier to be on public
welfare than to get an education and better their lives. It is a sad
fact that way too many people are more than willing to live in poverty
and collect whatever public assistance they can obtain. They never
seem to lack money for cigarettes, booze and drugs though. We live in
a free country with the freedom to succede or fail.

Add to that a huge influx in illeterate illegal aliens and the
problem grows by leaps and bounds. That too is a choice the illegals
make and for them, it is an improvement to what they left behind.
Yes, they live 8-10 in a two bedroom apartment in the states but
compared to dirt floored shacks made from discarded lumber and sheet
metal, its an improvement. That severe poverty for them is their
opportunity at a better life and they are more than willing to work to
better their lives. In the mean time, their huge numbers make the
problem worse for the remainder who aren't willing to work.

So take your rich envy and go get an education, work hard, and quit
blaming everyone else for your poor choices in life. Take
responsibility for yourself!


Razor Face

unread,
Mar 17, 2007, 10:25:57 PM3/17/07
to

"BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
news:1174183554.2...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>
> BULL! The polarization between rich and poor is nothing more than
> envy by those too damn lazy to work at bettering their lives. Yes, it
> is a serious problem that for the most part is the direct result of
> poor decisions made by people who find it easier to be on public
> welfare than to get an education and better their lives. It is a sad
> fact that way too many people are more than willing to live in poverty
> and collect whatever public assistance they can obtain. They never
> seem to lack money for cigarettes, booze and drugs though. We live in
> a free country with the freedom to succede or fail.
>
> Add to that a huge influx in illeterate illegal aliens and the
> problem grows by leaps and bounds. That too is a choice the illegals
> make and for them, it is an improvement to what they left behind.
> Yes, they live 8-10 in a two bedroom apartment in the states but
> compared to dirt floored shacks made from discarded lumber and sheet
> metal, its an improvement. That severe poverty for them is their
> opportunity at a better life and they are more than willing to work to
> better their lives. In the mean time, their huge numbers make the
> problem worse for the remainder who aren't willing to work.
>
> So take your rich envy and go get an education, work hard, and quit
> blaming everyone else for your poor choices in life. Take
> responsibility for yourself!

Bob, do us all a favor and shut your stupid, God damn mouth -- you
self-righteous bastard!

Do you have any idea what it is like working in a corporate environment
today?

What do you say to all those who got an education, but are out of work
because the jobs for which they trained were offshored to asia thanks to the
failed economic polices of George W. Bush?

indiaBPOking

unread,
Mar 17, 2007, 10:37:58 PM3/17/07
to

Yeah, and dont forget to stuff your lazy fat ass white American tummy
with millions and millions of dollors of stock options!

indiaBPOking.

princeandy

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 4:23:58 PM3/18/07
to

So we are aiming for a democracy like India and any old bannana republic,
the very rich haves, and the very poor have nots. Well now with robotics and
computer all can be held under control at very little cost.

and israel is always ready to lend it's expertise, Egypt and others rent out
their torture chambers.

"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:a76b5758f7ab13cb...@dizum.com...
> What IS worthy of worry is the current
> situation:
>
> 1. An "on the books" U.S. federal debt of $9
> trillion.
>
> 2. Overall U.S. debt of $43 trillion.
>
> 3. A trade deficit of approx. $800 billion
> per year, which means:
>
> 4. That the U.S. has to borrow from it's
> "vendors", China, Japan, OPEC almost a
> trillion dollars a year just to keep the
> game going.

Yes, and those nations are using those dollars to buy up land and
corporations in America. Soon they will buy the daughters of American girls
for prostitution.

The Republicans allow all of this. The Republican Party is the prostitution
party. It is stripping America of its assets, selling American assets to
foreigners, shipping jobs overseas and promoting prostitution as the new
form of economic growth in America.


> 5. A housing bubble that, as well-documented here, is clearly collapsing,
which will lead to:
>
> 6. Chaos in the banking, mortgage, securitization and derivatives
markets--
> which, by the way, is no small issue, since we are talking $9 TRILLION
dollars in
> mortgage debt, plus the multi-trillion dollar derivatives bets.
>
> Finally, the smallest upset in the complicated chain of events that
comprise
> today's worldwide economic system can send the whole thing crashing down.
A case in point is the last few days in the currency markets, where the
dollar has taken a pounding. This could set off a chain reaction of
derivatives defaults and systemic crisis.


Report - China To Dump
One Trillion In US Reserves
Chinese tell visiting Bush administration officials they will not sit back
and lose their shirts as U.S. Dollar collapses; they are getting out fast
and large.
HalTurnerShow.com
12-15-6


BEIJING -- Sources with a U.S. Delegation in Beijing have told The Hal
Turner Show the Chinese government has informed visiting Bush Administration
officials they intend to dump One TRILLION U.S. Dollars from China's
Currency Reserves and convert those funds into Euros, gold and silver!

China was allegedly asked to withhold the announcement until Bullion Markets
closed for the weekend to prevent an instant spike in gold and silver
prices. This delay will give the world the weekend to consider appropriate
actions rather than have a knee-jerk reaction which could see the U.S.
Dollar totally collapse in value Monday.

According to this Senior source, China told the U.S. delegation they no
longer have faith in U.S. Currency for several reasons:

1) The Federal Reserve Bank ceased publishing "M3" data in March, making it
nearly impossible for anyone to know how much cash is being printed. China
said this act made it impossible to tell how much a Dollar is worth.

2) The U.S. Dollar has lost upwards of thirty percent (30%) of its value
against other foreign currencies in the recent past, meaning China has lost
almost $300 Billion simply by holding U.S. Dollars in its reserves.

3) The U.S. has no plans whatsoever to reduce deficit spending or ability
pay down any of its existing debt without printing money to pay it off.

For these reasons China has decided to implement an aggressive sell-off of
U.S. Dollars before the rest of the world does so. China reportedly told the
US delegation; "we are the largest holder of U.S. Currency and if the rest
of the world unloads theirs before we unload ours, we will lose our shirts."

Early this week, in an unusual move, the Bush administration sent virtually
the entire economic "A-team" to visit China for a "strategic economic
dialogue" in Beijing Dec. 14 and 15.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
lead the delegation, along with five other cabinet-level officials,
including Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez. Also in the delegation is
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike
Leavitt, Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, and U.S. Trade Representative Susan
Schwab.

The Bush administration wanted to get China's cooperation in preventing a
dollar collapse. The Hal Turner Show has been told the effort failed.

According to the source, Fed Chairman Bernanke left the meeting "pale and in
a cold sweat" as the implications of China's decision seemed to sink in.

The implications are enormous: The U.S. Dollar is likely to collapse in
value against all other major currencies as early as Monday, December 18.

This would cause a worldwide sell-off of dollars, create almost immediate
"hyper-inflation" in the US and also impact world markets at a level "worse
than the Great Depression of 1929."

Arabs to the rescue?

In a strange twist of fate, Arabs and OPEC may come to the rescue of the
U.S.!

Senior officials in OPEC made clear that they too would be severely harmed
if the U.S. Dollar collapsed, and hinted they "would not be inclined to sell
oil to any particular nation that intentionally caused such a collapse."

This was a thinly veiled threat to China, which depends heavily on OPEC oil
for its rapidly developing energy needs.

The OPEC officials even went so far as to say "Since China lacks the ability
to project their military power, OPEC nations need not worry about any
Chinese military response to an oil cut-off."

Such brutally candid remarks will not sit well with China; and signal
ominous things for the U.S. .

Arabs and OPEC will want something in return for saving the U.S. from
economic collapse and it is already widely speculated what they want will be
a complete change in U.S. backing of Israel in the Middle East.

If such demands are made by the oil-rich Arabs, the U.S. would be left with
little choice but to virtually abandon the jewish state to preserve itself.


UPDATE - 10:18 PM 12-14-6
The Washington Post confirms. . . .
'US, China Clash On Currency'


UPDATE - 12:07 AM EST
Saturday, December 16, 2006:

Additional sources, one in the U.S. Commerce Department and another in the
US Treasury have confirmed the initial report above and referred me to
another, Third, source in the Pentagon.

Both the Commerce and Treasury Sources report that while China will not be
able to simply trade their Dollars for other paper currencies, they will
spend their U.S. Cash on commodities such as gold, silver and Rhodoium as
well as military hardware; ships and planes, placing large orders and paying
for those orders with the one point one trillion in cash dollars they
possess.

Extreme Military Concern

In speaking with the contact at the Pentagon, I am able to now report the
Pentagon views this currency-killing as a cunning military aspect to Chinese
plans:

The Pentagon says that while China has a 2 Million man army, they lack the
logistics and heavy lift capability to move that army and supply it. They
can, however, get that military to South Korea and to Japan.

The Chinese see that the U.S. Military is over-stretched and almost
exhausted by its globe trotting Commander-In-Chief. They feel that by
intentionally destabilizing the dollar, the U.S. economy will fail, putting
tens of millions of Americans on the unemployment line and putting
unbearable pressure on the US Government.

Then, with the U.S. economy in shambles and its manufacturing base eroded by
a steady stream of manufacturing plants moving out of the US., the American
government will be too occupied with troubles at home to do much
internationally. America will be in no position to challenge China, allowing
the Chinese to act militarily elsewhere in the world;

Further, if the U.S. attempted to intervene against any Chinese military
action, the only plant in the world which can manufacture the specialized
gyros needed for U.S. Cruise Missile guidance systems, is now located in. .
. . .China.

China could prevent that plant from shipping to the U.S., and once our
arsenal of cruise missiles was depleted, it would take a long time to
re-tool a plant to make more gyros and resupply cruise missiles for battle.
The Chinese feel they could accomplish certain military goals before the
U.S. could re-tool.

They are also confident the U.S. will never "go nuclear" as long as the U.S.
itself is not attacked.

The Pentagon source went so far as to say "Even if China was to lose the
entire one trillion in cash to a collapse of the Dollar as a currency, they
will have succeeded in taking the U.S. off the world stage as any type of
effective military or economic power -- without firing a shot!" A 'classic'
Sun Tzu paradigm of victory - the art of fighting, without fighting.

The crippling of the US is a highly desirable military benefit for China at
a relatively cheap price since it will leave their human capital and
infrastructure assets in place; assets they know they would lose if a hot
war er

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDPdDv7cEZo
You want to see what Jewish tax you are paying.
400 Jewish organizations. Cake mix. ADL just a few bucks. 150 billion of
food products. Oh and now worldwide under US patronage , not of course that
Jews are large parasitic lumps on America. IE 2% of the population sucking
of billions for their church and rabbis. Not to mention various other of
their religious and private organizations.
ADL that dear little organization who's label as the Anti Defamation League
would be as false as the Democratic Republic label of North Koreas.
Now why would a Jewish semi religious organization protect the sucking of
billions of dollars from Americans and all America's friends and scream anti
Semitism to protect that hidden illicit income when no other organization ,
religion has used such subterfuge to live of it's fellow citizens.
And one can only hope that that is either stopped or decreased so that the
rest of the world is not forced to support religions with practices like
that. And with the newly prominent religion of Mohomadeism with it's special
religious dietary requirements used to rob the rest of the country.


Now why did he sue? Because he does not want Israel to clean up it's act?

Nathan wants no criticism of Israeli nazi tactics and nazi policies of
Israeli government?
But the man who brought the complaint to the press council, Nathan Potaznik
of Melbourne, says he is not satisfied. Potaznik, 54, says the cartoon
breached six of the council's nine principles, but the council affirmed the
violation of only one principle.
http://www.jewishtimes.com/scripts/edition.pl?now=11/28/2003&SubSectionID=32
&ID=3511
http://www.stormfront.org/archive/t-114051


ADL of B'nai B'ri Settles Defamation Case

Friday March 12, 2004 6:46 PM
DENVER (AP) - The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has settled a
bitter 1994 defamation case by paying $12.1 million to a couple it accused
of anti-Semitism.
William and Dorothy Quigley won a jury verdict in 2000, but the case was
appealed the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court declined to hear the case.
The dispute began in 1994, when Mitchell and Candace Aronson moved into a
house near the Quigleys in Evergreen, just west of Denver. The families
clashed and the Aronsons claimed it was because they were Jewish.
The Aronsons sought help from the ADL after the Aronsons' police scanner
picked up the Quigleys' conversation on a cordless telephone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3853718,00.html

So do we have a Christian organization to combat the well funded by American
Christians themselves big brother oppression of the ADL which can
persecute any Christian or non Christian at will wth the knowledge that they
have neither the funds or support to fight back.

Zionists lost $5.7 billion in war

The cost of the Zionist regime's month-old aggression in Lebanon on the
regime's economy is estimated at nearly 5.7 billion dollars, the
top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily reported Tuesday.

The total cost represents 10 percent of the state budget or half of the
defence budget, the newspaper said.

Official estimates put the cost of the massive air, sea and land
aggression at around 2.3 billion dollars.

The damage caused by the 3,970 rockets fired into northern occupied
areas during the 33 days of conflict tops 1.3 billion dollars.

The drop in national production is also estimated at 1.3 billion, the
cost of aid transfers to the local authorities in northern occupied
Palestine at around half a billion dollars.

According to the newspaper, 1,600 cars, 600 businesses and 100
factories were also damaged by Hezbollah rockets.

FK

http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=219490


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Iraq_israel.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.nationalism.white/msg/20deae4bed
c378ab?q=&rnum=1

American taxpayers give Israel at least $10 billion each year, nearly
three times the publicly acknowledged $3.5 billion.
http://www.nogw.com/ilrunshow.html#sucking

>
> The last year the Israeli GDP grew by 6.6 %. Wow!

The Bush Administration has approved $9-billion in loan guarantees and
$1-billion in special military assistance to Israel
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/688662/posts
http://www.wrmea.com/
www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/


Rabbi to Publish Book on Jewish Supremacy
... One is Rabbi Saadya Grama, author of an upcoming book "On the Exalted
Nature of Israel and Understanding ... Written by Rabbi Saadya Grama - an
alumnus of Beth Medrash Govoha, the ...
more hits from:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/057831.htm?terms=published+book - 25 KB

Not including the below of course.
The Bush Administration has approved $9-billion in loan guarantees and
$1-billion in special military assistance to Israel

$10 Billion Yearly to Israel

You read about Israel receiving $3.5 billion in foreign aid each year from
the United States but there is much morehidden in the budget.

Exclusive to American Free Press
By James P. Tucker Jr.

American taxpayers give Israel at least $10 billion each year, nearly
three times the publicly acknowledged $3.5 billion.


In the Zionist controlled police state once known as "America,
the land of the free" they have managed to insinuate laws that
make it illegal, on pain of a $4000 fine, for shoppers to boycott
Israeli goods !! Even Orwell would not have believed it !

> > Company fined $6,000 for answering customer's question "Is any of this
stuff made in Israel?" by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News June 27,
2003
> http://www.nogw.com/ilrunshow.html

Not including the below of course.
The Bush Administration has approved $9-billion in loan guarantees and
$1-billion in special military assistance to Israel


This War is for Us -
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2125


"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:a76b5758f7ab13cb...@dizum.com...
> What IS worthy of worry is the current
> situation:
>
> 1. An "on the books" U.S. federal debt of $9
> trillion.
>
> 2. Overall U.S. debt of $43 trillion.
>
> 3. A trade deficit of approx. $800 billion
> per year, which means:
>
> 4. That the U.S. has to borrow from it's
> "vendors", China, Japan, OPEC almost a
> trillion dollars a year just to keep the
> game going.

Yes, and those nations are using those dollars to buy up land and
corporations in America. Soon they will buy the daughters of American girls
for prostitution.

The Republicans allow all of this. The Republican Party is the prostitution
party. It is stripping America of its assets, selling American assets to
foreigners, shipping jobs overseas and promoting prostitution as the new
form of economic growth in America.


> 5. A housing bubble that, as well-documented here, is clearly collapsing,
which will lead to:
>
> 6. Chaos in the banking, mortgage, securitization and derivatives
markets--
> which, by the way, is no small issue, since we are talking $9 TRILLION
dollars in
> mortgage debt, plus the multi-trillion dollar derivatives bets.
>
> Finally, the smallest upset in the complicated chain of events that
comprise
> today's worldwide economic system can send the whole thing crashing down.
A case in point is the last few days in the currency markets, where the
dollar has taken a pounding. This could set off a chain reaction of
derivatives defaults and systemic crisis.
>
>
>


> > > "Paul Abeles" <abe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7i4Hc.83952$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > Rabbis will instruct their students to patronize only
> > > businesses
> > > > that have received the new seal of approval. They intend to begin
with
> > > > wedding halls and later broaden the initiative to other businesses
as
> > well
> > > > as to bring secular public figures on board.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/448199.html

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=24408

www.wrmea.com/html/usaidtoisrael10001.htm
Stop aid to Israel
www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/
Israel wants more than total US foreign aid budget
http://afr.com/world/2003/01/08/FFX8IEGOMAD.html

www.wrmea.com/html/usaidtoisrael10001.htm
Stop aid to Israel
www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/


"indiaBPOking" <indiab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174037163....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

BobR

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 7:45:35 PM3/18/07
to
On Mar 17, 9:25 pm, "Razor Face" <razorf...@NOSPAMXXX.xxx> wrote:
> "BobR" <r...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
> failed economic polices of George W. Bush?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I say that you are a whiner who is too damn lazy to get off your sorry
ass and learn something new. Yes, I do have an idea of what it is
like in the corporate environment and I know what its like to have my
job shipped off to India. Instead of crying and blaming everyone
else, I found a new job, took classes at my own expense and changed
professions at almost 60 years of age. Oh yes, I don't blame Bush
either since the offshoring trend started long before Bush took
office. In fact, I don't blame anybody in particular except for
whiners like you.

BobR

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 7:48:26 PM3/18/07
to
> indiaBPOking.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh shut the fuck up you ignorant brownass moron. You are little more
than a leech feeding on the blood of others.

Nospam

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 8:15:02 PM3/18/07
to
princeandy wrote:

> Yes, and those nations are using those dollars to buy up land and
> corporations in America. Soon they will buy the daughters of American
> girls for prostitution.

Not a far fetched idea. Keep in mind that BOTH India and China used the sex
determination and selective abortions to have boys instead of girls.

Based on some estimation, when current generation of kids become adults,
China and India combined will have a deficit of girls between 3 to 5%. 5%
of 3 billion it is almost all the female population of today's US, or about
75% of the US female population at that moment

If the pro-corporatist crooks (neoconservatives and libertarians) are
allowed to dismantle all the US economic power as they do today, the US it
is guarantee to collapse into a third world economy by then.

Today, in western world, despite the fact that the population is balanced
betwen males and females (even some natural surplus of females 0.1% in
Europe) the prostitution traffic from third world countries it is a
profitable business. Imagine what will be into a population that have a 3
to 5% male surplus.


Nospam

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 8:24:24 PM3/18/07
to
BobR wrote:

> BULL! The polarization between rich and poor is nothing more than
> envy by those too damn lazy to work at bettering their lives.

Said an IQ 45 aka libertarian or neoconservative.

> Yes, it
> is a serious problem that for the most part is the direct result of
> poor decisions made by people who find it easier to be on public
> welfare than to get an education and better their lives.

Due to outsourcing, the hardest hit is taken by the most educated.
The looter neoconservatives and libertarians transformed the education from
an asset into a liability.


> It is a sad
> fact that way too many people are more than willing to live in poverty
> and collect whatever public assistance they can obtain. They never
> seem to lack money for cigarettes, booze and drugs though. We live in
> a free country with the freedom to succede or fail.

With the sad notice that the only way to be "successfull" into today
corporatist environment seems to be to steal and lie.

Liars and thieves are billionaires while hardworking well educated
with advanced degrees in math are scooping poor for a living:

http://xiaodongpeople.blogspot.com/2005/05/upstate-new-york-man-gets-poop-on.html

> So take your rich envy and go get an education, work hard, and quit
> blaming everyone else for your poor choices in life. Take
> responsibility for yourself!

AKA:
"""
If you are a civilized man die son of the bitch.
We the corporatist republicans and libertarians were happy to create an
environment where only thieves like us are "successfull".
"""

gen...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 8:30:27 PM3/18/07
to
> The study suggested that the growth of extreme poverty ...
>
> read more »

The ancient Greek thinkers warned against any society allowing a large
rift between the rich and the poor.
What was George W. Bush doing when they were teaching that in his
history class.
A) Blowing up frogs
B) Doing shots of Jack Daniels
C) Snorting lines of coke

Nospam

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 8:57:15 PM3/18/07
to
gen...@gmail.com wrote:

> The ancient Greek thinkers warned against any society allowing a large
> rift between the rich and the poor.
> What was George W. Bush doing when they were teaching that in his
> history class.
> A) Blowing up frogs
> B) Doing shots of Jack Daniels
> C) Snorting lines of coke

D) All of the above combined


Straydog

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 10:23:49 AM3/19/07
to

(see BPOking's biased, prejudiced comments at end)

Hey BPOking, the latest Forbes issue shows lots of new Indian
billionaires...they are stuffing fat stock options up their ass, too.


===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====

BobR

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 10:38:15 AM3/19/07
to
On Mar 18, 7:24 pm, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
> BobR wrote:
> > BULL! The polarization between rich and poor is nothing more than
> > envy by those too damn lazy to work at bettering their lives.
>
> Said an IQ 45 aka libertarian or neoconservative.
>

At 45 it would still be 30 points above yours but that is obvious.

> > Yes, it
> > is a serious problem that for the most part is the direct result of
> > poor decisions made by people who find it easier to be on public
> > welfare than to get an education and better their lives.
>
> Due to outsourcing, the hardest hit is taken by the most educated.
> The looter neoconservatives and libertarians transformed the education from
> an asset into a liability.
>

Where was your so called outrage when the onlything being outsourced
was the jobs of assembly line workers?

Where was your so called outrage when Clinton was selling out to
China, India, and Mexico?

No fool, a real education is still an asset but you clearly wouldn't
know that or you wouldn't be crying like a spoiled child. Whine,
whine, whine because life didn't go your way.

> > It is a sad
> > fact that way too many people are more than willing to live in poverty
> > and collect whatever public assistance they can obtain. They never
> > seem to lack money for cigarettes, booze and drugs though. We live in
> > a free country with the freedom to succede or fail.
>
> With the sad notice that the only way to be "successfull" into today
> corporatist environment seems to be to steal and lie.
>
> Liars and thieves are billionaires while hardworking well educated
> with advanced degrees in math are scooping poor for a living:
>

Your envy is showing again. Too bad that your only concentration is
on the very few who seem to get all the publicity while many more are
truely "successful" without having to steal and lie to do so. I know,
its easier to believe that than admit that you are responsible for
your situation. You don't have to be a billionare to be successful.
True success is a state of mind, not a large bank account. You will
never achieve either.


> > So take your rich envy and go get an education, work hard, and quit
> > blaming everyone else for your poor choices in life. Take
> > responsibility for yourself!
>
> AKA:
> """
> If you are a civilized man die son of the bitch.
> We the corporatist republicans and libertarians were happy to create an
> environment where only thieves like us are "successfull".
> """

Whine, whine, whine and whine some more. Spend a little of that
energy on improving your own life and maybe you wouldn't have to whine
so much.

Straydog

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 4:42:17 PM3/19/07
to

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, BobR wrote:

> On Mar 18, 7:24 pm, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
>> BobR wrote:


>>
>> Due to outsourcing, the hardest hit is taken by the most educated.
>> The looter neoconservatives and libertarians transformed the education from
>> an asset into a liability.
>>
>
> Where was your so called outrage when the onlything being outsourced
> was the jobs of assembly line workers?
>
> Where was your so called outrage when Clinton was selling out to
> China, India, and Mexico?
>
> No fool, a real education is still an asset

A real education is still an asset ONLY if there is a job out there that a
holder of that asset can get and get back something for his/her investment
in getting that asset. As a matter of fact, there are data out there that
show that given any college graduating class, some fairly small fraction
gets jobs before graduation, another small fraction gets their job within
two months after graduation, another bigger fraction takes up to six
months to get a job, and the rest take either one year to get something
OR they are not even counted in any statistic.

When we look at billionaires, only 2/3 of them ever finished college. That
means 1/3 were either dropouts (eg. Gates and Jobs) or never went to any
college. Only a small fraction have any kind of advanced degrees.

Throw in age discrimination, job offshoring, and hiring illegal immigrants
(instead of locals) and you've got a lot of career attrition for a lot of
people.

but you clearly wouldn't
> know that or you wouldn't be crying like a spoiled child. Whine,
> whine, whine because life didn't go your way.

The BLS has a report, known for decades, that the average person has three
different careers in his/her lifetime, and an average of some 20-21
different jobs. Surely you are aware of mass layoffs (tens of thousands in
major industries that have nothing to do with productivity or competance)
and they all result in involuntary terminations. And, you think all of
those people don't have good reason to be unhappy? Especially when
executives get to walk with golden parachutes, obscene compensation
packages, and very generous severance packages?

Not to mention stock options (see below), and the "janitors" (i.e.
everyone else might get a couple weeks of severance pay).

------------------------------------
From a...@panix.com Sat Mar 17 17:23:18 2007
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:23:18 -0400
From: Straydog <a...@panix.com>
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, alt.computer.consultants
Subject: CEO booty......


From the WSJ, Dec 27, 2006, Front page continueing onto page A6

title:"Executives' Pay: How Stock-Option Grants Became Part of the Problem"

Here is the list, and the booty (as described in the table caption as the
sum of "Realized gains from options" and "value of in-the-money options" and
given here as the "total", and over the period "1992-2005" and the source
was given as "Standard & Poor's ExecuComp").

William McGuire UHG 2,121 mil
Lawrence Ellison Oracle 1,524 mil
Sanford Weill Citigroup 979
Michael Eisner Disney 919
Stephen Hemsley UHG 853
Richard Fairbank Capital One 781
Barry Diller IAC 697
Eugene Isenberg Nabors Ind. 685
Michael Dell Dell 675
Terry Semel Yahoo 665
John Chambers Cisco Sys 572
Irwin Jacobs Qualcomm 569
Arthur Levinson Genentech 520
Omid Kordestani Google 513
Dwight Schar NVR 511
Howard Solomon Forest Labs 506
Henry Silverman Avis Budget Gp 488
William Greehey Valero 464
Howard Schultz Starbucks 439
Angelo Mozilo Countrywide Fin. 434
George David United Tech. 419
Edwin Crawford Caremark Rx 405
Richard Fuld, Jr. Lehman Bros. 388
Kevin Rollins Dell 368
Anthony Petrello Nabors Ind. 362

that's the top 25. Extend the list down to the double digets and its a lot
of full wheelbarrows headed to the bank.

Oh, yes, footnote 2 says two of the above have agreed to give back some of
the money. What was on page 6 was the rest of the article and nothing else.
No advertising, no other articles. Lots of details. These guys must spend
half their time figuring out how to abscond with as much, or more, as
possible. The other half the time, they ride herd on the VPs and other
underlings who do all the work.


BobR

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 6:08:02 PM3/19/07
to
On Mar 19, 3:42 pm, Straydog <a...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, BobR wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 7:24 pm, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
> >> BobR wrote:
>
> >> Due to outsourcing, the hardest hit is taken by the most educated.
> >> The looter neoconservatives and libertarians transformed the education from
> >> an asset into a liability.
>
> > Where was your so called outrage when the onlything being outsourced
> > was the jobs of assembly line workers?
>
> > Where was your so called outrage when Clinton was selling out to
> > China, India, and Mexico?
>
> > No fool, a real education is still an asset
>
> A real education is still an asset ONLY if there is a job out there that a
> holder of that asset can get and get back something for his/her investment
> in getting that asset. As a matter of fact, there are data out there that
> show that given any college graduating class, some fairly small fraction
> gets jobs before graduation, another small fraction gets their job within
> two months after graduation, another bigger fraction takes up to six
> months to get a job, and the rest take either one year to get something
> OR they are not even counted in any statistic.
>

Yes sir, you are right, a degree in Art History isn't going to find
you a great job even if you have your Masters or PHD. Like any asset,
its value is totally dependent on the market for that asset. If you
spend a million dollars building a one of a kind home that you may
love but nobody else likes, its value will be much less than you paid
for it. That is your mistake, not the rest of the worlds.

> When we look at billionaires, only 2/3 of them ever finished college. That
> means 1/3 were either dropouts (eg. Gates and Jobs) or never went to any
> college. Only a small fraction have any kind of advanced degrees.
>

Is the only real education obtained from a college? Does it depend on
how many initials you can append onto your name? Do all those degrees
mean you actually know how to do something besides study and pass
tests? The answer to all three questions is NO. College is the
assumed measure of an education but in reality, it is simply the
easiest way to get an education but far from the only way.

> Throw in age discrimination, job offshoring, and hiring illegal immigrants
> (instead of locals) and you've got a lot of career attrition for a lot of
> people.
>

Yep, I know the age discrimination one well but its not called that in
the workplace, its called being overqualified. I also know the job
offshoring part very well. Saw my job along with those that worked
for me shipped off to India. Haven't delt with the illegal immigrants
in my situation but the H-1B workers had their adverse effect on the
market. I watched as they got the jobs of laid-off workers. Had some
working for me and for the most part, it took two to replace one.

> but you clearly wouldn't
>

You assume incorrectly.

> > know that or you wouldn't be crying like a spoiled child. Whine,
> > whine, whine because life didn't go your way.
>
> The BLS has a report, known for decades, that the average person has three
> different careers in his/her lifetime, and an average of some 20-21
> different jobs. Surely you are aware of mass layoffs (tens of thousands in
> major industries that have nothing to do with productivity or competance)
> and they all result in involuntary terminations. And, you think all of
> those people don't have good reason to be unhappy? Especially when
> executives get to walk with golden parachutes, obscene compensation
> packages, and very generous severance packages?
>

Hey, I didn't say they don't have reason to be unhappy. Hell yes,
they have a reason to be unhappy and I have a reason to be unhappy but
what the hell good does that do? I am over 60 years old and from your
stats, I am well below average on careers and even though I spent most
of my career self-employed, I am well below average on the number of
jobs. I watched as government comspired with headhunters to destroy
the status of Independent Contractor and then watched the jobs go to
India. Anger about it is totally counterproductive and wastes all
your time and energy when you are better served finding something
else.

I don't have any great love for the CEO's who basically sellout the
very companies that have been so generous to them but again, why waste
time and energy with envy and anger. I put my time and effort into
finding something else, something that isn't likely to be offshored
and I learned a new profession. Two months ago, I was offered a
chance to move back to IT in a very good position doing what I have
spent my entire career doing. It would have been back in my comfort
zone and would have probably lasted until retirement. Instead, I
decided to stay where I am and work my way back up the ladder even
though the stress is higher and I don't enjoy the work as much. It is
a great challenge though to learn something new and excell at it.

> Not to mention stock options (see below), and the "janitors" (i.e.
> everyone else might get a couple weeks of severance pay).
>

Just more whining about what others have and you don't. Try being
happy with what you have and are capable of instead of worring about
what others have or very often don't have. Reminds me of a man I knew
from church. Had a big 5,000 sf home in the nicest neighborhood,
member of country club, couple of expensive cars, nice furniture, and
dressed like a king. He even donated substantial amounts to the
church. ALL ON CREDIT! The house, cars, and even furniture were
leased. He owed the IRS over half a million dollars and had declared
bankruptcy twice. While he had a decent job, he just couldn't be
satisfied with what he had. The sad part is that he ended up with
nothing.

Nospam

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 6:48:09 PM3/19/07
to
BobR wrote:

> No fool, a real education is still an asset but you clearly wouldn't
> know that or you wouldn't be crying like a spoiled child. Whine,
> whine, whine because life didn't go your way.

I do not whine, I just try to educate the people that too much it is too
much and that it is the moment to take action.

The corporate hypocrisy promoted by professionals asslicker like you was
already successfull to destroy the US economy. Today US imports more
advanced technology than export while valuable scientists and engineers are
severely underpayed in shity jobs because the looters CEOs and shareholders
got their ways. This underhuman no smarted than a chicken were allowed to
create a society where the hypocrite is fully allowed to abuse the
productive.

This is got to change and I am not whining. I am just showing the truth, and
trying to give the wake-up call. The idiots got too much power and it is
time for the valuable to throw them into the trash can of history where
they belong. The next elections must bring in power only people that are
committed to defend the valuable instead of the idle useless and lazy rich
hypocrites.


> Your envy is showing again.

The thief that robbed your house can say exactly the same in the process.
But this is not going to change the fact that he is the criminal and not the
victim.

This is exactly what you and your braindamaged hypocrites from the pathetic
radical right are doing. Defend the thieves and blame the victims.

But this have to change into next elections, and it is the duty of any
mentally sane individual to be politically active against pathological
rightards.

> Whine, whine, whine and whine some more. Spend a little of that
> energy on improving your own life and maybe you wouldn't have to whine
> so much.

I am not whining, I barely tell the truth. Hopefully, in 2 years the energy
of valuables will concentrate to blow away from the power all the
corporatist rightard idiots.

MOTTO: Into XXI century, conservatism must be regarded as a mental disease.

Möbius Pretzel

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 6:50:58 PM3/19/07
to
But the dumbfuck AmeriKKKunts keep on voting for shit.

Fuck 'em.

You play in the road you gonna get hit...

On Mar 16, 5:26 am, "indiaBPOking" <indiabpok...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The study suggested that the growth of extreme poverty ...
>
> read more »


BobR

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:29:37 PM3/19/07
to

You motto should be "Never do for yourself what you can try and force
someone else to do for you".

Yes, you are whining and the shrill gets louder with every post you
make.

Richard Eich

unread,
Mar 21, 2007, 12:45:37 PM3/21/07
to
re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

> On Mar 17, 8:39 am, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:

> > The truth is that the poverty it is a serious problem in US and it is a
> > growing problem. And the poverty in US it is a direct result of
> > polarization betwen poor and rich.
>
> BULL! The polarization between rich and poor is nothing more than
> envy by those too damn lazy to work at bettering their lives.

Of course. The elite rich invite the poor over for drinks all the
time, but the poor don't go because of pride and envy.

If you believe it is some sort of happy accident that the elite rich
are winding up with an ever-increasing percentage of the dough, I'd
get my money back on that education you brag about getting yourself
if I were you.

Either that, or I'm going to have to conclude that the "new skills"
and "new job" you worked to qualify for were becoming Internet-
literate so you could post simplistic blame-the-victim diversionary
bullshit on behalf of your new Libertarian/Randist employers.

BobR

unread,
Mar 21, 2007, 2:37:53 PM3/21/07
to
On Mar 21, 11:45 am, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> r...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

> > On Mar 17, 8:39 am, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
> > > The truth is that the poverty it is a serious problem in US and it is a
> > > growing problem. And the poverty in US it is a direct result of
> > > polarization betwen poor and rich.
>
> > BULL! The polarization between rich and poor is nothing more than
> > envy by those too damn lazy to work at bettering their lives.
>
> Of course. The elite rich invite the poor over for drinks all the
> time, but the poor don't go because of pride and envy.
>

No, they don't invite the poor over for drinks and why should they?

> If you believe it is some sort of happy accident that the elite rich
> are winding up with an ever-increasing percentage of the dough, I'd
> get my money back on that education you brag about getting yourself
> if I were you.
>

The rich are getting richer because they make their money work for
them. It is a simple concept but beyond the comprehension of those so
blinded by envy that they see nothing else. The rich are also more
often willing to gamble everthing they have on obtaining their goals.
Rather that success makes them happy or not is open to debate but the
fact remains they are risk takers, not procrastinators and not
blamers.

A little over thirty years ago, my next door neighbor and I both had
good jobs working for national companies with good career potiential.
We both, within months of each other, quit our jobs and started our
own businesses. Over the years, we both had some tough times but
overall did well. I kept my business small and was content to earn a
comfortable income without growing and building on the business. My
neighbor took out several high risk loans against his house and
business in order to expand over and over again. Now, some thirty
years later we have both moved. I am still very comfortable but after
almost 30 years of self-employment, I am now working for someone
else. My neighbor has built his business into a multi-million dollar
business and moved to a beautiful new home on the Golf Course where he
spends several days a week playing golf. We remain great friends and
I even do some consulting for him from time to time since he has been
running his business for the last twenty years on software I developed
for him.

Instead of envy of his great success, I take a great deal of pride in
knowing that I helped him achieve that success. I hope that he will
be even more successful in the future because I know how hard he and
his wife have both worked to get where they are. They have both
repeatedly risked everything to build their company and in turn have
provided jobs for over a 100 other people. They had many years along
the way when it nearly tore them apart and they suffered some
stressful and painful times. Divorce seem to always be just one
overdue bill away. My situation during that time was always very
steady and we had very few setbacks but then my only at risk was
finding new contracts.

Yes, those rich elite do have this poor guy over for drinks frequently
and NO I don't refuse out of pride or envy. You see, we both made
choices which directly affected our current status. Had I made some of
those choices differently, I might have been in the same position my
neighbor is in. I don't regret any of my choices even though the
outcome may not have always been what I wanted. You see, the
difference is in rather I am happy with the outcome which I am. Yes,
it might have been great to be in the million dollar home but it is
not necessary to be happy. That is the difference, are you happy with
your situation? If not, do something about it and quit blaming
everyone else. If you are happy, what the hell is your problem?

> Either that, or I'm going to have to conclude that the "new skills"
> and "new job" you worked to qualify for were becoming Internet-
> literate so you could post simplistic blame-the-victim diversionary
> bullshit on behalf of your new Libertarian/Randist employers.

You can conclude what ever you want and I will conclude that you are
poor little wanna-be that will always stand on the outside looking
through the window at what you want but will never take a single step
toward getting. It is too much work and it will always be easier to
whine about it than achieve it. You have several choices, you can be
happy and satisfied with what you have, you can envy and desire what
others have but never take the steps to obtain, or you can get off
your ass and do something to change you situation. One thing is
absolutely certain, whining about it on the internet is not going to
solve anything.


Richard Eich

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 6:18:49 AM3/22/07
to
re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

> > Either that, or I'm going to have to conclude that the "new skills"
> > and "new job" you worked to qualify for were becoming Internet-
> > literate so you could post simplistic blame-the-victim diversionary
> > bullshit on behalf of your new Libertarian/Randist employers.
>
> You can conclude what ever you want and I will conclude that you are
> poor little wanna-be that will always stand on the outside looking
> through the window at what you want but will never take a single step
> toward getting.

And you'd be wrong. Been starting and selling businesses since 1988.
Very comfortable with taking whatever steps or risks are required.

There is more to the story than is captured in your simplistic
"rich=smart, poor=lazy, criticism=envy" characterisation, as
reflected in how utterly wrong you are about me. Although it has the
pragmatic power that all such reductionism has, there's more to life
than just what is left over after your reductionism has its way. It
is not envy to note that the system, in the mean, is very greatly
rigged in favor of those who already have a big piece of the pie.

Yeah, so what -- right? We've still got to get on with it to put the
bread on the table, right? Doesn't matter to you than in the mean, a
great many people are born into, live within, and die on the short
end. There are more ferociously hard-working people at or near the
poverty line than there are in corporate board rooms. Not a lot of
self-made people there, either. It's a club. If you doubt this,
you've simply never been there.

"Jackals eat scraps tossed from the table, and consider themselves
well fed." So do I call you Jack, or Al ?

BobR

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 9:41:29 AM3/22/07
to
On Mar 22, 5:18 am, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> r...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

> > > Either that, or I'm going to have to conclude that the "new skills"
> > > and "new job" you worked to qualify for were becoming Internet-
> > > literate so you could post simplistic blame-the-victim diversionary
> > > bullshit on behalf of your new Libertarian/Randist employers.
>
> > You can conclude what ever you want and I will conclude that you are
> > poor little wanna-be that will always stand on the outside looking
> > through the window at what you want but will never take a single step
> > toward getting.
>
> And you'd be wrong. Been starting and selling businesses since 1988.
> Very comfortable with taking whatever steps or risks are required.
>

Seems we would both be wrong then wouldn't it?

> There is more to the story than is captured in your simplistic
> "rich=smart, poor=lazy, criticism=envy" characterisation, as
> reflected in how utterly wrong you are about me. Although it has the
> pragmatic power that all such reductionism has, there's more to life
> than just what is left over after your reductionism has its way. It
> is not envy to note that the system, in the mean, is very greatly
> rigged in favor of those who already have a big piece of the pie.
>

I was utterly wrong about you and you were utterly wrong about me,
seems a lot of false assumptions about others lead to wrong
conclusions. The same can be said about conclusions that group
everyone into the same category based on some label.

> Yeah, so what -- right? We've still got to get on with it to put the
> bread on the table, right? Doesn't matter to you than in the mean, a
> great many people are born into, live within, and die on the short
> end. There are more ferociously hard-working people at or near the
> poverty line than there are in corporate board rooms. Not a lot of
> self-made people there, either. It's a club. If you doubt this,
> you've simply never been there.
>

Trying to boil all who succede down to some simplistic idea that "its
a club" is what I would expect from someone who simply wants to
believe that its useless to bother, you have no chance anyway. Not
true and if you have done what you say, you know that to be true.
Sounds more like you gambled, lost, and want to blame someone else for
your failure. I once gave my daughter a piece of advice that its not
enough to just work hard, you also have to work smart. I know a lot
of very wealthy and one common denominator among all of them is that
they have all worked hard and smart. I have known many of them for
thirty or more years and all of them at one time or another risked
everything they had and worked harder than I ever thought about
working. Their success was well earned and I applaud their efforts.
The primary difference between them and myself came down to
motivation. Their motivation was more toward making money and mine
was toward a comfortable family life. We both achieved exactly what
we wanted.

> "Jackals eat scraps tossed from the table, and consider themselves
> well fed." So do I call you Jack, or Al ?

You don't call me anything based on your once again false
conclusions. True success is measured by the achievement of your
goals and being satisfied with the results of your efforts.
Apparently I have achieved that and you are still searching. Good
luck, it sounds like you will need it.


Penguin Commandos for Gore.

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 9:52:52 AM3/22/07
to
On Mar 16, 8:44 am, Straydog <a...@panix.com> wrote:
> (see quoted material below)
>
> And...does anyone have any references to the extreme poverty in India and
> China? Where there was actually a reduction in the number of jobs in both
> countries over the last ten years? All due to the reforms that each
> country made so that "deadwood" could be laid off to improve the
> efficiency and profits to the party hacks who were running the companies?
>
> No, indiaBPOking just places propaganda here and avoids the dirty truth
> that tens to hundreds of millions of people in India and China are much
> worse off today than ten years ago, and that is a whole lot worse
> situation than poverty in the USA. BPOking, the big propagandist.
>
> BPOking, the big nutcase obsessed with pro-India propaganda and anti-US
> propaganda and not interested in honest debate.

Want to know how this game works? Well, the companies first try to
outsource as much as possible to contact companies, so they don't have
long-term commitments. After this, then to meet quarter financial
targets, let a bunch of contractors go. After this, they then try to
hire them back for less money and benefits. Rince and repeat. With
the case of IBM, they will do a flat out wage cut to them, and
increase the work. I have seen this happen most recently where I have
been. Another contract company swoops in and sends me a req for the
same location I was at, in the same department, said lower level, and
less money. They had a had enough time staffing to begin with.

Beyond this, here is a cute thing... I was with a contract company
and they say they were offering a more beneficial contract, sign it or
they couldn't guarantee anything. Well, the contract was $1/hr more
or so, no overtime (straight time I believe), and no benefits. I find
out later in this most recent round of cuts that had I signed the
contract, I would of still been out the door anyhow.

It is all a racket I tell you. And all BPO contributes to this is
propoganda. Say how great the reengineering is for everyone, then
shows how America's poverty rate is spiking.

- The Rich

Penguin Commandos for Gore.

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 10:04:20 AM3/22/07
to

Bob, your initial posts manage to feed what BPO is saying. You have
experienced it also, and see that there are times forces are at work
that screw people. People have to not whine and fight back, but just
saying people are lazy and made bad choices, doesn't cut it either.
In the early 1990s, I try to make a wise choice by taking my BS degree
in management and specializing in Information Systems and getting a
Masters degree to position myself as a System Analyst, because the IT
field is hot. Guess what happened? Well, the whole dotcom craze and
myself stuck at IBM. Was it a bad choice? Would you say it was?
Seemed wise at the time. Then the outsourcing started, first with Y2K
and then others. And then from 2001-2005, one of the worst EVER
dowsizing in the IT field hit. I survived until 2004. There weren't
even any tech fairs. Now anything data based will fly the coup and go
to the cheapest location. This leaves people to ask what exactly they
should do with their lives. Their college loans price them out of the
world market. Maybe they can become truck drivers.

You are right not to whine about it, but also to say people crushed by
globalization are lazy is another issue. And yes, there are lazy
people out there.

- The Rich

Penguin Commandos for Gore.

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 10:10:34 AM3/22/07
to
On Mar 22, 6:18 am, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> r...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

One is not paid for "working hard" in the marketplace. One is paid
for what businesses deem as important and just enough to get a
person. In an indirect way, the results one does is what counts
(results, not effort), and more directly, the supply of people who can
do the work. When there is a glut of hardworking people in an area,
they are going to get paid poorly. In an area where one doesn't have
to work as hard, and there is a shortage, these people do get paid
more... in perceived importance of their position in the company.

- The Rich

Penguin Commandos for Gore.

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 10:13:18 AM3/22/07
to

Let me comment here on what you are saying about "libertarians". If
it were straight libertarianism, you wouldn't be getting a government,
"by for and of the corporation", and there wouldn't be subsidies,
insurance and handouts they get. The corporate welfare would be
stopped.

- The Rich

Message has been deleted

BobR

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 2:20:15 PM3/22/07
to
On Mar 22, 8:52 am, "Penguin Commandos for Gore."

You are right, it is a very cut throat market and as long as you agree
to work for less each time, they will continue. I went into business
as an independent contractor about 28 years ago. Prior to that I had
owned an online service company for several years. When I started
consulting and contracting, there were almost no agencies in the
business and the IRS wasn't on everbody's back. Over the years, the
competition from headhunters and agencies increased but not until the
IRS, at the urging of the headhunters and agencies, started clamping
down on the "independent contractor" status with their 20 rules and
other such stupidity did the competition become totally cut-throat.

I was lucky, I took care of my customers and made sure to abide by the
rules and they took care of me. I remained independent until about
three years ago when Shell pulled exactly what you described and
terminated ALL contractors and over 20% of their systems staff too.
They then shipped most of it off to India and/or hired H-1B
contractors. That didn't last too long since the idiot manager who
did it failed to account for the effect the loss of all that knowledge
would have on both staff and customers. The division I worked for has
lost most of its business and ended up having to get rid of almost 75%
of the employees. All because ONE idiot manager was trying to make an
impact and further his career.

Smile though...the stupid son-of-a-bitch got his ass fired too.

Corporations are not corrupt...people are.


BobR

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 2:46:44 PM3/22/07
to
On Mar 22, 9:04 am, "Penguin Commandos for Gore."

It is easier for most people to whine and play the blame game that to
pick it up, pack it in and move on. That is a form of being lazy. I
can't count the number of people I have come across who will cry...I
have a degree, I shouldn't have to work that hard. Every day is a
choice, you can make the best of it or complain that someone kept you
from getting ahead. The former will pay dividends, the latter is a
waste of time.

> In the early 1990s, I try to make a wise choice by taking my BS degree
> in management and specializing in Information Systems and getting a
> Masters degree to position myself as a System Analyst, because the IT
> field is hot. Guess what happened? Well, the whole dotcom craze and
> myself stuck at IBM. Was it a bad choice? Would you say it was?

I don't have to guess, I experienced the whole thing first hand and
have the blood stains to show for it.

> Seemed wise at the time. Then the outsourcing started, first with Y2K
> and then others. And then from 2001-2005, one of the worst EVER
> dowsizing in the IT field hit. I survived until 2004. There weren't
> even any tech fairs. Now anything data based will fly the coup and go
> to the cheapest location. This leaves people to ask what exactly they
> should do with their lives. Their college loans price them out of the
> world market. Maybe they can become truck drivers.
>

Yep, I know where you are coming from, have experienced it all and had
one disadvantage that I don't think you have...age. Not only was I
over 40, I was nearing 60 and nobody wants a 60 year old IT person.
Older managers took early leave several years ago and younger managers
are afraid to have older workers working for them. We are "over
qualified".

> You are right not to whine about it, but also to say people crushed by
> globalization are lazy is another issue. And yes, there are lazy
> people out there.
>

> - The Rich- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

The easiest thing for me to have done when the globalization hit me
was to have sit back, played the blame game, and whined about my
problems. I was tired, and 40 years of working had taken its toll.
Hell, I even did it for a while but then I realized that I was only
hurting myself. I joined a self help group and observed that it was
more of a shoulder to cry on that people helping people stand on their
own. I decided to spend my time instead residing and reroofing my
house. After that I took a three month job shoveling sand in one of
the huge crude storage tanks. (Now imagine a over 55 desk jockey doing
that kind of work.) I continued to work my network and finally landed
another small contract which led to another and that led to a new job
offer.

It was hard to give in to leaving my profession of 40 years behind and
move on to something entirely new that put me back 20 years but I did
it. Now, I could assume that I am the only person capable of doing
such a thing but I don't believe that for a moment. It takes a
willingness to accept that change is going to happen rather we are
ready for it or not we are going to have to accept it and move
forward. If you have a degree in management and lots of IT
experience, there are plenty of other opportunities for you to move
into. You will not find them if the only thing you offer and search
for are IT positions and knowledge.


BobR

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 2:48:34 PM3/22/07
to
On Mar 22, 9:10 am, "Penguin Commandos for Gore."
> - The Rich- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That is why I said, you have to do more than work hard, you have to
work smart too.


Richard Eich

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 4:12:42 PM3/22/07
to
re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

Pffft. You might learn to read better? I said there weren't a lot
of self-made people in board rooms, that it's a club. How, exactly,
do you get from there to, therefore "it's useless to bother" ?

Criticism of a rigged game doesn't mean one doesn't still play it, it
just means they know it for what it is. Why does this bother you?

Speaking of simplistic ideas, turn that critique on your own
simplistic "rich=smart, poor=lazy, criticism=envy" bullshit and see
what you come up with.

Richard Eich

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 4:15:02 PM3/22/07
to
get...@1upandup.com wrote...

Hey, no shit? Gee, thanks. How about "poor, working hard" just
serves as a counterexample to Bob-o's stupid idea that if you're
poor, it's just because you're lazy?

That seems to be the gist of his argument.

BobR

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 7:41:22 PM3/22/07
to

Because it is a simplistic LIE that becomes an easy excuse.

> Speaking of simplistic ideas, turn that critique on your own
> simplistic "rich=smart, poor=lazy, criticism=envy" bullshit and see

> what you come up with.- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

Guess it is easier for you to believe it is some vast conspiricy than
to believe you can get off your ass and do something. Your loss, not
mine.

Penguin Commandos for Gore.

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 8:22:39 PM3/22/07
to
On Mar 22, 4:15 pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> getr...@1upandup.com wrote...


Bob is way off on this. I will present you the free market argument
for this. It doesn't matter how hard you work, if you don't do what
people want, you aren't going to get paid for it. So, you can lift
500 lbs, so what? If a guy is able to flick his pinky 3 times and day
and make $10000 per day for it, then that is what happened. There is
also some skill. But then, you have the case of where money makes its
own money, and you can end up Paris Hiltons. To argue against this
free market argument is then to set some arbitrary value on "effort",
or the labor-value economic theory that crashed and burned with
Marxism.

Again, it isn't a case of how hard you work, but what the market
dictates. It will sometimes look like a cabal conspiring, but it is
most of the time, just the way things are.

- The Rich

Nospam

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 9:08:53 PM3/22/07
to
Penguin Commandos for Gore. wrote:

> Bob is way off on this. I will present you the free market argument
> for this.

Keep in mind however, that the free market does not really exist in true
life. It is just an abstraction.

For the free market to truly exist it is required:
- a very large number of economic agents
- all of them roughly the same (financial) size
- there is no any single form of communication betwen agents to be able to
fix the prices outside pure supply demand
- the size advantages must not exist at all

Well, breaking any of this requirements may trigger an market inballance
bringing unfair/uncompetitive/out of market advantage to a particular
player. Well, in real life is not that one of the requirements is broken
but all of them are broken simultaneously.

> It doesn't matter how hard you work, if you don't do what
> people want, you aren't going to get paid for it.

Even if you do what people want you are prevented to do it on your own
if you do not have enough capital.

Working as employee is again where the "free market" is broken again. The
biggest failure points are the inequality in wealth betwen you and
employer. The core idea is that there can not be fair negotiation betwen 2
entities with big disparity in wealth.

Imagine me and you on an island. Every day I give you 2 cups of water (I
have the single water wheel) in exchange for 2 bananas (you have the only
banana tree). Everything is perfect until and we can do fair trade forever.
If 1 day you don't want to give me bananas you are left without water and
reverse, so we have to trade every day. If one day I ask you for more
bananas for the same water, you refuse we stay a day without it then we
start trade again.

One day, I find floating on the water a bag with 10 bananas. Next day when
you came with your 2 bananas I ask you for 4 bananas for my water. You say
it is not fair and go home. As usual you come next day to trade as usual
but I ask you the same, you go home angry and very thirsty while I keep
eating from the bag. In third day, you are going to die by dehydration
while I just can wait 2 more days without having my lifestyle affected.
You are economically coerced to accept my terms. Now, I start to stockpile
bananas at will and in the end I am going to get lazy and I will give you
only one cup of water for 4 bananas. I have food to spare while I am
keeping you at the poverty level where you must be obedient to me at my
will. The market is NOT FREE anymore.

This example illustrate the instability of the free market. One time
inballance can be exploited by a hypocrite to create an evergrowing
inballance to economically coerce people less wealthy than them forever.

The big inballance in wealth can be regarded as mater of fact just a hidden
form of slavery. A large inequality in wealth break the free market making
it dependent by the will of wealthy, therefore not free. To prevent the
market to become nonfree, the market must be regulated which make it
nonfree by definition.

That is: Free market does not exist !!!


BobR

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 9:29:41 PM3/22/07
to
On Mar 22, 7:22 pm, "Penguin Commandos for Gore."
> - The Rich- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Not so far off, in many ways we are saying the same thing. I agree
with almost all of what you said, but where we differ is on rather
people have a choice to remain in their current status or can take
steps to change their future options. Most will never take a single
step to do anything to change their life and will spend their lives
blaming everyone else.

Penguin Commandos for Gore.

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 10:33:59 PM3/22/07
to

Well, I do allow for people to become victims when large scale changes
occur, like globalization. Some people just don't rebound at all from
the changes. I don't call such people weak or lazy. And yes, some
people don't do anything to change their lives and blame others. And
you have Paris Hilton born with silver everything in just about all
their orafices.

- The Rich

Penguin Commandos for Gore.

unread,
Mar 22, 2007, 10:51:21 PM3/22/07
to
On Mar 22, 9:08 pm, Nospam <nos...@example.com> wrote:
> Penguin Commandos for Gore. wrote:
>
> > Bob is way off on this. I will present you the free market argument
> > for this.
>
> Keep in mind however, that the free market does not really exist in true
> life. It is just an abstraction.
>
> For the free market to truly exist it is required:
> - a very large number of economic agents
> - all of them roughly the same (financial) size
> - there is no any single form of communication betwen agents to be able to
> fix the prices outside pure supply demand
> - the size advantages must not exist at all

In the world, as markets develop, there is increasing numbers of
interdependencies and alternatives that develop, that the end result
is perpetual competition develops from every wider angles. This is
the reality today. And a free market would be one where you don't
have elites rigging the rules to their advantage, which happens today.

> Well, breaking any of this requirements may trigger an market inballance
> bringing unfair/uncompetitive/out of market advantage to a particular
> player. Well, in real life is not that one of the requirements is broken
> but all of them are broken simultaneously.

As these break, there is a tendency for new subniches to develop.
Monopolies generally fall apart in markets, unless there is some
geographical or governmental restraint to force it to be so. In the
case of geographical or natural alternatives, substitutes tend to
develop.

> > It doesn't matter how hard you work, if you don't do what
> > people want, you aren't going to get paid for it.
>
> Even if you do what people want you are prevented to do it on your own
> if you do not have enough capital.
>
> Working as employee is again where the "free market" is broken again. The
> biggest failure points are the inequality in wealth betwen you and
> employer. The core idea is that there can not be fair negotiation betwen 2
> entities with big disparity in wealth.

In the current environment, the entry costs of competition tends to
decrease over time, as new competitors enter a market and produce
alternatives at lower costs that allow people to enter. The Internet
is proof of this also the way things happen. Even knowledge cost is
reducing and knowledge ends up being the main differentiator. Things
have moved beyond the era of agriculture and factories to production.
In this era, virtualization has value even, and allows an individual
much leverage, far more than the past.

> Imagine me and you on an island. Every day I give you 2 cups of water (I
> have the single water wheel) in exchange for 2 bananas (you have the only
> banana tree). Everything is perfect until and we can do fair trade forever.
> If 1 day you don't want to give me bananas you are left without water and
> reverse, so we have to trade every day. If one day I ask you for more
> bananas for the same water, you refuse we stay a day without it then we
> start trade again.

I will read on, but using an analogy of just two people with two
resources hardly represents what is going on in reality.

> One day, I find floating on the water a bag with 10 bananas. Next day when
> you came with your 2 bananas I ask you for 4 bananas for my water. You say
> it is not fair and go home. As usual you come next day to trade as usual
> but I ask you the same, you go home angry and very thirsty while I keep
> eating from the bag. In third day, you are going to die by dehydration
> while I just can wait 2 more days without having my lifestyle affected.
> You are economically coerced to accept my terms. Now, I start to stockpile
> bananas at will and in the end I am going to get lazy and I will give you
> only one cup of water for 4 bananas. I have food to spare while I am
> keeping you at the poverty level where you must be obedient to me at my
> will. The market is NOT FREE anymore.

Your analogy is flawed. You are artificially restricting the amount
of items available and the sources of water. The amount of liquid
types available, and fruit increases over time as markets become more
complex. In reality, there would be traders who would show up and
offer you more choices of beverages and fruit.

> This example illustrate the instability of the free market. One time
> inballance can be exploited by a hypocrite to create an evergrowing
> inballance to economically coerce people less wealthy than them forever.

The problem with imbalances is the end result is that if the
differential gets great enough, some greedy bugger comes in and tries
to close the gap, and make a profit. The bugger will take less per
sale if need be, and then provide more. What you see in globalization
today is the rapid closing of gap between nations on different
scales. Cheap India and China come in and underprice America, with
its compartively expensive infrastructure and education costs. This
ends up driving down prices on things and causes workers to lose
income, and face more instability. Eventually the gap closes, due to
the economic imbalances. Markets HATE imbalances above all, because
individuals arbitrage things to close gaps. This money they have to
accumulate needs to get out, because it is worthless unless
circulating. End result is that eventually other needs get met.

> The big inballance in wealth can be regarded as mater of fact just a hidden
> form of slavery. A large inequality in wealth break the free market making
> it dependent by the will of wealthy, therefore not free. To prevent the
> market to become nonfree, the market must be regulated which make it
> nonfree by definition.
>
> That is: Free market does not exist !!!

There is a set of rules every market must be followed, and its members
are best self-regulating. There is a tendency for people to produce
negative externalities that if the government is left to address, will
result in taxes being imposed to address. However, markets tend to be
ruthless equalizers.

- The Rich

BobR

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 12:09:39 AM3/23/07
to
On Mar 22, 9:33 pm, "Penguin Commandos for Gore."

Globalization, like immigration, will in the long term be beneficial
to everyone but under the same rules that has been applied to
immigration in the past. It must be controlled in such a manner as to
NOT allow the results to occur faster than the economy and jobs market
can absorb the change. Globalization will eventually open up more
markets and more consumers for everyones benefit. What has occured in
the last decade is anything but controlled.

The car wiped out the horse carriage industry but it took years and
the change was largely absorbed. The personal computer has largely
wiped out the secretarial positions everywhere in the country but it
has taken twenty years and the change was absorbed by moving people to
other positions. Not so with the recent outsourcing of call centers
and IT development. The change was literally overnight with the job
market being wipedout within 15-18 months and 10's of thousands being
laidoff over the same period. Yes, that made victims out of many of
us but we don't have to remain victims. Like the loss of a loved one,
it is natural to be angry at the loss, it is natural to have a period
of mourning the loss, but at some point you have to move on.

Paris Hilton...a bimbo that for some unknown reason people seem to
admire and just pour more money into her golden ass. I have never
understood how people seem to be more than willing to literally throw
money at celebraties and sports morons who can barely spell their
name.

Richard Eich

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 7:37:24 AM3/23/07
to
re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

Well, you're certainly the expert on simplistic lies. Most of your
commentary surrounds one that you consistently posit.

> > Speaking of simplistic ideas, turn that critique on your own
> > simplistic "rich=smart, poor=lazy, criticism=envy" bullshit and see
> > what you come up with.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Guess it is easier for you to believe it is some vast conspiricy than
> to believe you can get off your ass and do something. Your loss, not
> mine.

You continue to be incapable of seeing that someone can do very well
within a rigged system, yet still see it for what it is.

Stretch your mind. Or not. Heck, I don't care.

Richard Eich

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 7:47:25 AM3/23/07
to
re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

> Not so far off, in many ways we are saying the same thing. I agree
> with almost all of what you said, but where we differ is on rather
> people have a choice to remain in their current status or can take
> steps to change their future options. Most will never take a single
> step to do anything to change their life and will spend their lives
> blaming everyone else.

Thinking in generalities is a sure-fire indicator that you're wide of
the mark.

Richard Eich

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 7:55:25 AM3/23/07
to
re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

> Paris Hilton...a bimbo that for some unknown reason people seem to
> admire and just pour more money into her golden ass. I have never
> understood how people seem to be more than willing to literally throw
> money at celebraties and sports morons who can barely spell their
> name.

She's just the visible representative of a large number of people who
never lifted a finger to have access to their fabulous advantage. To
those who have to risk everything to earn 1/100th of she obtained
simply by fortunate birth, the amount of relative effort expended is
way out of proportion. To those on the bottom, it both appears
unfair -- and it actually is unfair. Any sort of equitable system
would have us all starting in the same place -- and what you have
from there, you earn on your own.

Our inequitable system perpetuates a justified resentment, but more
importantly it makes more difficult the contribution and integration
of the most capable among us in the interest of letting elite wealthy
pass the fruits of one capable ancestor down to increasingly
incapable descendents.

This hurts society. Badly.

BobR

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 10:07:52 AM3/23/07
to
On Mar 23, 6:55 am, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> r...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

Aw come on, just call it what it is...envy!

If you want communism, move to Cuba where everyone is equally poor.


Nospam

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 10:16:36 AM3/23/07
to
Penguin Commandos for Gore. wrote:

> In the world, as markets develop, there is increasing numbers of
> interdependencies and alternatives that develop, that the end result
> is perpetual competition develops from every wider angles. This is
> the reality today.

Quite hard to see this when WalMart destroys all the competition from mom &
pop retailers in towns where they enter.

Quite hard to see this when Bank of America acquires MBNA and others to
become a super gigant.

Quite hard to see this when Microsoft uses his monopolistic power to destroy
Digital Research, Stack Electronics, Netscape and many others.

Sorry Penguin, but you seems quite disconnected from the reality here.
Just look at all the megamergers and consolidations in last years. Just look
to see how large multinational outsourcers destroyed small independent
softwarehouses and practically rendered obsolete the whole industry of
independent consulting. On what planet are you living on right now ?

> And a free market would be one where you don't
> have elites rigging the rules to their advantage, which happens today.

False. There is NOTHING in the free market to prevent this. As mater of
fact, the free market is quite well designed to encourage consolidation and
evolution toward monopoly.

> As these break, there is a tendency for new subniches to develop.

Like what. Be specific, show some reallife examples or a logical proof. Back
your claims, otherwise this is empty rethoric, faith based ideology.

> Monopolies generally fall apart in markets,

Monopolies are a stable state which can not be ever broken by market forces.
This is what a monopoly is. A structure so financial powerfull that it
creates his own environment around preventing others to step in that
market.

A monopoly will only be broken due externally, nonmarket forces, like
government intervention or a social move to boycot the company despite the
market prices.

> Your analogy is flawed. You are artificially restricting the amount
> of items available and the sources of water. The amount of liquid
> types available, and fruit increases over time as markets become more
> complex. In reality, there would be traders who would show up and
> offer you more choices of beverages and fruit.

Why don't come with a counter example. Let generalize and assume N players
on each side. The player W1 (water seller/bannana buyer) get an extra
supply of bananas for k days (one time random inballance).

Even if the others W do not know about that, the guy that used to sell to W1
will now go to W2 and this notice an increase in demand so will naturally
try to ask for more, next day the B1 will go to W2 and so on.

If the time an B can survive without trading is t days, then if W1 find the
extra supply of k >N+t days, the inballance in the market is permanent, and
the prices will never ever go down again unless. For the market to
re-ballance itself it is mandatory for k<= N + t.

That is. There is a certain wealth inequality that will drive the market
permanently out of ballance, making the rich richer and poor poorer.
And this can be seen even into a generalized model of 2*N players not only
2.

So, your claims are pointless. The model is not flawed at all. What keep the
market functioning are certain out of market regulations.

> sale if need be, and then provide more. What you see in globalization
> today is the rapid closing of gap between nations on different
> scales.

What we see in globalization today is exactly the abuse of free markets.
The globalization it is not bad in itself, it actually can be quite good if
driven to the mutual interest. But it is not. What is taking place it is an
equalization of the wealth of the poor in participating nations while the
rich pickpocket all the proffits to increase their power.

This is exactly what happen in Communism. In communist countries, all the
"serves" were equal among each other while the top less than 1% of the
communist elite was practically owning everything being hyperrich.
If you claim that "free market globalization" is a good thing then you
should also be the promoter of communism. It is exactly the same: A small
elite own everything while everybody else is equal in their poverty. The
same happen into the old slavery based systems: The slaves were equal while
the landlords owned everything.

> Markets HATE imbalances above all, because
> individuals arbitrage things to close gaps.

This empty slogan seems so ... libertarian. Are you one of those
libertarians that use to change their name over and over again when proven
wrong then come back with another name and start everything from zero just
to waste people time ?

What about backing any claim you make with a model and logic deduction.
Please show us that it is true that "Markets HATE imbalances " not just a
nice PR empty slogan.


> There is a set of rules every market must be followed, and its members
> are best self-regulating.

For the markets to be self-regulating it is mandatory for all the conditions
specified into earlier post to be true simultaneously. They are not, all of
them are simultaneously broken.

In this conditions it is the external interference that keep the markets on
check. The scare of communism prompted the capitalism to become popular,
sharing more wealth with the people in 50s and 60s and in the end driving
the US economy skyhigh. As soon as USSR menace started to fade away due to
well known issues, the economic situation of working people started to
deteriorate in US, because the economic elite had no fear to regulate their
greed anymore.

> However, markets tend to be ruthless equalizers.

No more ruthless thancommunist jails. They used them to equalize the poor
while empowering the rich exactly as the free market is doing right now.
Nothing new under the sun.


Richard Eich

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 11:43:23 AM3/23/07
to
re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote...

When the only tool in your intellectual toolbox is is a hammer, Bob-
o, I guess everything does look like a nail.

> If you want communism, move to Cuba where everyone is equally poor.

Even Ayn Rand recognized that the fatal flaw with her 'philosophy'
were those cases where the unproductive would gain wealth through no
effort, talent, or work on their part.

Next time you're in Sears, buy yourself some tools for your toolbox.

Penguin Commandos for Gore.

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 2:45:52 PM3/23/07
to
On Mar 23, 12:09 am, "BobR" <r...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:
> > Well, I do allow for people to become victims when large scale changes
> > occur, like globalization. Some people just don't rebound at all from
> > the changes. I don't call such people weak or lazy. And yes, some
> > people don't do anything to change their lives and blame others. And
> > you have Paris Hilton born with silver everything in just about all
> > their orafices.
>
> > - The Rich- >
> Globalization, like immigration, will in the long term be beneficial
> to everyone but under the same rules that has been applied to
> immigration in the past. It must be controlled in such a manner as to
> NOT allow the results to occur faster than the economy and jobs market
> can absorb the change. Globalization will eventually open up more
> markets and more consumers for everyones benefit. What has occured in
> the last decade is anything but controlled.

Markets tend to overwhelm whatever constraint you put on them. A
problem with the restraints is that the work gets shuffled somehow, if
visas are crackdown, then they up and move the work via the massive
bandwidth that had been added. The changes hit harder and faster than
people planned and people get screwed in the process. Of course, what
then happens is you get individuals like BPO who end up cheerleadering
the thing and it is overdone. You end up competing here, with all the
overhead against recent third-world nation folk.

> The car wiped out the horse carriage industry but it took years and
> the change was largely absorbed. The personal computer has largely
> wiped out the secretarial positions everywhere in the country but it
> has taken twenty years and the change was absorbed by moving people to
> other positions. Not so with the recent outsourcing of call centers
> and IT development. The change was literally overnight with the job
> market being wipedout within 15-18 months and 10's of thousands being
> laidoff over the same period. Yes, that made victims out of many of
> us but we don't have to remain victims. Like the loss of a loved one,
> it is natural to be angry at the loss, it is natural to have a period
> of mourning the loss, but at some point you have to move on.

The rate of change is more rapid and larger than expected, causing
mass disruption, making the IT field even more sucky and worse off
than before. It then begs that people find something else to do. The
key is to not remain a victim, but to adjust. However, people will
get the short end. I know I am in a bit of a high risk spot here. I
am without medical or unemployment, and large debt from also getting a
business going. I am close to getting good money coming in, but what
I have done is high risk. It is vicarious for me. I started in 2005,
blew out my 401K on one venture with a business partner that didn't
know what he was doing, and have Uncle Sam breathing down my neck in
April due to an accountant screw up. Now, maybe I was lazy and that
is why I am in this spot. Or when it pans out, that means I was
industrious. All I know is that I have had to take larger than normal
risks. Maybe this is all that is left for people. The days of being
employees are over. You had better think like a businessman and run
your life like a business, or you will be swept away.

> Paris Hilton...a bimbo that for some unknown reason people seem to
> admire and just pour more money into her golden ass. I have never
> understood how people seem to be more than willing to literally throw
> money at celebraties and sports morons who can barely spell their
> name.

There is several thinks about Paris Hilton. She represents the
uberrich, who get stuff dumped on them without lifting a finger. The
media likes to show her having problems, so those who are lower class
and delight in glee. She also is a symbol for a class of people that
will be increasingly produced the moment you do a bunch of changes to
the tax code, who will end up with tons of money, making tons, and
they won't pay a cent of taxes. Here is how (and this is in keeping
with what Dubya had proposed):
1. Abolish the inheritance tax completely. Not speaking exempting the
first 5 million, but ALL of it. And not even lowering it either.
2. Abolish the Alternate Minimum Tax. Not revise it, but get rid of
it completely. And yes it needs an overhaul.
3. Eliminate the capital gains tax.
4. Make dividends taxable by corporations, but not individuals.

End result: An individual like Paris Hilton inherits the money and
pays no taxes. Then rolls the money into paper equities. She
collects dividends and buys and sells, and ends up paying NO TAXES.
You created a golden child. The taxes the government has now shifts
to the working class. So, now you can take all your corporate
subsidies and have them paid by individuals, and give them crumbs.
But hey, they have the dream of becoming golden children to, so they
can send the military on all these adventures and not have to pay for
it. They don't even have to serve other, that is for the peasants.

- The Rich

BobR

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 3:39:28 PM3/23/07
to
On Mar 23, 1:45 pm, "Penguin Commandos for Gore."

Excluding the very few super-rich who reside at the top of the
pyramid, the vast majority of rich people in this country are not the
CEO's of our major Corporations or the Paris Hilton's and Ted
Kennedy's who inherited their wealth, they are the owners of small to
large businesses. They are and were the risk takers who found that
working for others was not the surest road to wealth. More have
failed and lost everthing along the way than have succeded but they
continue to try. That is both the beauty and the ugly part of
capitalism. There is no guarantee of success only the unrestrained
opportunity to try.

The days of being an employee are not over, there will always be a
majority who will hold to the safe or at least perceived safe option
of employment rather than risk going out on a limb and starting a
business. But, even employees need to realize that their labor and
their abilities are still a product that must be marketed and
maintained. The days of being an employee who learns one skill, works
just that skill for 40 years with the same company are indeed over.
We can build robots to do that kind of work now. Times are moving
faster and we are seeing companies come, prosper, and die all within a
single generation.

Individuals, like companies, that fail to recognize the potiential and
coming change will be left behind. Keeping up with the pace of change
will be the primary job for future generations. I spent the last 42
years trying to keep up with the changes in the computer and
information systems field. Did pretty damn good for the first 35
years but got a little tired, a little complacent, a little bit lazy
and watched it leave me behind or at least leave the country. Our
competition is not longer just the guy next door or the business down
the street, it is the world and there is no tolerance for the
complacent.

PS: Good luck!

#5901484

unread,
Mar 23, 2007, 10:02:58 PM3/23/07
to

Richard Eich wrote:
> When the only tool in your intellectual toolbox is is a hammer, Bob-
> o, I guess everything does look like a nail.

If I had a hammer I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening all over this land
I'd hammer out danger, I'd hammer out warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
- Pete Seeger and Lee Hays

>
> > If you want communism, move to Cuba where everyone is equally poor.
>
> Even Ayn Rand recognized that the fatal flaw with her 'philosophy'
> were those cases where the unproductive would gain wealth through no
> effort, talent, or work on their part.

The right to live does not connote the right of each man
to reproduce his kind ... As we lessen the stringency of
natural selection, and more and more of the weaklings and
the unfit survive, we must increase the standard, mental
and physical, of parentage.
-Karl Pearson

>
> Next time you're in Sears, buy yourself some tools for your toolbox.

You need to get a better hammer.

Richard Eich

unread,
Mar 24, 2007, 5:05:39 PM3/24/07
to
in...@cei.org wrote...

Sure, King Cut'n Paste. Whatever you say.

0 new messages